Anything that has a chance of increasing survival rates in t

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Digestor
Journeyman
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Huh

Post by Digestor »

Yeah - I'm no fan of Capitalism and am closer to Frank's side, but even if I were to simply "play ball" with the current flow - this system blows.

Hell, it's not even full capitalism... (can I get that 20% of my earnings back please? no? Well can you at least cover my medical bills? No? What about free schooling? Not entirely? Uhhh... oh! How about a good public transport system? No? Okay, uhhhh maybe... make the movie theatre free? No... right... so... what can I get? Oh... you're going to clean the sidewalks... once every year... cool... uhhh 'sept my neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks... yeah, 5 feet away from me they do, apparently that's the city limit... oh, so that means you'll build sidewalks right? no? Kay... I'll just go back in my hole then, holla at me when Jesus gets here.)
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Anything that has a chance of increasing survival rates

Post by User3 »

Poking my head back in one last time to clarify my last post. No one was insulted. That quote "some jew" was Marx, who Endovior called a fool who didn't understand capitalism. The quote was supposed to be a prescient one, and by insulting Marx (whom I obviously respect) I was mocking Endovior. Just get rid of it if nobody understood it, please. I can't stand the thought of being misunderstood publicly.

I also want to say how incredibly awesome you guys are. This thread went exactly where I hoped it would. I think some misconceptions about commies have been cleared up.

I really can't believe how many decent people there are here. I've never met anyone in real life with the half the brain (maybe I should say knowledge) most of you guys have. Of course, being an anonymous coward, I don't get out much.
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Huh

Post by Draco_Argentum »

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1172094424[/unixtime]]People want personal gain, people want to build their own legacies, people want their own personal happiness. People generally don't give that much of a fvck about what happens to others they don't know.


Yeah, which is rather the point. I'd place the majority of people as assjacks or disinterested. The key to making the best possible society is arranging for helping yourself and helping society to be the same thing.

Capitalism is about the opposite.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Huh

Post by RandomCasualty »

Draco_Argentum at [unixtime wrote:1172133935[/unixtime]]
Yeah, which is rather the point. I'd place the majority of people as assjacks or disinterested. The key to making the best possible society is arranging for helping yourself and helping society to be the same thing.

Capitalism is about the opposite.


Well, the problem is that helping society and helping yourself are often opposing goals. There are granted some situations where they are one and the same, like putting out fires or capturing criminals to keep crime down, but in an economic sense "helping society" means less stuff for you, and more stuff for everyone else.

And that doesn't generally work as a valid goal for people, because they feel like they're pulling everyone else's weight. And nobody really wants to feel that way.

Now I'm not saying the current capitalist system is anywhere near perfect, but really, most of the problems directed at capitalism are really problems with the US government. The fact that rich people can bribe and lobby for laws is a government problem, not a problem because you have rich people.

Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Huh

Post by Draco_Argentum »

And thats caused by a poor setup.

For example: at work I can tell people they have to do stuff so I can fix up their holiday time. They do it cause if they don't, no holiday.

OTOH when I want to delete a duplicate folder that they aren't using you can't leave it up to them to okay it. Doing that means they never get around to it because nothing bad happens if they ignore me.

To get it done I give a date on which it will be deleted and they have to tell me to stop. That way I get my job done and if it actually is important they have the motivation to bother telling me.
Catharz
Knight-Baron
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Huh

Post by Catharz »

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1172153809[/unixtime]]...in an economic sense "helping society" means less stuff for you, and more stuff for everyone else.

That's only if you're the only one "helping society". If we go to the maximum case of everyone doing everything for themselves, we have nothing. You actually need a form of slavery for "doing stuff only for yourself" to work, because otherwise you can't get anybody else to do anything for you.

So, to make yor society work, you have to make an underclass. It can be women, it can be "black" people, it can be "white" people, it can be Christians, it can be people who happen to be born in an arbitrary underclass but with no non-economic distinguishing features (in the USA we do it in combo).

And for the underclass, doing "what's best for them" is doing what you tell them to do, because otherwise you fuck them over. And in the end, the upper class has to make a collaborative, altruistic effort to keep the under class down. They don't have to be absolutist about it, but they do have to work together to enforce it.

Guess what? That's not a 'free market' by a long shot.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Huh

Post by RandomCasualty »

Catharz at [unixtime wrote:1172255667[/unixtime]]
That's only if you're the only one "helping society". If we go to the maximum case of everyone doing everything for themselves, we have nothing. You actually need a form of slavery for "doing stuff only for yourself" to work, because otherwise you can't get anybody else to do anything for you.

But you don't want people doing everything for themselves, it's inefficient and promotes a lack of an economy. So one guy makes cars, another one bottles water and so on, and then they trade. The fact that people can get rich from these trades isn't necessarily a bad thing.



So, to make yor society work, you have to make an underclass. It can be women, it can be "black" people, it can be "white" people, it can be Christians, it can be people who happen to be born in an arbitrary underclass but with no non-economic distinguishing features (in the USA we do it in combo).

Well, no you don't necessarily want a caste system. Racism is bad because it eliminates hope for that particular group. The idea is that everyone should have hope that they could potentially get to the top, this is what keeps them working. Hope is a great motivator and something you always want to stress in your economy. It's the reason that so many people play the lottery or buy scratch tickets. You always hope that you can get lucky at some point and make it big. Take away the hope for more and your work will suffer.

Talented people will naturally rise to the top of course, or so you'd expect.

Now, you're not going to eliminate the fact that some people are born into wealth and others to poverty, and yeah the poor people are going to have to work twice as hard. That's just life. But if we have a decent public education system, then we can at least ensure that the poor have a chance, even if they are at a disadvantage.


And for the underclass, doing "what's best for them" is doing what you tell them to do, because otherwise you fvck them over. And in the end, the upper class has to make a collaborative, altruistic effort to keep the under class down. They don't have to be absolutist about it, but they do have to work together to enforce it.


If by keeping down you mean pay people minimal amounts, then yes, the upper class does make some effort to maximize their own profits, but that's to be expected.

Now if you want to call being a minimum wage worker being a slave, then so be it, but I think they're different because there's a possibility of hope.
Neeek
Knight-Baron
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Huh

Post by Neeek »

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1172592970[/unixtime]]

Talented people will naturally rise to the top of course, or so you'd expect.


No, unethical people will naturally rise to the top. That's what always happens when you base your economy on greed.
Catharz
Knight-Baron
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Huh

Post by Catharz »

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1172592970[/unixtime]]
Catharz at [unixtime wrote:1172255667[/unixtime]]
That's only if you're the only one "helping society". If we go to the maximum case of everyone doing everything for themselves, we have nothing. You actually need a form of slavery for "doing stuff only for yourself" to work, because otherwise you can't get anybody else to do anything for you.

But you don't want people doing everything for themselves, it's inefficient and promotes a lack of an economy. So one guy makes cars, another one bottles water and so on, and then they trade. The fact that people can get rich from these trades isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Damn' right you don't want doing everything for themselves. But once you start making something useful, the guys who spend all their time making weapons will come and take it away. If you want to maximize your wealth, you do nothing but make weapons and use those weapons to control other people.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1172592970[/unixtime]]

So, to make yor society work, you have to make an underclass. It can be women, it can be "black" people, it can be "white" people, it can be Christians, it can be people who happen to be born in an arbitrary underclass but with no non-economic distinguishing features (in the USA we do it in combo).

Well, no you don't necessarily want a caste system. Racism is bad because it eliminates hope for that particular group. The idea is that everyone should have hope that they could potentially get to the top, this is what keeps them working. Hope is a great motivator and something you always want to stress in your economy. It's the reason that so many people play the lottery or buy scratch tickets. You always hope that you can get lucky at some point and make it big. Take away the hope for more and your work will suffer.

That's it exactly, you give out lottery tickets. Because people demostratably don't understand percentages and probablility, you can generate a system in which your poorest pay you to randomly make one of them out of 200 million fabulously wealthy. And they'll keep hoping.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1172592970[/unixtime]]Talented people will naturally rise to the top of course, or so you'd expect.

Yes, that's what you'd expect if you didn't realize that it is always in the best interests of those on top to make sure that other talented people fail. You want the whole pie, and that basically means that you want to get rid of anyone as smart as or smarter than yourself.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1172592970[/unixtime]]Now, you're not going to eliminate the fact that some people are born into wealth and others to poverty, and yeah the poor people are going to have to work twice as hard. That's just life. But if we have a decent public education system, then we can at least ensure that the poor have a chance, even if they are at a disadvantage.

A decent public education system is for socialists. You could be paying to educate future competitors! No, what you create is a private education system where people are indoctrinated into your company at a young age and selectively taught. You sift out and carefully train the more teachable ones for technical jobs, and try to keep them content. You sift out the less teachable ones for grunt labor. You sift out the true geniuses and do your best to control and use them, or kill them if you can't.

Think The Church in the middle ages.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1172592970[/unixtime]]

And for the underclass, doing "what's best for them" is doing what you tell them to do, because otherwise you fvck them over. And in the end, the upper class has to make a collaborative, altruistic effort to keep the under class down. They don't have to be absolutist about it, but they do have to work together to enforce it.


If by keeping down you mean pay people minimal amounts, then yes, the upper class does make some effort to maximize their own profits, but that's to be expected.

Now if you want to call being a minimum wage worker being a slave, then so be it, but I think they're different because there's a possibility of hope.

That's a damn' slim possibility, RC. There's a reason so many people working minimum-wage jobs seem hopeless. Even a better paying job can seem soul-crushing when you don't have any control over it.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Huh

Post by Username17 »

Neeek at [unixtime wrote:1172598452[/unixtime]]
RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1172592970[/unixtime]]

Talented people will naturally rise to the top of course, or so you'd expect.


No, unethical people will naturally rise to the top. That's what always happens when you base your economy on greed.


Even that's an oversimplification. The children of unethical people will naturally rise to the top because of inheritance. Behind every great fortune is a great crime, but noone holds it against Ted Kenedy that he has the big bucks because his grandfather smuggled booze for the Irish mob. Noone holds it against George W. that he's wealthy because his grandfather sold engine parts to Germany in 1944.

That's why "old money" is so fvcking smug all the time - they get all the benefits of the crimes but they didn't have to actually do any of them. The statute of limitations is always at most one generation. Once you've gotten away with it long enough you've gotten away with it forever.

-Username17
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Huh

Post by RandomCasualty »

Catharz at [unixtime wrote:1172604021[/unixtime]]
A decent public education system is for socialists. You could be paying to educate future competitors! No, what you create is a private education system where people are indoctrinated into your company at a young age and selectively taught. You sift out and carefully train the more teachable ones for technical jobs, and try to keep them content. You sift out the less teachable ones for grunt labor. You sift out the true geniuses and do your best to control and use them, or kill them if you can't.


Well, right. Like I said before, going full capitalism isn't the answer. The Government definitely needs to step in and try to ensure that the world doesn't become Shadowrun style megacorporations. I'm not in favor of just letting the corps do their thing and take over the world. But on the other side of the coin, I don't think it's possible to just eliminate profit and personal gain as a goal. That would entail changing human nature at its core.

We'd rather have a chance of winning than no winners at all.
Digestor
Journeyman
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Huh

Post by Digestor »

Heh, neither side really wants to relent and at this point you guys are just going back in circles. Really, RC, you're viewing the overly negative traits of socialism and basically dismissing any possibilities at success. You're more or less saying all rolls of the d20 are landing on 5 or less, and thus you're better off sticking with the current system which is averaging 7.

But hey, conservatism isn't known for championing change so I don't actually blame you for any of that - though I do think you guys are wasting time.

Holla back now.
Post Reply