View Poll Results: Is Computed [Pure] Communism Possible???

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I think it's got a shot.

    3 15.79%
  • Yes, capitalism will still be here for at least the next 50 years.

    0 0%
  • No, capitalism's the only way people will work.

    9 47.37%
  • No, capitalism provides innovation.

    7 36.84%
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 149
  1. #61  
    This guy is just hilarious to me.

    Anyway, this cycle of failure seems to always find a new advocate.

    The Plymouth Experiment
    Before leaving Europe the Pilgrims entered into a contract, dated July 1, 1620, with the merchant investors (called the "Adventurers") who financed the trip. That contract provided,

    "The persons transported and the Adventurers shall continue their joint stock and partnership together, the space of seven years…during which time all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons, remain in the common stock until division."

    The contract further provided,

    "That at the end of the seven years, the capital and profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided betwixt the Adventurers and Planters; which done, every man shall be free from other of them of any debt or detriment concerning this adventure."

    In short, the Pilgrims agreed to establish a commune, with all property and the fruits of all labor contributed into a common pool to be divided equally among the Pilgrims for their daily survival, and between the Pilgrims and the financiers at the end of the seven year contract. They called their arrangement a "commonwealth", because all wealth — the product of their labors — was held in common, and there was no private property to speak of. The modern term for this is socialism. Even back then they had a word for it which we know today, derived from the concept of commonly owned property: communism. The arrangement was no more successful in the 17th century than it has been in our own century. Human nature being what it is, even among the pious Pilgrims, those who work and produce grow resentful when the fruits of their labor are taken and given over to those who do not work, in shares equal to their own, with no reward for their own hard labor.
    Oh yea, but leave it to old grndslm, he's gonna show the world how it will save us all BAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Well its good to see there is only ONE person here that actually wishes to try the failure called communism again!
  2.    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    True communism is a nice theory, but doesnt work in the real work for a number of reasons:
    Greed, lazyness, individualism, family bonds etc etc.
    That stuff isn't truly inherent, though...I feel that the Star Wars explanation of there being a force that flows through all living life is amore inherent explanation of why we have government in the first place. It's for the security (and a little bit of control, otherwise you wouldn't have security), remember?? To protect and serve. Concise phrases such as that are the easiest way to describe the police/military's purpose is.

    I'm going to expand on one more phrase that I think most of you are not grasping of my side of the argument. Our democracy can best be stated: "For the people, by the people". On the political spectrum, the lefties (commies, socialists) believe that more people that have power, the better....whereas the righties (conservatives, fascists, & libertarians) believe that the less people that have power, the better. In our society, we have a representative democracy with checks and balances. As of right now, the entire population does not have the option to vote directly on issues. I see in the future, a time where every U.S. citizen has the right decide to vote DIRECTLY on none or every issue that they chose.

    I think mediasi is correct in her belief that ALL students should understand the basis of government. But we do that in high school...and we certainly do a pretty good bit of debating at outside of class at college as well (college is great). But, I think it goes farther than just students, politicians, and business owners....I think it goes toward all people having just as much rights as the next guy. I think that the internet is tearing down the walls of unbalanced power...whether they be wealth, profession, racial, sexist, or whatever related. When WiMax (or EV-DV) covers the country, and every person in this country has a device with a keyboard and a WiMax (or EV-DV) chip....I believe that THAT is the first time power COULD be equally distributed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    The idea of every body sharing what they got and only take what they need simply doesnt work. Survival of the fittest does that to you... every body tries to advance his or his families situation contious or not. It is a very strong force.
    No kind of technology will be able to beat that, man will find a way around it..
    It has always worked in smaller communities (hence, the term communism), but it's hard to use communism in a large country of just under 300 million people, which is why you let some people take risks with businesses rewarding those that provide jobs, etc....but it's not fair to reward them with billions of dollars when they couldn't do it without their employees. All of the middle class can only take what they need with their $30,000/yr salaries, why can't the rich? They got in their positions of power because they had the option too. But if they didn't have the option of getting more money, do you think those same people would just quit school and become garbage men?? I don't see it happening that way.

    As i recall, with survival of the fittest, like groups stick together. In this country, Americans are the like groups, while other countrys are what we're competing against. We shouldn't be competing with ourselves to the point that it hurts our competition with other countries. I see the force of selfless life in general being stronger than the force of selfish life.

    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    for homework read 1984 and tell us what you thought of that story...
    I read it, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. When I say "For us, by us", I mean it...WE are literally the government, not who we elect...although, we might still need to elect officials. And as for the 1984 stuff, of which I'm sure you're referring to the cameras everywhere....That's not really a database. Just because a database is used, doesn't mean people can actually review all that a small number of government officials can actually review it all. In database, I mean recording what we buy, how often we work, or whatever...because that's what the businesses do. Remember, you're on the right side, I'm on the left side. All the way over here, does it really make a difference if the government knows what you buy?? As long as you're a U.S. Citizen, you could still control what the government does. You're watching the watcher, I guess.

    I'm still beting that you guys are continuing to think in terms of a separate body of government. Who says that because there is one collective body, you can't have individualism if the individualism was in place before you became a collective whole?? This is that capitalism is necessary stuff. Since we are now diverse, we can still have sub-industries just like businesses....and individualism. You separate one industry into these sub-categories (maybe even sub-sub-categories)...and let them come up with as many good ideas as possible. Why would they stop working since they're only getting as much money as everybody else?? Money doesn't fuel innovation, it's just a way for innovation to be rewarded in a society that's not truly communally connected. Once again, citing Linux & the OSS....they provide multiple solutions for one problem, usually better than their paid counterparts. In OSS-land, innovation is fueled purely by your recognition as a "better programmer" or "better designer"...not by your pay check. In the marketing world, Bill Gates is king, but he's only king because he stole. Had he not stolen Steve Jobs work (which Steve legally got ahold of), we would have a much better solution to operating systems by now. Microsoft stays on top because of their money....they can buy out anybody and kill what innovation was being fueled. They may eventually own it, but they kill it.

    Alright...I think I'm gonna sit back 'til tonight again and try to figure out why you think innovation requires money, and a community can't still provide individualism. I don't know if we are making any ground at all, because I think this is purely based on philisophical differences. I mean, if either you or I were right, there would be no need for a political spectrum, now would there?? Most people tend to say that usually the answer lies somewhere in the middle...that may be, but I know it sure ain't on the right side.
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell
    This guy is just hilarious to me.

    Anyway, this cycle of failure seems to always find a new advocate.

    The Plymouth Experiment


    Oh yea, but leave it to old grndslm, he's gonna show the world how it will save us all BAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Well its good to see there is only ONE person here that actually wishes to try the failure called communism again!
    Yea, well...I don't give a dern what you say, holmes!!

    Until you read everything I've written and reply point-to-point or a very detailed summary...your posts are just as empty as in all the other threads, essay.
  4. #64  
    OMG - I'm going to GO BACK on my word (yep, quote me, I'm coming back in.. if I get banned, I'd say it was worth it.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    That stuff isn't truly inherent, though...I feel that the Star Wars explanation of there being a force that flows through all living life is amore inherent explanation of why we have government in the first place. It's for the security (and a little bit of control, otherwise you wouldn't have security), remember?? To protect and serve. Concise phrases such as that are the easiest way to describe the police/military's purpose is.
    I think you need to go back and research as to WHY our government was created. It certainly wasn't solely for "security." That's what the Armed Forces are for. The government is designed to "run" the country, just like the office of a CEO would run a business - and in a public business there are shareholders who also make decisions...

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    As of right now, the entire population does not have the option to vote directly on issues.
    Did you ever stop to think about this? The fact is, many Americans DO NOT want to vote on issues. If they did, 100% of the qualified population would have a voter's reg card and they'd go to the polls! You are overestimating the will of the American people. They want what they want, but not ALL of them are willing to take a measely hour out of their lives to run to a poll and TELL THE POWERS THAT BE what they want! Go to a local city meeting - and tell me if the core population is sitting in the seats WATCHING what's being discussed. In most US cities, small and large, the rooms are nearly empty, only to be filled when something that really hits their pockets (like a hike in water rates) evolves.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    I see in the future, a time where every U.S. citizen has the right decide to vote DIRECTLY on none or every issue that they chose.
    They already do.

    Side question - Do you vote?

    Now, if you're going to make arguments about the electoral college, I could argue the reason it was created. I wouldn't much like the fact that two or three states could ultimately decide the fate of the entire country because they are overpopulated. That already happens, in, say, New York State, where the bulk of the time the ones living Upstate have little say because their sheer number of votes cannot outweigh the number of votes that are cast on the other side of the Hudson.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    I think mediasi is correct in her belief that ALL students should understand the basis of government. But we do that in high school...and we certainly do a pretty good bit of debating at outside of class at college as well (college is great). But, I think it goes farther than just students, politicians, and business owners....I think it goes toward all people having just as much rights as the next guy.
    Great, now go knock on your neighbors doors and ask half of them why they don't EXERCISE their rights.

    Cripes, millions of men and women DIED so we could have these rights. Not voting, and not participating in our government is like a slap in the face of every man and woman who served in the Armed Forces. Appreciating what they've done for us is MORE than just hanging a flag outside your door on Memorial day or respecting them on Veterans day. They handed us our rights on a silver platter, so, sorry, I've NO RESPECT for anyone who doesn't just graciously accept those rights and exercise them.

    Those who fought for us aren't looking for verbal thank yous, they want to see us do something with our lives, because, heck, they GAVE US our lives and continue to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    I think that the internet is tearing down the walls of unbalanced power...whether they be wealth, profession, racial, sexist, or whatever related. When WiMax (or EV-DV) covers the country, and every person in this country has a device with a keyboard and a WiMax (or EV-DV) chip....I believe that THAT is the first time power COULD be equally distributed.
    That's a theory of "Well, if you give them the tools." Well, guess what? I walked into a school about 6 years ago and fixed the broken down computers they were donated so they could run an acceptable computer class. There's no higher number of students in those classes now as there were then.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    It has always worked in smaller communities (hence, the term communism),
    WHAT????? Communism has been an outright failure. The number of countries where it has survived can be counted on ONE HAND.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    but it's hard to use communism in a large country of just under 300 million people, which is why you let some people take risks with businesses rewarding those that provide jobs, etc....but it's not fair to reward them with billions of dollars when they couldn't do it without their employees.
    If you're saying that I shouldn't be allowed to cut myself an annual bonus of say $20,000 because I have employees, then you have no clue how business works. On the other side I can say that if it weren't for me, the people working for me wouldn't have a job worth what they have. My employees make DOUBLE the standard salary for where they live. Yes, DOUBLE. They get bonuses and little perks through the year. They can use their equipment for personal use as well. They work from home and have flexible hours and can take off a day to go on field trips with their children. They KNOW they've got it good. And they don't abuse the system I have built.

    Many companies started from people investing everything they have and good company leaders pay their employees FIRST, some not taking home paychecks for a year at a clip.

    The people who give the big dogs billions of dollars are the CONSUMERS - don't want them to have it? Don't SPEND it.

    Whenever there's ANY amount of unemployment anyone working for a company should be grateful for their job, at least they HAVE one.

    Have you ever been jobless? If you have, then you should already know that you'd be willing to lick someone's spit off the floor if it meant you could feed your family.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    All of the middle class can only take what they need with their $30,000/yr salaries, why can't the rich? They got in their positions of power because they had the option too.
    That OPTION is their RIGHT to take chances. Take a look at all the companies who started out of a basement. I am one of them. Jobless I had less than $150 in the bank, and that's what I started my company on. I have never, EVER taken out a business loan. I don't have any recurring debt, and pay for everything within a 30 day net basis.

    The AMERICAN DREAM is to be independent and many business start out of the hunger to build a better future for your family.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    But if they didn't have the option of getting more money, do you think those same people would just quit school and become garbage men?? I don't see it happening that way.
    What does that matter? It's their CHOICE to quit and do something else. There are programs for those who can't afford to go to school (I never participated in any of them, although I qualified).

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    As i recall, with survival of the fittest, like groups stick together. In this country, Americans are the like groups, while other countrys are what we're competing against. We shouldn't be competing with ourselves to the point that it hurts our competition with other countries. I see the force of selfless life in general being stronger than the force of selfish life.
    Perhaps you just don't know, or you're not conveying your thoughts to the screen properly. Every company's citizens compete amongst themselves. Every single one - whether it's for food, money, a home, anything.


    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    I'm still beting that you guys are continuing to think in terms of a separate body of government. Who says that because there is one collective body, you can't have individualism if the individualism was in place before you became a collective whole??
    Because:

    A. Millions of people can't all be responsible for deciding what millions of people do.

    B. Not everyone cares. If they don't vote today, what makes you think they'll make any effort in your proposed "advancement?"

    C. People WANT and HUNGER diversity. Money is what gives motivation to others to build things beyond what we imagined. "out of the goodness of their hearts" just doesn't cut it.

    D. True Americans want to live here. Take away what we have and we might as well move overseas as a new "promise land" will be more than willing to stand in our place.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    This is that capitalism is necessary stuff. Since we are now diverse, we can still have sub-industries just like businesses....and individualism. You separate one industry into these sub-categories (maybe even sub-sub-categories)...and let them come up with as many good ideas as possible. Why would they stop working since they're only getting as much money as everybody else?? Money doesn't fuel innovation, it's just a way for innovation to be rewarded in a society that's not truly communally connected.
    If you're saying that a reward isn't necessary, then that's pretty, well, I won't even say. Why does a dog sit? To get a reward. Why does a child clean his room? To be praised. Sometimes the reward is just making their parent happy and pleased with them, but nonetheless, it's a reward.

    People are just like dogs and children. And for many, that feeling deep in your gut that you did something to advance society isn't enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    Alright...I think I'm gonna sit back 'til tonight again and try to figure out why you think innovation requires money, and a community can't still provide individualism. I don't know if we are making any ground at all, because I think this is purely based on philisophical differences. I mean, if either you or I were right, there would be no need for a political spectrum, now would there?? Most people tend to say that usually the answer lies somewhere in the middle...that may be, but I know it sure ain't on the right side.
    You'd be better off researching history and READING what everyone here is saying. If you come back with a reference that makes sense, I'm more than happy to listen, but as of now, you haven't cited anything that debunks the others here.

    So, if that's your plan, please come back with your guns fully loaded, otherwise this isn't an opiniated debate at all, but rather someone so desparately needing someone ANYONE to take their side. Which, by the way, isn't the way to win a country over on ideas.

    Pamela
    Using my treo 650 for business:
    DesignExtend.com
  5. #65  
    Just remember grndslm, Delta is ready whenever you are. You can head over the China and show Chairman Mau how to do it right !!!
  6.    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell
    Just remember grndslm, Delta is ready whenever you are. You can head over the China and show Chairman Mau how to do it right !!!
    What the hell does the plymouth experiment and Chairman Mau have to do with what we're talking about?? Ignore everything but this one question...and I'll continue the rest of the debate.
  7. #67  
    Ahhh, to be young and idealistic..........this "true communism" of which you speak sounds more like the 60's hippie hang-outs than something that is viable to a large population. IMO, you'd be hard pressed to gather enough "like minded" individuals to have any wide-spread acceptance.

    BTW, have you looked at the results of your poll - it appears you are the only one who even remotely believes this can work...
  8. #68  
    Like I said, he's hilarious !
  9.    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell
    Like I said, he's hilarious !
    I'm waiting Darnell....how is this debate releated to Chairman Mao and The Plymouth Experiment??
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    I'm waiting Darnell....how is this debate releated to Chairman Mao and The Plymouth Experiment??
    I dunno, how did this debate have anything to do with how I run my company or whom I do or do not care for?

    If you're expecting for people to solely only touch one specific question without using their own research as reasoning, you might be better off sending 20 or so PMs to yourself.

    Pamela
    Using my treo 650 for business:
    DesignExtend.com
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    You didn't specifically state it, but you definitely implied it. Otherwise, there would have been no sense in posting what I had quoted from you.
    You are trying too hard to read between sentences. The statement can be applied to most but not all. Apparently, you felt something that you had to react.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    I'm sorry but I really can't control my tone when 10 different people reply to my posts at the same time...usually already going over something I thought that I explained. I mean, I don't blame most of you guys for reading this entire thread. These 60 posts have been pretty dern lengthy and it's difficult to narrow down stuff when the opposite side continues to be vague in their descriptions.
    Discussions are not about shouting or raising one's voice to drown the other out. You pushed because you got pushed? This makes it right? You believe that the one who shouts the loudest, wins? We are not arguing, we are trying to explain topic on hand. This is a discussion not a debate. If you refuse to listen, then you neither learn nor gain anything out of this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm
    I am...but I'm not seeing your citation of reasons for why communism couldn't be possible with the aide of technology in future generations. The fact is that there's not much of anything written on this. I'll give ya 1984, but that's more big brother stuff, which kinda goes along with the irrelevant of my teacher's comments on us all being borgs in the future. I'll respond to the 1984 question below though...I've already read it, albeit a long time ago.
    I have not said that communism is not possible with the aid of technology. You do invoke a frightening thought but not without reason. As I said before, statements from teachers, goverment leaders, business owners when not validated can be a bad thing. Can a version of communism be implemented that is different than currently in place? It is possible but it cannot be totalitarian or all controlling in nature nor should it suppress the freedom of indvidual thinking. Any human leaders left uncheck tend to be tempted to abuse once in power. Freedom of choice and communism cannot coexist because of its opposite nature.

    This is a free country, non-communist in nature. People here believe in choices and having the freedom to make choices. This people of this country rebels at the very nature of losing their own personal control of choice. Hence individuals do raise questions and checks for balances and tries to achieve balance by creating rules. It may not be perfect but it is there nonetheless.

    It is the very nature of freedom that various creativeness comes from.

    The current communist ruled countries have their own geniuses but they live and survive by the goverment and they do not know any other choices since they never seen any other. For these inviduals, their current form of goverment is the best.

    You, on the other hand, can discuss and think about this. You are also free to move out to a communist country and try your theories.

    Please remember, about the borgs, the current communist ruled countries are not far away from such conditions - you own no property, everything is owned by the goverment, you work for the goverment, everything goes for the good of the goverment. Now replace the word goverment with the word collective.
  12.    #72  
    Darnell?? Where are you??
  13.    #73  
    I hope Darnell didn't leave TC for good. I really wanted to hear how the Plymouth Experiment and Chairman Mao used technology to make an efficient and effective method of distributing power. I don't think anybody has...which is why I believe that communism hasn't worked before.

    If he doesn't respond by tonight...I'll continue the thread, but I'm going to ignore everything he says as he's had ample time to reply.
  14. #74  
    Dude you can keep searching, but it very unlikely you will find anyone interested in being a commie. Communism doesnt work. Having a treo is not going to make it work.

    There will always be those that want to work for more and those who dont. How can you ever have equality between them? You cant.

    Good luck with your crusade though. From the looks of your poll you are going to need it.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  15.    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Dude you can keep searching, but it very unlikely you will find anyone interested in being a commie. Communism doesnt work. Having a treo is not going to make it work.
    I'm not looking for people to become commies...I'm trying to find out why it wouldn't work. And I thought I did a fairly good job of explaining why communism failed and why it wouldn't in the future...but I guess not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    There will always be those that want to work for more and those who dont. How can you ever have equality between them? You cant.
    Dunno if I've already typed it. But for example, those that "worked" harder by going to school and getting good jobs could work less time...I think it'd be possible to come up with ways to REWARD others other than with financial gains. There's more to this world than money, ya know? Didn't your parents tell you that??

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Good luck with your crusade though. From the looks of your poll you are going to need it.
    Again...not trying to start a crusade - tryin' to find the flaw in my argument, but I'm still not seeing it. And even if there were a crusade, I wouldn't be looking to this country for crusaders. This country is controlled by numerous corporations who provide jobs for the vast population of Americans. As others have already said...a lotta people have a lot invested in capitalism (isn't that the whole point of capitalism?) to just let it go down the drain. But I certainly believe that some Eastern countries will have a working version of communism by the end of this century; their Eastern philosophies mixed with technology are going to make it happen, IMO.

    I've got a much longer post that I wrote a few days ago, resummarizing the major points that I think were scattered across this thread. I'll be posting it as soon as I get home tonight....and if we can't convince each other of anything in the next day or two, I'm just gonna have to stop posting seeing as how this thread has some of the lenghthiest posts in the history of TC.
  16. #76  
    I guess I wonder how many times communism has to fail around the world be fore some people will accept it is a flawed concept. How much proof do you need.

    And why are you so interested in it working?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  17.    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    I guess I wonder how many times communism has to fail around the world be fore some people will accept it is a flawed concept. How much proof do you need.
    I'm about to get to it...but whenever Eastern countries that have a greater technological infrastructure turn to communism and then it fails....THEN I'll be satisfied. When there is a government in which every citizen of a nation can vote directly on every law...and every citizen has the same amount of economic liberty as the next citizen...THEN I'll be satisfied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    And why are you so interested in it working?
    Dunno, really...why are you interested in Treo phones? or girls (or guys, if you go that way)? or computers? or politics? or whatever??

    It comes from environmental surroundings...and my quest for truth. If capitalism has flaws, but communism doesn't...then I'd want to live in a communist nation. I guess that's why I'm interested.

    ANYWAY...now it's time for me to post what I wrote a few days ago, since Darnell decided to pud out and not show up for this monumental debate. Sorry you couldn't make it...I'm sure you had tons to say.

    Here it is in the following thread:
  18.    #78  
    Firstly, I'd just like to say that I'm still waiting on darnell's response!!! It's just crazy how I've told this guy numerous times that the past events he mentioned already had floppy political states. So, just because you toss a good economic ideal into a country with flaky political standings...DOES NOT mean that communism is flawed.

    Secondly, I'd like to apologize to mediasi. What I said to you was wrong. I just noticed your signature (also apologize for that other comment in another thread about your sig, didn't notice your name was above the sig line; why not put it below it so you don't have to type it every post?) and felt I'd take a jab at you for owning a business. I just figured that I'd relate you to every other business owner just like you'd related me to every other college kid you knew. And as far as I know, they could both be accurate descriptions. But anyway, that was wrong of me...I have no knowledge of your personal life, but I applaude you for doing your hardest at your job and providing your employees with health care, benefits, good pay, and what-have-you. I wish more owners could say that about themselves.

    Thirdly, I'd like to apologize to AlaskanDad and Insertion. I never meant for you to believe that our personal freedoms would be taken away by [partially] limiting our economic freedoms. I'm all about some personal freedom, guys, that's why I'm against capitalism!! But I want to make it VERY clear that I support troops for their bravery and courage. I respect you guys a billion times more than the the current administration, however. In this war, I'm for troops, but against what Bush chose to do. If any of you think he went over there for anything other than oil, you're so totally blinded by Fox News. If we wanted to remove Saddam we would have used a few hitmen, not an entire army; if we wanted to attack terrorists, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia; if we wanted to get rid of "nucular" weapons of mass destruction, we should have had a little more proof than a few trucks and a little more plan than choas. Terrible choices all around, but it's a fact that Bush and Cheney both benefited from our Commander in Chief's decision to start a war. But even though it was wrong to start, they knew it couldn't be stopped because we would get blamed for destroying the Iraqis' shelter, water supply, etc. So we have no pull-out plan in site as we continue to fuel more terrorists' askewed views of our country. SAD, SAD, SAD BUSH!!! Honestly, if he's not the Anti-Christ, I fear for those who live during his time.

    ANYWAY...Darnell's honest answer (should he know what honesty is) should be that the Plymouth Experiment and Chariman Mao did not have an efficient, or EFFECTIVE, even, way of distributing their power/money equally. If mediasi's point (and mine as well) hold true that the government's purpose is security AND control (to act as the CEO for a corporation), then their whole purpose is to do both an efficient and effective job of advocating the direction we should be headed. In the past, and even today, inefficient models of businesses/government proved to be ineffective of distributing money/power evenly because it was/is not possible to let someone propose an idea without him risking his own money/name to see if his idea was physically sound by putting it to the real test, or for an entire country to vote on one single issue and get the results the same day you voted. But with technology advancing at the rapid pace that it is, I'm saying it CAN be possible in the future.

    I guess that's my main point; NOW: representative democracy paired with capitalism -versus- FUTURE: technocracy paired with communism (NOT...I REPEAT...NOT representative democracy paired with communism, as it seems most of you are understanding it). Never before was there an effective way to distribute power/money, yet slowly but surely technology is providing us that EFFICIENT & EFFECTIVE method of distribution. Nobody seems to argue that if it were possible to distribute the money evenly while avoiding the assumed negative consequences of communism (people abusing the system or lack of diversity)...that it would still be a bad thing. It always seems to go back to totalitarian control of abusing the economic and political system and diversity. Again, technology seems like it could solve that political system as well, making our representative democracy irrelevant.

    Let me re-summarize. Every single person has a smartphone [not the same smartphone] that can connect to the WiMax infrastructure scattered all across the country. Connected to this wireless system is a massive database that records everything related to the GOVERNMENT (not personal stuff, such as who you talk to or what you like to read, or anything like that). Since the government owns all businesses, they will have to see what you're buying...they can already see what you buy now if you use a credit card (you could pay with cash, but I don't see us having that option for too much longer into the future). They use this large database that can be seen by any other citizen...it's not closed so that only the government can see it. Well, I guess in a since it is because YOU are the government.

    Since you are the government, YOU replace the House of Representatives and get to vote on every issue (if you so chose to do so), while there is still a Senate, and a President (hopefully more than just one, but this is debatable). This seems to solve the problem to me of the totalitarian stuff - finally distributing power evenly with technology by our side.

    Things that could be debatable are if people should be able to see what you buy, or what you vote on. Is this necessarily a bad thing. I don't think it is. You should be proud of what you choose, should you not? And anybody who knows you would prolly know what you buy anyway; why would somebody who doesn't know you even give a rats a$$.

    As to the private ownership of property. I don't see the government owning personal property; I just see them taking over the businesses. The problem that I mentioned in my initial post is what happens with inheritances/property/other possessions after you die. Well...the only solution I see is to turn it over to the state at that point. I see this as a good thing because most conservatives talk about saving up money for their family, and more specifically their children. I know several conservatives whose children don't even try in school because they know they're going to get a new BMW when they're 16, then they go to college and they flunk out in the first year. Is all that really necessary? Then there are those conservative parents who gave their children a good education and who kept a good eye on their kid's grades. I attribute that to the community of the family, and not what the kid knew he had coming -- a successful life.

    Also...I took a test to see where I fell on the political spectrum, treo2die4. I tended to rank between 70-90% in terms of personal freedom, and 10-30% in terms of economic freedom. So, yes, I'd consider myself a socialist at this point because we should be moving toward communism, just like marx predicted (he was just ahead of his time, like most great thinkers). ULTRA-liberal would be a little far fetched for right now, considering communism isn't possible yet. But I hope that you know an ultra-liberal is the same thing as communist...maybe, someday!

    Anyway...again, other than the the abuse of power, it seems that the other 2 main arguments you guys have are the lack of motivation since everybody's getting paid the same and diversity. Just because they're getting paid the same doesn't mean they can't be rewarded with other benefits. If high school students choose to continue furthering their education, they will be rewarded by not having to do manual labor...and generally getting to experience fun and exciting times. As for the doctors and lawyers who put in plenty of time in med and law school, I believe that they could have less work as more people could be pushed toward going into those fields. A lotta time is wasted in the court rooms nowadays....you give 'em an efficient and effective technological system of organization and BAM, it frees up a lotta time for lawyers. I'm sure the same could be said for doctors, however, I don't know too much about doctors. If given enough time, however, I think that SOMEBODY could come up with a solution for the medical field. That covers the motivation bit to me, however, I'll admit the devil could lie in the details. I'm just considering conceptually if this idea could work.

    As for diversity. I'm sure there'd be a way to divide the government up into industries (just like industries of business), then to sub-industries (certain groups within an industry working on one goal), and then even further to sub-sub-industries where people would mostly call their "employer", even though everybody has one employer...the government, which is truly themselves. This is, IMO, the trickiest part of this whole theory because it prolly requires more attention to detail. I'd know of no other way to find a real solution to how these sub-industries are formed than trial and error, honestly. The first place I'd look for guidance though, is the Open Source Community. People gravitate toward others with the same interests (these sub-industries) and just start doing what they love to do most!! There is diversity among database servers, for example, but they're all working toward the same goal - truth. They want to code the best database server they possibly can. People have different ideas of how this should be done...that's why they naturally break up into the camps of PostgreSQL, MySQL, Firebird, etc. I wish I had more to say about the diversity issue, but I don't. I guess that since we're all connected to each other, we can market to ourselves and see what we really want without interference of people trying to make a profit.

    Community is just beautiful to me I guess...Greed and selfishness are not.

    **P.S. - How is it that clothing/homes/food were made in communist countries?? I never hear any explanation to how this worked??? Did everybody where the same exact shirt and pants?
  19.    #79  
    I think that was a little bit better than my initial post. Your comments, specifically mediasi's were most helpful in helping me understand where I needed to focus my comments.
  20. #80  
    Nice dissertation. Clearly you need to move to one of your "eastern countries" because communism will never happen here. No matter how wonderful you think it is.

    Good luck to you.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions