In light of recent events in the TTBM thread, I'm adding my opinion to the discussion here in the Debate thread, where minussing is reserved only for the truly terrible and the truly stupid.
Katls Nalcrato wrote: Top Hat Zebra wrote: Katls Nalcrato wrote: Top Hat Zebra wrote:Socialism (Sp) or even Communism, when it works, would be a more effecient form of government.
1) No, it wouldn't be more effecient.
2)Neither work, period.
I'm going to be short and blunt about this, both are built around a system based on the beter parts of humanity, genrosity, selflessness, and just being content with what you have. Sound great right? On paper, it's perfect for a good, wholesome government. The big problem is that that's not how people work. People in general are greedy, selfish, and always want more, more, and even more than they have.
Capitalism however on paper sounds like a creul, unjust system, where the aggressive and selfish are rewarded, where the people with the money rule. But, it is a much more effective government than any form of Socialism because it exploits those less deriable traits of mankind. In Socialism, you are not rewarded for your work, you get the same share as everyone else no matter how hard or little you work. Does that inspire the productivity a contry needs to surive? No, not at all. You could just sit around all day at work and not do anything ans still be rewarded. While this may sound great on an idevitual scale, it is horrible if every one does it, a contry's economy would collaspe, just like in the USSR.
EDIT: Thank you Mess.
I said when it works. It WOULD be much more effecient, for the government.
Plus, the only reason people are like that, is because they are spoiled. That whole Occupy Wallstreet business was the most fucking retarded thing I have ever heard of. They were protesting because people were more rich than they were. You know what would solve that? Socialism. Or, they could stop smoking the fucking Pakalolo and get a job.
Pardon my language.
People were perfectly content for THOUSANDS of years under several monarchies because that was how things were. If socialism or Communism had sprung up before Democracy, people would have been absolutly thrilled, and Democracy would be a scary, alien concept that shat on the common people.
Im not saying I support Socialism. I love Democracy. As a matter of fact, if our government attempted to go Socialist, I would take up arms ( Metaphoricaly.... Or literaly, if I had to.) Or, if Hawaii won back its independance ( like its trying really hard to do, and succeding) then I would move back to the US. I am very loyal to my country, I just recognise that it is NOT the best form of government.
Their not spoiled, it's human nature.
Communism and other forms of socialism that strive for the end goal of utter and total equality don't work at all unless you're a hippie commune. That doesn't mean that the current system couldn't do with a dose of socialism in the form of say, universal health care, pension schemes, welfare,... used in many European nations today ('nordic model' is a good example if you want proof that it works).
Saying people are spoiled is really all based on where you stand. Occupy Wall Street has a good point in the sense that things were getting out of hand. I'm ok with the premise that people who work more/have more responsibility can get paid more, but things were getting cartoonishly ridiculous.
Also, you can't say people were content for thousands of years because that's just plain wrong, just look at the French revolution, I'm sure the only reason they were happy to have a king was so they had someone whose head to cut off. Napoleon got kicked out of France and was banished,
twice, after becoming basically king in his own right.
Top Hat Zebra wrote:But people now always want more, because they are spoiled by the Capitalist system and modern technology, not to mention the way we baby those who are, "Less fortunate" then us.
Of course people always want more, people strive to be happy and if they've reached a certain level of happiness, why on earth would you go "nope, I've got enough happiness now, I'm going to stop doing things I enjoy completely".
Top Hat Zebra wrote:I would either force all the unemployed into labor projects, or agriculture, were I in charge.
(Haha, I sould like a crazy nutbag hippie. Tellin it how it is!)
This is just a small step away from becoming exactly what the
Red Khmer did, kicking off what was probably one of the worst genocides since Hitler. And yes, they were communists too. So no, you don't sound like a hippie, you sound more like a genocidal totalitarian dictator with this.
Katls Nalcrato wrote:May I point out that the Spartains where warmongers? Where did you get the information that they where based around the better parts of humanity?
And let me also say that everyone at some point in their life show those negitive traits, greed, selfishness, wanting more than they have. Even the best people that I know wish they had more than they have. So the whole "unfair generaliation" thing is invalid. Everyone has those traits during some point in their lives.
Spartans weren't that much more warmongery than anyone else at that time, they were just a bit better at it. If you weren't noone would now know you existed at all unless your empire got destroyed in a particularly spectacular fashion. But that's beside the point and I do agree that everyone's selfish. Some more than others, but it's imprinted in us all to strive for a higher status in the group. Biologically because this meant a sort of alpha male status, which meant you'd get
all the ladies, but in the same way that people eat more than they specifically need to to survive, there's no upper limit on this behaviour (eating or status-building) because there's never been a need for one, so everyone will always want more than what they have right now.
