Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 6/11/06 06:52 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

At 6/11/06 04:58 PM, Guitarmy wrote:

How does it kill individuality? Socialism is heavily socially liberal since it has an emphasis on the "social". Most forms of discrimination, which includes based on things like appearance, would be much rarer.

No. It kills individuality by squelching ideas. A person does not have the right to acheive in communsim, because everyone is equal thus one person success is everyone's success. Freedom of religion is not allowed because there is no higher power above the community.

Of course it's not a utopia. There will be problems from both communism and capitalism in socialism, but to a much lesser extent. But it's BETTER. And that's the point.

No it is not better.

Flaws of Capitalism:

The assumption that each person "knows" what is in his best interest. For example, who really "knows" the BEST way to invest their money for the next 5 years?

Even when a person knows what is in his best interest, will he act in his best interest? For example, people smoke even though they have the knowledge that it is not in their best interests.

Actions taken in an individual's best interest does not mean they are in society's best interest. For example, a man can literally use cash to start fires to prove his incredible wealth, but that money could have been better spent on other causes more beneficial to society.

Flaws of Communism:

Communism assumes that all people will seek to stay at the same level as everyone else, but the reality is that most people will try to do something to "get ahead" of others.

Communism needs a mechanism, a governing body, to decide how to redistribute the wealth. This therefore assumes that the individuals that act as part of this governing body would not seek to promote their own interests over that of others. It also assumes that the governing body has perfect information, and perfect wisdom to make the appropriate decisions about how to redistribute the wealth.

Giving equal resources to all individuals sounds fair on the surface, but many resources may lie dormant. For example, society could give everyone a Pentium 233 computer. Some people would use it, some would not, and some would wish they had a Pentium 466 computer so they could do more, but the equality system would not allow this unless society could provide the Pentium 466 to everyone. The new technology must be made available to a priviliged few and accepted and desired so that society can determine whether or not the new technology will be mass produced for everyone.

http://www.robkraft...knowldge/capcomm.htm

In capitalism you have personal control of your life while in communism you have to give that up.

---

Why pay someone who destroy their own chances at a decent life? They should strive to move beyond fastfood. In capitalism the economy is always moving.

Who would WANT to be stuck in a fast food job? Not to mention that other jobs do have the prospect of paying better - the difference is socialism doesn't have jobs that pay ASTRONIMICALLY better.

The person can take new and a better rewarding job in capitalism.

And some people never do. You still haven't tackled poverty or dead end jobs.

Luck is such an insignificant part of economics that it won't even be mentioned in economic text books. :)

Because economics doesn't govern an individual person's experience. The point is that certain positions will always be filled in capitalism. There is no room for restructuring, there will always be "gods and clods". But who fills those positions is muchly down to luck.

Those jobs require high skills levels that require years of college and study.

There is also luck in that that you choose the right course, right college, etc. That you scrape through an exam. Not to mention that even if you have the qualifications, they could hire someone else. You can't control their preference. For all intensive purposes, that too is luck.

Read about Milton Friedman here. It will help you understand why these jobs are needed, and that capitalism rewards itself. You will also learn that their is a close link upon money and inflation.

It doesn't say why on that page; I pretty much have to read the book. If you're familiar enough with it you should be able to tell me his points or point me to an online source with those points.

---

No. It kills individuality by squelching ideas. A person does not have the right to acheive in communsim, because everyone is equal thus one person success is everyone's success. Freedom of religion is not allowed because there is no higher power above the community

Socialism isn't communism.

And there's more to achievement than achieving money.

---

At 6/11/06 07:46 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

And there's more to achievement than achieving money.

When your talking about economic systems there isn't. http://dictionary.re..?q=Economic%20System

---

At 6/11/06 06:52 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

At 6/11/06 04:58 PM, Guitarmy wrote: AGAIN, the only thing that needs be said against socialism is that it kills individuality. Utopia's don't exist never can exist and never will.

How does it kill individuality? Socialism is heavily socially liberal since it has an emphasis on the "social". Most forms of discrimination, which includes based on things like appearance, would be much rarer.

Of course it's not a utopia. There will be problems from both communism and capitalism in socialism, but to a much lesser extent. But it's BETTER. And that's the point.

Well, a person's freedom is more important than a person's well being. Individuality dies with class equality there needs to be something that sets people apart in some way throughout life. What you do in life is expected a reward. Very few people need class equality and many don't want it there are plenty of people who are technically poor but are happy.

---

Well, a person's freedom is more important than a person's well being

Freedom to do what, exactly? Set up businesses and earn ridiculous amounts of money you don't need, or fall flat on your face trying? Socialism offers some people more freedom, some less. But overall it's better.

---

At 6/11/06 08:16 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Set up businesses and earn ridiculous amounts of money you don't need, or fall flat on your face trying?

Yes among others.

Socialism offers some people more freedom, some less. But overall it's better.

What additonal freedoms would this be?

---

At 6/11/06 07:57 PM, Guitarmy wrote: Well, a person's freedom is more important than a person's well being. Individuality dies with class equality there needs to be something that sets people apart in some way throughout life. What you do in life is expected a reward. Very few people need class equality and many don't want it there are plenty of people who are technically poor but are happy.

There are many who try to become wealthy, because of the capitalistic maxims of money.

Equality vs Freedom is a very controversial topic. And a mixture of the both equality and freedom is usually the optimum design for a great system. This is what Social Democracy promotes.

The fact that social democracy regulates companies from dominating over certain fields is fact that individuality prospers within a socially democratic nation, because small business is promoted. Also, being that everyone is as close to equality as possible, Social democracy allows for the EQUAL freedoms of one another. Just because social rights are emphasized on, doesn't mean human rights are disregarded. Democracy cames before Individualism, for society's sake.

"Individuality dies with class equality there needs to be something that sets people apart in some way throughout life."

Well the options that don't support a Socially Democratic view are:
---
a) Give everyone pure freedom, thus creating groups to expand further, and eventually a primary group is produced(capitalism/anarchy)

b)Have a structured power, so that individuality is enforced and no one can deny their identity (totalitarianism/castes)
---
Both start out different but end up with individual(s) dictating over everyone else.

Pure freedom manifests into a transitional economy (in this case) until someone takes power.

Here's the tricky part of human nature: a human performs better with social interaction, but requires an individual identity of themsleves in order to achieve a sort of balance between the former. Social Democracy promotes the flourishing of people through natural interaction, rather than entising them with the bait of Capitalism.

:"What you do in life is expected a reward"

I highly doubt that money can satisfy you when you're 80 years old and have 45 million dollars to give away because of the crazed preservance of wealth, and all you got out of it was a fancy suit and gold watch.

Death is the only gift life brings. Working harder just makes the "reward" sweeter.

Social Democracy is what the entire world can be based upon.

---

At 6/11/06 08:33 PM, arz756 wrote:

At 6/11/06 08:16 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Set up businesses and earn ridiculous amounts of money you don't need, or fall flat on your face trying?

Yes among others.

Socialism offers some people more freedom, some less. But overall it's better.

What additonal freedoms would this be?

The freedom to have a voice in the decisions your boss makes. To have a voice on whether you should be fired, because the company needs lay back some workers. Even though they are all working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.

---

At 6/12/06 12:23 AM, pt9_9 wrote: There are many who try to become wealthy, because of the capitalistic maxims of money.

Generally Called consumerists/assholes, fuck them they can run their lives how they choose because it's their lives.

Equality vs Freedom is a very controversial topic. And a mixture of the both equality and freedom is usually the optimum design for a great system. This is what Social Democracy promotes.

No it doesn't, it cements the difference between government and public as noble and peasant.

The fact that social democracy regulates companies from dominating over certain fields is fact that individuality prospers within a socially democratic nation, because small business is promoted. Also, being that everyone is as close to equality as possible, Social democracy allows for the EQUAL freedoms of one another. Just because social rights are emphasized on, doesn't mean human rights are disregarded. Democracy cames before Individualism, for society's sake.

No you're speaking of a centralist government, where bussiness is allowed but growth is capped. Class equality is not real equality, many people always comment that though the docter does much more work the mcdonalds fry cook gets the same money, why the fuck become a docter, for the great fun of trying to pay off the massive student loans, or rather so you can die inside everyday for ruining yourself?

Individualism came first, because at one point the only way we could communicate was by bashing eachothers heads in or raping (by todays standards, watch quest for fire damnit) women.

Well the options that don't support a Socially Democratic view are:
---
a) Give everyone pure freedom, thus creating groups to expand further, and eventually a primary group is produced(capitalism/anarchy)

Yeah, it simply expands on the government's pure freedom kinda making them like a big CEO.

b)Have a structured power, so that individuality is enforced and no one can deny their identity (totalitarianism/castes)

Yet somehow making people believe that docters are just as valuable to society as fry cooks.

Both start out different but end up with individual(s) dictating over everyone else.

Some people are better than other people at various things, the law of the land says such. That's why the retarded animals are killed by predators.

Pure freedom manifests into a transitional economy (in this case) until someone takes power.

Heh, yeah, but it's fun for a while you know that guy who slashed my tires? I'm going to slash his FACE!

Here's the tricky part of human nature: a human performs better with social interaction, but requires an individual identity of themsleves in order to achieve a sort of balance between the former. Social Democracy promotes the flourishing of people through natural interaction, rather than entising them with the bait of Capitalism.

Capitalism is essentially the way of nature put into economic form, which by the way I'm not advocating.

I highly doubt that money can satisfy you when you're 80 years old and have 45 million dollars to give away because of the crazed preservance of wealth, and all you got out of it was a fancy suit and gold watch.

Personal problems have nothing to do with it, if you looked into this statement you'd find the vast majority of people find a way to cope.

Death is the only gift life brings. Working harder just makes the "reward" sweeter.

You're an idiot if you believe that. Life is what you make of it, don't get me wrong none of that matters to you when you die. But if you're not a degenerate you'll manage to make 'friends' out of the people you come across who will be hurt by your death. Again personal philosophy on life should never be expressed in your views on economics, statistics are what matter.

Social Democracy is what the entire world can be based upon.

Life seems to be based on more on Capitalism, judging by nature. Again though, I've never said that was perfect. Social Democracy is not centristalism as you've said before, it's a crazed old man's idea for a Utopia, which can exist, provided; Brain Chips, Aryan Race, and NO JEWS.

---

At 6/12/06 05:12 AM, Guitarmy wrote:

At 6/12/06 12:23 AM, pt9_9 wrote: There are many who try to become wealthy, because of the capitalistic maxims of money.

Generally Called consumerists/assholes, fuck them they can run their lives how they choose because it's their lives.

Yes. Fuck the brainwashed.

Equality vs Freedom is a very controversial topic. And a mixture of the both equality and freedom is usually the optimum design for a great system. This is what Social Democracy promotes.

No it doesn't, it cements the difference between government and public as noble and peasant.

Social Democracy emphasizes on the equal distribution of power between free enterprise and government regulation.

No you're speaking of a centralist government, where bussiness is allowed but growth is capped.

Link
My arguments are very similar to there's(social democrats).

Individualism came first, because at one point the only way we could communicate was by bashing eachothers heads in or raping (by todays standards, watch quest for fire damnit) women.

Okay so individualism was created first. But priority-wise, democracy is more significant.
Religion benefitted society for a time being, until we ourselves developed morals. Just like individualism, in modern day, indiviualism has become less vital for people to thrive.

Well the options that don't support a Socially Democratic view are:
---
a) Give everyone pure freedom, thus creating groups to expand further, and eventually a primary group is produced(capitalism/anarchy)

Yeah, it simply expands on the government's pure freedom kinda making them like a big CEO.

Mmkay

b)Have a structured power, so that individuality is enforced and no one can deny their identity (totalitarianism/castes)

Yet somehow making people believe that docters are just as valuable to society as fry cooks.

Moral Egalitarianism is valued by any popular(emphasis on popular) ideology, just some value it more than others. And are you hinting at something?

Both start out different but end up with individual(s) dictating over everyone else.

Some people are better than other people at various things, the law of the land says such. That's why the retarded animals are killed by predators.

I believe that everyone is good, not neccesarilly the best, at a plethora of fields. That's why there are different creature adaptations.

Pure freedom manifests into a transitional economy (in this case) until someone takes power.

Heh, yeah, but it's fun for a while you know that guy who slashed my tires? I'm going to slash his FACE!

You can try.

Capitalism is essentially the way of nature put into economic form, which by the way I'm not advocating.

Okay, so why did you post an opposing reply?

Personal problems have nothing to do with it, if you looked into this statement you'd find the vast majority of people find a way to cope.

Cope? I don't ever want to cope. I don't want to be cheated, period. Personal problems are what everyone deals with.

You're an idiot if you believe that. Life is what you make of it, don't get me wrong none of that matters to you when you die. But if you're not a degenerate you'll manage to make 'friends' out of the people you come across who will be hurt by your death. Again personal philosophy on life should never be expressed in your views on economics, statistics are what matter.

Life has no meaning without death. The only reason we work is because we know there IS an end.

Personal philosophy is the root of any form of government, it makes perfect sense to state my opinions on a moral plane.

Social Democracy is what the entire world can be based upon.

Life seems to be based on more on Capitalism, judging by nature. Again though, I've never said that was perfect. Social Democracy is not centristalism as you've said before, it's a crazed old man's idea for a Utopia, which can exist, provided; Brain Chips, Aryan Race, and NO JEWS.

One word: Sweden.
Oh wait another word: Antitrust.

The world tends to be more socially democratic, which fuses capitalism and socialism's best ideas.

Don't mix Social Democracy with radical totalitarianism or Democratic Socialism.

-----------
I bet you some of my quotes didn't work sry

---

Uhh I heard learning proper English is the first step to proving a point or spreading a message in America, perhaps you should go and take my advice.