The Everlasting CCCP ! - Page 11

Pandemoniak · February 20, 2003, 05:32

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Oh, and one other thing about the capitalist/communist war crimes debate: if you want to talk about ideologies, rather than countries (which you said you did in the the post that started this whole thing off), then you really should include China under Mao and Cambodia under Pol Pot, too.

Sure. And all Africa in the other side

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 05:47

Quote:

The main problem with locking people away to stop them committing crimes, is that the crimes are already committed. How are we to say that the criminal will repeat his offences?

When, for example, they are psychologically compelled to commit them, or when they've been warned previosuly not to commit them, and yet they still do.

But this is the case in only a small percentage of offenders. If we take x offenders and lock them up we are restricting the freedom of x people + the original offences against liberty = 2x
If then y of these offenders are likely to reoffend, then we have 2x offences for y offences prevented, where y < x (we assume that not all of them are reoffenders
If we let them go free, and the reoffenders reoffend, then we have x+y offences committed in total. As y < x the second case produces a smaller overall number of offences against liberty, therefore a society that does not punish criminals is "more free"

Or?

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 05:47

Quote:

We can define the blocks in sevreal ways :
- the mother country, their satellites, their client states, and their allies
- the mother country, their satellites, and their client states
- the mother country and their satellites
or
- the mother country

Which geopolitical definition should we use for the blocks ?

The first one.

Quote:

Definetly not the same result. The importance of the influence of the mother state is definetly not the same if you're a client state or a satellite, and the ways used to make this influence respected differs a lot too. Thats why they cant be included in the same level of dependance to the "mother country".

Same result, difference in degree.

Quote:

1948 : Five European countries sign the Brussels Treaty for mutual defence
1949 : Twelve nations sign the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington DC
European states were allies (except UK, which remains a vassal until nowadays), and if you consider allies to be part of the block (see definitions stated above) then China, Yougoslavia, India, etc... were always part of the eastern block. It all depends on the definiton we'll agree on though.

Well, China was definitely not a Soviet ally after the 1960s (they fought a war with the Soviets for crying out loud), and I wouldn't really consider India a Soviet ally, though I could be wrong.

Quote:

F*ck off. I never said that USSR killed fewer people than the US, I said that their crimes was of the same importance,

Yes, you did say that actually.

"I surely forgot some others large crimes of war, but just with these, its over 30 millions."

Quote:

and that US shouldnt be taken as a good guy facing the USSR.

I never said they should be, only that their crimes wer enot greater than the Soviet ones.

Quote:

Now, you want a full list of bodycounts... Ok, Ill get it to you, let me the time to search for all the numbers.

Yes, I do, if you're going to claim that they add up to that many dead.

Quote:

Because some survived ? Just like there is still jews in Poland and Germany.

Slavery isn't the same as genocide. They were enslaved to provide labour, not to try to wipe them out. Slavery wasn't even utilised by the capitalist North anyway; it was sue dby the souterhn aristocracy.

Quote:

Well, you talk about Soviet enslavment of German POWs, and I talk about US enslavment of German POWs, and I precise they were scientists. Is that really so hard to understand.

I still don't understand why ou brought that up, because they weren'tenslaved', they were acquitted for war crimes on condition they work for the US. The German POWs were shippe doff to Siberia on whatever flimsy proof the Soviets could come up with.

Quote:

Sure. And all Africa in the other side

Why, and what difference would it make?

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 05:52

Quote:

But this is the case in only a small percentage of offenders. If we take x offenders and lock them up we are restricting the freedom of x people + the original offences against liberty = 2x
If then y of these offenders are likely to reoffend, then we have 2x offences for y offences prevented, where y If we let them go free, and the reoffenders reoffend, then we have x+y offences committed in total. As y
Or?

Well, that then hinges on whether you believe that deterrence works. How many societies without any effective government have there been in which nobody committed crimes?

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 05:54

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Slavery wasn't even utilised by the capitalist North anyway; it was used by the southern aristocracy.

*whispers aside to audience*
Just paying someone doesn't stop them being a slave...

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 05:57

Paying somebody to work for you doesn't make you their property. It doesn't deprive you of your rights.

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 06:00

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

Well, that then hinges on whether you believe that deterrence works. How many societies without any effective government have there been in which nobody committed crimes?

No government = no laws = no crimes. So in this case all of them. But assuming you mean crimes by the standards of our society. Hmm, I dunno. I can't think of any developed society without any "effective" government. Perhaps a tribal society in Papua Neu Guinea ? But in these societies there is no crime. As in zero.

And you know I don't think deterrence works.

-Jam

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 06:07

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Paying somebody to work for you doesn't make you their property. It doesn't deprive you of your rights.

"You are my property, I pay you, do what I say, or you don't get paid, and them you and your family will starve!" Cue evil laughter.

It doesn't deprive someone of thier rights, just the ability to exercise them. When I took my current job, one of the conditions was that I couldn't jion a union. This is aginst my constitutional right to free assembly, but I needed the money...

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 06:08

Quote:

Hmm, I dunno. I can't think of any developed society without any "effective" government.

Northern Ireland might qualify for that at one stage, although that wa sbecause the paramilitaries took over.

However, it is my beleif that as most people seem to prefer having at least some kind of roder in their lives, when all authority is abolished, a new authority will take it's place.

Quote:

Perhaps a tribal society in Papua Neu Guinea ? But in these societies there is no crime. As in zero

Somehow I doubt that these societies have no laws at all. They might have social codes that no-one breaks, but what would they do if someone did break them?

Quote:

And you know I don't think deterrence works.

Yes, I do know that. Why do you believe it? It does work. If you know that you will be punished for doing something, then that is a strong reason not to do it. If you like breaking windows for fun, but you know that you will be punished severely if you do, are you claiming that thsi will not reduce the numbe rof people who do it?

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 06:13

Quote:

"You are my property, I pay you, do what I say, or you don't get paid, and them you and your family will starve!" Cue evil laughter.

Nice try, but if you don't give me a job, I'll go work for someone else who will.

Quote:

It doesn't deprive someone of thier rights, just the ability to exercise them. When I took my current job, one of the conditions was that I couldn't jion a union. This is aginst my constitutional right to free assembly, but I needed the money...

In which case your employer is violating the law.

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 06:18

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

Nice try, but if you don't give me a job, I'll go work for someone else who will.

Don't forget, this isn't sunny Australia here. We have nearly one quarter unemployment in Germany. If you don't like the job... well, just try to find another.

Quote:

In which case your employer is violating the law.

They have some kind of clever loophole, like "If you complain, then we have a very good lawyer, and the state loves us just for giving you a job, considering the unemployment situation"

Great isn't it.

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 06:22

Quote:

Don't forget, this isn't sunny Australia here. We have nearly one quarter unemployment in Germany. If you don't like the job... well, just try to find another.

1/4 unemployment? Ouch. Still, this is what unions are for... and if your employer doesn't allow them, then he is violating the law. The only problem is enforcing it.

Quote:

They have some kind of clever loophole, like "If you complain, then we have a very good lawyer, and the state loves us just for giving you a job, considering the unemployment situation"

Great isn't it.

He's still violating the law. If the state refuses to enforce it, then that's another matter, and a very big problem.

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 06:27

Tell me about it. Of course in other professions the opposite is true and they are over-protected by the union. You're not a union member? Then you won't work in this profession. This is to protect wages by stopping people working under price (a good thing IMO) but with the current employment crisis (a word I don't often use) the union members are basically just covering their own jobs. There are professions in Germany now from which you cannot be sacked - regardless what you do. Crazy.

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 06:30

Nations in crisis don't tend to be good examples of how or how not to run a particular system.

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 06:36

But they are very good examples of what can go wrong with that system. The capitalist system is build on the principle of continuous profit growth. Who'd want to invest in a company that didn't make money? In Germany the growth stopped in the mid 90's. Now we are feeling the result. No growth = no investment = no jobs = low spending = no growth. This is the ultimate destination of the economies of all countries. If you're lucky it will get to Australia last.

-jam

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 06:37

This kind of crisis has hit every nation in the past, and they've recovered; why do you think it won't recover this time?

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 06:38

Quote:

Who'd want to invest in a company that didn't make money?

Somebody who thought it had the potential to make money?

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 06:45

Its a destructive cycle. The stocks of certain companies grow always higher, when seen in the long run. Eventually a "growth ceiling" will be reached, when a company cannot increase its profits anymore. What happens when all the companies reach this point? Noone will invest in them, and the people already invested in these companies will not be able to sell. Why buy a $4 stock if it will never be worth more than $4?

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 06:47

Because holding stock entitles you to a share in the company profits? Why do you believe that there will be a profit ceiling, anyway? If absolutely nothing changes, perhaps, but technological advancement hasn't slowed down at all.

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 06:56

There's a profit ceiling because there is a buying ceiling. People can, and will, only buy so much. If people are richer, they can buy more, but most of the developed world is, on the whole getting poorer (in real terms) while the undeveloped world remains exactly that - undeveloped. If the undeveloped world was richer, then profits would not increase owing to the new markets, but shrink, owing to increased costs of raw materials and labour. At some point the limit will be reached, with current tech, of course.

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 06:59

And your last assumption is what invalidates your argument, because technology is NEVER static. It's always developing.

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 07:04

But is anyone working on a tech to make this situation better? No - quite the opposite in fact. Most technological innovation is designed to increase profits (or the research wouldn't be paid for)
but no tech will lift the buying ceiling. In fact many profit increasing techs (factory automation?) decrease the total buying power as they lead to higher unemployment. All future tech may do is hasten the collapse of the kapital system.

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 07:12

Um, I thought your problem was that since profits would stop increasing, nobody would invest, and hence the economy tanks? What is it now? And why won't tech lift the buying ceiling? Are you claiming that we don't buy mroe now than we did in, say, 1850?

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 07:53

I'm still claiming that the economy will tank (nice expression GT) due to growth stoppage. We can see this in action in Germany. I'm also caliming that this will ahppen everywhere in the future as there is an universal growth limit imposed by a "buying ceiling" Sure, we're buying more than in 1850, but we're not buying much more than in 1990. Everyone has a computer/washing machine etc. Computers bought in 1995 are still good enough for most non-gaming applications. Cars bought in 1990 still go. Washing maschines from 1970 still go, so technology has practically stopped increasing consumer spending. The only "blip" was the mobile phone boom of the late 90's, but now that everyone has a handy, this sector of the economy is in serious trouble, as the massive growth was not sustainable. Sure 250% growth for the last three years is great, but then everyone has a phone, and we've borrowed lots of money based on our growth prediction figures... This is how technology will not break the cycle. I predict 3 more booms - cheap TV phones, convincing home VR and automated household drones. And then we'll see the kapital system die.

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 08:00

I think you left out things like biotechnology, and non-consumer markets like, say, space techology. Moreover, cars from 1990 and all the rest may still be running now, but they won't keep running forever.

And, of coruse, you forgot to mention population growth, which means there will always be new consumers.

And, fo course, you're also forgetting that most people in the Third World don't have this stuff, so there will be that as a kind of last resort market. I imagine even the IMF, WTO, et al would choose to give the Third World back it's rights rather than face their own economic collapse.

GeneralTacticus · February 20, 2003, 08:01

Also, I note that you still haven't answered my question about why you don't believe in deterrence.

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 08:44

Because the death penalty in the USA (harshest punishment) is coupled with the extremly high murder rate. Obvously noone is deterred, no matter how harsh the punishment. Also the "rational murderer argument" from last week. Most muderers (for example) are not acting rationally, so how can we expect the rational deterrment to work.

Non-consumer markets rely on taxpayers' money/sponsorship. If I don't have a job, then I can't pay any taxes. If my firm is "tanking" then I won't sponser a space programm.

Population is shrinking in Europe and Japan.

Do you really think the Third World will get its rights ?

-Jam

Cedayon · February 20, 2003, 09:27

Good grief, you guys took this thread from 15 pages to well into the 17th page in under 7 hours...

Jamski · February 20, 2003, 09:33

Yeah, its been a slow day. I actually had to do some work, so the posting rate was down on last week (!)

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 21, 2003, 02:34

Quote:

Because the death penalty in the USA (harshest punishment) is coupled with the extremly high murder rate. Obvously noone is deterred, no matter how harsh the punishment.

1) Just how many murderers that are actually caught and convicted are sentenced to the death penalty?

2) What do you think would happen if they did what you would like them to and abolished any kind of punishment for murder?

Quote:

Also the "rational murderer argument" from last week. Most muderers (for example) are not acting rationally, so how can we expect the rational deterrment to work.

Even if we accept that mos tmruders are committed by irrational people, would this not mean that if you don't punish it (hence eliminating the rational argument against it), rational people will have no reason not to kill ohter than their own conscience?

Quote:

Non-consumer markets rely on taxpayers' money/sponsorship. If I don't have a job, then I can't pay any taxes. If my firm is "tanking" then I won't sponser a space programm.

Non-consumer markets won't save the economy alone, but they aren't necessarily dependant on the rest of the economy either; space exploraiton, for example, could be invested in directly by companies that wanted to reap the benefits of it.

Quote:

Population is shrinking in Europe and Japan.

While at the same time it's growing elsewhere.

Quote:

Do you really think the Third World will get its rights ?

If the current situation continues, no. If it does eprsist, and you turn out to be right, then teh blame will belong to those institutions.

However, I note that you didn't address my argument that just because people already have things, doesn't mean theyw on't buy others - things wear out or are made obsolete, or people just want more of them. Also, some things will always be consumed, simply because we need them and we use them up - water, food, power (including petrol and such), construction materials (for new housing), the various things requried to make them, and so on. Not to mention entertainment.