Political Compass


Victory, you say?
You can have a semi-capitalist system under a socialist flag, like on Communist China. This socialist flag can be disguised under other names, but has similar results. As an economic system, socialism is a fraud. The duo socialist politics and capitalist economy is what we have nowdays on varying degrees, but it’s not really capitalism. Is almost not really economic socialism, because history shows that an attempt to create "real socialism" nearly destroys a country and generate famine and disgrace of horrible proportions. Socialism is just a way to get and maintain political and economical power, so it can use a semi-capitalist system so it can hold the power and do less damage, so they can stay in power longer.

Most of the so-called "right-wing" politics just defend socialism with a different flavor. So does the so called "libertarian left" that doesn’t explain how everyone will voluntarily gives up their freedom, or how an economy not based on the laws of economy would work. You see, on “real” socialist countries, the major problem is that there was no market to set prices. So bureaucrats had to make up prices for stuff so they could try to run things, what didn't realy work.


Unknown Enemy
Argh, getting longer again :(. Let's end this. Reply to this post, and then we'll both just post our concluding remarks or whatever.

cff said:
Wrong. Both are mostly an economic ideology.
Capitalism is an ideology that says that natural laws of economics work well, and that any intervention results in adverse effects. Socialism is an ideology that says the natural laws of economics must be revised to build a 'better' society. The fact that socialim's purpose is related to the society, not to economics, proves that it is not an economic ideology. And the fact that it would try to intervene in something that even socialist economists consider to be the natural order of things proves that it is the dumbest idea ever - to complain about supply & demand is like complaining about gravity.

Oh, but capitalism has a STRONG opinion how you should life. Live the way that maximizes profits. Just open your eyes - pupils are beaten by others because they don't have the 'right' hip clothes.
Foolishness. Pupils get beaten because they don't have the hip clothes? What the hell does that have to do with capitalism? You've come up with a problem and arbitrarily linked it to capitalism for no reason other than because you think capitalism is bad. What can capitalism possibly have to do with stuff like this? What, is it supply and demand? Those pupils not wearing hip clothes are demanding to be beaten, and those others decide to supply the beating? Or do those other pupils demand someone to beat, and those ones not wearing hip clothes decide to supply themselves? Your arguments are simply getting ridiculous.

And again, capitalism has NO opinion on how you should live. The ONLY thing capitalism says is that the economy works best when the government doesn't intervene. Libertarianism goes further by combining this with liberalism (in the 19th century meaning of the word), arguing that the government should in general intervene as little as possible in the life of its people; that a person should be able to do anything he likes, as long as he doesn't usurp other people's freedom (so, no, it's not a "do what you will, kill who you will" ideology). The running theme here is NON-INTERVENTIONISM. Capitalism and libertarianism CANNOT tell you how you should live, because they're too busy telling you that the government shouldn't tell you how you should live.

And you assumtion is based on what facts? Just being private doesn' make anything better.
My true and accurate statement :)p) is based on logic supplemented with evidence drawn from what is happening all around me. For example, by comparing the experience of visiting a dentist (private healthcare) and the experience of visiting a doctor (public healthcare). A private business has every reason to treat its customers well - it wants to secure a return visit. A public business, on the other hand, has every reason to treat its customers as badly as possible - it does not want return visits. To a dentist, you're a liability (in terms of time and materials spent on your treatment), but you're also the source of revenue, so he respects you. To a public doctor, you are only a liability - he has to spend time and materials on you, but he doesn't get anything from you in return, and it's reasonable that the less he spends on you, the more he'll be able to siphon off for himself.

In short, public businesses work badly for the very same reasons for which private businesses work well - because both operate under the same unchangeable laws of economics.

Besides you also employ a rather capitalistic idea to the sozial system as well. If it is broken throw it away.
More foolishness - if you follow the economic laws outlined by capitalism, you will realise that it's usually cheaper to fix something than to throw it away. So, "if it's broken, throw it away" has nothing to do with capitalism - in fact, such rules usually operate in incompetently-managed public businesses (in other words, in all public businesses), which means that you are once again blaming capitalism for socialism.

And as for fixing social systems... socialism has had over a hundred years. Had these problems been fixable, they would have been fixed. But no - instead, they were made worse, and keep getting worse. Socialism is a dismal failure, exactly as capitalists said it would be - and you're still talking about fixing it?

Ah, but if capitalism rules 100% the companies themself will force the government that it will increase its influence in order to help them along once again.
That's why there must be a strong constitution that sets the basic rules in stone, and which cannot be changed by the government. Because the price of freedom really is eternal vigilance - capitalism has an uncanny ability to morph into socialism, and this is dangerous.

The other topic is the fusion of corporations.
No, it isn’t. Corporate fusions are entirely irrelevant here. They are entirely unaffected by all this - you will still be able to buy somebody else's company and merge it with your own.

What is the difference if a bankrupt company owes you money versus a bankrupt single person owes you money? [...] It just needs a person willing to stay bankrupt for the rest of his life (or tricked into getting bankrupt). [...] Simple as that done millions of times even under current law.
Ah, another classic socialist argument - that capitalism ignores human perfidy and thus should not be tried because it doesn't fix everything. Well, hang on - exactly how is the present situation better? Because if it isn’t, then any improvement is a good thing. And if a person, rather than a corporation, owes you money, your chances of getting retribution through law are better.

Firstly the fictional leader of that company would of course be more guilty if something bad happens then the silent co-owners, right?
Only to a point. If the company was somehow responsible for somebody's death, for example, the guy in charge might be charged with murder - but the silent co-owners would be charged as accessories to murder.

However as I said - either your private law is voluntarily or it is illegal. Simply because you don't have the right to issue laws.
Unless I can afford to pay off the police. Besides, my private law is not the only one based on money - those laws that make my law illegal are also enforced using money.

Equal chance means communism: in that case, maybe 'equal chance' is the wrong term for me to use. Picture a race. The competitors all must follow the same rules - they run the same distance, starting simultaneously, etc., etc. The race, therefore, is considered fair (and this is what I want). But of course, not everyone has an equal chance to win - some of the competitors are more talented than others. Regardless of this, however, the race is fair, and if we took steps to ensure that everyone in the race were of precisely equal talent, we would turn it into a parody, because the winner could only be determined randomly or through a violation of the rules. I don't want this, so I would never suggest any sort of communism - equal rules are what's important here.

Talent vs. money: Money is just a random variable? Hang on - I earn money through hard work. If I have lots of money, this isn't at all random. Even if it's my parents that earned the money, and not me, the money is still not random - I have it because someone earned it. Talent? Intelligence? Now, there's some random variables - with our rudimentary understanding of genetics and heredity, we really don't know why some children born from moronic parents are brilliant, while others born from brilliant parents are morons.

I respect people solely for how hard they try.
You're lying :). If you had your own company, you would hire people who could prove to you that they can get the job done. Nobody wants to hire somebody who has time and time again failed dismally, even if they always try really hard. Of course, you may reply saying that even though you wouldn't hire such a person, you would have deep respect for them - but then your respect is just a worthless word.

And of course, you cannot measure everything on the same scale - the requirements for a good painting are different than the requirements for a good car. But this has no bearing on the effort-vs-result question. After all, the effort required for these two things is different as well, and that doesn't make one of them better than the other.

People will start to engineer our race towards achieving the most results out of the least gain. [...] In the end you'd end with biological robots.
This is wonderfully ironic. Your argument against result-based judgements is based on the end result. Unless you admit that you are wrong (which you are), you have no right to use this argument. I can say that the process you describe above is bad, because it will result in biological robots, and I don't think that's a good result. You cannot say this - as far as you're concerned, the process described above is a good thing, because the people in charge of the process are making a great effort. What's more, according to your effort-based judgement, I am worse than these people, because while they're making an effort to improve humanity, I'm just sitting there complaining about what the end results will be.

I never denied this. Bill Gates money is more useful. But it is LESS NOBLE.
Sure, in your eyes - but again, you don't matter.
Quarto said:
Mystery Muppet: a falsehood, no matter how many times you repeat it, does not become truth (even if you yourself believe it to be true). If a person is forced to give up his own property under threat of government prosecution, that's a pretty severe limitation on his freedom, regardless of what you believe. Note also that the fact that high taxes are necessary in order to uphold socialism is not something I disagree with - but to me, that's just more proof that socialism is a bad system. And why shouldn’t I be a zealot, anyway? You haven’t given me a single reason to doubt my position, so why should I be the one to back down? :p
*GLARE* Indeed, falsehoods don't come true no matter how often you repeat them. Your point being...?
Forcing people to give up property under threat of imprisonment isn't what it's about. Don't just glance at it, give it a good CLOSE look. Socialism is about taking care of people, which demands taxation for it to work (how well it works IN PRACTICE is, sadly, a different chapter, and not the ideology's fault). Just the same as capitalism placing demands on people's personal economy, socialism needs taxes. So, by these points, can we agree that not paying taxes in a socialist system is almost comparable to fraud or theft in a capitalist system?
As for being a zealot, I was referring to those who fiercely defend their views oblivious to everything else. Don't be one of those, it doesn't become you. Whether you're like that already is something I'd rather not be the one to decide.


Unknown Enemy
Mystery muppet said:
Don't just glance at it, give it a good CLOSE look.
I did. As I've pointed out a few times in this thread, I used to think pretty much like you (which is also why I'm even bothering to post anything in this thread - because I know from personal experience that you guys are not a lost cause :p).

(how well it works IN PRACTICE is, sadly, a different chapter, and not the ideology's fault)
Really? So whose fault exactly is it? And what does it matter, anyway? If something doesn't work in practice after a whole century of trying, then to hell with the theory.

(of course, one of my many points in this thread has been that no, in fact socialism is not good in theory)


Kilk'dymga'qith laq Ik'vikvi
In case you miss me - you suggested to end it with a conclusion the next couple of posts. As I don't see that conclusion happen and I am kinda tired of the arguments really I will just end it apruptly right now from my side if you don't mind and say we agree to disagree.


Unknown Enemy
Yeah, sounds like a pretty good idea, and should save us a lot of time in the long run ;). Well, it was a fun discussion.


Kilk'dymga'qith laq Ik'vikvi
Nonono - *shakes Eder* we still need you. ;-)
What did ya expect? Me and Quarto killing each other?


Mr. Standoff
No, actually, I expected this thread to last forever - it seemed to be headed that direction about, uh, 14 pages back? ;)


Unknown Enemy
Well, arguably, those fourteen or whatever pages were actually spent trying to end the discussion :p.


Oddly enough, I wound up right alongside Tony Blair. I figured I'd be more "George Bushish" but whatever. Anyway, just a quick note on the whole socialism, communism, capitalism issue. Whoever claims America is great because it's a capitalistic, yet free society and that socialism is a cruel corrupt system must be somewhat deluded. America has many aspects of Socialism. After all, the wonderful social security program we have is probably the most perfect example, although I personally don't like the program as it robs me of valuable dollars that I could be investing in my own retirement program to utilize when I retire at an age I feel is adequate, the system does serve a purpose (namely providing a retirement fund for people too stupid to not thing to provide their own). America is a blend of Capitalism and Socialism. We do not allow "true" capitalism for we limit our massive corporations and help individuals and small businesses which is not consistent with the true model of capitalism. I used to mock socialism as it closely resembled Communism (in my estimation) however after some research I have determined that socialism WOULD be the best economic model available if it weren't for one major detail. Socialism doesn't take into account...human laziness. All people are provided for the same regardless of their individual efforts. It eliminates any desire to put forth extra effort on the individual's part because despite the more that he does, he receives the same as his fellow man. The natural desire in man is then to not work (or at least, not as hard) because he will still receive his share. Socialism is a system that must be administered by perfect governors and since corruption is inherrent in human nature...any system will be flawed. An interesting note and completely off topic is: The Bible provides the example for a socialist system many times. The most notable example would be the story of Joseph in the land of Egypt, when he interpreted Pharoah's dream he was then put in charge of administration. He gathered the food and then later during the hard times, the people came to him (as he represented the government) he provided food for all and they sold him their lands, animals etc. Eventually, the government owned everything and provided it for all the people. This is the epitome of Socialism. However since human nature is flawed by the desire to remain lazy and receive rewards, Socialism is a flawed system (as are all systems). Okay, that it ends my dissertation.