But...but...but...its treespeaker!!!!
...okay, so you did a good job. But I had to use that SOMEHOW right now, and you were the nearest guy.
| ZOMBIE FORUMS http://forums.kyhm.com/ |
|
| Capitalism vs. Communism http://forums.kyhm.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=1422 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | The Man In Black [ Wed Nov 13, 2002 6:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Less regulation should be the goal. I have no problem with punishing in harsher ways than are done now the companies that cheat out their people, but regulation itself only hurts business, which is bad. A highly regulated economy would be less successful than a loosely regulated economy. Personally, I like most of how the economy is handled today. I just dislike people saying how the government should put a super-tight reign on business- that will only mesh the two further than they are already, which is already bad enough. |
|
| Author: | Lifyre [ Wed Nov 13, 2002 6:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: On 2002-11-13 17:23, Mystical, Magical Low Quality Buckler wrote:
So, tell me if I'm wrong here (and I mean that honestly, not in some I'm-smarter-than-you-and-I'll-prove-that-by-saying-a-stupid-cliche way), but don't conservatives usually argue that business should be given more free reign? And aren't you a conservative, KC? Depends on your version of conservative. People are all over. From a completely free market (very rare) to esentially a communist society (equally rare). What is more typical is either a free economy that has rules governing fair play and providing a semi-level playing field (Martin Freedman) to a regulated economy with competition and a mostly free market (FDR) |
|
| Author: | Treespeaker [ Mon Nov 18, 2002 10:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This was, at some point, a debate about capitalism vs. communism, so I should somewhat like to suggest my own humble opinion on the matter. (Please remember, though, that it is just that--opinion. If I state something in a factual manner, it's because the alternative is to end every sentance with some variation on "I believe," "in my opinion," "possibly," etc, not because I honestly think it's incontrovertible fact, or even the only good opinion out there.) If we disregard philosophical attraction to one system over the other (I, for instance, am a fairly self-motivated guy, so I'm a big fan of capitalism on an ideological level), I think it safe to say that, were either system given the perfect world which they assume, capitalism stands a much better chance of sucess than communism. The difficulty with communsism is that, if every citizen of a communist nation truly and wholly believed in the system and worked for it 100%, there would need to always be more production than consumption. The primary tenant of the philosophy is, essentially, "from each according to his ability to each according to his need," meaning that everyone produces as much as they can, which is then organized and distributed to the people who need it the most. This runs into two fundamental problems: 1) Even assuming the most well-intentioned society in the world (as I said above, 100% dedicated to the ideal of communism) is going to run into trouble determining each citizen's need. Just for example, I have a much faster metabolism rate than my friend Chris. We'd need a government (or product distribution regulator) that could figure that out, and that's assuming we're doing a strict by-the-numbers calculation--factor in any luxuries the society can produce, and need becomes almost impossible to figure. 2) The second problem that arises is the total inability of a society based on an ability-to-need exchange to survive for an infinite period. Attrition will, at some point, destroy the community. As I mentioned, I need more food day-to-day than my friend; I'm also six foot seven and reasonably athletic while he's about five nothing and out of shape--put the two of us in the fields (or factories, or whatever) and at best he'll produce as much as me, but I need much more in return to continue producing effectivly. He, however, is less capable of producing for himself, and so warrants a greater share of the community's products than me. The attrition caused may not be enough to destroy the society within a generation (trying to avoid extreme doomsday propheting here), but it remains that, unless the strongest producers are capable of producing enough surplus to feed the weaker members and themselves as well with only minimal help, they will gradually wear down and the society will be incapable of supporting itself. That said, a perfect capitalist society where every single person is 100% dedicated to capitalism does work, at least to some extent. Assuming everyone really does ascribe to the ruthless, biggest-bang-for-your-buck mentality, the issue of people going with big business products even in the face of better, cheaper alternatives from smaller ventures vanishes, and you get honest-to-god fair competition where every business has to do their best to balance production costs, quality, and fair pricing. That said, the point other people have made is quite true. Neither system really does work in the real world, largely because people always want to cheat the system a little bit, and generally do. My point is simply that, taken as textbook systems and ignoring their real-world feasibilty, it seems to me that communism can't hold up internally anyway, whereas capitalism can. Whether or not that makes it better in the real world is another matter (I'd like to think so, but the evidence is against me...I guess humanity just isn't ready for a pure economic system from either end of the system). Now, that's all for now...please be nice We're going for a "marketplace of ideas," not a "Colosseum of ideas" here. |
|
| Author: | The Man In Black [ Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
But...but...but...its treespeaker!!!!
...okay, so you did a good job. But I had to use that SOMEHOW right now, and you were the nearest guy. |
|
| Author: | Ghost [ Wed Nov 20, 2002 7:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
::Shakes head:: KC, Treespeaker's better now . . . And besides, he's right. (I'm still unsure whether it's a good thing I've been agreeing with him so much lately . . . O.o) |
|
| Author: | Treespeaker [ Wed Nov 20, 2002 8:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
"...since no speech is ever considered, but only the speaker. It's so much easier to pass judgement on a man than on an idea." -Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead 'nuff said. Anyone want to actually respond to the post? <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Treespeaker on 2002-11-20 19:20 ]</font> |
|
| Author: | veritron [ Wed Nov 20, 2002 10:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh god. Please don't let this turn into another "Ayn Rand sucks" thread. We've had so many thanks to Goldstandard. Let's keep on topic. |
|
| Author: | Treespeaker [ Wed Nov 20, 2002 11:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry...I just thought the quote was appropriate for KillsCommies response to my post. Wasn't particularly advocating Rand for the purposes of debate. |
|
| Author: | The Man In Black [ Wed Nov 20, 2002 11:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It was a joke, Treespeaker. I was commenting on you, but then I said your idea about hit the mark, imo. And now, I think this is warrented (sorry if you think it isn't...I need to use these pictures tonight...) 
|
|
| Author: | The Electric Pope [ Thu Nov 21, 2002 1:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wait, wasn't it Theodore Roosevelt that ended Carnegie and all the other monopolies... |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|