Ideology

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed May 30, 2018 11:54 am

I don’t think there is much debate on what constitutes harm — it’s threat of physical violence to a man or his property. Most libertarians have a belief that what I would call “directness” for lack of a better term. Harm can only be done in a direct manner. If I steal your property I have directly harmed you. If I own a business and only pay $8.00 an hour with no benefits I haven’t directly harmed anyone. If they don’t like that wage they are free to leave of their own volition.


Mind you, the libertarian platform, like all platforms, have many areas where it’s members hold valid, opposing views (immigration, abortion, etc)....I just don’t see this as being one of them
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed May 30, 2018 12:36 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:I don’t think there is much debate on what constitutes harm — it’s threat of physical violence to a man or his property. Most libertarians have a belief that what I would call “directness” for lack of a better term. Harm can only be done in a direct manner. If I steal your property I have directly harmed you. If I own a business and only pay $8.00 an hour with no benefits I haven’t directly harmed anyone. If they don’t like that wage they are free to leave of their own volition.


Sure you have, you would have exploited a person's desperation and market conditions so that you could pay them as little as possible for your own benefit. Marxists call that the theft of surplus value created by labor. When you lobby congress to codify your tactic into law to protect yourself from changing market or legal conditions, you have used the government to manipulate the market. You may not have done physical harm, but you have interfered with other's ability to negotiate for employment. Most consider that a tort at least.

This is not new. Since the 13th amendment and Industrial Revolution there has been constant effort on the part of industry to effectively enslave labor since it it is no longer legal to literally enslave labor. Read about the coal towns and Chinese labor to build railroads out west. At the time, all of it was legal, and all of it used the same reasoning you are using now. "It's a free country, If you don't like it, get lost."

So then when free men who associated freely decided to bargain collectively, they were indeed met with violence. Violence lobbied for, or paid for, by men who believed they had the right to do so because they owned the business.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars

I know that's the long way around the tree, but if you are saying the NAP does not apply to a person's ability to exploit another person and use government to enforce it, you and I have differing views on what constitutes aggression.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12534
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed May 30, 2018 2:44 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:I don’t think there is much debate on what constitutes harm — it’s threat of physical violence to a man or his property. Most libertarians have a belief that what I would call “directness” for lack of a better term. Harm can only be done in a direct manner. If I steal your property I have directly harmed you. If I own a business and only pay $8.00 an hour with no benefits I haven’t directly harmed anyone. If they don’t like that wage they are free to leave of their own volition.


Sure you have, you would have exploited a person's desperation and market conditions so that you could pay them as little as possible for your own benefit. Marxists call that the theft of surplus value created by labor. When you lobby congress to codify your tactic into law to protect yourself from changing market or legal conditions, you have used the government to manipulate the market. You may not have done physical harm, but you have interfered with other's ability to negotiate for employment. Most consider that a tort at least.

This is not new. Since the 13th amendment and Industrial Revolution there has been constant effort on the part of industry to effectively enslave labor since it it is no longer legal to literally enslave labor. Read about the coal towns and Chinese labor to build railroads out west. At the time, all of it was legal, and all of it used the same reasoning you are using now. "It's a free country, If you don't like it, get lost."

So then when free men who associated freely decided to bargain collectively, they were indeed met with violence. Violence lobbied for, or paid for, by men who believed they had the right to do so because they owned the business.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars

I know that's the long way around the tree, but if you are saying the NAP does not apply to a person's ability to exploit another person and use government to enforce it, you and I have differing views on what constitutes aggression.



A person who willingly enters into an employment contract and is free to terminate that contract at any time they want in no way suffers from a violent, aggressive opposing party. The owner of said capital gets to offer whatever amount he or she sees fit. If the potential employee doesn't like it they don't have to take it. There are over 150 million jobs in the US.

People are exploited to some degree every day -- you and me included. By no means do I think anyone is being violent against my person or property when they exploit me.


---


as for your bolded part...if anyone is using the strong arm of government to aggressively take away someone's person or property I will happily line up next to you and fight for the aggrieved party's rights. i'm guessing though as you support a self described socialist hell bent on expanding the role of centralized authority ...we have diametrically opposed views on when that happens.


i actually respect Bernie for being open and honest about his idea of the use of force (mainly forcibly taking people's private property)....more liberals should employ it. He openly admits that that bureaucrats know what's best for people and should have control over their lives. conservatives are the very same on some issues....they should admit it too.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed May 30, 2018 2:45 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Sure you have, you would have exploited a person's desperation and market conditions so that you could pay them as little as possible for your own benefit. Marxists call that the theft of surplus value created by labor. When you lobby congress to codify your tactic into law to protect yourself from changing market or legal conditions, you have used the government to manipulate the market. You may not have done physical harm, but you have interfered with other's ability to negotiate for employment. Most consider that a tort at least.

This is not new. Since the 13th amendment and Industrial Revolution there has been constant effort on the part of industry to effectively enslave labor since it it is no longer legal to literally enslave labor. Read about the coal towns and Chinese labor to build railroads out west. At the time, all of it was legal, and all of it used the same reasoning you are using now. "It's a free country, If you don't like it, get lost."

So then when free men who associated freely decided to bargain collectively, they were indeed met with violence. Violence lobbied for, or paid for, by men who believed they had the right to do so because they owned the business.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars

I know that's the long way around the tree, but if you are saying the NAP does not apply to a person's ability to exploit another person and use government to enforce it, you and I have differing views on what constitutes aggression.



A person who willingly enters into an employment contract and is free to terminate that contract at any time they want in no way suffers from a violent, aggressive opposing party. The owner of said capital gets to offer whatever amount he or she sees fit. If the potential employee doesn't like it they don't have to take it. There are over 150 million jobs in the US.

People are exploited to some degree every day -- you and me included. By no means do I think anyone is being violent against my person or property when they exploit me unless i have been forced into signing a contract that i otherwise wouldn't without said force being thrust upon me.


---


as for your bolded part...if anyone is using the strong arm of government to aggressively take away someone's person or property I will happily line up next to you and fight for the aggrieved party's rights. i'm guessing though as you support a self described socialist hell bent on expanding the role of centralized authority ...we have diametrically opposed views on when that happens.


i actually respect Bernie for being open and honest about his idea of the use of force (mainly forcibly taking people's private property)....more liberals should employ it. He openly admits that that bureaucrats know what's best for people and should have control over their lives. conservatives are the very same on some issues....they should admit it too.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed May 30, 2018 3:12 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Sure you have, you would have exploited a person's desperation and market conditions so that you could pay them as little as possible for your own benefit. Marxists call that the theft of surplus value created by labor. When you lobby congress to codify your tactic into law to protect yourself from changing market or legal conditions, you have used the government to manipulate the market. You may not have done physical harm, but you have interfered with other's ability to negotiate for employment. Most consider that a tort at least.

This is not new. Since the 13th amendment and Industrial Revolution there has been constant effort on the part of industry to effectively enslave labor since it it is no longer legal to literally enslave labor. Read about the coal towns and Chinese labor to build railroads out west. At the time, all of it was legal, and all of it used the same reasoning you are using now. "It's a free country, If you don't like it, get lost."

So then when free men who associated freely decided to bargain collectively, they were indeed met with violence. Violence lobbied for, or paid for, by men who believed they had the right to do so because they owned the business.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars

I know that's the long way around the tree, but if you are saying the NAP does not apply to a person's ability to exploit another person and use government to enforce it, you and I have differing views on what constitutes aggression.



A person who willingly enters into an employment contract and is free to terminate that contract at any time they want in no way suffers from a violent, aggressive opposing party. The owner of said capital gets to offer whatever amount he or she sees fit. If the potential employee doesn't like it they don't have to take it. There are over 150 million jobs in the US.

People are exploited to some degree every day -- you and me included. By no means do I think anyone is being violent against my person or property when they exploit me.


---


as for your bolded part...if anyone is using the strong arm of government to aggressively take away someone's person or property I will happily line up next to you and fight for the aggrieved party's rights. i'm guessing though as you support a self described socialist hell bent on expanding the role of centralized authority ...we have diametrically opposed views on when that happens.


i actually respect Bernie for being open and honest about his idea of the use of force (mainly forcibly taking people's private property)....more liberals should employ it. He openly admits that that bureaucrats know what's best for people and should have control over their lives. conservatives are the very same on some issues....they should admit it too.

C'mon, man.

We weren't talking about me and what I believe, we we're talking about YOU believe. We were talking about the application of the Non-Aggression Principle! Specifically, if the viewpoint is limited to acts of violence and how we define "harm" in this context.

We aren't going to get far if we can't get through key terms and what they mean.

I must have got you on a bad day. We'll try again later.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12534
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed May 30, 2018 3:17 pm

:roll:

i responded directly to your statement

i'm not sure how you can think i'm talking about you .... anymore than i'm clarifying my position in terms of how it relates to mine (just as you yourself gave your opinion in your response and showed how it was different than mine) - which is clearly a valid way to have a discussion. that seems like a reasonable thing to do...i even said i agreed with your bolded part that i singled out....i just clarified that we probably don't see it the same way given our other positions....something I'm sure 100% of posters on this board would agree with
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed May 30, 2018 3:20 pm

Zarniwoop wrote::roll:

i responded directly to your statement

i'm not sure how you can think i'm talking about you .... anymore than i'm clarifying my position in terms of how it relates to mine - which is clearly a valid way to have a discussion. that seems like a reasonable thing to do...i even said i agreed with your bolded part that i singled out....i just clarified that we probably don't see it the same way given our other positions.

I don't want to oversimplify your position, but am I right that you, and dare I say most libertarians view non-aggression as being against acts of violence or credible threats of violence?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12534
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed May 30, 2018 3:23 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote::roll:

i responded directly to your statement

i'm not sure how you can think i'm talking about you .... anymore than i'm clarifying my position in terms of how it relates to mine - which is clearly a valid way to have a discussion. that seems like a reasonable thing to do...i even said i agreed with your bolded part that i singled out....i just clarified that we probably don't see it the same way given our other positions.

I don't want to oversimplify your position, but am I right that you, and dare I say most libertarians view non-aggression as being against acts of violence or credible threats of violence?


an act of violence can be physical harm or threat of physical harm.

if i refuse to pay a speeding ticket, at some point I will be fined and later imprisoned. that is a threat of physical harm.

someone stealing my car out of my driveway is an act of aggression against my personal property and has caused me harm

someone calling me names is not harm

someone getting the better of me in a negotiation that I freely entered is not physical harm

Very few citizens will directly cause me physical harm....but very many will use the gov't as a strong-arm to do so when they take away my liberties or private property...which is a breach of the NAP
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed May 30, 2018 3:35 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:.but very many will use the gov't as a strong-arm to do so when they take away my liberties or private property...which is a breach of the NAP


And THAT is where you and I agree and disagree about stuff 99% of the time.

I gotta leave the office, but I got some thoughts on this that I'll get to soon.

My swimming pool awaits!
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12534
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed May 30, 2018 3:37 pm

enjoy the swimming...look forward to more clarification
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:59 am

Pretty good chat yesterday... I like how they describe the IDW as 'A group of people that don't like being identified as part of a group'. But talking through the ideas that align them and those that don't.

I've noticed an uptick in people calling Joe Rogan 'right-wing' in the past few months (which I find comically absurd tbh). So while listening this I came to the opinion that any position/issue JR is now "right-wing" on is just something that was a Democratic position 10-20 years ago but how now been been abandoned by the Democratic platform as they shifted further to the left.

Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11970
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 495 times
Been thanked: 520 times

Re: Ideology

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:21 pm

Caradoc wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:The whole thing really gives fascism the ol WTF, bro?

Star Trek: utopian socialism. Exists because there's no scarcity. No want. You can replicate anything, so there's no need for currency. Inequality is impossible.

Logan's Run: Dystopian communism. Communism cannot survive with great scarcity. The greater the scarcity, the more people become a slave to the collective.

Star Wars: Dystopian fascism. Given the technology of the series, the ability to live without scarcity, its odd that an emporer would even be plausable. What's to rule? Everybody can be as they are and has the means to do so. So why you buggin?

Mad Max: Dystopian Libertarianism. One guy is free, but everyone else is trapped into warring factions to fight over the sacarcity. One man stands alone.


Not really a fair breakdown IMHO, but I agree somewhat.

Star Trek: utopian socialism. Exists because there's no scarcity. No want. You can replicate anything, so there's no need for currency. Inequality is impossible.

Inequality of material possessions may be impossible, but more important forms would still exist. What Trek never shows though is the 90% + of humanity that, after no longer needing to work for survival or betterment, sits around all day doing nothing but playing games and ingesting their favorite recreational drug/beverage because they have nothing to do and nothing to offer in an economic sense, and the malaise a people perpetually unable to achieve earned success would endure. A paradise for those with the very greatest drive and talent, but the rest would likely be Lotus Eaters. (Or so resentful that they weren't given a starship to command, because they were just as talented as Kirk/Picard --their mommy told them so -- that they revolt against the idea of there being actual differences between people)


Logan's Run: Dystopian communism. Communism cannot survive with great scarcity. The greater the scarcity, the more people become a slave to the collective.

True-ish, but so short it misses important implications The problem is, this (scarcity) becomes a circular event in communism, with the snake forever eating it's own tale. Communism always creates scarcity (because it fails to create wealth), resulting in a necessarily more powerful and more ruthless government as keeping the plebes in check becomes more problematic. Logan's Run, from many communist perspectives, is actually Utopian. The control of all resources, information, and thought, along with equal outcomes is a dream come true for many communist leaders. The lack of concern over the deaths of the people needed to achieve this also mirrors pretty much every communist state in history.Logan's Run is really more a metaphor for allof communism rather than a specifically dystopian version

Star Wars: Dystopian fascism. Given the technology of the series, the ability to live without scarcity, its odd that an emporer would even be plausable. What's to rule? Everybody can be as they are and has the means to do so. So why you buggin?

I think the "Dystopian Fascism" label is a misnomer thrown in there because people can only relate an evil government to Fascism as they have never been educated to understand Communism as equally or more evil, and dictatorships loom small in the imagination compared to Nazis. Scarcity is irrelevant in the case of a strongman seizing power. IMHO', Star Wars appears a simple Dictatorship, despite the various trappings of fascism scattered about, Lucas might have intended the empire to represent fascism (though he first claimed it represented the US with the rebels being the North Vietnamese, he just used the trappings of the 'recognizable evil'), but he does nothing other than window dress that

Mad Max: Dystopian Libertarianism. One guy is free, but everyone else is trapped into warring factions to fight over the scarcity. One man stands alone.

Scarcity is the functioning issue here, for sure. This one the "Dystopian Libertarianism" label is definitely thrown in intentionally to throw some shade at libertarians. Mad Max is Anarchy, plain and simple. Multiple small groups from gang to tribe size, no real rule of law and no recognized government. That is NOT what libertarianism is at all. That's actually a typical strawman argument throw at libertarians all the time.


Just stopped by to say this was an enjoyable read. I like where this discussion is headed.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7570
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:53 pm

to Caradoc's point of the inherent evil of communism and socialism.

It's not that these ism's are inherently evil. I could make an argument all day long that Capitalism is inherently evil. But the truth of the matter is that none of them are. They are economic models based on theory. The theory and the assumptions it makes are only "evil" in how they propose to go about its application.

At their core, they are all trying to best allocate resources for their respective societies. The communists keep banging their heads on the wall trying to find the one guy who can make it happen and millions are now dead because of it. That doesn't make communism itself evil, but it does show the folly of trying to centrally plan an economy without any semblance of democracy.

I'll pick on Capitalism later.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12534
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:13 pm

The problem in the equation are humans, who, despite the notion that all people are basically good, never fail to demonstrate that power corrupts.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3076
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:20 pm

Ken Carson wrote:The problem in the equation are humans, who, despite the notion that all people are basically good, never fail to demonstrate that power corrupts.

Yep. Look no further than monarchy.

You can have a King of the people, or you can have a tyrant. it's the monarch, not the monarchy.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12534
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:14 pm

every economic system has morality built into it. From communism to socialism to free enterprise, I can clearly see the moral justifications from principle for each of them.

i can also clearly see the breach of different types of morality in each system.


We can also judge the morality of the outcomes of the systems (apart from their principled mechanical underlyings of them)...all three systems again have/allow for moral and immoral outcomes.


Don't get me wrong, in no way am I suggesting those three common economic systems are on par from a moral perspective, only that the we can absolutely argue about their morality both in design and outcome and all three have positive and negative issues associated with them.

(the moral code I am speaking of is a very broad one -- my moral code is multidimensional and draws up on traditional philosophy (Aristotle, Plato, etc), religious philosophy (Aquinas, Augustine, etc), political philosophy, legal philosophy and economic philosophy.



-----------------------


And that is all completely independent of the way leaders/dictators implement those systems. Clearly the leaders can weaken the moral goodness of any system just as they can try to alleviate the moral weakness of any system.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Selmon Rules » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:18 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:to Caradoc's point of the inherent evil of communism and socialism.

It's not that these ism's are inherently evil. I could make an argument all day long that Capitalism is inherently evil. But the truth of the matter is that none of them are. They are economic models based on theory. The theory and the assumptions it makes are only "evil" in how they propose to go about its application.

At their core, they are all trying to best allocate resources for their respective societies. The communists keep banging their heads on the wall trying to find the one guy who can make it happen and millions are now dead because of it. That doesn't make communism itself evil, but it does show the folly of trying to centrally plan an economy without any semblance of democracy.

I'll pick on Capitalism later.

In a perfect world, communism could be the perfect economic model but we don't live in a perfect world. People will always need motivation to innovate and improve products and communism removes it completely.

Same with capitalism.... In a perfect world supply and demand would allocate resources to where they would be most efficiently used but the greed inherent with the system almost always ensures they will go to the highest bidder who will usually be trying to eliminate his competition to maximize his returns and nothing more.
Sig currently being held hostage by Photobucket, will return next fall
User avatar
Selmon Rules
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Cheb » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:40 am

My political ideology is somewhere between Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama.
Image
Cheb
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:00 pm
Location: West Coast is best coast
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:50 am

Selmon Rules wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:to Caradoc's point of the inherent evil of communism and socialism.

It's not that these ism's are inherently evil. I could make an argument all day long that Capitalism is inherently evil. But the truth of the matter is that none of them are. They are economic models based on theory. The theory and the assumptions it makes are only "evil" in how they propose to go about its application.

At their core, they are all trying to best allocate resources for their respective societies. The communists keep banging their heads on the wall trying to find the one guy who can make it happen and millions are now dead because of it. That doesn't make communism itself evil, but it does show the folly of trying to centrally plan an economy without any semblance of democracy.

I'll pick on Capitalism later.

In a perfect world, communism could be the perfect economic model


Nah, I like individual liberty and personal property rights. My "perfect world" doesn't permit the state to have that much power.

People that think communism can be achieved as an ideal solution/system are naive to human nature in addition to missing the key principal (individual self-determination) in which western society was built imo. I'd call it un-American, but it's much more than that.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11970
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 495 times
Been thanked: 520 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:53 am

Selmon Rules wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:to Caradoc's point of the inherent evil of communism and socialism.

It's not that these ism's are inherently evil. I could make an argument all day long that Capitalism is inherently evil. But the truth of the matter is that none of them are. They are economic models based on theory. The theory and the assumptions it makes are only "evil" in how they propose to go about its application.

At their core, they are all trying to best allocate resources for their respective societies. The communists keep banging their heads on the wall trying to find the one guy who can make it happen and millions are now dead because of it. That doesn't make communism itself evil, but it does show the folly of trying to centrally plan an economy without any semblance of democracy.

I'll pick on Capitalism later.

In a perfect world, communism could be the perfect economic model but we don't live in a perfect world. People will always need motivation to innovate and improve products and communism removes it completely.

Same with capitalism.... In a perfect world supply and demand would allocate resources to where they would be most efficiently used but the greed inherent with the system almost always ensures they will go to the highest bidder who will usually be trying to eliminate his competition to maximize his returns and nothing more.

Quite correct.

Communism was centuries ahead of it's time and still is. It quite possibly could never be implemented as Marx envisioned due to human greed. The bastardized versions we end up with are corrupted by 2-bit dictators who warp an economic model and its rhetorical points to feed their own power.

What makes Capitalism so great is that it flourishes best under democratic governments with free people exercising free will. But as you pointed out, Capitalism by design is very inefficient at allocating resources and left unencumbered creates Oligarchy/plutocracy as it is trying to do now because the system by design is intended to benefit capital and its owners and not society at large. It nurtures greed as much as it nurtures innovation.

All is not lost with Capitalism though. It was proven during the 20th century that a free market coupled with a government that ensures its citizens are to a certain extent insulated from the inefficiencies of capitalism can make a very successful society economically speaking at least until scarcity of basic human resources is obsolete. This is being done here, in Europe, SE Asia and to even a certain extent China. The funny part is that the country that invented it (US) is the slowest at adopting it because its wrapped around the axle on absurd notions like "Taxation is theft" and "Late Stage Capitalism" and "Tax cuts create prosperity"
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12534
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: Ideology

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:59 am

Selmon Rules wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:to Caradoc's point of the inherent evil of communism and socialism.

It's not that these ism's are inherently evil. I could make an argument all day long that Capitalism is inherently evil. But the truth of the matter is that none of them are. They are economic models based on theory. The theory and the assumptions it makes are only "evil" in how they propose to go about its application.

At their core, they are all trying to best allocate resources for their respective societies. The communists keep banging their heads on the wall trying to find the one guy who can make it happen and millions are now dead because of it. That doesn't make communism itself evil, but it does show the folly of trying to centrally plan an economy without any semblance of democracy.

I'll pick on Capitalism later.

In a perfect world, communism could be the perfect economic model but we don't live in a perfect world. People will always need motivation to innovate and improve products and communism removes it completely.

Same with capitalism.... In a perfect world supply and demand would allocate resources to where they would be most efficiently used but the greed inherent with the system almost always ensures they will go to the highest bidder who will usually be trying to eliminate his competition to maximize his returns and nothing more.



and to some degree this is why I advocate for nationalist socialist (wee oo wee oo he just said "nazi") societies. many teams, with definitive identities, spreading wealth WITHIN their own societies, in constant competition with each other on the larger stage. This provides a relative "tribal" outlook of being socially responsible for your geographical/social kin - while also maintaining the motivation to still do things, thanks to competition with other nations. you get the best of both worlds and is, in my opinion, the best way to address social wellbeing while also keeping in mind the most important variable in all this: human nature. We must be motivated. And we must have a greater focus. Competition is in our DNA. But so is in-group favoritism. We must acknowledge our biology and build accordingly.
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2768
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 325 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:10 am

As long as we maintain our Constitution along with ideals like free-market Capitalism, self-determination, and personal liberty (i.e Western principles) I'm pretty open to discuss other issues.

I just don't see how Communism fits into that is all. I also can't help but smdh when I hear/read the narrative 'We just haven't been able to get real Communism correct, but next time we will".

What if we don't get it right and it ends the SAME EXACT WAY it's ended EVERY OTHER TIME it's been implemented? Why even consider tearing down or transforming the system that allowed the greatest country ever built to flourish just to attempt to re-invent a system that has never worked and always ends in poverty, death, and tyranny?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11970
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 495 times
Been thanked: 520 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:18 am

DreadNaught wrote:As long as we maintain our Constitution along with ideals like free-market Capitalism, self-determination, and personal liberty (i.e Western principles) I'm pretty open to discuss other issues.

I just don't see how Communism fits into that is all. I also can't help but smdh when I hear/read the narrative 'We just haven't been able to get real Communism correct, but next time we will".

What if we don't get it right and it ends the SAME EXACT WAY it's ended EVERY OTHER TIME it's been implemented? Why even consider tearing down or transforming the system that allowed the greatest country ever built to flourish just to attempt to re-invent a system that has never worked and always ends in poverty, death, and tyranny?





As you say, communism doesn't at all mesh with some of the most fundamental principles of the West. We would entirely have to redo our political and legal systems along with it.

It's hard enough trying to get central planning via Socialism to work with our framework based on individual liberty and the supremacy of the individual over the state. We can make it work when it is restricted to very narrow industries/segments, but as its reach becomes more extensive there will be more areas where it butts heads with the rest of our political, legal and social set-ups.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby uscbucsfan » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:19 am

Was anyone saying we should go to Communism?
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4348
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:23 am

Not that I recall reading...this is basically a mental exercise based on that earlier meme.

A few have said the only reason communism has failed is because of greed"and its people that fail communism, not communism failing people but I don't remember anyone saying we should adopt it.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:03 am

uscbucsfan wrote:Was anyone saying we should go to Communism?


It's viability is being discussed, so I commented to that point.

To your point I don't believe anyone said we should. So my bad if it came across like that. I could've phrased my post better.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11970
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 495 times
Been thanked: 520 times

Re: Ideology

Postby uscbucsfan » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:15 am

DreadNaught wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:Was anyone saying we should go to Communism?


It's viability is being discussed, so I commented to that point.

To your point I don't believe anyone said we should. So my bad if it came across like that. I could've phrased my post better.

No, that's just crazy if anyone thinks that it could actually succeed in the present.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4348
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:20 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
It's viability is being discussed, so I commented to that point.

To your point I don't believe anyone said we should. So my bad if it came across like that. I could've phrased my post better.

No, that's just crazy if anyone thinks that it could actually succeed in the present.


Agreed. But when people (especially Americans) say things like 'We just haven't been able to get communism right', it's a bit concerning to me. History is a great teacher, also my wives side of the family has some first hand experience with Communism (the "bad kind" apparently) so I'm just of the opinion it's something that should NOT be entertained in terms of viability.

If we're talking about the pro's of Communism we aren't far off discussing the pro's of eugenics. I know that may come off as extreme, but Communism is an extreme ideology (about as far left and Authoritarian as one could be) and I consider myself to be anti-extremism in pretty much any instance, although there could be an exception I'm just not thinking of right now.

Now if we're having a theoretical discussion than sure. I like kicking around ideas. My bad if I derailed...
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11970
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 495 times
Been thanked: 520 times

Re: Ideology

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:27 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
It's viability is being discussed, so I commented to that point.

To your point I don't believe anyone said we should. So my bad if it came across like that. I could've phrased my post better.

No, that's just crazy if anyone thinks that it could actually succeed in the present.


why? why is the present any different than the past? What disqualifiers do we now possess as humans that would make an attempt at communism in modern times any more of bad idea than the past? because of the examples of failures? Every form of government has been tried and has failed, multiple times each, throughout human history. Save perhaps a zerg-like hivemind ;)

just wondering what your reasoning - honest question. I don't advocate for communism by any means either, just wondering
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2768
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 325 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:31 am

beardmcdoug wrote: Every form of government has been tried and has failed, multiple times each, throughout human history.


Has America failed? If so, why do you believe that and by what standard compared to the other failed forms of government?

America isn't perfect. But it's the best form of government the world has ever known imo and has allowed the freest and most prosperous nation (for all races and genders) to flourish despite it's faults.

For all their faults morally at the time, the founders of our nation got alot right based on the teachings of wise philosophers like Aristotle along with the lessons learned of previously failed civilizations. Namely putting the individual and their ability to self-determine as a paramount principle.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11970
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 495 times
Been thanked: 520 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests