ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Socialism

Report this
Created by: DUKAT!!!!

Mason330

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 8:04 pm

Well if your going to make a debate about a different political systems such as capitalism vs. socialism, which is a reality, use examples in the real world. 28 seasons and 11 movies still don't make something that is fiction a reality. If you notice the stories do use parallel's in reality to use as a backdrop for the morals the episodes & movies were trying to make.


And even though I am not someone's parent. I do understand the importance of teaching a child the difference beween working for somthing that is your's as opposed as something that is provided by government. Smaller Government = More Freedom.


Kirk out.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 9:33 pm

Well if your going to make a debate about a different political systems such as capitalism vs. socialism


Once again, capitalism and socialism are not political systems, they're economic systems.


And even though I am not someone's parent. I do understand the importance of teaching a child the difference beween working for somthing that is your's as opposed as something that is provided by government.


That's not the point. The point is people CHOOSE to be parents. They CHOOSE to work for no money. You wanted a real world example, there you go.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46335

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 8:06 am

Quote: Mason330 @ Feb. 09 2013, 5:43 pm

>

>Why would anyone not work for money? If you work for no pay that's called slavery.

>
Under a tyrannical society, that's true.  But in a free society where people have choices, one can volunteer and work for something they believe in without monetary compensation.  It just doesn't pay the bills.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 9:50 am

Under a tyrannical society, that's true.  But in a free society where people have choices, one can volunteer and work for something they believe in without monetary compensation.

Wow. Not only are you agreeing with me but you've basically just said the Founders set up a tyrannical society because the Constitution didn't do anything to end slavery.

Irina Galliulin

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 38

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 9:52 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 09 2013, 11:16 am

Quote: Irina Galliulin @ Feb. 09 2013, 6:10 am

>

>

>Socialism work perfect, had us replicators. Nobody starv or need job. No money, people like brothers, socialism be utopia.

>
hahahah

Okay - let's just say that there are replicators.  How does someone puchase one if they don't need a job?  How do these replicators get built if nobody is working?  Who's going to repair the replicators if nobody works?  Where is the power coming from if nobody works?  How are all of your other needs met if people no longer work?


1. People not purchase replicator, they aquire replicator free.


2. People build replicator themselfs. Since people not work, people have more time for education, therefore know how to build/repair stuff.


3. Power coming from solar panels on houses. (people know how build/repair those also, people learn it at school)


4. If schools teach people about building/repairing technology, people not need to purchase from other people, so no other needs need to be met.


Катя

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46335

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 11:20 am

Quote: Irina Galliulin @ Feb. 10 2013, 9:52 am

>1. People not purchase replicator, they aquire replicator free.
If they acquire it for "free"..... who's going to pay for it?  Someone has to pay the people who built them and obtained the materials and did the manufacturing of the parts....

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46335

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 11:21 am

Quote: Irina Galliulin @ Feb. 10 2013, 9:52 am

>2. People build replicator themselfs. Since people not work, people have more time for education, therefore know how to build/repair stuff.

>4. If schools teach people about building/repairing technology, people not need to purchase from other people, so no other needs need to be met.
And who's going to teach people?  Remember - you said nobody works, so that means no teachers, no schools, no technology....

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46335

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 11:23 am

Quote: Irina Galliulin @ Feb. 10 2013, 9:52 am

>3. Power coming from solar panels on houses. (people know how build/repair those also, people learn it at school)
And who's going to build the solar panels? Who's going to go out and get the matierials to build the solar panels?  What about obtaining the raw materials and processing them into the parts to build the panels?  If nobody works, then none of that gets done.

jcan1701

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 8:37 pm

Quote: Irina Galliulin @ Feb. 10 2013, 9:52 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 09 2013, 11:16 am

Quote: Irina Galliulin @ Feb. 09 2013, 6:10 am

>

>

>

>Socialism work perfect, had us replicators. Nobody starv or need job. No money, people like brothers, socialism be utopia.

>
hahahah

Okay - let's just say that there are replicators.  How does someone puchase one if they don't need a job?  How do these replicators get built if nobody is working?  Who's going to repair the replicators if nobody works?  Where is the power coming from if nobody works?  How are all of your other needs met if people no longer work?

1. People not purchase replicator, they aquire replicator free.

2. People build replicator themselfs. Since people not work, people have more time for education, therefore know how to build/repair stuff.

3. Power coming from solar panels on houses. (people know how build/repair those also, people learn it at school)

4. If schools teach people about building/repairing technology, people not need to purchase from other people, so no other needs need to be met.


I also have problems with this:


1) good idea, but the lazy and technologically inept would not be able to build these themselves.


2) Obviously, you didn't use your free time to educate yourself, as "themselfs" is not a word... I assume you mean "themselves".  And as today is showing, because the technology is available, people are not educating themselves.  How many people know that Hawaii is a state?  How many people know that Puerto Rico is actually considered US Territory, although they are a country of their own?  How many people bother to educate themselves on what their home country's history is? Proof is that people will not educate themselves if given the oppertunity.  And they use the fact that they have the technology as an excuse to not educate themselves (think about kids working a register....90% of them don't know how to count back change. Why? Because they feel they don't need to know, the register will do it for them)


3. Now remember, people will not educate themselves, so who is going to build these panels?  Also, lets not forget that there has to be safety regulations that most people would feel are completely crazy,  and because no one works, there is no fire department in case of an electrical short starts a fire.  There is no hospital to save those few who accidently electrocute themselves turning on these solar panels? Oh, and lets assume that someone does decide to educate themselves to become a doctor,  how will you be sure that he/she is a true doctor, and not some crackpot that thinks only seaslugs and an  eye of dragon will save the poor electrical victim?


4.) Lets say all this happens.  Lets say the technology builds to the point where machines can repair machines.  Lets say schools are now taught by CGI holographical doctors, similar to the EMH on Voyager,   We are still left with the issue of why anyone would even want to go to school.  There would be no need for it, as the people would have been so dumbed down that they can't take care of themselves,  what then?  Please remember, you indicated that people would be responsible for their own education, and I put in the claim that they won't do it.   Humans are still animals, and when animals are given everything, they become domesticated and relying on the stuff being handed out and stop thinking for themselves after a time. (This is where the argument favoring capitalism is good comes from).   


 

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 3:29 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 09 2013, 9:34 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 09 2013, 3:49 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:38 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:50 am

>

>

>

>What force?
government is force.  Taxation is done by the government, and if you don't pay...

"The government is force?" Are you an anarchist?

Obviously not!  If you actually read what I write, you'll see that support very limited (Constitutional) government.  Anarchy doesn't lead to liberty.


I'm sorry, but I'm seeing a contradiction here. You are saying that "government is force," and clearly opposing this, but at the same time, you support government, even if it may be in a limited fashion. You are acception some force.


Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the concept of a limited government. It's just a matter, to me, of how the government is limited combined with how the government limits us.

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 3:30 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 09 2013, 9:37 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 09 2013, 3:53 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:41 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:50 am

>

>

>

>So maybe we should reform the system? Giving help to those who need it, as opposed to those who simply want it?
Who defines "need" vs. "want" ??

See... as long as the government can make those determinations, they choose who's wealth gets redistributed from/to.... usually because who's voting for them / bribing them with "political donations."

 

No... the government should not be in this business at all - privately or corporately.  The government should not be picking winners and losers.

 

We all have needs and wants, but it is our own private responsibility to try to meet/fulfill them.  As soon as we tell someoene else that they must meet our needs/wants, they become our slaves.

"Need" should, in most cases, be obvious. Someone who is mentally and/or physically disabled, and therefore lacks the ability to work, cannot be expected to work. A welfare system should exist to provide for them, as they cannot provide for themselves. Without one, they would be forced to depend on hand-outs, which in truth are few and far between (especially for those without the mental capacity to find them), which would often be a death sentence.

I'd even say that people who aren't working due to economic crises, such as we are facing now, are in need, and should recieve benefits, so long as they can prove that they are actively seeking employment.

On the other hand, anyone who can work, but simply doesn't want to, should recieve nothing.

And you're free to donate to them.  You could even come to one of the many "soup kitchens" and food patries and donate your money and time.  But I don't believe in forcing you to support another, regardless of the "reason."  If I force you to pay for someone else's needs against your will, then you've just become a slave.


You said earlier that you were in the military. That's a reason.

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 3:33 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 09 2013, 9:57 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 09 2013, 3:56 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:49 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:50 am

>

>

>

>Proven by whom? I've seen evidence for both methods, from countries invlolving people who both do and do not want to support themselves. And, often, both and in the same systems.
Proven by multiple studies in multiple countries.

Take a look at unemployment benefits in multiple countries - the longer the benefits last, the longer people stay unemployed, but when unemployment runs out.... all the sudden people have a job.  As unemployment benefits were expanded, more people to advantage of it.  As the time to receive unemployment benefits lengthened, so did the mean time for being unemployed.  In countries that decided to cut unemployment benefits, more and more people "miraculously" found work.

 

If people really want to address the risk of unemployment, they should be free to purchase their own unemployment insurance.

 

Take my parents for example - they have lived off government handounds for a lot of my life and they keep voting for politicians who promise them more.  They choose to do so and will do so for the rest of their lives.  They think that anyone else that has earned money owe that money to them because of "fairness."  They want others to pay for their home, car, phones, internet, satellite TV,, food, etc., but don't want to work for it..... but why work for it if you don't have to?

I ask again, proven by whom? Show me studies.

I've provided this information before showing studies from multiple countries that show a link between the length of unemployment and how long someone receives unemployment handouts.  Please feel free to look it up or do a few minutes of research for yourself.  Some of the studies also showed that because of the unemployment handounts, unemployment actually increases as much as 2.7% (ref WSJ) or as little as 1.5% (Econ Journal Watch.)  When I provided the charts and reference material before, some people provided their own rebuttals, each one of their rebuttals actually agreed in principle that benefits keep people from working (they were only arguing the percentages.)

But for some reason... the data is just ignored because people want "free" stuff.


Maybe you have, but that doesn't mean I've seen it. I joined this community only several months ago, and due to my work/family schedule, I don't get to log in often. Needless to say, I missed any such links. So I'm asking you to post them again.

RedPJ

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 8:24 am

Quote: DUKAT!!!! @ Jan. 22 2013, 3:20 pm

>

>If you get the same amount of money no matter what you do, why should you work? Does that make sense? No! Then you end up like the USSR, when everyone was told what to do, but nobody was good at it. ther thing is the fact that a government who can do good can also do bad.

>


 


This is a fundamental misunderstading of what socialism is. It is not that everyone makes the same money, but rather that your participation as a productive member of society grants you the right to equally share in the fruits of societies production. When we frame the discussion in terms of wealth, what we are in fact doing is framing it in a capitalist context which does not apply because this is an economic thoery which does not rely on the same assumptions that neo-classical economics does.


 


Also, we have never seen a socialist/communist country in a truly Marxist sense. As I point out to my students, a strict reading of Marx would say that those countries which have "fallen" to "socialism" do not fit the criteria Marx cites as a precondition. Coming out of the Hegelian tradition, Marx had a theory about progress (coinciding in some ways with what Hegel called Universal History), and drew the conclusion that communism is a system that would come into existence only out of the most advanced stage of capitalism, when the inherent contradictions in the system would necessitate the birth of a new system in much the same way that capitalism was a response to the internal contradictions in feudalism. In philosophy, such a process is known as "dialectic," thus why Marx termed his view of history as "dialectical materialism".


 


Finally, our assertion that countries like the USSR were Marxist is the result of a convenience of propaganda on both sides. Lenin needed a sense of legitimacy to substantiate the Bolshevik takeover of Kerensky's provisional government, whereas it was convenient for the capitalist West to call that system communism because it worked to subdue economic dissidents (i.e. "You advocate communism? Well that's what communism looks like, pinko!). Hitler and Musollini asserted that their societies were capitalist, and we do not use those for our go-to example. Why on earth would you take a man like Stalin's word that his system is Marxist.


 


Reading this thread, I have to say I am incredibly disappointed. I would have though that a group of people who are enthusiastic about Star Trek would be more open-minded towards different philosophies. Federation society in the 24th century is, after all, ostensibly socialist or at least post-economic (Picard says mankind is no longer motivated by the accumulation of wealth, so capitalism is ruled out entirely). I know this is a subject that hits close to home for many people, but it is important to not be so close-minded, and to take any philosophy and formulate a challenge to it based on its own assumptions and internal logical issues. In other words, act like men and women of education. Aristotle says that the educated person is one who can entertain an idea without believing in it. So let's all try to keep a more open mind, yeah? As Gene Roddenberry said:


"Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there.”

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 8:56 am

Federation society in the 24th century is, after all, ostensibly socialist or at least post-economic (Picard says mankind is no longer motivated by the accumulation of wealth, so capitalism is ruled out entirely). I know this is a subject that hits close to home for many people, but it is important to not be so close-minded, and to take any philosophy and formulate a challenge to it based on its own assumptions and internal logical issues.


I would disagree with such assertions. Capitalism is misunderstood in terms of the "acquisition of wealth". For too many people, wealth equates to money (Picard made this mistake too). By extension, it is a mistake to believe that capitalism equates to hoarding money and excessive materialism. Wealth is the totality of goods and services in a market. Greater wealth equates to diverse goods and services. We see this in Star Trek. Their economic wealth has expanded to include the goods and services of starships, transporters, replicators, etc. The actual goal of capitalism is conservatism, generating savings to fund new goods and services that expand economic wealth. 


I suspect the 24th Century operates from a different definition of capitalism. The U.S. does not adhere to capitalism, which professes the strict adherence to private property rights, sound money, and voluntary associations. Instead, the U.S. employs corporatism whereby corporations compete for government favoritism, particularly government backed monopolies. It's the 20th Century version of mercantilism. 


Also, while Earth has been stated to have abandoned currency based economics, this doesn't exclude individuals from using currency, otherwise individuals would be excluded form voluntary associations. It is quite possible that humans have learned the evils of government and by the 24th Century have nullified the government's enumerated power to forcibly collect revenue. In contrast to Earth, the Federation employs a credit exchange system, most likely based on energy since matter-energy conversion has been solved.  


Likewise, if the Federation were socialist, it would not likely permit State Sovereignty, which has been demonstrated time and again within the Federation. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46335

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 9:26 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 11 2013, 3:29 am

>I'm sorry, but I'm seeing a contradiction here. You are saying that "government is force," and clearly opposing this, but at the same time, you support government, even if it may be in a limited fashion. You are acception some force.

>Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the concept of a limited government. It's just a matter, to me, of how the government is limited combined with how the government limits us.
Go back to the biggest question all: WHY?


See, force can be use for good and bad.  When the Colonies in America decided they wanted liberty, they had to use force to accomplish it.  The USA has used force to stop tyranny like in our two World Wars.


People use force to protect themselves from assault - that's opposing force - one for good and one for bad.


 


The role of the US Government, per the Constitution, is to protect liberties, not use force to destroy them.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Drunkin Druid, FleetAdmiral_BamBam, FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum