Socialism Forum!

well the "owners" of private property will not let me, and no doubt you agree with this "right" of theirs

oh, and thank you for using a stupid analogy and not bothering to defend it once it's criticized

 

I certainly do agree with the rights of ownership. Perhaps you could speak to some owners who might allow you to plant on their property in return sharing some of your produce? I've done that before, and am doing it right now with my own property.

What stupid analogy?

 

jeez, it was hypothetical, i'm eating, and hardly ever out of garbage cans anymore

that "grading on a bell curve" thing i keep seeing trotted out - to be fair it's not just you, it seems to be popular among the defenders of the wealthy . . .

 

I've never tried that, and prefer to seek out edible plants and fish if the need arises.

In response to the example of the experiment devised by the professor it was reasonable, and something that has been put to use in schools.

For some, not all, people life represents a dilemma, work or death, neither of which is acceptable. While I whole heartedly believe in facing ones responsibilities, such as caring for your self and your family members, the responsibilities we willingly accept in relation to others is one which we also have the right of judgment, and the right of refusal based upon our own judgment.

The school experiment fits quite well with what I found to occur in many unionized work locations, equal pay for equal job titles, but seldom was there equal productivity, efficiency or quality of work. Not only that, but I also found that as time went on, even the best workers eventually gave into becoming mediocre workers. The jobs I enjoyed most were those where higher pay was competed for, or I had the ability to extend benefits based upon productivity, efficiency and quality. As a consumer I've always accepted the fact that you get what you pay for, and made later decisions based upon the truth of that. At the same time I feel that employers should also have the right to make decisions based upon the facts related to those they employ.

 

well, you live in a warm jungle, i live in a cold desert . . .

i've never worked a union job, and only once worked where income was much above starvation wage

as far as mediocre workers goes, i'll never forget the idiot son of the head of standard oil teaching me how to tear phone books in half while i was trying to deliver his inter-office mail . . .

 

Are you saying the Arctic region was uninhabited until food aid became available?

Or the politician who actually can affect our lives who wondered why the Pathfinder didn't take a photo of the American flag Neil Armstrong planted on Mars in 1969.
Proving the Peter principle correct in a business environment where promotions are decided by a very small number of persons or perhaps only one, is one thing, but in the case of an elected politician which is the result of a large number of persons is something else, and can often be frightening.

 

Well,I have to say I've been in six or so unions and I believe in them for self defence against some fellow humans that will use and abuse workers while raking in the dough. However, I went the same route as far as making as much money as I was able to,by working piecework. I was good at it and had to be a self starter because the roofing didn't get nailed on by itself. Everyone cannot be expected to have the same abilities. As long as people try to do their best,that's good enough. Nobody likes those that live off others without honest effort, but I know this country could provide a socialized medical system and a socialized education system by stopping the wars,eliminating waste in government,eliminating insurance companies, instituting huge tariffs on american companies that go overseas to induce them to come back and stopping all bullshit foreign aid except for catastrophic events. Pay our legislators the average wage in the US,minus the exhorbitant CEO salaries. They would then take interest in what happens to the middle class and see their way to raising the standard of living for them,thereby raising their own wages. And maybe most important of all--take all money out of elections and force the TV franchises to present political speech,debates and/or notices for nothing on given nights. This corporatocracy is not gettin' it. No more wars unless voted on by congress as according to the constitution.

 

i doubt there were many vegans . . .

 

They were known as kelp eaters.

 

fair enough, kelp is good :sunny:

what any of this has to do with today's fully-owned united states though is beyond me

funny that you would recommend that i become essentially less civilized, as that's what it would come to if the tea party "won" . . .

note: an indian friend tells me that "vegetarian" in lakota translates to either "cannot fish or hunt", or simply, "village idiot"

 

"fully-owned united states?" Okay, you've raised my curiosity.

In what way do you feel I've recommended becoming less civilized? What is uncivilized about the tea party? And the "tea party" is not a political party, but a movement which is attempting to recreate a two party system of politics, at least that's how I see it.

I'm not certain what "political" spin you might wish to apply to that.

 

there is no more open land [not that there ever really was, kimosabe]

one of the things i've found bewildering about many who bemoan the fact that the united states has "changed" since its inception is their seeming inability to recognize that the change has not all been because of big, bad "government"

the united states has indeed changed, and we can never go back - the government that could run a nation with an expanding frontier and endless quantities of "available" land [bought with smallpox blankets]; with non-voting women and not-fully-human blacks and indians and chinese; with unorganized, exploitable labor [including children] and occasionally free labor [way down upon the swanee river]; with no concern for what a future of denuded forests and poisoned streams and befouled air might mean - that government cannot govern the country we have today

a more diverse country, with nowhere to expand, and with a conscience about the past and future

we have big problems today, because we made so many mistakes in the past; it is time to fix them - it will be as difficult to fix the problems as they were easy to create, and they will be as expensive to fix as they were cheap to create

it was only cheap and easy for the victors, and the sons and daughters of the victors have inherited a moral debt on behalf of their ancestors' victims

foraging?

none, just laughing at myself, the kelp-eater at the whale party . . .

 

You're not one of those who believes the Earth is only 6,000 or so years old are you?

Change occurs constantly, in spite of government, big, small, good or bad.

Government can become an impediment more often than a source of solutions to the problems we face, and often create additional problems that require solutions. Something that stays with me constantly from Viet Nam are the words "We don't hate Americans, we hate your government."

It should be enough to not repeat mistakes of the past. You cannot change history, only the present in hopes that the future will not record it as more mistakes of the past.

One of my ancestors 300 years ago had his entire life savings stolen, who should be made to make amends? Life begins at birth, not with the past acts of our ancestors, who if you trace back far enough are shared by all of us living today. Should I bear ill feelings toward Germans, Japanese, Chinese, or Vietnamese because I lost relatives in wars with them?

To forage is uncivilized?

 

i'm speaking specifically of the united states and its frontier myth

i have the feeling that this is a trick question

hoping this isn't some kind of taxes=theft silliness? or maybe them pesky redskins took it? or the ancestor was indian and colonists took it? perhaps the ancestor was african, and had his life savings stolen by slave traders?

anyways, probably, no tricks...

if the conditions that allowed this to happen still exist today, then they need to be changed

if the conditions that allowed this to happen are in danger of returning, then that needs to be stopped

 

^^^ actually, i'd like to retract that answer

my concern is not with people losing their life savings

my concern is with people who live below the economic norm, and are systematically prevented from rising to that norm, by those living above it

fuck the bell curve analogy, everyone should get a c; meaning everyone should get a clean functioning residence, everyone should have adequate, healthy food

life savings, huh, i am unprepared for that argument anyways, as i have never had any

 

Yeah, if they had savings they deserved to lose it.

What's the norm? Who defines it? How are those who live above some predefined norm "systematically preventing" others from rising to that norm?

And who should be responsible for providing those things?

Should saving be allowed in a utopian society? This is one way some people rise above others economically, so perhaps it should be made illegal?

 

didn't say that, just said it was not my concern

if a law was broken, there are police

if their life savings were stolen by the engines of capital - dishonest banks, investment advisors, etc. - tough tittie, eh? [by your standards]

i think you know what a norm in a developed nation such as the us might entail - housing, food, access to medical treatment, transportation, etc.

how much stuff do you think there is to go around?

we should provide for one another

savings should be unnecessary in a utopian society

 

Many of todays laws were broken greatly in the past, should their prosecution now be applied to the descendants of those who broke them?

I see a difference between theft and poor decisions resulting in losses.

And you feel it is the responsibility of government to assure that everyone is provided those items.

That depends upon what "stuff" you are referring to.

On what basis do you make that claim?

That could be accomplished if nothing cost more than a weeks salary, or a weeks government gifted income. Perhaps the destruction of everything that exists in quantities insufficient to divide equally among all humans should be destroyed to lessen the desire to own something unique or rare?

 

the effort to correct historical wrongs is not "prosecution"

why am i getting the feeling that you think it's always the victim's fault?

in the absence of any other responsible parties . . .

if your business earns $100 and you want to keep $99 of it, how much does that leave your employees?

none, there are things that are just right by my standards, just as there are inexplicable things that are just right by yours

i have never tried, but i am guessing i would find it difficult to eat a gutenberg bible

 

It tends to become prosecution or persecution when politicians get their hands on it.

One can be the victim of a criminal act or the victim of their own acts without influence by others. In the latter case it is most certainly the victims fault.

Why? And where has government been given that responsibility?

What employees? If an employer doesn't pay an adequate wage people will seek employment elsewhere. You get what you pay for is a two way street.

You claimed "We should provide for one another." Society does just that by making available the various needs in greater quantity by allowing specialization which persons work to produce what they can best produce, leaving others to produce the things they are less capable of producing. The free market allows the sale of products to provide us with the means of purchasing the products we don't produce ourselves. Trade is what makes a society prosperous, not welfare which is a function best performed by charity not government.

I think more people today are ingesting Marxist Socialism, but finding that it requires the addition of government force to provide the necessary calories for life.