1

The Lounge / Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism

« on: May 08, 2006, 02:00:37 PM »

It is not inherent to capitalism.  That is why I request a form of capitalism in which society realizes the foolishness of such things, as this form of capitalism would be quite different from society today

2

The Lounge / Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism

« on: May 08, 2006, 01:54:00 PM »

he's not a socialist, he just thinks he is.

I'll call myself a capitalist if you make capitalism ensure liberty and equality, as well as if this capitalism will change society itself so that people no longer feel the need for violence and harming other people for self benefit.

But then, does that mean that market socialism is actually capitalism?

3

The Lounge / Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism

« on: May 08, 2006, 01:48:50 PM »

Here is the post I accidentally put in the original thread

Granted and I'm not saying capitalism is falwless, however I am wondering how people how really are hard working entrepeneurs would be treated in the system you propose
An curious
Cinlef

I should really talk to some people who know what they are talking about. I just throw all my political opinions together and call it socialism, as I generally agree with democratic socialists.

However, in the socialism I propose, those who work hard are payed more than those who do not.  Perhaps in the socialism I propose we keep the excellent supply-demand, competition, etc. system capitalism has but then make it equal and have the people all own the means of production.

Que? What country would you say is socialist then? You stated before that, "True socialism is democratic." If this is so, then how is a
social democracy =/= to your definition of socialism?

social democracy was in the past like democratic socialism, but now it has become people willing to use capitalism in its entirety, but include social programs.  Basically, most forms of social democray, except the most leftist, are pretty much only wellfare state capitalists (perhaps hoping for actual socialism in the future.  I don't know, I would have to talk to one

Socialism, actually, can be both communal and individualistic.  People work together and help each other with things, but society values the individual above all.  As long as the individual is willing to share and aid his fellow individuals.

I already stated that the socialism I favor uses some capitalism. A while ago I read something someone wrote about 'market socialism', which I found very interesting.  Perhaps the most accurate name I can think of for my system would be 'democratic market socialism'.  I do not deny the benefits of a capitalist economy, above all my socialist ideology is based on my belief that people are equal and that working together, rather than fighting each other, is far better for everyone.

perhaps I exaggerated a bit with 150,000.  I say that, poorer people don't have to worry about taxes so much, as it is a smaller total for a smaller income, and they probably have things they can deduct, in some cases not having to pay taxes at all.  Yes, Sweden is an exageratted welfare state, if taxes are that high and all they get is free healthcare and social programs if they can't work.

Yes, difficult work can be payed more, and people that were too lazy to go to college (the government would help out a lot with college in my system, so that pretty much everyone could afford to go to it).  As I said earlier in this post, I do take some of capitalism and put it into socialism.

What are you talking about? Everybody works for someone else, how is that a big deal? I'm not sure what skewed vision of reality you are living in. One second you say you are for individualism, the next you say you are against business. So what are people to do? Just go around and be individuals and ask the government for money? Where are you going to work if you can't work for someone else? You have to make your own business, which you can't do under this model because apparently it is wrong to hire people to help you run your business. You aren't making any sense.

The businesses are given to the people, ideally.  Really, I see that there are some problems with entrusting the people with doing everything, so I guess the government is forced to assist in this area.

Perhaps a form of capitalism would be fine with me, as long as people in this form of capitalism could stop fighting unnecessarily, help people when they need it, etc.  Also if everyone would be monetarily equal at birth, and would only become more wealthy if they worked harder in life.  However, this capitalism also needs to have society support people unable to work.  This is could be problematic, as I dislike greed, etc. but these things seem to be the driving force of capitalism in reality.

Ideally I guess a simple change in society, so that people would see how pointless violence is, and that people would be willing to share if others need assistance, would be enough.

The problem is I'm just too idealistic

edit: sorry, didn't see the other thread 'till after I made this post

So if I take money from someone, it's ok as long as they have an abundance of it? Hey guess what, I drank my liver to death and need a liver transplant. Your's in a match! You don't have a choice I need a piece of your's, it doesn't matter if you could die because I need it. Don't mind those police in here, they are just making sure you cooperate. If you don't they will be forced to restrain you while we put you to sleep and cut out a piece of your liver.


If you apply it to currency, you soon apply it to everything.

Well, IMO the only way a person gets to be extremely wealthy is by leaching the profits of other peoples' labor.  However, in your example you had a healthy liver, but then destroyed it yourself.  No one has to give you their liver, unless they have such a great liver because they stole livers from other people.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / THE REAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

« on: May 08, 2006, 01:44:18 PM »

Granted and I'm not saying capitalism is falwless, however I am wondering how people how really are hard working entrepeneurs would be treated in the system you propose
An curious
Cinlef

I should really talk to some people who know what they are talking about. I just throw all my political opinions together and call it socialism, as I generally agree with democratic socialists.

However, in the socialism I propose, those who work hard are payed more than those who do not.  Perhaps in the socialism I propose we keep the excellent supply-demand, competition, etc. system capitalism has but then make it equal and have the people all own the means of production.

Que? What country would you say is socialist then? You stated before that, "True socialism is democratic." If this is so, then how is a
social democracy =/= to your definition of socialism?

social democracy was in the past like democratic socialism, but now it has become people willing to use capitalism in its entirety, but include social programs.  Basically, most forms of social democray, except the most leftist, are pretty much only wellfare state capitalists (perhaps hoping for actual socialism in the future.  I don't know, I would have to talk to one

Socialism, actually, can be both communal and individualistic.  People work together and help each other with things, but society values the individual above all.  As long as the individual is willing to share and aid his fellow individuals.

I already stated that the socialism I favor uses some capitalism. A while ago I read something someone wrote about 'market socialism', which I found very interesting.  Perhaps the most accurate name I can think of for my system would be 'democratic market socialism'.  I do not deny the benefits of a capitalist economy, above all my socialist ideology is based on my belief that people are equal and that working together, rather than fighting each other, is far better for everyone.

perhaps I exaggerated a bit with 150,000.  I say that, poorer people don't have to worry about taxes so much, as it is a smaller total for a smaller income, and they probably have things they can deduct, in some cases not having to pay taxes at all.  Yes, Sweden is an exageratted welfare state, if taxes are that high and all they get is free healthcare and social programs if they can't work.

Yes, difficult work can be payed more, and people that were too lazy to go to college (the government would help out a lot with college in my system, so that pretty much everyone could afford to go to it).  As I said earlier in this post, I do take some of capitalism and put it into socialism.

What are you talking about? Everybody works for someone else, how is that a big deal? I'm not sure what skewed vision of reality you are living in. One second you say you are for individualism, the next you say you are against business. So what are people to do? Just go around and be individuals and ask the government for money? Where are you going to work if you can't work for someone else? You have to make your own business, which you can't do under this model because apparently it is wrong to hire people to help you run your business. You aren't making any sense.

The businesses are given to the people, ideally.  Really, I see that there are some problems with entrusting the people with doing everything, so I guess the government is forced to assist in this area.

Perhaps a form of capitalism would be fine with me, as long as people in this form of capitalism could stop fighting unnecessarily, help people when they need it, etc.  Also if everyone would be monetarily equal at birth, and would only become more wealthy if they worked harder in life.  However, this capitalism also needs to have society support people unable to work.  This is could be problematic, as I dislike greed, etc. but these things seem to be the driving force of capitalism in reality.

Ideally I guess a simple change in society, so that people would see how pointless violence is, and that people would be willing to share if others need assistance, would be enough.

The problem is I'm just too idealistic

edit: sorry, didn't see the other thread 'till after I made this post

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Another physics thought

« on: May 08, 2006, 01:14:31 PM »

I just realized, by emiting energy do you mean how temporary matter-antimatter particle pairs randomlly appear in space, and near a black hole sometimes one or the other can fall in, thus causing the remaining particle to become real and permanent?

I know that this does apparently take energy away from the blackhole (which could be said to be the black hole emitting energy), as it is thought to be why black holes would shrink over time

6

The Lounge / Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism

« on: May 08, 2006, 01:07:53 PM »

I know that that is technically possible (especially in the past), but it is very, very difficult to do nowadays.  Especially when there are other people with huge headstarts at it, inheriting immense sums of money and even businesses themselves

7

Flat Earth Q&A / An Ice Wall Cannot Exist

« on: May 08, 2006, 11:24:46 AM »

If there was an Ice Wall we cannot exsist, we would be all dead...

Do we forget the Ice Age?

Also this planet to start off with had no ice, it was a big ball of magma... too hot for ice. What magically created the Ice Wall?

it was a big ball of lava and asteroid collisions when a gas cloud collapsed on itself forming the round Earth, but a flat Earth would not form that way.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / The equator

« on: May 08, 2006, 11:23:21 AM »

except in the case of the southern hemisphere.  This is a dilemna.

Let me explain.  Both poles, in the middle of summer, have eternal sunlight.  However, the moddel of the sun orbiting overhead, wobbling towards the center and edge only accounts for eternal sunlight in the Arctic circle.  The Antarctic circle, under that condition, still would not have eternal sunlight, as the sun would still orbit around to the other side of Earth.  Hope that made sense.

Oh, but I've just got a solution to this problem, I think.  Perhaps, shortly after the ice wall is passed, space time warps back to the other side of Earth, so that when it shines on one side (say, the bottom of S America) it shines on the other side as well (say, Australia).  But the only time this lighting works is when the sun wobbles outward in the summer of the southern hemisphere.

Sure, bending space time back around to the other side of the Earth is odd, but it would account for the atmosphere not spilling over the edge and falling below Earth, and it accounts for the endless day in the southern hemisphere.

9

The Lounge / Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism

« on: May 08, 2006, 11:16:57 AM »

social democracy is a welfare state; capitalist. Not socialism.

I don't know about Communism, but the form of socialism I am in favor is more individualist (opposite of collectivism) than capitalism is.

Sweden isn't socialist either.  They compensate for wealth imbalance with huge tax rates (which only affect you if you make too much money... say, 150 thousand a year?  Seriously that is too much).  A capitalist solution to a problem that can only be fixed with socialism.

The thing about socialism is, very little is state-run.  The state just requires that everyone is payed fair;  pay works by, you do more work, youy get more pay.  You do no work, (unless you are diabled and can't work.  Then society has to pay for you to not work) you get no pay.

As I have said, I am not a collectivist communist.  You are more like such a person than I am, merely for supporting capitalism, which takes away our personalities and makes us drones of the rich, toiling away in their factories, while they siphon off most of the profits of our work.

I don't care how nature works.  In nature, our closes relatives, chimpanzees, kill each other for no reason.  We are human; we are above nature.  We can do whatever we want.

And yes there is survival of the fittest in nature, but in capitalism, there is no way toget rich even if you are fit to do so.  Plus, survival of the fittest is a genetic thing, not luck on whether you are born rich or poor.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Context and Perspective in the Holocaust Controversy

« on: May 08, 2006, 11:03:30 AM »

Ok, so a lot of Bolsheviks were Jews.  A lot of the 'founding fathers; of the United States were Freemasons.  On the FSM website there is a graph in which the world's temperature rises as pirate populations decrease.  I think you are just drawing conclusions from coincedence.  Even if you are not, ok, Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy, Stalin kills it during his paranoid quest for power (unless every person, every military commander, every researcher he killed during the purges was Jewish).  

US is pro-Israel (which it wasn't at start; it told Israel to give the Sinai back after their war with Egypt or something) USSR, in a war with the US, supports the enemies of Israel.  Looks to me like standard cold war diplomacy.

South Carolina founded by Jews... coming from Brazil?  right... Actualy it looks to me like it was foudned by English settlers.  MAybe those English settlers were Jews, who knows.

Well I mentioned Croatian atrocities as part of the non-Jewish casualties of the holocaust, hoping that you could explain the deaths of millions of non-Jews in concentration camps and at the hands of the SS.

11

The Lounge / Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism

« on: May 08, 2006, 10:44:18 AM »

um, taking money form the rich to redistribute is not stealing.  The only way the rich got so wealthy is by stealing some of the profits that the workers worked for.  Redisributing the wealth, if anything, is righting the crime that the wealthy have done.  Unless you believe that rich people work a thousand times harder than the workers, and thus deserve a thousand or mroe times as much wealth as the workers?

And we don't make a powerful central government.  All means of production, for example, are given to the people, rather than the State (yes there is a difference between the people and the government).  The problem is, you have to get out of the 'evil commie' mindset that government propoganda has gotten you into.  True socialism is democratic.  The 'dictatorship of the proleteriat' stuff was just power-hungry members of the Communist Party corrupting the revolution, and then they only pretended to be socialist, at the same time as doing some rather conservative things.

The People's republic of China isn't Communist anymore.  They have privately owned business, and are doing something very un-lefitst; enciting nationalism against the Japanese.

The government in socialism is made to be a weak servant of the people.  All we really have it for is helping to organize the economy, enforcing laws (for example, sending murderers to jail.  There will never be a law repressing any freedoms).  The current government of our country is an extremely corrupt capitalist government, filled with rich people, made richer still by big business bribing them.

12

The Lounge / Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism

« on: May 08, 2006, 10:32:36 AM »

I love the argument against socialism people use where they say how crappy the Soviet Union was and how other totalitarian 'Communist' states are.

Actually, it annoys me, as, for example the entire socialist international is committed to socialism through democracy.  Socialism, actually, works best with democracy as when one 'Communist' Party takes control the government, and thus transition to socialism, is corrupted and regresses into a form of capitalism, with the Communist Party, rather than an aristocratic class, oppressing the people.

The poverty line is not at eighty thousand for two people.  Perhaps thirty thousand for a household of two, but that would only be because of incredible housing costs in my area.  It is virtually impossible to work on one's own merit, and nothing else, up to a higher class than that you were born in.

Maybe if those rich people stopped hordeing wealth, the linear equation of taxation wouldn't make them pay so much.  I can't believe that you are using a figure that 1% of the people pay 60% of the income taxes as a pro-capitalist figure.  The fact that such a small group has 60 percent of the entire United States income should shock you and wish to redistibute the wealth logicaly, through socialism.

Let me ask someone.  Do you think it makes sense to allow one person to be born on the street, but the other person born with silver spoon in mouth, ready to inherit billions of dollars?  I don't understand how anyone, unless they are a greedy rich person themself, can support capitalism.

capitalism is freer than feudalism, what with its 'liberal democracies'.  But compare feudalism to capitalism for a moment.  Now compare capitalism to socialism.  Same thing; socialism is superior to capitalism, and far freer.

If you want an example of a socialist you can go to sp-usa.org (for example), then sign up for their forums and talk to someone there.  Or, you can read Orwell's works.  He's long dead, but he was a notable soicialist, most importantly opposed to the Soviet Union.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Context and Perspective in the Holocaust Controversy

« on: May 08, 2006, 02:19:04 AM »

I dismiss figures from the middle of war as we did not know the extent of the genocide until after the war.  The writers of this publication must have assumed Jews in the occupied territories were not dieing (whether the death camps were death camps or just concentration camps where the people were worked and starved to death, they still died), and then after the war, when we founf out about the deaths of millions, this publication could be corrected to account for the Jewish deaths.

Plus, if the holocaust is a Zionist conspiracy, why do we also believe that 3 million non-Jewish Poles were killed?  Why believe that thousands of atheists, Freemasons (which the Freemasons stil commemorate those lost in the deathcamps), and Jehova's Witnesses died?  And since there is no Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy (Trotsky was the most well-known Jewish Bolshevik, and Stalin ran him out of the USSR), what about accounts of Soviet POWs being killed?  Plus there are the Slavic civilians killed.  Then there were 300 thousand or so Serbs killed by the Croatian government, which was basically a Nazi puppet.

Whether Hitler personally ordered the deaths is irrelevant; I don't care about blaming long dead men, I care about the fact that over ten million people were killed

6 million decided upon beforehand?  Did they also make up figures for homosexuals, political dissidents, Balkan Slavs, USSR Slavs (I say this as I just remembered Russians are Slavs or something), Poles, etc.?  And the knew the Nazis were going to build concentration camps for these people?

If the holocaust was a myth, then why did the German government ask their Bulgarian allies to send them all their Jews (the Bulgarian government refused)?  Why did Denmark put all its Jews in fishing boats and smuggle them to Sweden?  They believed the conspiracy before it was even fully in place?

And the reconassiance photographs from WW2 I have seen showed furnaces and gas chambers, IIRC.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Psychiatry

« on: May 08, 2006, 02:07:30 AM »

I personally am against the death penalty because it is immoral, but with the two major parties in my country being capitalist I need to give them a better incentive, as they do not care about the people.  They are corrupt and only care about themselves.

Perhaps I am confusing psychiatry and psychology or something?  I'm not sure.  However I do know that some people need treatment for malfunctioning brains, and I believe they need to use therapy/medication to fix that.

I do not 'fear God'; I feel that killing a human being, regardless of the circumstances, is wrong unless this human being is a direct threat to your well being.  Since my country seperates the Church from the federal government, I'd rather it not base its decisions on the Christian faith.

Perhaps by psychiatry you mean those mental institutions in which they would electroshock people and cut parts of their brains off from the rest of the brain?  Those places were terrible.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Psychiatry

« on: May 08, 2006, 01:05:29 AM »

Psychiatrists are useful.  You are an Orthodox Christian, and not a Scientologist, right?

Seriously however, psychiatrists can help mental disorders.  In some cases, a person might have depression, etc.  due to, for example, a chemical imbalance in their brain.  A pschiatrist can detect this problem, and prescribe treatment, for example, in the form of medication.

And the death penalty must be abolished.  If not for moral reasons, but for practical reasons (the US is capitalist after all).  For example, in the US our government is so inefficient it takes many years of death row for a person to be executed, and the execution itself is very expensive.  Even if the exexutions happened right away, they would only be cheaper than prison if the prisoner was going to be a prisoner for over thirty years.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Context and Perspective in the Holocaust Controversy

« on: May 08, 2006, 12:39:47 AM »

the figures during the war were probably not missing 6 million people as we did not find out the full extent of the Nazi genocide until after the war.  By 1951, one would expect a somewhat accurate deathtoll, and thus new publications with a diminished Jewish populations would be accounting for that data.

I don't see the benefit in using the word 'Zionist'.  Zionists are people who believe the Jews should go back to Israel or something.  what does that have to do with people dying in WW2?

We know the deathcamps killed people.  We have some air reconassiance photographs showing the furnaces and gas chambers on them.

It is fact that the Nazis had a 'euthanasia' program for the disabled.  How is it hard to imagine this would be extended to the deathcamps, in order to kill homosexuals, atheists, freemasons, political dissidents, Gypsies, Jews, Slavs, Poles, and Soviet POWs?

and there were some deathcamps outside of the post-war Warsaw pact.  A small one was set up in Italy late in the war., for example.  True, most were in Poland.  But, if the deathcamps were said to be in Soviet territory, why would they not say deathcamps were in Czechoslavaki, or Romania?

There is documentation of genocide, here is an example of something I saw


Note how it says 'Judenfrei' in Estonia.  Perhaps this was just one crazy soldier, who somehow had information on how many Jews were alive in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.  Perhaps it was bigger than that.

edit: Also note that that picture was probably irrelevant to the big picture

17

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Square Earth?

« on: May 07, 2006, 09:40:10 PM »

No, they wouldn't notice an edge.  Reason being (and this should answer your next question): I think of it somewhat like centrifugal forces.  Everything in the Universe is spinning so fast, that the "gravity" the objects are creating, causes every object to pull its molecules to completely reshape.  If you hold half a glass of water in your hand and spin in circles, the water goes towards the outer most part of the glass.  If you rotated your arm fast enough in a vertical motion, the water would stay in the glass.  Same concept I'm getting at, except with very large amounts of force and with solid objects.

what does centripetal force have to do with people not noticing 90 degree turns in the shape of the Earth?

18

Flat Earth Information Repository / Flat Earth (Wikipedia, April 2005)

« on: May 07, 2006, 08:27:41 PM »

How far can you dig into this flat earth? Where does volcanic magma come from? How do earthquakes work?

You can dig 'till the mantle, then you die.  Magma comes from the mantle (to the best of my knowledge, FE does have a mantle on which the tectonic plates float).  Earthquakes work the same as in RE; plates colliding and pressure building up

19

Technology, Science & Alt Science / "Hyperdrive" technology

« on: May 07, 2006, 04:27:10 PM »

if by hyperdrive, you mean bending space-time around spaceships so that they can go faster without relativity screwing them, then yes.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / An Ice Wall Cannot Exist

« on: May 07, 2006, 01:42:34 PM »

how about the fact that Napoleon got pwned when he invaded Russia and his army starved and froze to death, or that the Vinland and Greenland Viking colonies failed (Greenland may actually have been Green when it was named).  Or even the fact that 1815 had no summer at all?  I don't need to prove the little ice age

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Questions

« on: May 07, 2006, 12:16:31 PM »

wouldn't they (the grains of salt and whatnot) in zero gravity, be more attracted to the mass of the space shuttle or airplane, than to each other?  Or even attracted to the mass of the person nearby, or in the absence of a person the camera.  All those things have far more mass than grains of salt or sand, and I know at least humans have an electric field

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Need straight answer

« on: May 07, 2006, 12:45:30 AM »

most people don't travel into the inner areas of Antarctica

23

Flat Earth Q&A / If the earth is flat then how do..

« on: May 06, 2006, 10:23:16 PM »

or, maybe we have a kind of pathfinding like birds (only much weaker as we don't migrate).  However, birds use the Earth's magnetic fields so they get thrown off by the inconsistencies near the poles as well.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Strange Happenings

« on: May 06, 2006, 09:56:53 PM »

well there were significant rumors of Nazis there after WW2 so we sent a task force down there to check it out, apart from that there really isn't much US presence there except for scientists.  Perhaps you are thinking of the Arctic, where we had many bases due to the closeness to the USSR there.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Why the moon proves the earth is round

« on: May 06, 2006, 08:50:46 PM »

the sun could be pointing straight down as the atmosphere would refract the directly perpendicular-with-ground light slightly. (since the light would travel from the sun through a vacumum, then entering into the atmosphere would refract it)

26

Flat Earth Q&A / To prove or disprove, the one and only way

« on: May 06, 2006, 08:41:38 PM »

what are you talking about? bottom? The ice wall rings the edge of the world

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Questions

« on: May 06, 2006, 08:39:02 PM »

water has like surface tension or something, so it pulls itself into a ball.  That is just a property of the chemical, not of the universe

28

Flat Earth Q&A / To prove or disprove, the one and only way

« on: May 06, 2006, 08:18:51 PM »

to sail next to the ice wall, you would need icebreakers at best, at worst there is land around the ice wall and you would have to walk.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / An Ice Wall Cannot Exist

« on: May 06, 2006, 07:20:19 PM »

no, once it melts a bit away the freshwater will screw with the ocean currents, and in turn cause the Earth to cool.

Look at how the Medieval warm period was followed by the little ice age

30

Flat Earth Q&A / The equator

« on: May 06, 2006, 05:46:23 PM »

the sun is a spotlight sort of thing aimed at the equator, so the edges of the spotlight's reach, the center and edge, get less light and thus are cooler.  Not sure precisely how the sun is supposed to work though. but for season's it probably gets closer to or further away from Earth and/or is more/less intense over the northern/southern hemispheres.

Perhaps circling over the equator but wobbling a bit so in summer (summer in the US) it wobbles closer to Earth's center, then in winter wobbles further out and thus the southern hemisphere gets more radiation, making it summer there.