 |
| |
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:35
|
|
Vel,
I vaguely remember a conversation about re-education camps. I remember advocating using them as rehabilitation for criminals not dissedents. If any govt were to arrest you just because you are a freelance writer for example, I would be there to defend you.
The point everyone is trying to make is that you aren't debating anyone here. You want to debate someone who advocates some kind of horrific totalitarian nightmare. I can find you a forum where you will find someone to take the other side on that one, but you will not find that debate here. There is no one here like that that I know of. You can debate Fez maybe, but that's about as close as you will get.
Last edited by Kidicious on 23-08-2004 at 11:02
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
aneeshm
|
 |
Indore , Madhya Pradesh
Jul 2001
time: 11:05
|
|
Kidicious : -
What exactly is the purpose of the state in your system ? Is it to protect the interests of the citizens , to to preserve the system , or to find the best possible system where the citizens have it the best ?
Because if the purpose is to further and protect the interests of the citizens , then closing down the business in my scenario or , as you called it , defending itself , will definitely not be in their own interests . Let us not forget that the prosperity of that city is because it supplies most of the small-time snacks of the nation . So , the citizens of the state would again lose because they would be again left without a choice of chips or flavours .
And if the state thinks it can print money , that has been proved economically impossible in reality , because the value of such money would keep decreasing - the state itself would be forced to raise prices because of such depriciation .
And then again , isn't not the state competing with this business good for everyone -
a) The citizens , because they have choice and products they did not have earlier
b) The workers , because they get paid more as a result of this business' policies
c) The governemnt itself , because of the great tax revenue from the workers and the owners
?
Also , the money it will lose because of competition is less than the money they will gain because they will now
a) No longer have to bail out its own companies in case they are mismanaged and
b) can tax the workers and owners .
Thus , such a business acts as a sort of stabiliser for the national chip industry , by providing a good estimate of market size and a buffer in case something goes wrong with the nationalised one .
In every case , it seems fair to everyone to let the business stay . Is that all right ? And again , what exactly is the purpose of the state in yout system ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aneeshm
|
|
Indore , Madhya Pradesh
Jul 2001
time: 11:05
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
aneeshm,
I lost my damn post. I'll give you the short version. Capitalist nations boycott products and sometimes use trade barriers to meet their goals and live up to their ideals. For example, the US govt has an embargo on Cuban cigars. I don't agree with the embargo personally, but collective the US citizenry does. A communist system is likely to justify restricting trade in order to meet it's goals of protecting it's workers from exploitation.
And the state doesn't need to print a dollar for every dollar spent. Money is recirculated. No taxes are needed. |
Two things , really , that I think may be contradictory .
quote:
"A communist system is likely to justify restricting trade in order to meet its goals of protecting its workers from exploitation" .
|
Is this really exploitation , where the workers get more than they would otherwise from the state ?
And if it is exploitation by your definition, then is it necessary to curtail such exploitation if , for the same amount of actual physical labout , the worker is getting more ?
Again , if this is exploitation , then are not the factories owned by the state also exploiting the workers ?
And the last most important question - What is the purpose of the state in your system ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
If I say, "I just decided that it's fair that everyone lick my feet, so everyone ought to lick my feet", that is absurd.
Why is this absurd? If fairness can, in fact, be dictated, then by your own definition, this is perfectly acceptable.
Again....tell King Solomon....and the two thousand odd years of history that have been guided by, in some form or fashion, his wisdom.
I'm sure they'll be....quite surprised to hear your startling revelation.
-=Vel=-
PS:
If fairness CAN be dictated, that's interesting.
Because, being human, would not the dictator ensure that his proclamation was "more fair" to him than to you....which seems rather at odds with the whole NOTION of fairness to begin with, yes?
-v
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aneeshm
|
|
Indore , Madhya Pradesh
Jul 2001
time: 11:05
|
|
To Agathorn - A gun is not a valid , rational argument in favour of a communist system . Force is an indicator of your supporters' inability to support themselves in a free system , and not of their rightness . This is why I support the state having professional armies capable of decimating the population in its entirety if they attempt such strong-arm tactics on those to whom they owe the most .
Brute force is the last resort of the incompetent and the worthless . And that a gun is your last argument in a debate where you are worsted is the sign of your complete incompentence and you worthlessness as a human being .
Last edited by aneeshm on 23-08-2004 at 16:11
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I really doubt people like Marx would make the same critique of capitalism today.
The working conditions of ordinary people have improved immensely in developed countries since the 19th century when Marx was writing. |
Indeed, many aspects of Marx's critics can now be considered wrong. Especially his economical critics are flawed, as it emphasizes too much the labor value of the products, and doesn't take enough into consideration the Third Sector in the production of wealth.
However, had there been no threat of a Socialist / Communist revolution, working conditions would have definitely not improved (at least not significantly) for the expandable people however. And welfare would probably not exist, or in a very minimalistic fashion.
Thus, the social aspect of Marx's criticism would remain a reality.
Even today, now that the chance of a communist revolution is more and more remote, we see the developed countries taking steps to dismantle their welfare / regulations net. The expandable workers get more and more pressure, less and less rights, and they are permanently blackmailed "either you accept my conditions, or there are thousands of jobless people who'll replace you".
Marx called it the unemployed the "industrial reserve army" as they allowed employers to put pressure on their expandable employees, and this remains definitely true.
What Marx didn't foresee, however, is that fewer employees are expandable now than before. In our advanced economies, a great many people need refined skills to perform the job. These specializations aren't too frequent on the job market, and employers must crave to keep their non-expandable employees.
The bulk of jobs remains expandable factory workers, MacJobs, walmart cashiers etc., who are definitely expandable. But the share of non-expandable jobs, since Marx, has grown from "nearly nil" to "significant". In the 19th century, an engineer, pharmacian, or university professor was quite a Bourgeois. Today, these people are far more numerous, and are generally among the upper tier of the middle class.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-08-2004 09:49
ACK!
Attachment: 
|
