EPTremove this garbage from TL pls.
The Free World Charter - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ottoxlol
735 Posts
remove this garbage from TL pls. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:05 Wrongspeedy wrote: People shouldn't have to worry about what food they are going to eat everyday (with some exceptions, like the quality of said food). People shouldn't have to worry about where they will sleep at night. People should care as much about other people as they do themselves. I don't think we were every reach a point where all those things happen in this world. But I'm open to look at some new ideas and revisit some old ones. Its a simple solution to a very complicated issue it seems. I don't know how you motivate people to improve the world in anyway better than what we have now :S People are motivated to improve their own lives, when you throw in the whole world is what complicates it. Look, I like equality as much as the next guy, but whats so complicated about taking responsability for your current situation ? The government is far too corrupt/incompetent to be worthy of this responsability We shouldnt want a magical solution that will fix the world, because there isnt one. Lets just do what we do, keep working, things never stop getting better, I know that many peoples lifes would be better here in Brazil if the government had no such pretensions. | ||
|
rackdude
United States882 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:12 Ottoxlol wrote: please look up what communism did to the world. remove this garbage from TL pls. Show me a country that was ever communist. Lol, that is the paradox (if you don't get it, read about communism and you will find out why if you ever name a communist state you just named a state that wasn't communist). | ||
|
sc14s
United States5052 Posts
| ||
|
Mekrah
Sweden9 Posts
This doesn't work on so many levels there is no point in arguing against this. | ||
|
Goozen
Israel701 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:10 Prog455 wrote: There is more than enough resources on this planet to satisfy everyone, if people were willing to live in moderation. Define "moderation", as you have a pc you are in the top-5%. Are you willing to have a tenth of what you currently own? This is basiclly a idea that look good untill you have to go in to any form of depth. Sort of like "if we were to all get along the wold will be a better place". | ||
|
Valor55
United States11 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:12 Ottoxlol wrote: please look up what communism did to the world. remove this garbage from TL pls. I encourage anyone who believes that this is genuinely a good idea to sit in on an economics class. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:11 Chillax wrote: Its a noble enough idea, but this isnt Star Trek. Humanity hasnt reached a point where they have a common goal to strive for together. I fucking hated that they didn't have money in Star Trek. More unrealistic than warp drive. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On May 05 2012 06:45 Jopz wrote: To clarify a bit, the problem with a society where you expect EVERYONE to get the same things, and expect EVERYONE to do the same amount of work, not even going into the problem of how to determine what people get, and how to determine what amount of work to expect out of people in return, is that people are not the same. Everyone, and I think this is a universal truth/assumption that need not be questioned, including dAPhREak and you as you and he just illustrated in your back and forth in this thread, have differing ideas of what you want in life, and how much you want to work and play. The problem is that people refuse to accept the extent to which they ARE the same because of an irrational feeling that it somehow infringes on their individuality. The fact is that our needs are largely defined by the nature of the species we all belong to. Relative to that, our personality sets us apart by so little that it's actually borderline insignificant. My favorite example to use is sex. In a thread not a long time ago, I stated the (fairly obvious, and well researched) fact that everyone has a need to have sex - I didn't even specify how much or how often, I just said that everybody needs it. And one of the posters got so annoyed by that claim that he ragequit the debate by saying something roughly equivalent to "waaah you think you know everything about me how dare you claim you know I need to have sex you don't know shit". But I don't need to know anything about anyone to know that they do need sex. If somebody claims they don't, it doesn't mean they're really different - it only means they do not understand how their own body functions due to incomplete education or for whatever ideological convictions actively refuse to accept it. Likewise, people have a need to solve problems, accomplish things, earn respect of others, make their mark on the society. All these things lead towards affinity for work, not rejection of it. So yes, if someone actually claims they want to spend their life sitting at home and playing video games (while having a fair opportunity to do something else more meaningful, beneficial and productive), they are either wrong about themselves and do not understand their own motivation, or, for whatever reason, choose to hide/deny it. Ultimately, we still want the same things. More on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs On May 05 2012 06:45 Jopz wrote: Enforcing a system where everyone gets the same things they may or may not necessarily want, and forcing them to work at a level they may or may not enjoy, will always by its nature result in differing levels of satisfaction, stemming directly from the fact that people are not all the same. Every social system in the history of civilizations has forced people to work at a level they do not enjoy. It doesn't matter that you create an artificial overlay economic structure that introduces specific parameters - you're still being forced to work under pressure and in excessively hostile environments even today. On May 05 2012 06:45 Jopz wrote: In most first world countries, you have a minimum level of support to prop you up in the case of bad or lean times or when you can't work any more in the form of social safety nets such as Social Security, food banks, health insurance, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc.. I'm not asking for much more than that, actually (except that in most first world countries, that minimum level of support is also unsatisfactory). I didn't write the charter from the OP - although I also don't think it's mutually exclusive with what you consider to be reasonable in that regard. You can have the exact same system you have today without money as we know it now - people still getting the things that they earn, exchanging their labor for the things they want, no fundamental changes. However, money is a lot more than an exchange currency today. Industries that have developed "around" the concept of manipulating the economic system to further their interests are what creates the actual problems people have in their day-to-day lives. You can tell everything about the society by estimating where the power in the society lies. In a healthy (democratic) society, that power is distributed evenly among the population, so that they can run and change the society as they collectively see fit. Our society is problematic because we have once again allowed it to degenerate into an environment where power and status is measured exclusively by wealth. Since this is a fairly repetitive issue, an abolition of the problematic system poses itself as a solution that should at least be considered and carefully examined. That does not go to say that everyone will get the equal amount of stuff in an alternative society, or that the wealth is distributed perfectly evenly. It just requires the power to be distributed evenly. Ultimately, if the people wish to retain a structure where they're being rewarded for how much they work (which I would personally be in favor of), there is no reason for that not to remain the case. | ||
|
Mr. Black
United States470 Posts
"Freeworld" or "Pure Communism" isn't going to be doing cool and stupid stuff like trying to mine asteroids--if everything is free, there is no motivation to do anything new. Greed motivates a bunch of horrible stuff, but it also motivates most of the stuff you like. I'm not saying the status quo is fair or just, but I'm sure there is a better argument for a "Freeworld" than Planetary Resources. | ||
|
MercilessMonkey
Canada150 Posts
| ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:18 rackdude wrote: Show me a country that was ever communist. Lol, that is the paradox (if you don't get it, read about communism and you will find out why if you ever name a communist state you just named a state that wasn't communist). The true paradox is that the natural consequences of communism never actually look like the dreams people envisioned, and so people always claim that communism never exists when actually the problems they see are the true face of communism. In other words, it's an idea which does not and never will have any basis in reality, and so you can never have physical evidence against it. Much like religion, in a way. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:36 liberal wrote: The true paradox is that the natural consequences of communism never actually look like the dreams people envisioned, and so people always claim that communism never exists when actually the problems they see are the true face of communism. In other words, it's an idea which does not and never will have any basis in reality, and so you can never have physical evidence against it. Much like religion, in a way. ...or capitalism. Much like people complain today that having a government is the source of all problems, and if we really had a real free market without nasty regulation getting involved, everything would be swell. This way we only have a half solution and it's not capitalism's fault that it blows now. Plus an obligatory mention of Austria somewhere in there. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:18 rackdude wrote: Show me a country that was ever communist. Lol, that is the paradox (if you don't get it, read about communism and you will find out why if you ever name a communist state you just named a state that wasn't communist). You won't find a country that was ever 'truly' communist, sure, because converting an entire country to it is massively problematic (there's a point in that, too). You can find smaller examples of various concepts applied (communes, removal of the market, etc) and look at their consequences. You can also look at what happened economically when said communes were removed. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:43 Dfgj wrote: You won't find a country that was ever 'truly' communist, sure, because converting an entire country to it is massively problematic (there's a point in that, too). You can find smaller examples of various concepts applied (communes, removal of the market, etc) and look at their consequences. You can also look at what happened economically when said communes were removed. This kind of argumentation reminds me of people who look at TLPD to determine how good a Starcraft (2) player is right now -- extremely painful to read as they're prepared to discard any notion of historical context by remarking that numbers tell the whole story. There was no country that was truly communist because 1) Communistic ideology has historically been used as a tool to overthrow previous forms of government, assume power and retain control. It has been chosen because it is the most appealing ideology to masses of people who lead a miserable and hopeless lives (majority of population in pre-revolution Russia, for example), so it was basically about tricking people into supporting the newly established ruling class. The subsequent economic reality was then a result of the current geopolitical layout. 2) Civilization has not yet matured to such a degree, nor has it faced serious enough problems that would make people prefer a cooperative, rather than a competitive society. In a competitive society, a lot of energy and effort is being effectively wasted among people and factions competing between each other, and those defeated often become a burden on the society mostly unwilling to support them properly. At some point in the future, being this directionless and wasteful with human resources (or every other kind of resources) will no longer be an option. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:36 liberal wrote: The true paradox is that the natural consequences of communism never actually look like the dreams people envisioned, and so people always claim that communism never exists when actually the problems they see are the true face of communism. In other words, it's an idea which does not and never will have any basis in reality, and so you can never have physical evidence against it. Much like religion, in a way. A lot of communists are basically the same in what they want as Mises followers and other anarcho-capitalists. They all want destruction of the state, that is why finding communist state was given as an example of contradiction. The only thing they differ is what they think will happen after state is removed. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:42 Talin wrote: ...or capitalism. Much like people complain today that having a government is the source of all problems, and if we really had a real free market without nasty regulation getting involved, everything would be swell. This way we only have a half solution and it's not capitalism's fault that it blows now. Plus an obligatory mention of Austria somewhere in there. There are three differences. First, that it is difficult to make an argument that a continually expanding government bureaucracy is somehow predicated by the capitalist system. Capitalism is an economic system, and although communism may be considered economic it has far more to do with politics, and so the distinction and conclusions with regard to government actions are much more predictable. Second, capitalism has indeed had the predicted consequences, as far as raising the standard of living for the average citizen in largely free nations. Capitalism does indeed have flaws, but you have to put those flaws in context with the vast amount of progress and growth in wealth, technology, health, etc. that have been wrought as a consequence of the market system. I cannot name the advantages that attempts in communism have created anywhere. Attempts have always led to poverty, repression, and in some cases mass deaths. Perhaps we could point to the advantages of the welfare capitalism in much of Europe, but in either case the economy is still largely run on the price mechanism and not on bureaucratic distribution. Third, the idea of communism as people seem to advocate it has never existed anywhere and never will exist. When people call for less economic regulation, they can actually point backwards to a time when a more free market did in fact exist, and so it's not some far-fetched utopian argument, unless you are debating anarcho-capitalists or something. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:58 Talin wrote: This kind of argumentation reminds me of people who look at TLPD to determine how good a Starcraft (2) player is right now -- extremely painful to read as they're prepared to discard any notion of historical context by remarking that numbers tell the whole story. There was no country that was truly communist because 1) Communistic ideology has historically been used as a tool to overthrow previous forms of government, assume power and retain control. It has been chosen because it is the most appealing ideology to masses of people who lead a miserable and hopeless lives (majority of population in pre-revolution Russia, for example), so it was basically about tricking people into supporting the newly established ruling class. The subsequent economic reality was then a result of the current geopolitical layout. 2) Civilization has not yet matured to such a degree, nor has it faced serious enough problems that would make people prefer a cooperative, rather than a competitive society. In a competitive society, a lot of energy and effort is being effectively wasted among people and factions competing between each other, and those defeated often become a burden on the society mostly unwilling to support them properly. At some point in the future, being this directionless and wasteful with human resources (or every other kind of resources) will no longer be an option. Can't the same be said for Democracy? | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:57 DeepElemBlues wrote: No, that is correct. It's basic economics and it has shown itself true over and over again. You want to create more wealth overall, you remove government from the economy as much as possible. It is impossible for first world countries to achieve that dream which is why none of them are actually trying to as they did over the last ~50 years. There is no evidence that any of them are doing it right now. You have an inflated and counterfactual sense of how successful Europe has been at the 'social democracy' game, sorry but there is and always was an underclass that social welfare has failed to uplift out of generational poverty. No country is advocating a total reversion to the 1970s-1990s style of heavy and ever-expanding social welfare or the extreme of a planned economy, Soviet-style or not. Not even Hollande is advocating to just turn the clock back. No European communist state was ever able to do it quite well or even barely, you're simply ignorant of how awful the state of material and social equality or even sufficiency in European communist states was if you actually believe that. And sadly, no. There has never been a 'more "pure"' capitalist society. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist or a libertarian but if you actually study capitalism it has always been the 'mixed' system. Laissez-faire has never actually been tried, not that it would be successful to a degree justifying staying on that path. But it wouldn't be the blood-soaked starvation ideology-over-results clusterfuck that Communism was. You said that society where basic necessities are unconditionally provided is impossible dream. In all first world European countries citizens have that guaranteed. So how was that never achieved ? I have no idea what you imagine by basic necessities, but what I understand under that term is guaranteed in many countries. As for not knowing about how it was in communist states ? Did you notice where I am from ? And I was alive long before communism fell. Please tell me how horrible it was, because I did not see it first hand. Again, your basic necessitites were basically guaranteed. I always find it funny when Americans are telling me how terrible it was living in my own country. And I know there were no pure Laissez-faire societies as they are as realistic an idea as communism (the original one, not the statist one). But there are degrees, and those that go the middle road fare better in the task of guaranteeing basic necessities than either extreme. | ||
|
OneThreeOne
Norway86 Posts
If we can get: Unlimited Renewable Energy, Unlimited Food/Water supply, Renewable Building Resources, then this could possibly be a reality. | ||
| ||
