|
| Thread: A few questions for socialists/communists/left-anarchists/etc. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted December 20, 2008 03:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote wars, because I'm responding to people's answers to the questions.
Well don't complain when they have counter arguments to your counter arguments then. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 05:13 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Yes, but how exactly do you determine how much milk to send? You can't send "some" milk, you can send a specific quantity of milk. How do you calculate that?
JJ:
For example, the teachers know a lot about the situation in education, but they have a personal stake in the outcome, so they might tilt the solution to their interests. On the other hand, there are a lot of people without an ulterior motive giving advice, but they don't know as much about the problem.
TheDeath:
Quote:
If your products sell like bread (slaves in this context) then you are extremely efficient.
But they wouldn't, as slaves are inefficient to use.
Quote:
But by that logic, the use of cars is 'harmful' as well, let's say because they pollute. Right?
That's why we have the gas tax - to deter excessive pollution. But cars certainly have a benefit as well. Nukes, on the other hand, are merely destructive. That's why we should have costs associated with car use, but ban the use of nukes.
Quote:
Who determines 'harm'? Government?
No, simple rational discussion. For example, if I shoot you, then that's obviously harm. If I buy a loaf of bread, then that's clearly not harm. And so on.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 05:28 PM |
|
|
MVass, are you aware of how effective national-socialism was until the beginning of World War 2?
Please bear that in mind whenever you use the "effectiveness" argument.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 05:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
For example, the teachers know a lot about the situation in education, but they have a personal stake in the outcome, so they might tilt the solution to their interests. On the other hand, there are a lot of people without an ulterior motive giving advice, but they don't know as much about the problem.
Okay, this was your claim:
Quote:
Either you'll have people who know what to do but won't tell you, or you'll have people telling you who don't know much about the problem.
"For example" is just not enough - you basically say that there are no such people that I would look for, so giving an example for people who not be right ain't enough.
I can prove you wrong with an example, though:
RETIRED teachers would know a whole darn lot about the situatione, but had no personal stake or gain - they might just try to do the responsible thing.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 06:06 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:09, 20 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
But they wouldn't, as slaves are inefficient to use.
To use for WHAT? What if they just WANT to HAVE slaves, and that's it?
How is that different than a TV? What does a TV do? Provide you with entertainment (ignore news, just movies for this example!). So do slaves, in that example. Both are efficient because they meet the NEEDS (DEMAND) of the people, i.e entertainment.
What do you consider efficiency, pray tell? If you say "x" and "y", it's because you DEMAND those -- but not everybody thinks like you, not everyone has the demand to, for example, blow up the moon (just an example) -- you could say that using nukes to blow it up for some reason would be efficient for YOUR demand, but who said that everyone thinks like you?
If people WANT to kill themselves or shoot themselves, then the efficient way would be to give them guns. Who says they should live if they don't want? You? You don't decide for their efficiency -- they could say as well that any product who prolongs life is inefficient, because efficiency lies in shooting one another, if that's what they think.
Again, who says that everyone thinks like you?
Quote:
That's why we have the gas tax - to deter excessive pollution.
Ok so introduce the "gun" tax, whenever someone gets killed by a gun, you pay some tax but don't get arrested. 
Cars "certainly" have a benefit? Depending from which point of view because some people don't like 'em. And nukes have a benefit too, for terrorists, or had for USA in WW2... see?
Quote:
No, simple rational discussion.
That differs between you and me, so who's rational thought would you take? What if someone claims he owns Antarctica and some big corp mines stuff from there (just stupid example)? If it were socialistic at least you couldn't use the "I own it" excuse.
For example, some psycho can really be annoyed when he looks at women, so we should ban women in public areas, or at least make them hide? After all, the light rays from the women get reflected into his eyes -- so he IS affected by that 'directly' from them! (logical, not using 'ridiculous' meter)
What if 50% of the population were such psychos? Does it matter how many? Why would it be some sort of "tyranny by majority" system?
Also, as a less extreme example, cars pollute. We should ban them if at least 1 citizen complains, and they have done a whole lot more. Or the "noise" in the cities, what if that annoys citizens? Let's ban them all!
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 07:37 PM |
|
|
bak:
Quote:
MVass, are you aware of how effective national-socialism was until the beginning of World War 2?
Yeah, about as effective as the New Deal - which is to say, not very. It redirected the economy into the military. It doesn't mean that the economy was good.
JJ:
Quote:
RETIRED teachers would know a whole darn lot about the situatione, but had no personal stake or gain - they might just try to do the responsible thing.
"Oh, and by the way, you should raise retirement pay for teachers. That'll encourage new teachers to teach all of their lives." *rubs hands together*
TheDeath:
Quote:
To use for WHAT? What if they just WANT to HAVE slaves, and that's it?
Nobody wants to just HAVE slaves. Slaves eat and drink and get sick, and so on. If someone wanted slaves, it'd be in order to use them - and slavery is inefficient.
Quote:
What does a TV do?
I've never heard of a TV murdering its owner in the middle of the night. Nor have I ever heard of a TV uprising. Nor does one have to feed a TV.
Quote:
If people WANT to kill themselves or shoot themselves, then the efficient way would be to give them guns. Who says they should live if they don't want?
They shouldn't.
Quote:
Again, who says that everyone thinks like you?
For every person like you, there are at least a hundred people whom I can convince to agree with me on at least 75% of things.
Quote:
Ok so introduce the "gun" tax, whenever someone gets killed by a gun, you pay some tax but don't get arrested.
No, as there is more lost than just the cost of the killed person's labor. A life is lost - and it is impossible to estimate the value of a life.
Quote:
And nukes have a benefit too, for terrorists, or had for USA in WW2... see?
Terrorists are wrong, and WWII was an unusual situation. In everyday situations, nukes are more bad than good.
Quote:
What if someone claims he owns Antarctica and some big corp mines stuff from there (just stupid example)?
He'd have to prove it.
Quote:
For example, some psycho can really be annoyed when he looks at women, so we should ban women in public areas, or at least make them hide?
No.
Quote:
Why would it be some sort of "tyranny by majority" system?
Even if it was all but one person, it still shouldn't be that way.
But I see you're not interested in having a serious discussion. You know what? Asheera was right. I'm just going to ignore you from now on.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 07:57 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:00, 20 Dec 2008.
|
Why the hell did you have to use so many quotes?
Quote:
Nobody wants to just HAVE slaves. Slaves eat and drink and get sick, and so on. If someone wanted slaves, it'd be in order to use them - and slavery is inefficient.
Here we go again. can you do anything else besides keep CLAIMING "slavery is inefficient"?
I didn't meant so that you need to explain it (because I know what you're talking about), but I said WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY EFFICIENCY?
isn't it to satisfy people's demands? what do you actually mean by efficiency? If people want slaves, then the most efficient way to please them is to give them slaves.
What's efficiency for you? Isn't that the same thing, only that you DEMAND DIFFERENT things than they do? (i.e you may want a TV instead of a pet slave). But then again, who's to say to dictate what everyone should demand, I thought in capitalism it went like "if the people want it, they get it" (products I mean).
The only reason you say slavery is inefficient is because you have OTHER DEMANDS, but it doesn't make them any more "true" -- but some people may be twisted and like to have slaves you know?
of course all of this doesn't matter for someone like you, who seems to think that he knows what's best for everyone and what's most efficient, while at the same time claims he is NOT a communist. That's a paradox. If people want slaves, or if people want nukes, and if you aren't a regulating commie, let them. You say they aren't efficient? Who's to say YOU decide that? I thought the whole thing of capitalism was to let the people decide what to demand and to buy (i.e products which aren't demanded aren't sold). So if the demand for nukes is high, you should supply them, for they know what's best efficient for themselves -- or so at least it goes in capitalism.
In socialism of course, you can't be blamed for that -- but you say you aren't a commie
Quote:
I've never heard of a TV murdering its owner in the middle of the night. Nor have I ever heard of a TV uprising. Nor does one have to feed a TV.
Dude you complicate matters, it was only about entertainment. Remember the gladiators in the arenas?
Quote:
For every person like you, there are at least a hundred people whom I can convince to agree with me on at least 75% of things.
I fail to see the significance of this so I'll just skip it.
(unless you go by tyranny of majority)
But then you say "terrorist is wrong", "everyday situation" and all such stuff -- can you be more specific? I mean, stuff like that is "pretty obvious" or cars are so much different than other stuff that disturbs us because we got used to them... while logically they aren't.
And what kind of answer is "no" -- I mean my question demanded an explanation, not just a simple "I disagree" cause that is kinda pointless don't you think, by itself I mean? What is the difference really? Just a subjective difference of what you find "positive" and what you find "negative"? Can you go into that psycho's mind and see that he feels completely different than you?
It's like you claim not to be a socialist -- that you don't decide what's good for the people -- but that's exactly what you use to ban SOME products and keep others because "you think they have more benefits" (such as cars), nevermind the number of people who don't.
But here's the thing: the pollution protesters do NOT do something -- it is those who use the cars who pollute, so yeah, they are the "attackers" in this context.
Also btw, for the Antarctica stuff, what you said is just complete BS, no offense. How can he "prove" it -- property is just a HUMAN CONSTRUCT, an IDEA, how can he prove that? Government papers? What if they aren't recognized? What if they aren't BECAUSE they would benefit more if they are not (the government or corporation, I mean)?
Too bad for him? Is that all you can say? (you said in other thread ) And you accuse me of arguing not seriously? Get real. Wake up a bit and see the exploitation around will you?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 09:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
RETIRED teachers would know a whole darn lot about the situatione, but had no personal stake or gain - they might just try to do the responsible thing.
"Oh, and by the way, you should raise retirement pay for teachers. That'll encourage new teachers to teach all of their lives." *rubs hands together*
Please, that's actually too dumb to answer it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 09:47 PM |
|
|
The temptation would be there.
The only people without a personal stake would be random people off of the street - but they wouldn't know much about it!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 09:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The temptation would be there.
Why?
Quote:
The only people without a personal stake would be random people off of the street - but they wouldn't know much about it!
How?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 10:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why?
Because some of them might want more money, obviously.
Quote:
How?
It shouldn't be done. Pulling random people from the street and asking them for advice is not a good idea.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 10:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The temptation would be there.
The only people without a personal stake would be random people off of the street - but they wouldn't know much about it!
No. It doesn't matter whether there was a temptation because they are not asked about their pensions, obviously.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2008 01:13 AM |
|
|
Oh, and regarding slavery - it's not the exchange of slaves that's the issue. The problem is that being a slave is, by definition, involuntary. Thus, slavery is a violation of voluntary exchange. And you can't exchange what doesn't exist.
JJ:
But they could easily say that retirement pensions are a good way to encourage teachers to teach all of their lives.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 21, 2008 02:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, about as effective as the New Deal - which is to say, not very. It redirected the economy into the military. It doesn't mean that the economy was good.
We aren't talking goodness here, but efficiency. And you'll have to agree that it was efficient as hell.
And it was far from being directed solely into the military.
And all that with economy being secondary in the state's priorities ("The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all" - Hitler). Imagine what would have happened if they concentrated on economic pursuits rather than world domination. Hundreds of thousands of Jews and other people would be exterminated and persecuted, but no one would care since everyone's looking into their own plates. Only when Hitler started raping Poland did some of the countries stand up to that (and it took far more to get the most powerful, USSR and USA, moving).
My point is, just because something is efficient, that doesn't automatically justify it and all of its actions.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted December 21, 2008 05:50 AM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 05:52, 21 Dec 2008.
|
I'd just like to enforce Baks argument here. Mvass you're a clever person etc. but you don't know a lot about german history (I don't blame you)
Quote:
Yeah, about as effective as the New Deal - which is to say, not very. It redirected the economy into the military. It doesn't mean that the economy was good.
My major in school lies in history and we've talked about the Third Reich all year long (you know that I'm attending a german school?) so trust me when I say that Hitlers economic policy was the **** (of as Bak would but it "highly effecient") for germany back then.
Just that on a sidenote I didn't want to derail your thread. And just to avoid futher derailments I hope you don't make me prove that I'm right because then I'd have to do a lot of painful explaining and would go totally off-topic here so just believe me will you?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 21, 2008 10:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Because some of them might want more money, obviously.
Why? And how much is it? And how exactly is this money used?
Quote:
It shouldn't be done. Pulling random people from the street and asking them for advice is not a good idea.
Why?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2008 10:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, and regarding slavery - it's not the exchange of slaves that's the issue. The problem is that being a slave is, by definition, involuntary. Thus, slavery is a violation of voluntary exchange. And you can't exchange what doesn't exist.
JJ:
But they could easily say that retirement pensions are a good way to encourage teachers to teach all of their lives.
Yeah, so? They would still not profit from it, since that is the prerequisite, remember? Even if so, THEY would be out of the deal.
In any case I don't understand your points anyway: ruling or governing means in reality administrating. The guys at the top are no kings, they don't decree. Decision finding is based on getting advice. WHOM you ask for advice, that is obviously already the question for a pretty long time.
And that is exactly the problem. Or better, something that clearly needs an overhaul.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 22, 2008 04:27 AM |
|
|
bak and Azagal:
Quote:
And you'll have to agree that it was efficient as hell.
The Hitler program was very similar to the New Deal, and the New Deal was mostly a failure. The reason that growth still continued was because it still didn't hamper the economy enough to stop it from growing. Plus, when Hitler came to power, Germany had just stopped paying its crippling reparations, which were a major impediment to its economic growth.
Plus Dr. Schacht's economic policy was pursued under unusual circumstances - a debtor nation that also had great productive capacity. There are plenty of debtor nations, and plenty of nations capable of exporting a lot of stuff, but few that fulfill both criteria. Schacht basically told the other nations, "Buy from us, and we will be able to pay off our debts. If you don't, then you'll never see that money again." It is unlikely that any nation would be able to do the same today.
And I seriously doubt that the labor camps were responsible for much of the productivity. In the long run, they would have certainly hampered it.
del_diablo:
Quote:
Why? And how much is it? And how exactly is this money used?
Why? Are you seriously asking me why people want more money? So they can buy more stuff, of course. How much? However much they'll recommend - which is why it isn't a good idea to ask them. And this money would presumably be used to pay for an increase in teachers' retirement benefits.
Quote:
Why?
Because they don't know anything about the problem, and, even if they do, wouldn't know much about the solution.
JJ:
The retired teachers might still have some sort of sentimental support for increased pensions. Something like "If I was still a teacher, I'd really look forward to a bigger pension than I have now."
And, for most things, it's hard to find people who won't have some kind of conflict of interest. For example, how would the Secretary of State be appointed? Nearly everyone who is qualified also has some kind of investments that would be affected by foreign policy. Same problem with Defense, as well as similar problems with many others.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 22, 2008 08:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
The retired teachers might still have some sort of sentimental support for increased pensions. Something like "If I was still a teacher, I'd really look forward to a bigger pension than I have now."
And, for most things, it's hard to find people who won't have some kind of conflict of interest. For example, how would the Secretary of State be appointed? Nearly everyone who is qualified also has some kind of investments that would be affected by foreign policy. Same problem with Defense, as well as similar problems with many others.
It looks to me like you are just lacking some vision here. It's pretty clear that the political and economical systems are in dire need of reforming, but 150 year old models are no solution either.
Why, for example, has there to be a secretary of state? Or defense? It's not one person who decides things on their own anyway, so why do you need one person?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 22, 2008 01:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
del_diablo:
Quote:
Why? And how much is it? And how exactly is this money used?
Why? Are you seriously asking me why people want more money? So they can buy more stuff, of course. How much? However much they'll recommend - which is why it isn't a good idea to ask them. And this money would presumably be used to pay for an increase in teachers' retirement benefits.
Its not a good awser. So i am just going to further copying you and ask for a better reason.
When you asked me for: "How to calculate that", the awser is obiusly: "How its calculated". Why does mass attract mass? Its simply like that. There is usually no points unless your in a seat or a position allowing a suggestion how its calculated to be listeded to by the people who in the end must decide it.
Quote:
Why?
Because they don't know anything about the problem, and, even if they do, wouldn't know much about the solution.
Again, why? There is always the chance of somebody actually got some knowledge or the situation allows it to be adapted in 10 rapid minuttes.
Ever heard about the "how to verify what a doctor tells you is true"-test? Its simple, you ask 3 independent doctors who have no contact to each other beyond the fact that they might go to the same giantic doctor meetings and courses. For each doctor you add into the calculation, the higher chance of the minority to be wrong. Because it works that way.
Quote:
And, for most things, it's hard to find people who won't have some kind of conflict of interest. For example, how would the Secretary of State be appointed? Nearly everyone who is qualified also has some kind of investments that would be affected by foreign policy. Same problem with Defense, as well as similar problems with many others.
3 people to sit in 1 position could always be done. And once its done its done. People doing a really bad job should always have the chance of losing it ya know. Since there may or may not be elections that means dynamic position chance would likely be the best. If you are discovered corrupt you are kickedo ut on the minute. There would also need to be some kind of "anti-corruption" measures because its a small need.
Another way to stop it is to do like the antic greeks: Everything that can be tampered with and are lead by a group of people are publicly posted so anybody may question it.
____________
|
| |
|
|
