What "ism" is most responsible for where we are today? Who are the heroes behind the United State's success, entrepreneurs or workers? Which "ism" would it be smartest to follow, then?
In that case I would be incapable of seeing the truth behind certain statements and something much more fundamental would be wrong with me.
Unacceptable. I'm functioning normally.
Yes, you ARE functioning normally, within the confines of the set theorem. That does not pose a defeater.
What leads you to believe that arbitrary selection of epistemic justification premises would lead to an incapacity to recognize truth or falsehoods? Your reasoning is non-sequitur.
Cheers !
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Belief in pure logic is an ideology. In fact, it's an ideology to which I subscribe, though I disagree with your argument in defense of a system which robs people of individuality. If you always place logic above all else and never change that, then you are following an ideology even if the effects of the logic change.
ZV
ZV
Which "ism" would it be smartest to follow, then?
I think it has become clear that the answer to this is "linuxboyism"
seriously, I'd have to say realism.
Cheers !
I think it has become clear that the answer to this is "linuxboyism"
seriously, I'd have to say realism.
Cheers !
As old Ronnie would say, "Stay the course". The Democrats have been moving right for the last 20 years. Now they call themselves "New Democrats". The USSR, China and many others are all moving away from Communism, toward Capitalism. It's obviously the right direction. Anybody standing in the way of that movement is a hindrance to progress. :disgust:
I hope to hell "Realists" know better than to soak the rich, for the good of ALL of us! :frown:
Politicians Acting Like Bank Robbers
Politicians Acting Like Bank Robbers
- "...Are the wealthy part of the 'public,' or are they mere 'special interests' who can be sacrificed? How about labor unions, or drug manufacturers, or contingency-fee lawyers, or the Microsoft Corporation, or its competitors? Which of these are 'the public'?and which should be its victims?"
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
<< An ideology never changes that on which it is based, being a set of ideals or ideas. Isn't pure logic devoid of any subjectivity, without any ideas or ideals to work towards to? Woah. Sorry mate, you're wrong here. Which is what I keep trying to tell you. The selection of original premises or axioms within a set theorem is arbitrary. That's when you get to epistemic circularity. That's what Moonbeam and I keep trying to tell you and after we do you keep going, "sorry, your theory doesn't make sense". Of course not, it's outside your constraint system. Cheers !
>>Ahh..., Godel smiles (cant figure out how to those umlat thingys
Since I have visited a communist country (USSR - Russia and Ukraine), and having friends who are refugees from communist rule, I can say for certain the following things:
1. Communist theory and practice is highly unrealistic. It is a fundamental denial of nature, a "pure hive" mentality. To quote my friend from Romania, "communism cannot work because it not all people WANT to be equal". Nobody on this board can deny this fact. Period. We are not worker bees. We are individuals. Deserving the same basic rights does NOT mean that that is ALL we should have. And that is exactly what communism says.
2. After visiting Russia and Ukraine, I saw the way people in communist countries lived first hand. It is a bleak existence. Their world is a world through black and white glasses. Their hopes and dreams are all reduced to meeting the needs of the state. Since everything basic is provided to them, and the prospect of having more is quelled by the state, their own desires to be more is quelled. There is little to no individual glory. Expressions of individuality are non-conformist and severely frowned upon at best. There is no free speech. The government and bureaucracy running the economy is so horribly inefficient that even the basics never get done in any realistic time frame. They ALL viewed the west as a land of unlimited opportunity, where they could be and do and go wherever and whatever and whenever and however and for whatever reason they wanted to. Outsiders and visitors were coralled to the usual spots but were discouraged from taking in the sites by themselves.
3. All my friends who were in communist countries have said the same thing - they would never EVER go back. For all the bad that exists in our society today, it completely pales in comparison to what they had back home. One friend of mine completed his Ph.D. here in North America and is a professor in NY state. He makes more money in one year than he would've ever seen in his lifetime in Czechoslovakia, has far more research opportunities than he would've ever had, and he has the freedom to do what he wants. He knows that he will not starve to death, nor will he be unhoused no matter what, simply because a basic safety net exists in our society. But he has the opportunity to be and do more than just meet his needs.
And now, let's compare the US economy to any economy in Europe. Who has done better or built more than the US in Europe? NOBODY. The prevailing European socialist attitudes are holding people back. Taxes ramp up quickly when a person makes more money, so they don't WANT to make more. Why would they, unless they could make ridiculous amounts to offset the taxes paid back to the government? If communism demonstrated anything, it's that the more government involvement there is in an economy, the worse things get. As for the failures of privatization in Europe, it is quite obvious WHY: because the taxes and incentives for business to do better are NOT there, and because overunionization and the attitude of the citizens who are socialist believe that they should be protected cradle-to-grave by the state and its regulations. It can't BE like that. Even companies like Airbus can't compete without signficant government subsidies both direct and indirect against companies like Boeing. Rather than let the companies keep more money by lowering taxes, the state collects the money and then doles it back. By this process, they are making the system more inefficient through a bureaucracy which first takes the money and then gives it back. This is NOT to say that the US is perfect (e.g. health insurers should not cancel on people with serious health ailments and nobody should be uninsured either), but the US is much closer to what SHOULD be economically than where Europe is. The EU will help somewhat, but they will NEVER be as competitive or strong as the US is in their current form.
But I must say, the most entertaining portion of this thread is that the same people who have in the past mentioned how Darwinism in nature is king also claim that Communism is a correct society. You know you are contradicting yourselves, don't you? Nature doesn't guarantee equality, and neither should a government. But as a civilized society, we can still provide some basics for those who simply can't without quelling the dreams of those who want more. Those who won't and don't want to be more should NOT be burdened by those who can and want to be more.
1. Communist theory and practice is highly unrealistic. It is a fundamental denial of nature, a "pure hive" mentality. To quote my friend from Romania, "communism cannot work because it not all people WANT to be equal". Nobody on this board can deny this fact. Period. We are not worker bees. We are individuals. Deserving the same basic rights does NOT mean that that is ALL we should have. And that is exactly what communism says.
2. After visiting Russia and Ukraine, I saw the way people in communist countries lived first hand. It is a bleak existence. Their world is a world through black and white glasses. Their hopes and dreams are all reduced to meeting the needs of the state. Since everything basic is provided to them, and the prospect of having more is quelled by the state, their own desires to be more is quelled. There is little to no individual glory. Expressions of individuality are non-conformist and severely frowned upon at best. There is no free speech. The government and bureaucracy running the economy is so horribly inefficient that even the basics never get done in any realistic time frame. They ALL viewed the west as a land of unlimited opportunity, where they could be and do and go wherever and whatever and whenever and however and for whatever reason they wanted to. Outsiders and visitors were coralled to the usual spots but were discouraged from taking in the sites by themselves.
3. All my friends who were in communist countries have said the same thing - they would never EVER go back. For all the bad that exists in our society today, it completely pales in comparison to what they had back home. One friend of mine completed his Ph.D. here in North America and is a professor in NY state. He makes more money in one year than he would've ever seen in his lifetime in Czechoslovakia, has far more research opportunities than he would've ever had, and he has the freedom to do what he wants. He knows that he will not starve to death, nor will he be unhoused no matter what, simply because a basic safety net exists in our society. But he has the opportunity to be and do more than just meet his needs.
And now, let's compare the US economy to any economy in Europe. Who has done better or built more than the US in Europe? NOBODY. The prevailing European socialist attitudes are holding people back. Taxes ramp up quickly when a person makes more money, so they don't WANT to make more. Why would they, unless they could make ridiculous amounts to offset the taxes paid back to the government? If communism demonstrated anything, it's that the more government involvement there is in an economy, the worse things get. As for the failures of privatization in Europe, it is quite obvious WHY: because the taxes and incentives for business to do better are NOT there, and because overunionization and the attitude of the citizens who are socialist believe that they should be protected cradle-to-grave by the state and its regulations. It can't BE like that. Even companies like Airbus can't compete without signficant government subsidies both direct and indirect against companies like Boeing. Rather than let the companies keep more money by lowering taxes, the state collects the money and then doles it back. By this process, they are making the system more inefficient through a bureaucracy which first takes the money and then gives it back. This is NOT to say that the US is perfect (e.g. health insurers should not cancel on people with serious health ailments and nobody should be uninsured either), but the US is much closer to what SHOULD be economically than where Europe is. The EU will help somewhat, but they will NEVER be as competitive or strong as the US is in their current form.
But I must say, the most entertaining portion of this thread is that the same people who have in the past mentioned how Darwinism in nature is king also claim that Communism is a correct society. You know you are contradicting yourselves, don't you? Nature doesn't guarantee equality, and neither should a government. But as a civilized society, we can still provide some basics for those who simply can't without quelling the dreams of those who want more. Those who won't and don't want to be more should NOT be burdened by those who can and want to be more.
This topic deserves a bump or two to help compensate for the pile of lame topics that proliferate on ATOT lately. StandardCell's post alone is worth a few bumps!
Edit: I'll bump it myself everyday if I have to!
Edit: I'll bump it myself everyday if I have to!
Scarpozzi
Lifer
- Jun 13, 2000
- 26,392
- 1,780
- 126
There are two primary market types: Planned and Market-Driven.
Planned: Gov't decides what products to make and which ones to export/import. This results in shortages/surpluses and ridiculous price changes of simple products in ALL markets.
Market-Driven: Consumers decide what products they wish to buy. Producers are free to specialize in a product or even create new products. When products are overpriced, competing firms are introduced to the system and prices fall accordingly.
It's obvious which of these systems is the most effective...I don't see the point of this thread because the countries who are currently communist countries are suffering the same way they always have. It will just be a matter of time before they learn from their mistakes and change systems. It will take time because old leaders will need to be replaced with new ones. Eventually someone will step forward and look at their history and compare the Communism way of life with Capatalistic way of life.
Planned: Gov't decides what products to make and which ones to export/import. This results in shortages/surpluses and ridiculous price changes of simple products in ALL markets.
Market-Driven: Consumers decide what products they wish to buy. Producers are free to specialize in a product or even create new products. When products are overpriced, competing firms are introduced to the system and prices fall accordingly.
It's obvious which of these systems is the most effective...I don't see the point of this thread because the countries who are currently communist countries are suffering the same way they always have. It will just be a matter of time before they learn from their mistakes and change systems. It will take time because old leaders will need to be replaced with new ones. Eventually someone will step forward and look at their history and compare the Communism way of life with Capatalistic way of life.
jjones: that's the whole point. there is no such thing as "equal individuals"; there never will be. this is exactly part of the ideological flaws about communism. it does not take into account real life. human nature may be flawed but it is human nature and that is what we are talking about. communism is flawed because it does not take into account the flaws of human kind. therefore it is not a good ideology to pursue if it does not address basic human nature.
you can hope all you want to make a square peg fit in a round hole but the peg is still square and the hole is still round and it won't fit.
A devistating reply to Elledan.
Nicely done jjones.
you can hope all you want to make a square peg fit in a round hole but the peg is still square and the hole is still round and it won't fit.
A devistating reply to Elledan.
Nicely done jjones.
<< jjones: that's the whole point. there is no such thing as "equal individuals"; there never will be. this is exactly part of the ideological flaws about communism. it does not take into account real life. human nature may be flawed but it is human nature and that is what we are talking about. communism is flawed because it does not take into account the flaws of human kind. therefore it is not a good ideology to pursue if it does not address basic human nature.
you can hope all you want to make a square peg fit in a round hole but the peg is still square and the hole is still round and it won't fit.
A devistating reply to Elledan.
Nicely done jjones. >>
Since when am I defending Communism and want to see it implemented? Did you actually read the thread?
<< Belief in pure logic is an ideology. In fact, it's an ideology to which I subscribe, though I disagree with your argument in defense of a system which robs people of individuality. If you always place logic above all else and never change that, then you are following an ideology even if the effects of the logic change.
ZV >>
But if you call pure logic an ideology, then life itself becomes an ideology as well. Actually everything would become an ideology. This just doesn't make sense. Hopefully you realize this.
And I'm not defending Communism. I'm not defending any political and/or economical system. I'm simply repeating what I've read and have been taught. If you can't life with that, fine.
<< Eventually someone will step forward and look at their history and compare the Communism way of life with Capatalistic way of life. >>
Capitalistic way of life?
Uhm, I thought we have already brought up enough examples of why Capitalism isn't so 'wonderful'?
A controlled free market, combined with the best elements from Socialism, Democracy and various other systems, now that does make sense.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,048
- 2,690
- 126
>Im simply repeating what I've read and have been taught. If you can't life with that, fine.
Thats what your problem is. You need to think for yourself.
Thats what your problem is. You need to think for yourself.
the death of enron was pretty kewl. the leaders drained the company as they left and left the dumb workers with nothing serves those idiot workers right for not diversifying
serves those idiot workers right for not diversifyingOur country got where it is today thanks to Capitalism. Every single grunt in this country is free to start their own business. The only thing I'd change about our current system is the layers of regulations, taxes, hiring quotas and other red tape we pile on our business and industries. No wonder so few people want to have a go at their own small business! Well, that and the fact that their Socialist/Democrat leaders have them convinced that somebody owes them a job and a living! :disgust:
<< A controlled free market, combined with the best elements from Socialism, Democracy and various other systems, now that does make sense. >>
isn't that an oxymoron. a controlled free market.
the free market is the best system. the government should just be there to make sure that is doesn't release any junk product that do not perform the intended duties or are harmful to people.
But if you call pure logic an ideology, then life itself becomes an ideology as well. Actually everything would become an ideology. This just doesn't make sense. Hopefully you realize this.
Why is it you acknowledge my points only when you think you have an objection? Far down the epistemic line, pure logic dictates that everything becomes an ideology (the problem I posed earlier here, which as someone has pointed out is Godel's idea restated). If pure logic dictates that something doesn't make sense, shouldn't we abandon the old system and try and make a new one? That is, if pure logic leads to a nonsensical conlusion, then either our foundations are shaky or we have made an error in validity. If our foundations are shaky, perhaps we are limiting our set unrealistically and must recognize the objective existense of an outside.
Cheers !
Why is it you acknowledge my points only when you think you have an objection? Far down the epistemic line, pure logic dictates that everything becomes an ideology (the problem I posed earlier here, which as someone has pointed out is Godel's idea restated). If pure logic dictates that something doesn't make sense, shouldn't we abandon the old system and try and make a new one? That is, if pure logic leads to a nonsensical conlusion, then either our foundations are shaky or we have made an error in validity. If our foundations are shaky, perhaps we are limiting our set unrealistically and must recognize the objective existense of an outside.
Cheers !
<< But if you call pure logic an ideology, then life itself becomes an ideology as well. Actually everything would become an ideology. This just doesn't make sense. Hopefully you realize this.
Why is it you acknowledge my points only when you think you have an objection? Far down the epistemic line, pure logic dictates that everything becomes an ideology (the problem I posed earlier here, which as someone has pointed out is Godel's idea restated). If pure logic dictates that something doesn't make sense, shouldn't we abandon the old system and try and make a new one? That is, if pure logic leads to a nonsensical conlusion, then either our foundations are shaky or we have made an error in validity. If our foundations are shaky, perhaps we are limiting our set unrealistically and must recognize the objective existense of an outside.
Cheers !
>>Ah, so life itself is a multitude of ideologies. You know, that actually makes sense
However, it's when someone becomes 'stuck' in one ideology that things start going wrong.
<<
<< A controlled free market, combined with the best elements from Socialism, Democracy and various other systems, now that does make sense. >>
isn't that an oxymoron. a controlled free market. >>
Nope, it's not. Perhaps it's just a poor translation of a Dutch term
the free market is the best system. the government should just be there to make sure that is doesn't release any junk product that do not perform the intended duties or are harmful to people.[/i] >>
Which in fact is a controlled free market.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
"There have been a lot of right-wing, capitalist dictatorships around, of which Nazi-Germany may have been one of the better known ones. Let's all bash the current US government for being right-wing capitalists too! (Hell, they're worse than Nazis anyway)"
This one of the things I've never understood. How is it the right-wing, the conservatists, and the capitalists get tied to Nazism?
The Nazi party was a socialist party when it began. Socialist was, in fact, part of the Nazi party name. Under Hitler's rule, the party because a facist party. At no time, did the Nazi party practice capitalism. It was a completely state-run economy. While were at it, comparisons between the religious right and the Nazis are off base as well. The Nazi Party shunned religion. Especially Judaism and Catholocism.
And please, explain to me how a government regime that executed millions of innocent Jews, raped Europe, and was the cause behind the 20th century's greatest conflict compares to the current U.S. administration.
Typical un-educated, un-informed, right-wing bashing post.
This one of the things I've never understood. How is it the right-wing, the conservatists, and the capitalists get tied to Nazism?
The Nazi party was a socialist party when it began. Socialist was, in fact, part of the Nazi party name. Under Hitler's rule, the party because a facist party. At no time, did the Nazi party practice capitalism. It was a completely state-run economy. While were at it, comparisons between the religious right and the Nazis are off base as well. The Nazi Party shunned religion. Especially Judaism and Catholocism.
And please, explain to me how a government regime that executed millions of innocent Jews, raped Europe, and was the cause behind the 20th century's greatest conflict compares to the current U.S. administration.
Typical un-educated, un-informed, right-wing bashing post.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter