24-03-2004 08:12									#31
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Skilord, every political system implies that there will be coercion.

	24-03-2004 08:22									#33
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris Skilord, every political system implies that there will be coercion.

Aye, how true.

And in this sense I reject all political systems.

There can be no good government simply because they are all dependant upon coercion. They cannot stand, they cannot claim any authority without it.

I say that we should reject the idea of inheritly tyrannical Civil Government altogether and simply learn to live our own lives morally. This is, however, impossible to a society that rejects Objective morality.

The lawmaking apparatus of government is inheritly inefficient (Rules were made to be broken, they cannot act, only re-act). Why should we add more apparattus to something that screws up its most basic charge?

-

Since that's impossible I'll settle for a Federal Republic like the US had... let's say 'till the Civil War.

	24-03-2004 08:22									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Siklord, you might try actually saying something intelligent, rather than posting totaly BS.

	24-03-2004 08:25									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I would define socialism as basically a belief that the workers ought to control the means of production in some way, whether this control is exercised through a democratic state or directly. As such, I wouldn't classify social democrats (i.e. welfare statists) as socialists since they advocate fundamentally capitalist controls over the economy.

	24-03-2004 08:27									#36
	Got spare money?

Well, you might want to read it, rather than making blanket accusations.

-

Here, let us try this che.

Government is based on force, coercion, bullets and prisons.

This is bad.

All government is therefore bad.

-

What do governments do?

1) Make laws to regulate morality and establish order.

Is this efficient?

No.

Laws cannot act, they can only react. Murder laws do not stop murder, they only punish afterwards.

Morality, however, causes murder to be unimaginable.

Is it feasable to ask people to be moral:

Not here.

-

What is charity?

The free giving of goods to another.

What is theft?

The forcing of charity through the exercise of coercion (see part 1).

	24-03-2004 08:29									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

None of which is about socialism.

	24-03-2004 08:33									#38
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Alright, I see.

I merely implied Socialism in the end... not picture clear enough for you.

Socialism rejects that all men are equal.

By taxing men differently it treats them as though they are inequal and therefore it rejects that they are.

-

Now my thing about governments.

They cannot do what they are put in place to do well. They suck at their only real job.

If I were bad at my job I wouldn't get a promotion.

And yet Socialism calls for giving government far more power and control of the economy

	24-03-2004 08:35									#39
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Socialism is a movement based on the ideologies. Anarchists, communists, and social democrats are all types of socialists.

Other forms of socialism include Nazism, Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism, John Kerry, Atheism, and the French.

	24-03-2004 08:38									#40
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Other forms of socialism include Nazism, Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism, John Kerry, Atheism, and the French.

socialism = everything I hate
socialism = Satan
socialism = guys who kick puppies for fun

	24-03-2004 08:38									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Any movements are based on an ideology.

From the far right (Anarchist) to the far left (Big Gov't ie: Naziism and Communism) all are.

Therefore you cheapen the name Socialism until it means nothing,

	24-03-2004 08:41									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD Any movements are based on an ideology. From the far right (Anarchist) to the far left (Big Gov't ie: Naziism and Communism) all are. Therefore you cheapen the name Socialism until it means nothing,

I think you may need help on your left and right there, skilord. Hold your hands in front of you with your index fingers pointing up and your thumbs pointing to the middle. The hand that makes an "L" figure is you left hand.

	24-03-2004 08:46									#43
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It looks like somebody doesn't know what "anarchist" means.

	24-03-2004 08:51									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, let's call it Libertarianism then if it pleases you better.

	24-03-2004 09:05									#45
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by joncha I think you may need help on your left and right there, skilord. Hold your hands in front of you with your index fingers pointing up and your thumbs pointing to the middle. The hand that makes an "L" figure is you left hand.

You say this because you define the government based on who's lackeys are in office, whether it is the workers or the industrialists who are running things.



I on the other hand don't divide it by "The bad people's Dictatorship" and "My Dictatorship" I see it as simply "Dictatorship" and "More Freedom"

	24-03-2004 09:08									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD Well, let's call it Libertarianism then if it pleases you better.

	24-03-2004 09:23									#47
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by *End Is Forever* CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

However, it turns out that you have only paid for the first installment, because a bull costs 99 cows. You can't even afford to pay for the interest on the loan even after breaking your back. The bank comes in and takes everything you have away.

quote: Originally posted by *End Is Forever* (SOUND - EVERYONE's A WINNER)

Who are you trying to fool?

	24-03-2004 09:25									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD I reject all political systems.

Waiter, this conversation isn't very good. May we have something else.

Skilord,

Some of us are actually interested in good govt.

	24-03-2004 09:29									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD Socialism rejects that all men are equal. By taxing men differently it treats them as though they are inequal and therefore it rejects that they are.

I see a lot of concepts are getting confused in one big mumbojumbo pile. Interesting.

	24-03-2004 09:33									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Sometimes some people are so wrong, you don't even know how to correct them. Siklord falls into that catagory. Why do Libertarians have to make up their own language that no one else uses?

	24-03-2004 09:34									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Well wouldn't looking at Canada be good enough? Aren't they classified as Capiltalist-Socialist?

	24-03-2004 09:37									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Skilord,

Here's some honest advice. Figure out something real to stand up for before you start in a thread like this. No one wants to debate with someone who obviously hasn't figured out what they stand for yet.

	24-03-2004 10:25									#53
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

stop trying to coherse him into making sense.

	24-03-2004 12:34									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: I say that we should reject the idea of inheritly tyrannical Civil Government altogether and simply learn to live our own lives morally

move to southcentral LA


http://www.sp-usa.org/about/principles.html

too different.

how is local control over just about every aspect of the economy supposed to make things better?

why would you eliminate the classes of society entirely? Theres a reason a Doctor makes more money than a gas station attendent, and a person who refuses to work doesnt eat.

	24-03-2004 12:37									#55
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

To give a straight answer socialism is an economic system where the government owns all of or almost all of the economy.

This definition is for the most part backed by dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism


Wikipedia.org:

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


And the Columbia encyclopedia:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/so/socialis.html


However it should be noted that due to the changing nature of words, which is to be expected in our constantly evolving language the word socialism has often times evolved and become interchangeable with words like marxism. Though not all marxists are socialists, i.e. Thomas Moore's utopia, a socialist (communist?) society based on Christian principles.

Socialism is not necessarily totalitarian, though the two have often times accompanied eachother, nor is it egalitarian. Strictly speaking, communism is also not necessarily socialism.

In regards to recent statements: Socialism of course relies on heavy taxation and redistribution, whether or not this is "theft" however is a question of value judgment.

According to such logic all taxes could be considered theft, and many would consider unfair market mechanisms themselves a form of theft (as they allow some to get an unfair portion of society's rescources).

	24-03-2004 20:24									#56
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin Well, firstly, it didn't say that the US did have something to do with domestic european policies, did it? LOTM - it said various groups were seen as allies of the US - prior to 1941 the US was isolationist and didnt look at anyone in Europe as an ally, particularly. Secondly, it states that SD:s where suspected of being "soft on communism", not that they where. LOTM - They werent so suspected, not by the foreign policy branches of the US govt, anyway. At least not all of them. There were divisions in Euros SDs at the time between "anticommunists" and neutralists - for example in Italy the Social Dem party vs the Socialist party, and in UK between different wings of the Labour party. US policy makers were QUITE aware of the distinction, IIRC. For the author of an article about Social democracy to be UNAWARE of such distinctions is a serious failing, IMHO. Thridly, I tend to agree with you. The term eurocommunism really seems missplaced for the period at hand.

	24-03-2004 20:31									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I would define socialism as basically a belief that the workers ought to control the means of production in some way, whether this control is exercised through a democratic state or directly. As such, I wouldn't classify social democrats (i.e. welfare statists) as socialists since they advocate fundamentally capitalist controls over the economy.

I wouldnt object to your distinction in principle, but since non-socialist social democrats and democratic socialists often shared the same political parties in Western Europe (EG German SD's and UK Labour) this gets confusing when examining West Euro politics.

	24-03-2004 22:10									#58
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Space05us how is local control over just about every aspect of the economy supposed to make things better?

You don't have peopl far away making decisions that effect you life, like plant closures, etc.

quote: why would you eliminate the classes of society entirely? Theres a reason a Doctor makes more money than a gas station attendent, and a person who refuses to work doesnt eat.

You are confusing profession and class. Economic classes have to do with your relationship to society, the role you play in production or distribution of goods and services. In capitalism, there are two main classes: workers and owners. If society owns the means of production and distribution, then everyone is an owner, and it ceases to exist as a class. If everyone works, then it ceases to be a class.

That's the 2 cent version.

	24-03-2004 22:19									#59
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara [ You are confusing profession and class. Economic classes have to do with your relationship to society, the role you play in production or distribution of goods and services. In capitalism, there are two main classes: workers and owners. If society owns the means of production and distribution, then everyone is an owner, and it ceases to exist as a class. If everyone works, then it ceases to be a class. That's the 2 cent version.

But of course hasnt made much sense for decades. Marx considered professionals a particular subclass of workers who basically the well paid servants to the Bourg, whose role is essentially capital owners. Made sense in 1850's UK, where there were few joint stock companies, and ownership and management were closely linked. The class situation in the US has been different since at least 1920, with the seperation of management and ownership. Its kind of silly to consider a retired professional with a batch of stock a capitalist, and a highly paid CEO a "worker". I mean you can, but then you cant see the essential class conflicts going on. Theres been some movement of capital and management back together in recent years, with more entrepreneurship, stock options for CEOs, etc, but its still pretty far apart. Failing to recognize the role of highly paid professionals and managers in the contemporary US (and Euro?) class structure would seem to me to doom any class analysis that so fails.

	24-03-2004 23:12									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Failing to recognize the role of highly paid professionals and managers in the contemporary US (and Euro?) class structure would seem to me to doom any class analysis that so fails.

I agree. Highly paid prodessionals should be classified as capitalists. Just like the capitalists, the're able to gain high income, because of the current system.

I don't disagree with paying workers in a profession where there are shortages more, but they should also work more to recieve that pay, and we should work to train more workers to the profession, and gradually even out the pay and work hours.