Can we Create an America that can Lead the World

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DuncanK
I'm talking about communism without police state.

Yes and I'm talking about the mole men from the center of the earth.

[Az]

Oh, I disagree. Not that I think the private sector is farsighted. Nope. But to say that government is farsighted is laughable. Government has an attention span that is usually between 2 and 6 years (I use that range because most elected officials in the US have terms of office ranging between 2 and 6 years). They most often do what is politically expedient in the short-term so they get reelected, not what is best for the nation long-term.

That's why there are elected officials, and there are proffesionals.
A good example of such a working system is a the US cabinet. The only elected officials are the POTUS, and the Vice.

It isn't that the private sector is shortsighted and government isn't. It's that PEOPLE are shortsighted. It's a human problem.

don't you think that we should, you know, try to make a system that would compensate for it?

How can we trust private companies with the enviroment, for example? It's a clear-cut conflict of interests.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Well, that's the selfish greed that I was talking about. And that is what prevents the leaders of America from ruling in the peoples interest, and that is what prevents America from ruling the world in the worlds interest.

Or maybe it's just that Democracy has been, and always will be a work in progress. It adapts to new conditions and expectation much easier than Communism does. Again, we can see the Soviet Union as a good example. It was falling behind the West technologically, but rather than adapt to the situation, it collapsed. It was incapable of shifting gears in order to deal with a changing world, and just ground to a complete halt.

[Az]

Arrian: that actually sounds like a socialist system.

[DuncanK]

This is fun. Keep them coming.

Originally posted by Arrian
In other words, if I didn't give you the hooks for free, you'd steal them.

It wouldn't be stealing, because you were exploiting us. It's like taking back what was stole from you.

Originally posted by Arrian
The example is, overall, not very good. Let's say that fish hook making is my skill. Yours is cooking - you're a good cook. Vel is good at... cleaning the fist (preparing them to be cooked. He's a wiz at it). Azazel is just brilliant at doing the actual fishing - he just knows where the fish are.

Now, it would be best if I made the hooks, Azazel fished, Vel cleaned and you cooked. Each of us brings something to the proverbial table, and we trade each other our skills and everyone wins. We all exploit each other. But that's not a market economy, so it doesn't really translate.

-Arrian

This would work good for a while, but one of us would be required to do the least amount of work, and one of us would be required to do the most amount of work. In theory, the person who was required to do the least amount of work would increase his work load and create a surplus. After he created that surplus he would then use that surplus to trade while he started competing in another industry. In that industry he could trade at a lower price for his goods and force the other person in that industry out of business. The person losing his business would then have no other choice but to accept employment with the newly formed capitalist. Thus you have a fully functioning and exploitive capitalist system. This capitalist would eventually be ruler over the rest. He could sit around and think about new ways to exploit us.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Opression is not the best word. but expoitation is a very good one, and scientifically verifiable.

No it's not, it's wide open to subjective analysis. Your definition is obviously quite different than those of the rest of us.

[Arrian]

Azazel,

I agree that we should try and deal with human shortsightedness. I don't think that communism is the answer to that. It requires that enough people agree that we need to plan for the long-term. How to do that? Well, convince others of it, I guess. I suppose I should be writing my congressmen. Maybe I will.

I was simply saying that I don't think the private sector is more or less shortsighted than government. It was a quibble, I'll admit.

-Arrian

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Yes and I'm talking about the mole men from the center of the earth.

I've already come to realize that. You need not repeat it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


The thing is will Arrian be sitting on his ass all day while we fish?

No, he'll probably spend his time working on another gizmo that will make life better for everyone else.

[Ned]

DuncanK et al. of the far left,

The central problem with your position is that you simply do not believe in freedom. If you ban private property or the use of private capital, you strangle freedom.

You can understand why so many Americans are strongly opposed to your thinking. We believe in freedom - a freedom that includes the right to own property, to own our own businesses and to have the right to put money into the bank or to buy stocks in corporations. We expect those into whose trust we place our money to make a profit - or else we pull the plug. Corporations who become unprofitable quickly go out of business.

Your whole mindset is alien to freedom. Wherever implemented, it has lead to oppression, state murder and totalitarianism.

Your brand of thinking is not only wrongheaded, it is dangerous.

[Arrian]

Oh, and re: elected officials...

Democracy is the worse form of government, except for all the others.

Elect your leaders and you deal with shortsightedness due to electoral cycles.

Don't elect your leaders and you deal with their lack of accountability to the public.

I'll go with shortsightedness as the lesser of the two evils. Besides, one can work on shortsightedness - using it as a campaign issue, even.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Duncan, you cannot "take back what was stolen from you" something you never had the know how to create in the first place.

Arrian *created* the fishooks. The rest of us didn't know how.

What you just proposed was theft, pure and simple, and an attempt to justify it via a claim which runs counter to the facts (how can one take something back that one never had to begin with?)

-=Vel=-

[Az]

The central problem with your position is that you simply do not believe in freedom. If you ban private property or the use of private capital, you strangle freedom.

1) Freedom is as vague a concept as they get.
2) What generally drives people: Freedom or Happiness?

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


As a musician you should be more creative than that. Are you saying that music would die just because of a lack of free market? I see no reason for that.

No, it will never die, but it won't be as innovative since people would not be able to pursue it on a full time basis. Having to work at a "straight" job takes away from the time that might otherwise have been spent writing that next "killer" tune.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Duncan, you cannot "take back what was stolen from you" something you never had the know how to create in the first place.

Arrian *created* the fishooks. The rest of us didn't know how.

What you just proposed was theft, pure and simple, and an attempt to justify it via a claim which runs counter to the facts (how can one take something back that one never had to begin with?)

-=Vel=-

And of course you agree that Arrian should be King because he knows how to make fish hooks and we should all suffer under his wrath.

[Az]

Oh, and re: elected officials...

Democracy is the worse form of government, except for all the others.

Elect your leaders and you deal with shortsightedness due to electoral cycles.

Don't elect your leaders and you deal with their lack of accountability to the public.

I'll go with shortsightedness as the lesser of the two evils. Besides, one can work on shortsightedness - using it as a campaign issue, even.

-Arrian

I agree that the top executive, and the legislative have to be elected. Accountabilty is very important, and it's most important aspect is the mass media coverage.

But then you have the private sector, which is both unaccountable, and short-sighted.

[Iron Chancellor]

Of course, there is the saying "Democracy is the only government where the people get what they deserve."
And that fascist, Nazi-sympathising demagogue, Winston Churchill, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter."


Of course, I have to ask how communists can call anything evil or wrong or unethical if they do not believe in absolutes of good or evil.

[DuncanK]

Ned,

Freedom to me is freedom from restraint. By that definition people are not free in America. They have no other choice but to reliquish part of their wage to someone who maybe entirely undeserving of it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Azazel
A government doesn't and shouldn't think that way, and should not try to increase 'profits', but to create a strong economical fundament. I think that this should be done by creating industries, predicting the supply because of the fact that the same system creates the demand .
It should be done by constantly streamlining the govt. according to scientific models, keeping an independent media that would detect malfunctions, creating a variety of products by competing designs, that would shift production capabilities according to demand.

There's no reason why that can't be done within a capitalist system. Here in Canada we have what we call Crown corporations. They're owned by the government but managed independantly just like any other corporation, and compete openly and fairly with the rest of the players. Some of them, like PetroCanada, have done quite well, without stifling the free market or private enterprise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But then you have the private sector, which is both unaccountable, and short-sighted.

Of course the private sector is accountable! You just don't buy their stuff if they do bad things!

[Arrian]

Damn, Imran beat me to it.

The private sector is accountable. If a company chooses poorly, its shareholders will oust management. If it does REALLY poorly, it will go under. If it cheats, its executives will face law enforcement (needs to be better, clearly).

Duncan,

I shouldn't be King because I can make fish hooks. But I should receive some benifit for being so useful to society (no fishhooks, not many fish... maybe starvation). Otherwise, the next time I come up with a bright idea, I'm not gonna tell you about it!

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Willem,

Is it really fair for you to keep insisting that I'm proposing reinstating Russian style communism throughout the world when you know that I have stated clearly otherwise.

The point is Duncan that, just like you, the founders of the Soviet Union started out with good intentions. And look where it ended up. And frankly, you haven't really said anything new, you've just borrowed most of the same ideas that they had. It didn't work for them, why do you think it will work any better if we implement your ideas? You've offered no new slant on the subject at all, you've just been reiterating all the same old propoganda. How are your ideas fundamentally different from those of Lenin and Trotsky, and all the others that ushered in the "great socialist enterprise" back then?

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK

The diference is that I'm talking about a whole diferent situation here. I'm talking about the end of nationalism. I'm talking about communism without police state.

You're talking about yet another utopia that may never take place, and probably won't. Now there's nothing wrong that, it's good to have some ideals to strive for. But you also need to temper your ideals with a good dose of reality once in awhile. At least if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

[Az]

Damn, Imran beat me to it.

The private sector is accountable. If a company chooses poorly, its shareholders will oust management. If it does REALLY poorly, it will go under. If it cheats, its executives will face law enforcement (needs to be better, clearly).

There are different ways of organizing accountabilty in socialism as well.

in a more decentralized scenario, one company would sue the other. The management would be chosen by the workers, for example.
It could complain to oversight, that would change the management.
there are different ways to tackle such a problem.

There's no reason why that can't be done within a capitalist system. Here in Canada we have what we call Crown corporations. They're owned by the government but managed independantly just like any other corporation, and compete openly and fairly with the rest of the players. Some of them, like PetroCanada, have done quite well, without stifling the free market or private enterprise.

Well, if they're doing well, why do we need private ownership of industry as a pre-requisite of good management, and effectivness?

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


And of course you agree that Arrian should be King because he knows how to make fish hooks and we should all suffer under his wrath.

And where did the concept of Absolute Monarchy ever creep into the discussion?

[Odin]

My Idea of a Communist society is one in which all industries are Co-ops, then they are truely controled by the consumer, not by greedy fat cats or government bereaucrats (hey that rhymes). This gives you the best of both worlds, the drive to innovate in private ownership, and the fairness for workers in a state owned industry. It would be like if everybody in a nation had equal number of stocks in a company.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Ned,

Freedom to me is freedom from restraint. By that definition people are not free in America. They have no other choice but to reliquish part of their wage to someone who maybe entirely undeserving of it.

No, they have the choice to set up their own business and work for themselves.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Azazel

Well, if they're doing well, why do we need private ownership of industry as a pre-requisite of good management, and effectivness?

Well in the case of PetroCanada, it simply isn't large enough to satisfy the demands of all the motorists in Canada. It's just one of the many that are providing that particular product. And the fact that it might lose customers to the other players if they don't do it right provides an incentive for sound management.

[Az]

How about having 3 companies, all of them govt. controlled?


( we used to have this here, with banks )

[Arrian]

They have no other choice but to reliquish part of their wage to someone who maybe entirely undeserving of it.

Duncan,

Define "deserving." I ask for that because, taken out of context, the quote above could be ascribed to a conservative rich person who doesn't think the poor deserve his money (the progressive tax redistributing wealth and all that).

Different people have different ideas about what is "fair" you know. I think this thread illustrates that rather well.

-Arrian