Posts
Comments
Food is important and it is supported with tax payer money by some governments for that very reason. I think government action on it should be considered. Of course no changes should be made if the system isn't broken and and if they do it should be for the better or not at all. I'm not advocating socialism just for the sake of being socialist. When private is better- it's better.
About the straws you fully missed the point. What i'm saying is no matter how bad someone screwed up the straw industry it won't be a serious blow to society. By talking about supply and demand you are changing the subject
The difference is the new system doesn't let houses burn
I agree those are issues. That's why I said I think the government has no place making twirly drinking straws- the private market does it better. When we talk about fire departments though I think the issue still should be addressed but it doesn't outright kill the concept. its a negative factor which needs to be mitigated but i believe its possible.
My point is that fires are put out because they are fires and no fire brigades watch a house burn down anymore. You think it means nothing?
Yes I do know that. I nearly mentioned that but didn't. There is of course a wide range of regulation beliefs. Some people do advocate for very little. You are right though, no one does call for no laws or regulation. From that some people can also learn that the ideas I have are not new or alien but are actually just an extension or using the ideas already in place.
No not by magic and it doesn't fix every single problem. But just look at one example if you want to understand my point of view; before fire fighters were socialised, there existed a time in the US where people had to pay private companies or have their house burn down. Socialism didn't magically cure anything but simply removed some of the opportunity for bad things to happen. Can you tell me how your point refutes the fire brigade example?
What I'm talking about when I say that is private ownership and enterprise. When I say unrestrained that means no laws or regulation. For example there are regulations which make companies write the ingredients on food product labels.
lol not negative utility to me- to him! It hasn't hurt my feelings or made me feel like a victim, I'm talking about how someone has misinterpreted and acted out on to the world. Even at that it was such a minor incident that i'm not talking about this in terms of damage done. What i'm really saying is- why is someone acting irrational on a rationality website?
To be honest, I guess my comment was just a complaint with no expected result. It really had no point other than some kind of emotional release
Hmm I see your point- but if what they did was called 'rational' then there has to be another word for the part where they made the mistake. The mistake was they came to so much of a conclusion about something that they acted on it. They were wrong. They caused negative utility. It negatively effected the world and also their understanding of it. What is that called?
lol ok yes as I typed that I had to ask myself that exact same question- since it's such a bold thing to say and exactly what someone with a problem might say.
I could explain why I am sure, but I'm not sure anyone is interested in that explanation. I've got a ask me a question comment on here so I guess if anyone is interested- they can ask :-)
But why do people just accept the status quo?? Politics doesn't kill my mind. I know how to not 'cheer for my team' and to think about topics in a balanced way. I expect people to act irrationally on the comment section of the news website I read- but why are people not rising above it on this website of all places?
Get use to it? It's very hard to think it's rare and unexpected for people to talk about a topic rationally. I don't see why people find it so hard- especially when they've apparently read articles highlighting common problems and where they come from.
Yes but like you said, "you [need to] already have some necessary rationality to do this"- that's the kind of thing i'm talking about. You can't buy that original rationality and you can't buy the fact that rationality exists. The stuff you said is true but I think you are trying to answer to different topic than which it is relevant to. Money can buy things and make you happy- but money can't buy the fact that happy exists. When I talk about "money can't buy everything", it's in that way that i'm talking about (not to be confused as saying 'owning things doesn't make you happy').
That would be an assumption and entirely irrational. I am not going to be unpleasant nor engage in a lengthy debate about anything- least of all expanding the topic to other middle east politics.
I simply wanted to know what it's like to live in such a controversial topic. Where does he finds himself in it (as in does he feel like it's in another world or maybe it's a daily experience?). I really don't know if the average person there feels like they are part of what is happening or if it is something they see in the news like every one else in the world and feel disconnected from.
I'm an Australian- and I wouldn't have a problem if someone asked me the same line of questioning based around say the current (anti) refugee policy or even the white invasion and genocide of the indigenous people.
To have one without the other? You mean pubic funded fire brigades that are managed by a private company? Yeah I can see that. On the other hand though, I see a lot of problems with a privately run police force. For example if the chief of police was making a profit from fighting crime, why would he not expand his business by creating more crime to fight?
What criterion do I use to say the government shouldn't make twirly straws but should collect tax for (and possibly run) fire brigades? The nature of the service and how fundamental it is to society. Also a strong consideration should be put into the negative effects that personal interests can create. If the only drinking straw company decided it was going to make gold straws, poor people wouldn't get any- but that wouldn't be such a big deal. On the other hand if fire brigades were run for profit and have private interests- poor people's houses would burn to the ground with fire crews doing nothing but maybe toasting a marshmallow over the flame. Even worse, maybe when business is quiet, a fire station may light some fires.
This may sound a bit vague but like I said I think it's a concept and not an actual system. The concept I subscribe to is that the back bones of society should be funded and maintained by the government. In some cases, This maintenance can be subcontracted out to private companies rather than micro managing- but not always (not for police for example). Any further than these fundamental social services is most likely going too far and will have too much of a stifling effect on the economy.
Why would someone down vote me without commenting as to why? Why would my question warrant a down vote anyway?
No not really. Like I said I think it can play a role along side and in conjunction with capitalism/private ownership. Even if the government didn't own any companies or what not, socialism can still exist in the form of taxation and social spending. It's more about regulation and distribution of a societies wealth. Once the state starts owning and controlling everything, that's when I would start to call it 'communism' or something around those lines. I am not for this total control and ownership concept as I think capitalism does play a role in innovation and economic growth. To be communist would be to destroy all the benefits of capitalism.
Why do I think free markets and private property is "every man for himself"?
1) Human nature. Most people can't see past their own nose. In fact some people have such a massive problem finding empathy for other people that they act, for one example, racist and intolerant to other people. To put it simply, I think human kind has demonstrated how selfish and cruel it can be when left unrestrained. To have an entirely free market and everything private owned would be to let free and even propel all of the nasty things inside people. Just as without laws we will have (more) people hurting each other in society, so too do we need to regulate how people economically interact with each other
2) Capitalism has nothing to do with morality. Let me give you this hypothetical example: a company can either make $10 a lolly selling type A or it can make $1 selling type B. The 'problem' is that type A is known by the company (but not the public) to be poisonous. This poison will hurt the people taking it but will not hurt the companies profits- as in they won't die too soon or stop buying it for any reason. The only harmful effect is felt by the customer and not the company. Thinking purely from a capitalist point of view, with no other concepts available (such as morality, etc), what should the company do? Sell the poison of course because it's more profitable. In fact most logical and profitable decisions by the nature of the universe are dubious like this. There are even weird situations in the world where someone may be the head of a company- but think it's 'evil'. They may think the company does horrible things and hurts the world, but they themselves are 'just doing their job'. In their mind they tell themselves they wouldn't personally do such things but also acknowledge that it's how the business runs at it's most profitable and successful level. As bad as people are, some companies are even worse than those who lead them because it makes business sense to be horrible while it makes social sense for the individuals to hold their personal selves to different standards.
3) Capitalism isn't a sharing thing, so there is nothing left except 'every man for himself'. If people aren't sharing- what are they doing? Think about this entirely hypothetical scenario: There are a total of 5 houses in the world and there are 5 people. All 5 are owned by 1 person and the other 4 have to pay rent. Since there are no other options for these 4 other than living in 1 of these homes, the owner can charge as much rent as they want- as long as it doesn't exceed what the people can pay. What is the capitalist thing to do? To make a maximum profit. In effect these 4 could end up in a situation where they go to work every day simply to be able to afford to eat enough food and sleep in a house to be alive for the next days work. Capitalism alone has no remedy for this- in fact it would see no need for a remedy at all because it wouldn't see the problem with it. The only way to be not operating from a 'every man for himself' system is to share- but to share would be to not operate capitalism to it's full extent or to actually go against it in some ways.
Do I think capitalism is opposed to cooperation?
To put my answer very simply- yes I do think unrestrained capitalism is opposed to cooperation. There is no immediate and person money to be made by giving some away to another person in a less fortunate position. There is also no money to be gained by a company treating it's workers fairly. To be most successful, a company has to wage war against it's enemies, use it's employees, and prey on it's customers. All of these things are on the opposite end of the spectrum from cooperation.
To me socialism is not an exact system but is a concept. In that way, it can be a bit vague but the general principle is that the resources of a society are best used with a coordinated effort to pool them together as opposed to spending in an un-coordinated and selfish way.
Where as some people think that socialism is a system to rival or replace capitalism, my idea of socialism works in tandem with capitalism. To begin with, a lot of industry is best left for private enterprise to deal with. There is nothing to gain from the government owning a twirly drinking straw company or being responsible for coming up with such ideas. Having said this though, these private enterprises provide for the socialist system by paying tax, as do the individual workers. Then there are the industries which are best put in control of the government. This is defined by the fundamental importance they have on society. Governance itself is one example. Other easy examples are; roads and infrastructure, police, and, fire departments. I think most people would agree that the things I have mentioned are best maintained with collective funding and government control. Where my opinion gets more controversial with some people is that I think socialism should cover health, education, power and public transportation.
Some people think that socialism is something alien and untested in the world- other than through the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao, etc. This is not true at all. I'll point out this fact while also giving you the examples of the 'socialism' i'm talking about.
The US has a strong anti-socialist base but they have possibly the biggest socialist program in the world. I say possibly because i'm too lazy to check the fact- but it's fairly safe to assume that the worlds largest armed forces (US armed forces), which spends about as much as the next 10 biggest spenders in the world, is one of the biggest socialist program in the world. It's socialist because the money for it is raised by taxing the population. Rather than everyone having to be in a militia and own a gun or some other crazy system, money from the society is pooled together and used in a co-ordinated fashion.
Another example is the fire department. At some times and places in the world there once existed private fire brigades. When a fire happened, these private crews would arrive at the scene but if the home owner wasn't one of their paying customers- they let the house burn. While this private enterprise system could be replaced by some other type of private model, socialism fills the position very effectively instead. Again money from society is pooled together and spend in a co-ordinated way and provides a better service in both effectiveness and social morality.
I am strongly for socialism. This comes from two main points of view; 1) I think the ethical thing to do is to work together and help others as opposed to 'every man for himself'. 2) I think that 'team work' achieves more and thus it's not just about what is moral but what actually works better. One way to think of it is that we can either all buy a fire hose and a ladder- or we could pool the money together to pay for a professional team with a truck to service the town.
I agree a lot with this article but I think it's not a reply to all definitions of the argument; 'there are some things money can't buy'. I'll start by saying what I agree with. Money does buy things. Having more money makes things easier/possible. Time is money and opportunities not taken are lost money. From that angle I fully agree.
But even still, money can't buy everything. I read just moments ago a good quote which said something to the effect of; someone might say they have an apparent end goal of making lots of money but if asked what they would do if money was no issue they would have a blank stare reply. This is the territory where money doesn't buy everything. It can't buy you the intelligence or rationality to know your true objectives and what they are actually supposed to achieve. It also can't buy what your desires or likes actually are, they exist in their own right. One man can earn less than 50k a year but have the intelligence and other personal qualities which make him able to efficiently use the money and satisfy his desires. The next man may earn 500k a year but have not enough good personal qualities to use the money to his (or anyone else's) advantage. Considering we have existed as a species for thousands of years, for a long time without any currency, it seems like money isn't actually required to live a life and be happy. Of course these societies without money had things which money could trade for but, as in the case of Australian Aboriginals for example, some people's barely owned anything material anyway. I can't confirm this in any way of course, but I believe these people had the potential for a life just as happy and meaningful as anyone today.
To clarify what i'm trying to say; I fully agree with the points raised in this article but I think there is another category of 'money doesn't buy everything' that it doesn't address- not by fault but just by it being an actual different topic which may be mistakenly lumped together. The way I interpret 'money can't buy everything' is that it's not relevant to the material world (where money buys practically everything) but is talking about the fundamental things which exists in humans as part of who we are. I think these things are actually more important and are the end goals where as money/material things are the tools used to achieve them.
I'm an Australian male with strong views on Socialism. I have an interest in modern history and keeping up with international news.
Do you believe that by living in Israel you are by de facto green-lighting it's history and current course of action (such as settlements, etc)? If not, can you explain what you believe your involvement/non-involvement entails? [edit: I think this question might of come off sounding thorny when it's not supposed to be- espiecially given the charged emotions and such on the conflict there. I just want some perspective on what it's personally like for you to 'live in the middle' of such a well known conflict]
My take on drug abuse is that it isn't primarily the drugs themselves that are the problem but the user. That is to say the drugs have powerful and harmful effects, but the buck ultimately stops with the user who chooses to imbibe them. As physically addictive as some drugs can be, not everyone will; A) Be addicted if they try it once, and, B) Actually want to use the drug to begin with. It's the people who are depressed, self-harming, etc, who have drug problems. I think my point can be easily confused so i'll give an analogy: a magnetic sea mine is terribly destructive and can blow me to pieces (swap for drugs), but being a human of flesh and blood (swap for healthy life and psychology), there will be no magnetic attraction and we won't be drawn towards each other. On the other hand if I was a steel ship (depressed, etc), the magnet will be drawn to me and devastation will be the result. To recap again in one sentence; the mainstream point of view seems to be that drugs are like a virus which can effect anyone and are the problem in themselves where as I see the users as the 'problem' and the drugs as one (of many) destructive outcomes of this. My question is basically; do you agree with the above?