|
| Thread: Why is socialism so prevalent in online communities? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted March 06, 2009 05:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Passion?
Oh I just found my new passion! I just love working for the motherland, bak!
On a different note,
Military property is something I personally would ban as civilian property for the simple reason that guns serve only one purpose. This purpose is killing a live human being. But this is a political idea more than an economic one. (Yes, I'm a leftish pacifist, but I like to read mvass' ideas more than those of Death/ Deadman.)
And, TheDeath, may I ask you: what is inherently wrong with competition?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 06, 2009 06:29 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:30, 06 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
Then you should be able to have the nuke - under some kind of supervision, of course.
That's an invasion of privacy!  Quote:
Socialism takes away incentives to work. Therefore productivity drops, and the average person is made worse off.
Yeah. It also takes away competition. 2 parties don't have to invent the same stuff just because they are kept as a "trading" secret.
Quote:
There's absolutely nothing hypocritical here.
Oh, you know how that sounds?
Guy A takes away all he wants, but in return, he doesn't allow others to take what he thinks or says that its his. Maybe he encounters some dude who claims that he already stole his "land" (let's say Antarctica).
Put it simple, you don't want others (e.g: the government) to take away your property when you already took it yourself? So this is not hypocrisy?
Quote:
this is counterproductive to the advancements of societies. if we were all content with what we had there would be no progress.
Well the PEOPLE who make up the SOCIETY don't seem to mind, or else they would be productive. If they don't mind, what's your problem? Society is not YOURS to define what it should do, it is made up by people. Unless, of course, you're a communist
@Dagoth: see above with the competition thing.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 06, 2009 11:07 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Quote:
He bought it! Now leave the guy alone since it was paid for.
With most things, that would be the case. However, a nuke has insane potential for abuse.
Quote:
I got a question, would you approve an univerals gun ban and stop of production(museums are allowed to keep copy's since its history)?
It's an appealing idea... but probably not.
Quote:
Socialisme only takes away the lust for money
Socialism doesn't take away our desire to have a better life - just the means of achieving one.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Yeah. It also takes away competition. 2 parties don't have to invent the same stuff just because they are kept as a "trading" secret.
If they couldn't keep it as a patent, then neither of them would invent it in the first place. (And the really radical capitalists are against patents anyway.  )
Quote:
Guy A takes away all he wants, but in return, he doesn't allow others to take what he thinks or says that its his.
No, not at all. Society recognizes that these things are his.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 07, 2009 12:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
quote]With most things, that would be the case. However, a nuke has insane potential for abuse.
What if i bought the ingrediens used for the common bomb instead?
Quote:
It's an appealing idea... but probably not.
Question: Why not? Because it would ruin the sale of weapons?
Quote:
Socialism doesn't take away our desire to have a better life - just the means of achieving one.
When did i claim that? I only claimed people would not work for money, and thus prashed greed ---> money. People would still experiment and attempt to create stuff. We are humans, making a mess trying to create someting new is a part of us. We are trying all the time to get outside the box. As far as i understand Einstein would have published his teori in a socialist society as he did in our timeline(based on the information i got on him).
Quote:
If they couldn't keep it as a patent, then neither of them would invent it in the first place. (And the really radical capitalists are against patents anyway. )
Again: F[L]OSS(Free [Licensed] Open Source Software)
Technology did not evolve until we really reached a good point of reverse enginering and sharing of schematics. Games would still be made, debats would still happen. Society would still evolve. However it would be different.
A note, i don't think a socilistic society would work if it was closed. It needs to be open, everybody needs to be able to look at the schematics and the information would need to flow like a river to everybody who wants a peek.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2009 01:34 PM |
|
|
This is the only forum which I have been on which discusses stupid socialism (what a stupid name, I hate it, is there "Lonelyism Politics" too?) which I dont even understand.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 07, 2009 01:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
which I dont even understand.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 07, 2009 06:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, not at all. Society recognizes that these things are his.
I don't because it's hypocritical. That's like saying "society recognizes that all things belong to father Stalin!"... seriously. Should I just shake it off?
As for competition I'll ask you few things:
1) A factory. What layout is more efficient: machines that compete with each other, or machines that cooperate extremely well with each other?
2) Any agency (such as NASA). Would it benefit if it split up due to competition? Why doesn't it?
NASA doesn't really work as it's public, but replace it with a private one.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2009 08:03 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Quote:
What if i bought the ingrediens used for the common bomb instead?
Some components you would be able to buy without any trouble. Other components (such as uranium/plutonium) would be different, for obvious reasons.
Quote:
Question: Why not? Because it would ruin the sale of weapons?
No, because the costs would outweigh the benefits.
Quote:
People would still experiment and attempt to create stuff.
We would have relatively little incentive to do so.
Quote:
Again: F[L]OSS(Free [Licensed] Open Source Software)
You can't farm or build equipment (or even produce reliable software) on those principles, though.
TheDeath:
Last time I checked, you are not society.
As for your examples, on some scales, cooperation is better, while competition is better on others. In fact, often the best system is cooperative competition - groups of cooperating people competing against each other. For example, if Microsoft and Apple would merge, you don't think that they'd be able to come up with something better than their individual products, do you?
As for NASA, it's probably better to get rid of it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 07, 2009 08:14 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:15, 07 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
Last time I checked, you are not society.
I'm not sure what that means. If you say I have no power, you're right of course, and asking any Soviet will tell you the same thing.
How does that work FOR free capitalism (not, let's say, fascism)? It is against it. Sure, all the property was Stalin's too you know. I'm comparing it to that. Most people didn't "respect" that but they were forced to. SAME THING here -- I do not respect some people's properties (you know who you are, you arrogant multi-millionaire jerks!), but I am forced to by the "system".
So question is, why should the government respect YOUR property, since the government = society. Last time I checked, you weren't society either
This is the question that transcends to extreme socialism/communism and by what you've said above you cannot answer it.
Quote:
For example, if Microsoft and Apple would merge, you don't think that they'd be able to come up with something better than their individual products, do you?
I think they will, and we'll get rid of different platforms and compatibility once and for all too.
Quote:
As for NASA, it's probably better to get rid of it.
You wouldn't have the internet without government funding.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 07, 2009 10:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, because the costs would outweigh the benefits.
Pardon my ignorance but what costs? I don't think the people making a living on producing guns are a part of that calculation.
Quote:
We would have relatively little incentive to do so.
Why would it be less? It would only be less in your way of thinking.
Quote:
You can't farm or build equipment (or even produce reliable software) on those principles, though.
Unless that smiley is heavly sarcastic, source please.
Quote:
As for your examples, on some scales, cooperation is better, while competition is better on others. In fact, often the best system is cooperative competition - groups of cooperating people competing against each other. For example, if Microsoft and Apple would merge, you don't think that they'd be able to come up with something better than their individual products, do you?
Competition means 2 or more disagrees or tries to come up with different solutions.
Lets start with someting easy to understand: If we DID become a 100% pureblooded socialist country, people would still disagree and compete. Groups would still think they could provide better solutions than the other part. However NOBODY would want to claim that they are better unless they really are superior(nothing to earn on it really).
I think a good example is Microsofts servers, they are markeded as: "Just as safe as a Redhat server". The problem with this statement is that its a pure lie.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 12:36 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Most people didn't "respect" that but they were forced to. SAME THING here -- I do not respect some people's properties (you know who you are, you arrogant multi-millionaire jerks!), but I am forced to by the "system".
I think if you polled most people, you'd find that they support property rights. So...
And the government isn't society. The government is a tool created by society to serve it.
Quote:
I think they will, and we'll get rid of different platforms and compatibility once and for all too.
And rainbows will come out of the sky and everyone will sing Kumbaya in a circle while candy falls out of the clouds, right? Get serious. If they merged, their combined product would suck beyond all imagination - as they would have relatively limited competition (except from Linux) for quite a while, so they wouldn't have to create a good one.
Quote:
You wouldn't have the internet without government funding.
You're right, we'd probably have something much better. If the government takes everyone's money and builds a giant tower of cheese, you'd be able to say that without government, there wouldn't be a giant tower of cheese. But who's to say that a giant tower of cheese is the best possible allocation of resources?
del_diablo:
Quote:
Pardon my ignorance but what costs? I don't think the people making a living on producing guns are a part of that calculation.
And why not? They're just as much of people as anybody else. You don't stop being a normal human being just because you work in arms manufacturing. And besides that, guns can be useful in self-defense.
Quote:
Why would it be less? It would only be less in your way of thinking.
Because then the only incentive one would have would be the pleasure/happiness from the job. But what if the job doesn't produce enough pleasure/happiness if there is no pay? Then no one would do it. And that wouldn't be good.
Quote:
Unless that smiley is heavly sarcastic, source please.
Think about it. Not all jobs are pleasant or desirable. How many people would be janitors or trash collectors without the monetary incentive? Or even farmers?
Quote:
Competition means 2 or more disagrees or tries to come up with different solutions.
"These shovels suck. But what can I do about it? I'm just a farmer."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 03:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And why not? They're just as much of people as anybody else. You don't stop being a normal human being just because you work in arms manufacturing.
Yeah, but you help the violence. If you sell a large shipment of guns somewhere, you are also directly guilty of indirect murder. If you give guns to an army you are indirectly responsibel for the abuse of them. You could say: "If i don't sell it, someboby else would." But then again that is a false argument, everybody could go around like that. Heck i could do this: "If i did not kill him, somebody else would have.". Random person: "Would you trade the salvation of a nation over 3 peoples lifes? I would."
Creating art is a completely, have you ever been with a class of gun makers? I have.
Quote:
And besides that, guns can be useful in self-defense.
Why DO we even need guns? We got the police and rangers for self defence, they do it for us.
Sorry but i cannot understand why there is countrys that permit to carry firearms. Firearms is got a pure purpose of killing and harming, they got NO other functions.
If you say its for self defence, so you would pull out your gun in every brawl you did not start. Then you say in court: "This country allows firearms for the purpose of self defence, so i just did what was allowed".
Quote:
Because then the only incentive one would have would be the pleasure/happiness from the job. But what if the job doesn't produce enough pleasure/happiness if there is no pay? Then no one would do it. And that wouldn't be good.
Argument: Why settle with the arveage job when you can make more money with another, face it. Your argument is exact as flawed as mine.
And besides, the best advice i tend to hear is: "Get a job you can live with".
Quote:
Think about it. Not all jobs are pleasant or desirable. How many people would be janitors or trash collectors without the monetary incentive? Or even farmers?
Oh please: "Why would i be a janitor when i could be a fabric worker with twice the wage?"
Or to put it another way, there would not be 1 exclusiv janitor job neither 1 exclusiv manager job either. It would not work.
Quote:
"These shovels suck. But what can I do about it? I'm just a farmer."
"Hmmm, they lack a proper handle, the material used is bad for the purpose. I guess my friend who got a small clue on materials can help me, i think i could do rest of the design myself."
To look at it another way: *creates a nuclear powerplant* *random bystander suddenly discovers a critical fault and reports it!*
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 05:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you sell a large shipment of guns somewhere, you are also directly guilty of indirect murder.
Nope, completely wrong. The guilty person is the one that pulls the trigger.
Quote:
Why DO we even need guns? We got the police and rangers for self defence, they do it for us.
Because when you're walking in a dark alleyway and somebody tries to kill you, you can quickly call the police and they'll come save you. Of course.[/sarcasm]
Quote:
Your argument is exact as flawed as mine.
Wait, what? You just- that- ... O_o
Quote:
"Why would i be a janitor when i could be a fabric worker with twice the wage?"
Maybe because there are no fabric weaver job openings, and all the people who are fabric weavers now are more productive than a janitor would be if he tried to do their job?
Quote:
"Hmmm, they lack a proper handle, the material used is bad for the purpose. I guess my friend who got a small clue on materials can help me, i think i could do rest of the design myself."
"Meanwhile, I'm not doing what I do best: farming. This causes food shortages and people somewhere end up standing in bread lines."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 06:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nope, completely wrong. The guilty person is the one that pulls the trigger.
We are not selling handcrafted weapons here, we are selling mass manifactured firearms with ammo.
A induvidual store salesman is however a different case, that person would also sell to hunters and people competing.
Quote:
Because when you're walking in a dark alleyway and somebody tries to kill you, you can quickly call the police and they'll come save you. Of course.[/sarcasm]
And how much better is it knowing that the gang that assaulted is using guns because they accuired them legal from the store?
And how much better for the police is it to knowing that the arveage petty smalltime robbers is running around with guns?
Quote:
Maybe because there are no fabric weaver job openings, and all the people who are fabric weavers now are more productive than a janitor would be if he tried to do their job?
If you put it like that, there would never be people replace at factory's since everybody has to learn the proffesion before they would be productive?
Quote:
"Meanwhile, I'm not doing what I do best: farming. This causes food shortages and people somewhere end up standing in bread lines."
Hmmm, what do you know of farming? Betwhen the mess of the animals and the sessonal harvesting, etc........ there exists spare time like in every other proffesion.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 07:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think if you polled most people, you'd find that they support property rights. So...
Yeah there's a term for that, it's called "Tyranny by majority" if I remember.
Quote:
And the government isn't society. The government is a tool created by society to serve it.
The government REPRESENTS the people/society, well at least it SHOULD.
What's society? You? Me?
Who ENFORCES me when I break someone's property? Doesn't the police, which is funded by the government? Otherwise, you know, I don't really care 500 wackos want to respect dude X's property, hell no I don't.
Quote:
And rainbows will come out of the sky and everyone will sing Kumbaya in a circle while candy falls out of the clouds, right? Get serious. If they merged, their combined product would suck beyond all imagination - as they would have relatively limited competition (except from Linux) for quite a while, so they wouldn't have to create a good one.
AMD bought ATI, it saw an increased capacity for AMD, as well as good integration of CPU with GPU -- but their problem is still that they didn't go yet to 45nm because only Intel & IBM did the research to change the transistor design (which wasn't changed in 50 years mind you).
Say again? What if AMD now gets merged with Intel? We'll get good GPU with CPU integration with 45nm and beyond! But they're stuck.
You get serious.
Quote:
You're right, we'd probably have something much better. If the government takes everyone's money and builds a giant tower of cheese, you'd be able to say that without government, there wouldn't be a giant tower of cheese. But who's to say that a giant tower of cheese is the best possible allocation of resources?
If that were the case mvass, others would have competed with the US government for the "internet" (mind you, at first it was just a "intra-web" designed to scatter information to minimize information loss in a nuclear attack).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 07:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah there's a term for that, it's called "Tyranny by majority" if I remember.
One second you don't care about the individual, the other you do this... Feel like making up your mind?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 07:21 PM |
|
|
What do you mean I don't care for the individual? I care for universal laws -- and practicing what you preach, which capitalism does not.
Capitalism works all well and good but it must previously have a "push", a "start" so to speak. It never addresses that. I don't have a problem with freedom of exchange at all -- I have a problem with "property" ESPECIALLY land or resources or other stuff like that.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 07:35 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Quote:
And how much better is it knowing that the gang that assaulted is using guns because they accuired them legal from the store?
And how much better for the police is it to knowing that the arveage petty smalltime robbers is running around with guns?
Gangs can get guns even when they're illegal. Just look at Russia. And the police is much better with guns than the average small-time robber is.
Quote:
If you put it like that, there would never be people replace at factory's since everybody has to learn the proffesion before they would be productive?
Sometimes there are job openings because of someone quitting, being fired, retiring, or dying. But textile manufacturing vs. janitor is a bad example, since they're both relatively low-skill jobs. A more accurate comparison would be brain surgeon vs. janitor.
Quote:
Betwhen the mess of the animals and the sessonal harvesting, etc........ there exists spare time like in every other proffesion.
That was an example. You're not getting my main point - people are more productive (and therefore richer) when they stick to doing stuff that they're most capable of doing. A farmer is more productive as a farmer than as a shovel manufacturer (if not, then why is he a farmer and not a shovel manufacturer?).
TheDeath:
For there to be tyranny of the majority, there has to be, you know, tyranny.
Quote:
What's society? You? Me?
The collective results of the decisions of every individual.
AMD and ATI were not competitors, but worked in parallel fields. If, say, Intel were to merge with NVIDIA, we would see a similar benefit. But, say, if ATI merged with NVIDIA or AMD merged with Intel, we would see a drop in quality.
Quote:
If that were the case mvass, others would have competed with the US government for the "internet"
Wait, what's this? Did you just say "competed"? No way! Seriously, though, if people wanted something like the Internet, then some private companies would have taken a risk and tried to build it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 08:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Gangs can get guns even when they're illegal. Just look at Russia. And the police is much better with guns than the average small-time robber is.
Gangs yeah, however look at a country with a gun ban. Where is the gangs aquiring the guns? Compared to the US atleast. They must have contacts so they can smuggle in the arms. In US its kind of more convinient to buy it in a store, and the fact you can walk around with it afterwards.
And the counter factor, the police. In a country with a gun ban the police is walking around with unarmed most of the time. In patrol cases they might have a batton attached to their belt but thats it, and they cannot go around with the guns unless the situation calls for it.
The police is suppose to take down criminals with authority and raw tecnices, not firepower. Firepower is for when some maniac grabs a shotgun, or the "gang" are having a "gangwar".
Quote:
Sometimes there are job openings because of someone quitting, being fired, retiring, or dying. But textile manufacturing vs. janitor is a bad example, since they're both relatively low-skill jobs. A more accurate comparison would be brain surgeon vs. janitor.
Education. Lets look at it another way, there would not exist a janitor job in a socialist society. People clean after themself on the work, or the janitor is also the supervisor or similar. The brain surgent would have a stressy job, so that induvidual would likely only be a surgent.
Quote:
That was an example. You're not getting my main point - people are more productive (and therefore richer) when they stick to doing stuff that they're most capable of doing. A farmer is more productive as a farmer than as a shovel manufacturer (if not, then why is he a farmer and not a shovel manufacturer?).
You forget what we are talking about, and what does discourage the farmer who knows people need his production from working hard when needed?
Or to put it another way, are you against that the farmer is reading books in his spare time? Not much of a difference.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 08, 2009 08:31 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:32, 08 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
For there to be tyranny of the majority, there has to be, you know, tyranny.
Oh, and I suppose that's not in your opinion?
Ok well a tyrant, you know... claims a lot of property to be his, land, etc... even people in some cases.
But in this case -- it's totally different right? I mean, the "tyrant" which is called the "majority" decides what should property be, what its price is, and stuff like that -- after all, the world did not BEGIN with such property, it wasn't created as a laws of physics at the Big Bang you know...
Quote:
AMD and ATI were not competitors, but worked in parallel fields. If, say, Intel were to merge with NVIDIA, we would see a similar benefit. But, say, if ATI merged with NVIDIA or AMD merged with Intel, we would see a drop in quality.
All I see are claims without proof.
Oh and Intel is competing with Nvidia, in case it matters...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
