What to do in the mad, mad world?

what are the positives of this system? and how do you think envy is a greater problem, especially because its the greed that is creating that envy. and the vice versa is definitely not true.

an important thing to remember about the monetary system is that every dollar that someone holds, there is that dollar's debt elsewhere. meaning that regardless of talent, or effort one puts into becoming wealthy, there will always be all levels of class in this system. there will always be the filthy rich, the politicians, the corporate owners, all the way down to the bum on the street.

and if you believe in a system that supports reward for effort, shouldnt every child with a wealthy family be raised at the same poor level?

and you say wealth distribution should only be done in the wealth-holder's discretion, but why the hell would they give away their money?
i also take it you do not believe in the conspiracy theories of 9/11 and the sort. when the wealthy are wealthy, they have power, unnecessary power that's at the expense of the many repurcussions of poverty.

 

Aside from those on the Left and the government, no.

I never suggested that it is a level playing field, nor do I accept that it should be, could be or ever will be. It's easy to dwell on finding excuses or placing blame on others for our own inadequacies.

Conjugations of proprietary?
What's there to account for? What's wrong with private ownership? That which is proprietary is a creation of man, and you are free to create similar products on your own and maybe even profit through competition.

 

What's wrong with the freedom to move anywhere you like? Seems strange for someone who hates big government to approve of enormous restrictions on our movement and access to land.


In the animal world if a bird leaves its home in a branch another one will come take over. In the proprietary world that would be called trespassing.

 

Are you arguing that we should return to the life of hunter gatherers?

 

Not at all.

 

Then accept the fact that you are free to move anywhere you like within the constraints of laws which protect both you and others equally from trespass.

 

I have a strange tendency to not blindly accept laws simply because they are the law.

 

I think that is true of most of us, but at the same time we are subject to the imposition of punishment for disobedience of laws unless or until they are changed, are we not?
Do you accept all laws which are brought about through a democratic procedure resulting in passage by a simple majority, or a two thirds majority?
Or asked another way, who should have the authority to create laws which we all must blindly accept?

 

Sadly, government at the Federal level has usurped many if not most of the positives that existed. Envy to me is a greater problem because it tends to shift emphasis to placing blame upon others for all forms of individual failure, which politicians more than anyone else take advantage of.

You can blame the Fed for that and the creation of a fiat currency that has no value of its own other than the paper it's printed on. And for every dollar earned there is a dollar spent which need not be equated to debt. Classes will always exist, no matter what political system exists. I find a system where mobility, upward as well as downward to be preferable to a system where none at all exists.

Why? A child should be entitled to all the benefits provided by responsible parents. Would it not make more sense for poor families to put off having children until they are financially capable of supporting them?

That should be their decision to make, and eventually it occurs as no one lives forever.

Why would I believe in conspiracy theories? Are you telling me I should? Not even the wealthy are equals in the power they are seen to wield. If that were the case, then we should be asking questions of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros instead of Obama or any elected politicians.

 

Indie

Yes that was the one, evasion, thanks again.

indie

Some five years ago I gave this reply -

As I’ve already said I’m not an ideological Socialist, but socialist ideas and thought have influenced my own views as have many others political philosophies. But even amongst those that definitely call themselves socialists there is a wide degree of diversity

As the wikipedia writer on socialism says “It is difficult to make generalizations about the diverse array of doctrines and movements that have been referred to as "socialist." The various adherents of contemporary socialist movements do not agree on a common doctrine or program. As a result, the movement has split into different and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between moderate socialists and communists. Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, or decentralized ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers councils. Others have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Stalinists insisted on the creation of Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction. Others advocate "market socialism" in which social control of property exists within the framework of market economics and private property”

Communism even Stalinism have supporters on the left but they are parts (and for Stalinism a very small part) of a larger idea.

One of the problems that I detect in many Americans is that they seem to believe any type of socialism is akin to full blown Stalinistc communism, however patently silly and illogical that viewpoint is. It means that for some they fear and loath any politics that is to the left of Anne Coulter or leads them up the rather dangerous cul de sac of right wing libertarianism.

I have and do call myself a ‘pragmatic socialist with strong green influences’ for want of a better term.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=179448

Today I’d think I’d add some more and point out that I’m an advocate of democracy and that I’m a supporter of Keynesian economic ideas as well as internationalism - some global problems need global answers.

I have nothing against private ownership or wealth and I’m not even against a market system, although I hope that human beings might one day grow up and leave those childish things behind.

But I do believe in balance and that a political system should work in the best interests of all people in a society.

*

OK indie – that is how it works in an honest debate – you ask a question of me and I have tried to give an honest reply with no evasion, and if you want clarification guess what I’ll give it.

So now you know how it works maybe you will begin debating in an honest and open way, without evasion – I mean that is what your question was just another way of trying to get out of answering or addressing the things I’ve raised.

 

randy

Actually the internet and www were at first the products of government sponsored research (eg US military and CERN).

 

Well, when one is discussing law in a normative fashion (which is what we are doing) you can of course say that in a democracy whatever the majority decides is whatever the law should be. That's a pretty pointless discussion though. The more intelligent way I think is to weigh up the good and the bad of the particular law, its effects, moral justifications, utilitarian and teleological perpectives. Take your pick, there are many more to choose from.

 

I've not evaded any of your questions, but you seem to try and evade understanding my answers.

In any event, I too am an advocate of Democracy however not one in which the greatest power is concentrated at a single point of government. I support Hayeks economic ideas over those of Keynes.

I don't view humanity as a single society, nor do I view nations as a single society, but instead as many unique societies that agree to live within certain agreed upon rules.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought you were a British subject not an American citizen.

 

Then might we say that if you disagree with a law you should ignore it and do whatever necessary to avoid detection?

 

I think I've lost you. I assumed we were discussing what kind of proprietary system we should have.

 

Indie

LOL – You might try and con others but this is me indie, I know your posts, so I’ll answer this the same way I’ve answered before when you tried to use this trick – if you believe you have given rational and reasonable answers please cite where they are or reproduce them, you have never been able to do so when I asked all those other times but....

But you have argued against democracy in the past and advocated giving wealth extra voting power so that it could counter the votes of majority.

I know you are an advocate of the ‘free market’ but as pointed out before you don’t seem able to defend it from criticism.

But we are still all humans.

Yes, and your point is…?

 

In other words it is something that you imagine might be so.

You do suggest a level playing field when you say everyone is free to compete. The economic opportunities simply aren't the same for everyone

Conjugations of the word proprietary.

The accuracy of your statement.

It is a mental construct that is divorced from real economy. Ownership is an abstraction that does not speak for the facts. The fact is you can't take it with you because it doesn't belong to you to begin with. You may use material while you are here. There is no native force that enforces the idea of property except the mind that believes in it.

Your property is never secure as you imagine. Documents don't mean much to someone who has decided that they are strong enough to rest those things that you cultivate from you. People do not die of starvation today because of a lack of food, there is plenty of food. They starve because of proprietary distribution, because they don't have the money to buy it.

Your attitude is great for someone who is physically able, Is white, and lives in the US. However for the rest of the world, the "underdeveloped", nations of the world, this model is robing the fundamental security of millions.

 

oh of course, just blame the government. even if government didnt exist, we'd still be talking about very similar things on this thread. in a completely capitilistic system, there is still governing going on, but what it is, is the people owning the huge corporations trying to fuck either you, or someone else in another country over. and like i said about the monetary system, there will always be the less fortunate to be fucked over.

well the Fed IS all these corporation owners and people ontop of the social class, the greediest of them all i'd say. i agree that fiat money shouldn't exist, but fiat money and the Federal Reserve Bank were created by those people in government/corporatocracy because it benefits themselves, not the average citizen. point being that "government" is actually a scheme and a game of Monopoly to those in the corporatocracy/government.

speaking of Monopoly the game, i heard a great analogy comparing it with our economic system. [i couldnt find the quote so ill explain what it said]
The guy was saying how he loved to play Monopoly with his grandma, and they would play it normally. what he loved about it is that he would always win, but some people would consider it cheating because whenever grandma had to use the restroom, he'd slip himself some money from the bank. as a kid he didn't care if he cheated, it was simply a way of winning. and whomever got all the money in the end, meant the game was over and all the pieces, the houses, the cash, the hotels, the game board, the little metallic car would all go back in the box from which it came.

oh and why do you think 'mobility' is a plus?

i asked that because that's a direct flaw in the philosophy, and its a direct correlation to the rich getting richer and poorer getting poorer, it doesn't reflect that system of effort=reward. and i guess the darwinism you believe in is to each his own, but just like you don't like people envying, you are doing a share of pitying yourself.
have you ever just talked to homeless people? i don't think you realize the realities of being poor.

haha oh right most rich people give their inheritances to charity. no they give em right back to the family to stay rich, and with a proposed 'disappearance' of the government, it'll only fuel that competitive need to stay on top.

i was only accusing you of not believing in them, and clearly thats true.
there is alot to learn from conspiracy theories, but you seem to write them off so easily and quickly.
and yes we should ask them questions, like what kinds of things they are funding. if they aren't giving to charities, then we should be pressuring them to. and if they're funding a politician, ask them why, cuz i doubt its simply because "i believe in what they say", it's an investment to support their business.

 

I accept that, and can live with it.

Maybe Ron Paul has a good point, "end the fed."

It means you aren't stuck in a class due to circumstances of birth, unless you wish to be.

I'm not pitying myself, I've achieved all I will ever need and am not dependent upon anything, including currency. No debts at all, and never have had any that I couldn't handle.

Family should always come first.

I assumed you were referring to "Bush blew up the twin towers" or "Obama was born in Kenya" or something else similar.
I do sometimes listen to some conspiracy claims, and some are quite entertaining.

 

I've argued against democracy being exercised at the federal level based on the fact that no elected representative is capable of representing the wishes of his/her constituents in each and every instance, and at that point they often vote along party directions instead of listening to their constituents.

What is it that the 'free market' needs defending? A product or service is made available and if it price is acceptable it sells. Most businesses are created with the intent of staying in business so customer satisfaction and sales quantity are primary objectives along with profits, and if publicly traded many people share in the wealth created, not just the 1% or 10% claimed to be the wealthiest.

Yes we are, but humans come in many different varieties, shapes, sizes, beliefs, etc.

Why the focus on American politics instead of your own? Perhaps you could implement all the changes to your own government to provide an example of how good governance is accomplished. After all, we did fight 2 wars to get out from under British rule.