Life is boring without inequality

[MoralLibertarian]

By now, everyone knows except Begoner that a completely equal system cannot function. But the thing that most people don't understand is that without inequality, life is dull and drab. What's the point of life if everyone in life is guaranteed the same results?

The game "Monopoly" is fun because there are winners and losers. The game of "Life" is also fun because there are winners and losers. As a matter of fact, every competitive game is fun because there are winners and losers. Such is life.

[Begoner]

But the thing that most people don't understand is that without inequality, life is dull and drab.

Damn straight. In fact, let's bring back slavery. That will make life more spicy and interesting because we are making some people less "equal" than others. What you don't understand is that inequality isn't something desirable, but rather a consequence of our modern, greedy, consumeristic society. There have been many societies that functioned well under a socialistic system of government where everybody was equal (Native Americans, for one).

What's the point of life if everyone in life is guaranteed the same results?

Not everybody will have the same results. Some people will be garbage men and some will be rocket scientists. However, the garbage men are the ones who are dumb/incapable of other work, not those who never had a chance to succeed because they needed to pay the bills and could not afford to go to college and such.

The game of "Life" is also fun because there are winners and losers.

You mean that it's fun for the winners.

[Tater-Salad18]

I completely agree with you Begoner. You left me speechless.

[Jayemare]

At 5/12/06 07:51 PM, Begoner wrote:

There have been many societies that functioned well under a socialistic system of government where everybody was equal (Native Americans, for one).

Good idea, let's go ask some native americans how to run the nation. Ohh, wait, there are hardly any left because they got owned by a superior, competetive society.

[Begoner]

Good idea, let's go ask some native americans how to run the nation. Ohh, wait, there are hardly any left because they got owned by a superior, competetive society.

They got owned? You mean they were exterminated by a society that valued land and money over human life? The Native Americans (on average) were far more content/happy with their lives than the Europeans (on average) in the same time period. That is because they did not have to devote their time trying to scrape together enough food to eat or to have a roof over their heads. The community provided for them, and they repayed the community by working for it. Unfortunately, their semi-utopian lifestyle was squashed under the heel of ruthless expansionists and war criminals.

[fli]

At 5/12/06 07:47 PM, mackid wrote:

Correction:
It's fun... for the people who win...

Fail--

[Jayemare]

At 5/12/06 08:04 PM, Begoner wrote: They got owned? You mean they were exterminated by a society that valued land and money over human life? The Native Americans (on average) were far more content/happy with their lives than the Europeans (on average) in the same time period.

How do you figure? Can we get a source?

JK. No one knows this. You don't expect us to take some Native American's word on it know, do you? I for one, though, find an air conditioned house with tv and internet and a refrigerator more comfortable than a teepee.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/12/06 08:06 PM, fli wrote:

At 5/12/06 07:47 PM, mackid wrote:

Correction:
It's fun... for the people who win...

Fail--

But in the game of real life.

You rarely hear from the people that lose.

[BeFell]

At 5/12/06 08:04 PM, Begoner wrote: They got owned? You mean they were exterminated by a society that valued land and money over human life? The Native Americans (on average) were far more content/happy with their lives than the Europeans (on average) in the same time period. That is because they did not have to devote their time trying to scrape together enough food to eat or to have a roof over their heads. The community provided for them, and they repayed the community by working for it. Unfortunately, their semi-utopian lifestyle was squashed under the heel of ruthless expansionists and war criminals.

Utopian society my ass, they had wars they had murder, rape and any other problem you can think of that would occur when humans get together. You've been spending too much God damn time watching Disney recreations of a harsh existance. Does it not occur to you that even in your little indian pow wow happy days scenario there weren't people who were considered better or less than others?

A completely equal society isn't a stupid idea because it would be boring. It's an impossible fantasy because it contradicts human nature.

[Jayemare]

At 5/12/06 08:31 PM, mofomojo wrote:
Of course, people still cheat and get into the government and try and encourage lawmakers to help out a rich minoritie instead of the poor and working class majority. This really detracts from the essence of a Socio-Capitalist Democracy such as Canada or to a lesser extent, the USA.

In the USA, a huge percentage of the income of the "rich" is taken by taxes, and carry almost the entire tax burden. What people don't understand is that cutting taxes for the rich benefits everyone. Our economy is booming right now, in part due to Bush's tax cuts.

[Begoner]

How do you figure? Can we get a source?

Do you think that there were widespead polls conducted to see how good life was back in the 1500s? No. However, Europeans at that time were desperate enough to jump on small ships to go to an unknown world because of the terrible quality of life for the poor in those days. They didn't own any land and had to scavenge for food. They also had a very short life expectancy.

I for one, though, find an air conditioned house with tv and internet and a refrigerator more comfortable than a teepee.

Do you think they had TVs in the 1500s?!

[Jayemare]

Begoner, will you in all seriousness answer one question for me. I am not J-K-ing.

Do you own Pocahontas on DVD?

[Begoner]

Utopian society my ass, they had wars they had murder, rape and any other problem you can think of that would occur when humans get together.

Of course you cannot wipe out all crime. There will still be a couple of "bad apples," but you cannot let them ruin the whole bunch. There was far less crime in the Native American society because there was less incentive to commit crime. The fuel that powers most crime is money and greed. However, these were almost non-existent because there was a lack of tangible benefits from committimg crime. You could not rob somebody or steal from somebody because of the nature of the society which prized the community over the individual.

It's an impossible fantasy because it contradicts human nature.

Human nature is to outplay everyone else, to be better than everyone else, to have more money than everyone else, etc. This concept of our existence is perpetuated by the capitalist system that rewards immorality and using whatever means to exploit others and thus get ahead. Look at Wal-Mart for a great example of this. However, this human instinct would be groundless in a society in which one cannot get ahead of anybody else. By removing the means to "beat" everybody else, there would be no more of the unfortunate side effects of competition -- crime, bad conditions for the poor, etc.

[Begoner]

Do you own Pocahontas on DVD?

No. If you prefer another example, look at Republican Spain during the civil war.

[Jayemare]

At 5/12/06 08:51 PM, Begoner wrote: You could not rob somebody or steal from somebody because of the nature of the society which prized the community over the individual.

We call this communism. Communist countries have crime.

By removing the means to "beat" everybody else, there would be no more of the unfortunate side effects of competition -- crime, bad conditions for the poor, etc.

Possibly, but there would be no more of the fortunate side effects of competiton. Competition drives progress. Do you think that Native Americans would have invented all of the things that we have today that make our lives comfortable? I would guess that even those at the bottom of our society live in better conditions than what the highest chief would live in had Native Americans lasted 500 years without European contact.

[Begoner]

We call this communism. Communist countries have crime.

That really depends. The USSR, for example, had a much lower crime rate than other Western countries. However, the USSR was not communist in any real sense of the word -- it was authoritarian.

Competition drives progress.

No, what drives progress is the need for something better, the solution to a problem. If people are dying of a disease, you don't need to compete with somebody to find a cure. If you are bored, you don't need to compete with somebody to invent a new game. Open source projects are an example of this and an excellent socialist system. People do it not because of competition, but because of other more altruistic reasons. The Native Americans were satisfied with their quality of life, and thus innovation plateaued and was stagnant. There was no impetus to invent further. This reflects well on their system of government -- it does not reflect poorly on their economic model.

[Gunter45]

At 5/12/06 07:47 PM, mackid wrote: The game of "Life" is also fun

Yeah, you wish.

[Jayemare]

At 5/12/06 09:08 PM, Begoner wrote: No, what drives progress is the need for something better, the solution to a problem.

Maybe in some cases, but competition causes a state of continual improvement. Native Americans reached a plateau where they were content, but not as well off as they could have been. Look at something like cell phones. When they first came out they were big and didn't get service everywhere and weren't very reliable, but they worked (and let's forget for a moment that native americans would never have developed cell phones.) But today they are small, efficent, work everywhere, play songs, take pictures, and more. These didn't come along as a solution to any real problem except the problem of "how are we at motorola going to make more money than the people at nokia?" It was competition that drove it. And without small continual improvements we could never have large ones. Could Native Americans have cured polio? No, because they didn't have tools to fashion metal and glass in to microscopes. Competition, not goodwill, creates. It creates social strata, but just remember the old saying "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, and communism is the equal distribution of poverty."

[MoralLibertarian]

At 5/12/06 08:06 PM, fli wrote:

At 5/12/06 07:47 PM, mackid wrote:

Correction:
It's fun... for the people who win...

Luckily, in the American system, there are more winners than losers. Also, the losers have a good time too. Otherwise they wouldn't even decide to play the game.

[Begoner]

Maybe in some cases, but competition causes a state of continual improvement.

Not entirely correct. Competition is but one of many factors that contribute to technological innovation. Even in societies without competition, there was innovation. The capitalist system was invented pretty recently in the timeline of human history, yet humans made many discoveries prior to its creation. In fact, the first system of government was anarchy, yet there was still innovation. Necessity is a major factor in predicting innovation. Many discoveries were made due to genuine curiosity or because of the need to surmount a particular problem.

Native Americans reached a plateau where they were content, but not as well off as they could have been.

Well, the plateau was only temporary. It is somewhat analogous to Europe in the Dark Ages. There was little innovation and society stagnated. However, all that was needed was a catalyst that could spark the gears of invention into action. The same could be true of Native American society in the 1500s. A good benchmark by which to guage the effects of capitalist-driven discoveries and those powered by other means is to look at mathematical innovation. There were a great many mathematicians who did not make much money yet contributed greatly to mankind's knowledge. People like Fermat and Euler formulated many principles and formulae that are still in use today. These mathematicians obviously did not work for profit since they died without much money. Native Americans, however, had few mathematicians and scientists, so their lack of other discoveries was not surprising. It would be unreasonable to assume they would not move past their current state because of their system of government. What held them back was the temporary lack of great minds that could think in innovative new ways. This lack was not due to a socialist system and has no impact on the system as a whole.

[LazyDrunk]

At 5/12/06 08:06 PM, fli wrote:

At 5/12/06 07:47 PM, mackid wrote:

Correction:
It's fun... for the people who win...

If you don't wanna play, just quit and join summer league.

Fail--

Bring back memories?

Life isn't fair.

Does that mean we have to be the same?

[FightingForFreedom]

I'm sorry but I have to agree with JMR. Begoner, while your ideas express great potential and clear-sightedness in theory, JMR's view is more practical realistically. The only true way to decide this arguement is to look at history.

All completely socialistic societies in the past 5,000 years have either collapsed internally (Soviet Union), transformed into dictatorships (North Korea), or become so impoverished that they no longer matter on the global playing field (Cuba).

In fact, I don' know why you even mentioned the Native Americans. You are trying to prove that socialistic equality is more benifical to society. Why would you cite a civilization that did not make crucial scientific discoveries (like the wheel for instance - Native Americans never figured that one out, you can look it up), lived in a near constant state of unmitigated tribal warfare, lacked a sound knowledge of medice (granted that knew about certain herbs and the like, but did not know they worked), and was toppled by a more advanced unequal society.

Even disregarding these facts - why would you ever consider Native Americans to be in an equal society. They had cheifs that were put in charge based on birth, self-appointed "medicine men" who maintained power through control of medications, and religous leaders. None of these things are present in equal societies. If anything, Native American tribes were a microcosm for today's capatilist America. Constant warfare, political-family leaders (like the Bush's and the Kennedy's), powerful religous figureheads, and overzealous doctors.

Begoner, I would love nothing more than for a socialist society to work - I would the first person to go to one - but such societies go against human nature.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 5/12/06 10:00 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: Begoner, I would love nothing more than for a socialist society to work - I would the first person to go to one - but such societies go against human nature.

They have worked. They work in Africa, they worked with a lot of the Native Americans, etc. It's just that most people would rather aspire to wealth. They would rather play the game and have at least a chance of winning.

[FightingForFreedom]

At 5/12/06 10:09 PM, mackid wrote: They [equal socialist societies] have worked. They work in Africa, they worked with a lot of the Native Americans, etc. It's just that most people would rather aspire to wealth. They would rather play the game and have at least a chance of winning.

Africa - Where do they work in Africa? Where have they worked in Africa? In fact, I don't even think a single country in Africa is socialist. The only one anywhere close to a socialism is Libya, but its more like a military dictatorship. Even if it was a socialist society, it would still be a flop. It's a third world African country that makes less than 50 billion a year, 95.1% of which comes from its oil industry, and whose middle class makes what our lower class gets on welfare. And thats the shimmering example of African Socialism!

Native Americans - How did it work for them? They are now a near dead race that is represented by just a few million people. I guess you could say thats the greedy European capitalist's fault, but it really doesn't matter who they were - they still overpowered them. So whether or not these capitalists are evil or not has no bearing on the situation, once again they still overpowered them. Thats why they are here and the Native Americans aren't. Obviously, it DIDN'T WORK.

Sorces:

http://odci.gov/cia/..actbook/geos/ly.html

http://en.wikipedia...ki/African_socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya

http://www.socialist..ndex.html?id=pp5.htm

[MoralLibertarian]

At 5/12/06 10:30 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: Africa - Where do they work in Africa?

Think about how tribal societies are organized. They aren't even socialist: they are communal. No leaders, collective ownership, etc. Ever seen The Gods Must be Crazy? It's def worth a rental if you haven't.

Native Americans - How did it work for them? They are now a near dead race that is represented by just a few million people. I guess you could say thats the greedy European capitalist's fault...

Shit was going fine until Europe came. Look, socialism works like this: everyone is poor, but everything and everyone is equal. In capitalism, some are rich, some are middle class, some are poor. I would prefer the latter.

[hhcash]

The only time there can be 2 winners is if two people finish first in a track race.

[Jayemare]

At 5/12/06 10:46 PM, mofomojo wrote: The wealthy don't need money and their budgets aren't being strained.

This doesn't make any sense at all.

Yes, it does. Taxes don't give money, they take it. Jobs is where people get money. Jobs are created by businesses. Businesses are created by investments. So cut taxes on the people who pay taxes, the rich. The rich invest the money, because that's what they do. Cut taxes on capital gains and divedends just does more. The economy grows. People get jobs! Yay! 4.7% unemployment!

Poor people already don't pay taxes, so why would we cut them even more?

[Elfer]

In conclusion, suffering is happiness???

Guys???

[MoralLibertarian]

At 5/12/06 11:05 PM, Elfer wrote: In conclusion, suffering is happiness???

Guys???

Who said that?