| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The T 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
 Posted: July 14 2010 at 12:42 |
 Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
True communism is a Utopia?
Of course I believe its doable. It'll be mighty hard to sustain in its pure form, but it doesn't need to be perfect to be better than what we have.
|
Of course it was. It was never a reality. If you had read the communist manifesto (maybe you have) you know what I mean. Socialism existed. Communism never.
And your system better be perfect if it's to replace one that has brought a certain degree of prosperity (a little) and well being to the nation...
|
I understand that, but as Pat said I wouldn't consider that a Utopia.
"My" system is what caused the prosperity that we have enjoyed here. Further adherence to "my" principles will only bring us more of it. The more libertarian our economic system the better, even if it never goes to pure free market.
|
"Your" system was never the one you wanted. You want almost zero government, market preponderance over any regulation, absolute liberties in almost all areas. That has not happened here. Yet.
Other societies have prospered and even further (some at least) with other options. Would you agree on that? (no, it doesn't have strict relation with the other half of the post.. it's just something I wanted to ask you). |
What I mean is free market as espoused by libertarian philosophy has created our prosperity. Just because it was never realized in full is irrelevant. Time and time again we see the freer the market, the more prosperity is created.
I don't know what that first sentence of the second paragraph is supposed to mean. |
I have never opposed free market. I just want a less-free market with regulation.
The second sentence is a question. Do you agree that other societies have also prospered but with different systems (some even with lots of goverment intervention?) Again, just a question, not related to the rest.
|
|
|
 |
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 14 2010 at 12:46 |
|
Oh ok sorry I read "prospered" as "proposed". I think clearly yes other societies have, but a society can prosper with mules instead of tractors. I would also question the morality of those societies, but yes other societies certainly have been prosperous for some periods of time.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 14 2010 at 12:51 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Oh ok sorry I read "prospered" as "proposed". I think clearly yes other societies have, but a society can prosper with mules instead of tractors. I would also question the morality of those societies, but yes other societies certainly have been prosperous for some periods of time. |
I'm taking about current societies...  but t hat's OK. I just wanted to know your view.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 14 2010 at 13:07 |
|
That's a lot of words you used to say nothing.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: July 14 2010 at 15:32 |
The T wrote:
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
True communism is a Utopia?
Of course I believe its doable. It'll be mighty hard to sustain in its pure form, but it doesn't need to be perfect to be better than what we have.
|
Of course it was. It was never a reality.
|
I think Pat meant are you sure it's a utopia and not a dystopia. |
It's a utopia. A society of all equals and free is a utopia. In reality it got closer to a dystopia, I can't deny that. But in principle, it is (was?) a utopia |
It's someone's opinion of a utopia. Simply put: a "utopia" is an ideal state. It is not necessarily "a society of equals and free". Being that human beings are individuals, and what is ideal for one is not necessarily what is ideal for another, a "utopia" is not achievable, not even on a philosophical level. A dystopia is the only thing that can actually result from the societal quest for utopia which is why I believe so strongly in protecting the liberties of the individual from the whims of the collective.
|
 Time always wins.
|
|
RoyFairbank
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
|
Posted: July 14 2010 at 18:11 |
|
While there is a lot of silliness here, tossing around the pop terms Utopia and Dystopia is a terrible way of approaching Libertarianism or Marxism.
Before anyone can even get into that, however, they have to question how reasonable it is to selectively accept the word of any group.
Libertarianism claim to be advocates of freedoms and democracy? This shouldn't be automatically accepted.
The Stalinist states claimed to be "socialist," along with many other things. Why should anyone listen to what they think?
In terms of Utopia and Dystopia, the Stalinist state's experience was well within the range of many capitalist states. The standard of living in the USSR was higher than in all of the capitalist third world. Political freedom in those places wasn't any better. No need to invoke Dystopia. Its just politically motivated and ignorant.
As for the United States it is treated like a Utopia as well. It is a miserable place compared to what it could be. Libertarians want to make it more miserable. They demand privilege and individual monopoly be further protected against the interests of the majority, very well, this is not an ideal world for the majority. Then again, its not so great now. Elections every four years for two people of the same two big business parties. That's not democratic.
Edited by RoyFairbank - July 14 2010 at 18:59
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: July 14 2010 at 19:15 |
|
Neurotica!!!
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 14 2010 at 22:09 |
RoyFairbank wrote:
Libertarianism claim to be advocates of freedoms and democracy? This shouldn't be automatically accepted.
|
What are you talking about? First off Libertarianism is in absolutely no way connected with democracy. Secondly, how do Libertarian principles not advocate freedom. On what grounds could you reject that without playing semantical games with "freedom".
RoyFairbank wrote:
Libertarians want to make it more miserable. They demand privilege and individual monopoly be further protected against the interests of the majority, very well, this is not an ideal world for the majority.
|
Explain please
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 14 2010 at 22:09 |
manofmystery wrote:
The T wrote:
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
True communism is a Utopia?
Of course I believe its doable. It'll be mighty hard to sustain in its pure form, but it doesn't need to be perfect to be better than what we have.
|
Of course it was. It was never a reality.
|
I think Pat meant are you sure it's a utopia and not a dystopia. |
It's a utopia. A society of all equals and free is a utopia. In reality it got closer to a dystopia, I can't deny that. But in principle, it is (was?) a utopia |
It's someone's opinion of a utopia. Simply put: a "utopia" is an ideal state. It is not necessarily "a society of equals and free". Being that human beings are individuals, and what is ideal for one is not necessarily what is ideal for another, a "utopia" is not achievable, not even on a philosophical level. A dystopia is the only thing that can actually result from the societal quest for utopia which is why I believe so strongly in protecting the liberties of the individual from the whims of the collective. |
Well said.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: July 15 2010 at 00:30 |
For a flaming commie liberal just worked 14 hours today...and unlike my lazy coworkers I didnt slack off or take sh*t tons of breaks. Just the minimal amount legally mandated by the federal government  I got shorted mon and tues...if I want to make overtime had to make it up today.  Everything said above makes my inner hippie die
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: July 15 2010 at 00:44 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by seeing it as all politics.
SS was never intended to be temporary. FDR actually wanted SS to be funded via a nation payroll tax to give the facade of it being self-financing insurance and more difficult to politically repeal. His programs were never meant to be temporary. In fact, a majority of the time they were never meant to recover the economy. His primary interest was reform, not recovery. His policies were certainly not taken further than he wanted. They were taken much shorter than what he wanted. Because of dwindling political support and Constitutionality issues many of his most desired reforms were struck down or had to be compromised. I know much less about LBJ's presidency, but I'd be surprised if he went to greater lengths to win votes through fraud than FDR.
I certainly dislike LBJ and Nixon, but they simply don't compare to FDR.
|
I guess its all our bias. I must say, I never heard that version of history, at least not quite like that. Coming from the left, I've heard the opposite criticism. Not doing enough. You make him sound like a radical reformer, bent on changing the system. I've heard some say he: 1. Left capitalism intact (coming from the very very left) 2. That the new deal was basically run by/for businesses and the federal government State intervention in economy, corporatism, bartering between companies/unions/the government. Almost sounds like fascism. Economically of course. Meh, long story short Obama almost reminds me of FDR. Flak from the right for being a socialist, flak from the left for not really "doing" anything. Is it more proof that, on the grand scale, Dems are really just moderate?
Edited by JJLehto - July 15 2010 at 00:44
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: July 15 2010 at 01:34 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
RoyFairbank wrote:
Libertarianism claim to be advocates of freedoms and democracy? This shouldn't be automatically accepted.
|
What are you talking about? First off Libertarianism is in absolutely no way connected with democracy. Secondly, how do Libertarian principles not advocate freedom. On what grounds could you reject that without playing semantical games with "freedom".
RoyFairbank wrote:
Libertarians want to make it more miserable. They demand privilege and individual monopoly be further protected against the interests of the majority, very well, this is not an ideal world for the majority.
|
Explain please |
The problems with libertarianism are similar in nature to those of communism. with complete freedom of trade the capitalist structure would quickly dissolve into an oligarchy in which those with the most money/production power have controll. In this case, unless the oligarchy turnes out to be run by a bunch of kind hearted caretakers, we will be for all intents and purposes at square one with a simple despotism.
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: July 15 2010 at 07:40 |
Proletariat wrote:
The problems with libertarianism are similar in nature to those of communism. with complete freedom of trade the capitalist structure would quickly dissolve into an oligarchy in which those with the most money/production power have controll. In this case, unless the oligarchy turnes out to be run by a bunch of kind hearted caretakers, we will be for all intents and purposes at square one with a simple despotism. |
In this case, if you don't like your "leaders," don't buy their products or services.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 15 2010 at 08:14 |
|
^ because that is sooo easy to do isn't it. Have you ever tried boycotting a major corporation? Suppose you decide to not buy products from Kraft or any of their associated companies, so you remove the jar of Maxwell House coffee and replace it with Kenco... nope - they're owned by Phillip Morris too. Now you're reduced to reading the small-print on every package you pick up to see who makes it and keep abreast of corporat shuffles and mergers to see whether any one item is on your banned list or not. The market isn't quite as free as we like to think it is.
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: July 15 2010 at 08:15 |
Dean wrote:
^ because that is sooo easy to do isn't it. Have you ever tried boycotting a major corporation? Suppose you decide to not buy products from Kraft or any of their associated companies, so you remove the jar of Maxwell House coffee and replace it with Kenco... nope - they're owned by Phillip Morris too. Now you're reduced to reading the small-print on every package you pick up to see who makes it and keep abreast of corporat shuffles and mergers to see whether any one item is on your banned list or not. The market isn't quite as free as we like to think it is. |
Or you just don't buy coffee.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 15 2010 at 10:41 |
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
^ because that is sooo easy to do isn't it. Have you ever tried boycotting a major corporation? Suppose you decide to not buy products from Kraft or any of their associated companies, so you remove the jar of Maxwell House coffee and replace it with Kenco... nope - they're owned by Phillip Morris too. Now you're reduced to reading the small-print on every package you pick up to see who makes it and keep abreast of corporat shuffles and mergers to see whether any one item is on your banned list or not. The market isn't quite as free as we like to think it is. |
Or you just don't buy coffee.
|
...or beer, they own Miller too. 
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: July 15 2010 at 10:42 |
Okay, okay! I will be socialist now!
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 15 2010 at 10:46 |
Why on earth would anyone want to buy beer from Miller? Urine is free and tastes the same.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 15 2010 at 11:24 |
thellama73 wrote:
Why on earth would anyone want to buy beer from Miller? Urine is free and tastes the same.
|
The relative merits of the various beers fabricated in huge American chemical plants (with respect to bodily fluids) is a product of the free market economy that is goverened by what sells best, not by what tastes best.
|
|
What?
|
|
RoyFairbank
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
|
Posted: July 15 2010 at 12:41 |
|
There was once a bald dude who said thusly:
"Either the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat"
Which is a crude way of saying that Democracy is always run on behalf of some empowered section of the population. You can either empower one section or the other. Libertarians say they want to empower individuals and various people on the other side say they want to empower the majority.
Whatever the case is, things always turn out one way or the other. Capitalism empowers some sections above others. Libertarians work to break down the compromises in the capitalist system, leading to the increased empowerment of those sections. For individuals of the other sections, things become worst off as the compromises are taken away.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
For my Libertarian friends
