Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Hey! That's my line! And it's ten people!
> @Forzare: Only if you tried to introduce it instantly, the human condition, being what it is, wouldn't allow it. If it was brought about gradually (and chosen by the people) then it could be brought in.
Yeah, I've seen small groups of college students able to maintain this. It still requires some rules to prevent freeloading and establish responsibilities, but membership is voluntary and willing otherwise. pika, a living group at MIT, is the first example that comes to mind, because I've actually seen it myself.
> As far as I can tell, Communism basically will fail due to human greed. In addition, I subjectively don't like it because I prefer the economic freedom and competition Capitalism provides.
I actually generally agree with this. At more than a small number of people (ten or so), people will start intra-group rivalries, and you will need some rule-structure to keep a community going smoothly.
> In the end, a more accurate label for them would've been "State capitalism", one that's also pretty appropriate for China.
This. So totally this.
> The soviets sure had the best anthem.
Oh yes, that tune is catchy.
> And hot women. Don't forget all the hot Russian women.
No, communism doesn't get credit for this. It just got lucky because it landed in Russia.
Anyway:
There are, in fact, surprisingly few evil corrupt corporate executives. In fact, there are surprisingly few evil people in general, be they corrupt corporate executives or union-bossing fat cats.
Rather than keeping my head in the sand and flailing around uselessly, LIKE WAY TOO MANY POLITICAL ACTIVISTS ON BOTH SIDES, I actually bothered to try to get the other side's perspective. I'm actually very interested in business and financial news, in fact.
From what I can tell, it's not because people are evil, greedy bastards. It's because people are compelled by social expectations to do certain things. One of the biggest such expectation is to return profit to shareholders, in the short term.
@Chagen:
> There's nothing preventing the governement from fucking you over because
they make the rules. The rulemaker can simply choose to ignore them or
change them to suit their needs.
This is why we have a legal system, where you can sue your own government. And this is also why we have checks and balances.
> Private Businesses, on the other hand, must follow regulations and the
(at least in a well-thought-out Capitalistic society) like. Doesn't mean
they well, but they can't simply say "FUCK THE RULES, GET MONEY"...or
they shouldn't be able to.
Precisely. However, in practice, how do you set the rules? And who gets to set the rules, anyway? What rules are too lax, just right, or too much, and how do you decide whether they are too lax/just right/too much?
It's in those details that we get all sorts of debates over regulatory policy. Unfortunately, there are people on both sides that just want to sweep all the details under a blanketing rug of "MORE REGULATION" or "LESS REGULATION".
The problem is that there's no good way to get it: it will never naturally evolve, and forcing it or any other political system doesn't work.
and a literal hive mind to pull off without being either a bureaucratic
clusterfuck or broken cesspool of corruption
This.
And this is why it only works for a small group of people.
Communism and socialism are morally wrong because they reward people without merit and provide no incentives (outside of physical force) to keep people working.
It's like if you've got two kids on Halloween, and one kid got a shitload of candy because he dressed up like a giant Xenomorph, and the other kid got little or none because of his shitty "ghost" costume, and you took the first kid's candy because the second kid didn't get as much.
Sure, you might say, "Well, the first kid had an advantage!" And you'd be right. But because he used that advantage and learned all about how to get Halloween candy, he was able to work hard enough to get the candy. He worked for it, and he got it. Maybe it's too much candy, but that's his problem.
And you might say that the second kid was a victim of the system. But the fact remains that if you keep giving him candy, if he's a lazy asshole (there's about a 50-50 chance of that) he'll be tempted to just hang around the house, because if all he wants is candy then he won't need to go around trick-or-treating.
No, you wouldn't do that because candy is not a need.
GMH, you were never a kid.
Besides, I wouldn't be opposed to giving enough candy to the child in order for the kid to survive. But completely redistributing all the candy isn't fair.
IEM, I'm not talking about socialized healthcare (I'm in favor of providing emergency and catastrophic care to those who are unable to pay), I'm talking about confiscatory taxation and incentives. And for my evidence, I present to you every economics textbook ever written.
I just never really liked candy, perhaps. The only candies I actually like are Skittles and Starburst and those in a clear wrapper with some red markings that are a long column of several brightly- and differently-colored candies, whose name I don't remember.
In high school I ended up with too many Snickers, Milky Way, and 3 Musketeers bars, and finally started to kinda enjoy them. Still don't really like them. Snickers are the best of these though since they have a crunchy wafer interior.
Oh, also, I like wafers, but that falls more under cookies/crackers/snacks, and it's DAMN HARD to find wafers that are not like low-sugar or artificial-sweetened for old people or something. And no one distributes them at Halloween.
> Besides, I wouldn't be opposed to giving enough candy to the child in
order for the kid to survive. But completely redistributing all the
candy isn't fair.
No one ever said that the other kid had to get 50% of the candy. It's "to each according to their need", not "to each according to even proportional distribution".
I don't like Snickers. Too chewy. I unironically like Kit-Kat Bars.
"To each according to their need" is just as much of a problem because of the Free Rider effect. If the maximum you make, regardless of effort, is all that it takes to keep you alive, you no longer have an incentive to work.
And I know what people are going to say. "I WAS UNEMPLOYED ONCE AND I FELT HORRIBLE." "HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT PEOPLE AREN'T HARDWORKING." People are animals. Animals respond to incentives. If you no longer have an incentive to work, you'll see a lot fewer people working.