By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Socialist, and the dangers of government.

Squilliam said:

One example of a country getting better when the government was given more power was pretty much every single one of them. See, some government is pretty much always better than no government you know police, military, enforcement of contracts, money, legal systems etc.

Why is it when I say I want a government with less control, people think I mean I don't want a government.

Germany under Hitler is a great example. Germany was doing poorly, so they gave all the power to the government. 

Hitler turned a lot of things around, but also took that power, and murdered 6 million people, and was the catalyst for 50 million more deaths.

I have no clue how you say that's making it better.

 



Around the Network
SciFiBoy said:
TheRealMafoo said "And I hope there is never a country where effort is meaningless (moneyless)"

how do you measure effort?
do you honestly think that the system works like that now?

Money is effort. How do to explain it as not being so?



TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:
TheRealMafoo said "And I hope there is never a country where effort is meaningless (moneyless)"

how do you measure effort?
do you honestly think that the system works like that now?

Money is effort. How do to explain it as not being so?

wrong

you do not get paid based on effort put in, just look at sports, they get paid stupid amounts of cash even when they play badly 



People get paid based on the relationship between how rare a skillset is and how many people are willing to pay for the products produced from that skillset ... Effort comes into play with this because (from a very young age) we all know which skillsets are worth more than other skillsets, the skillsets that are difficult to obtain retain their value over a long period of time, and people who put in the effort to develop these valueble skills get rewarded with a job that pays well.



TheRealMafoo said:
Squilliam said:

One example of a country getting better when the government was given more power was pretty much every single one of them. See, some government is pretty much always better than no government you know police, military, enforcement of contracts, money, legal systems etc.

Why is it when I say I want a government with less control, people think I mean I don't want a government.

Germany under Hitler is a great example. Germany was doing poorly, so they gave all the power to the government. 

Hitler turned a lot of things around, but also took that power, and murdered 6 million people, and was the catalyst for 50 million more deaths.

I have no clue how you say that's making it better.

 

You gave an example of extreme authoritarianism and I gave an example of extremely liberalism, its fair to use both is it not? In any case it was also to get you to admit that some governance is better than no governance. If you take any extremity either liberalism and authoritarianism to their logical conclusions you reap a situation which is negative for a society or country. I bet if you disbanded every level of the U.S. government today, the U.S.A would likely be a third world country within 50 years as an example.

In every case in history, whenever a government has produced public goods such as a roading network the wealth and well being of that society has improved.

In every case in history, whenever a government has unified a stable currency for use by the people it has improved the efficiency of the economy. Yes this is dictated by the powers that be.

In almost every case in history, whenever a government has protected property rights and enforced contracts the well being of everyone in society has improved.

In every case in history whenever a government has instituted and paid for compulsary education for 5-10 year olds society has been improved by it.

In every case in history, whenever a government has instituted schemes to improve the health of the people, society has been improved by it. Yes, the eradication of smallpox would not have succeeded if it was run by private enterprise.

Within every large empire that I know of with decent surviving records, there has been instituted a form of social welfare for the poor. In the case of Rome it was free bread given out to prevent starvation. These are civilizations which survived for many hundreds of years.

So tell me, where do you draw the line between enough and too much government? Do you value personal safety below equality and the costs involved for instance? Theres a very clear distinction with egalitarian societies having a lower crime rate and the question being, are you willing to pay for that?

 

 

 



Tease.

Around the Network

@HS. That ignores the fact that some people are naturally far more skilled than others. Somebody can be born intelligent and earn a lot of money without putting much effort in ever. Another person can be born stupid and put a lot of effort in and never get much money.

Effort is rewarded in a capitalist society, but nowhere near as much as natural talent is.



SciFiBoy said:
TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:
TheRealMafoo said "And I hope there is never a country where effort is meaningless (moneyless)"

how do you measure effort?
do you honestly think that the system works like that now?

Money is effort. How do to explain it as not being so?

wrong

you do not get paid based on effort put in, just look at sports, they get paid stupid amounts of cash even when they play badly 

Oh, because .00001% of the population gets paid stupid amounts, money means nothing. Nice logic.

I hear they once made a car that would not move. So, cars != transportation. If you think they do, your wrong.



Rath said:
@HS. That ignores the fact that some people are naturally far more skilled than others. Somebody can be born intelligent and earn a lot of money without putting much effort in ever. Another person can be born stupid and put a lot of effort in and never get much money.

Effort is rewarded in a capitalist society, but nowhere near as much as natural talent is.

I have (personally) never seen someone who was highly successful because of natural talent without putting in a lot of effort to develop that talent. Beyond that, with how many "Stupid" people I have known who have overcome a (dramatic) disadvantage to be successful in their chosen field, and how many "Smart" people I have seen fail simply due to lazyness and poor choices, I don't accept the argument that any significant percentage of the population is failing because they don't have the opportunity to succeed.



HappySqurriel said:

People get paid based on the relationship between how rare a skillset is and how many people are willing to pay for the products produced from that skillset ... Effort comes into play with this because (from a very young age) we all know which skillsets are worth more than other skillsets, the skillsets that are difficult to obtain retain their value over a long period of time, and people who put in the effort to develop these valueble skills get rewarded with a job that pays well.

Are you arguing that what you say is 100% true? Then why for example are executives, higher level professors, presidents etc on average taller than the people under them? Does being taller make them more skilled?

The worlds leading expert on carburetors doesn't get paid much nowadays since fuel injection came out. So obviously the skillset must also be relevant and in demand?

There are many unattractive but otherwise brilliant singers which don't get recording contracts.

Why do average students from Harvard/Yale get paid better than brillant students from lesser known universities?

An executive is unlikely to be as skilled as a doctorate wielding engineering working for the company, and yet gets paid far more. Furthermore they may be paid more because their effects on their company are greater overall, but why does their seem to be an inverse relationship between paying executives still greater amounts and the performance overall of companies?



Tease.

TheRealMafoo said:

This is just a general thought I had on socialism, so I thought I would share.

 

Here is an interesting exercise. Draw a line, like a timeline, and on the far left, put "extreme socialism", and on the far right, put "extreme capitalism". This line is to represent the form of government of a country at a time, not the leader.

 

Now, take every leader of a major country over the last 200 years, and put them somewhere on that line. To the far right, you would have all our early presidents, with the newer ones moving slightly to the left, as the US over the last 100 years had gotten a lot more socialistic (this would put Obama somewhere in the mid right side of the graph). Following this would be the UK, and probably Australia in there somewhere.

 

On the far left, you would have Old Russia, Cuba, Old China, then as you move to the center, you would see WWII Germany, New China, North Korea... and as you got to the center, you would see most of the countries of modern europe.

 

Once you have all the world leaders on that graph, look at where all the ones who impacted the world the most in a negative way, and see where they are.

 

Stalin, Linen, Hitler... They are all on the far left of that graph.

 

But here is the thing. Many more leaders on that list might have been as bad if given the opportunity. Some might say Bush Jr, but he could not of killed millions of people, because he was bound to a government that didn't give him the power to do so. Some same the same about Obama.

 

The thing is, both of those leaders live in a country where they don't have the capability to do massive amounts of harm to there people. And I say, why in the hell would you ever give them the opportunity?

 

The US has moved down that line towards the left slowly over the last 100 years or so. Under this administration, we are accelerating down that line at an alarming rate. Once we cross it, we move into territory where leaders have tremendous control over our lives.

 

Someone we don't even know yet will be leading us in 10 years. Do you want that person to have complete control over your life? I sure don't.

 

There WILL be another Stalin and another Hitler in the world. In fact, there have been thousands of them already. The only difference between those two men and the thousands that have come after them, is a system of government that forbids the kinds of actions these men took.

 

Those two guys had to fight and murder for there power. Today, in America, we are just giving it away.

Never really thought of it that way, thanks for the analogy, you've given me alot to think about!