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

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

Akvod on 12 August 2009

I think this thread really derailed... Shouldn't we be addressing the question of whether or not left wing policies are the causation of pain and suffering inflicted by the government?

I brought up some extreme right (and please correct me, because I haven't even started college yet) examples (imperialism, slavery, etc) with the logic that in a purely capitalistic mindset, profit should be the number one concern above all else (including human rights, ethics, etc).

 

Oh, and I just remembered and found the video of the 2 people arguing (7:00 ish) with the guy arguing about slavery.



Around the Network
Rath on 12 August 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
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.

As I said, I agree effort is rewarded in a capitalist society. However there is only so much effort can do for you, somebody with natural talent has a far higher potential in a capitalist society than somebody without that natural talent. Natural talent carries with it a higher reward than effort in capitalism due to the nature of capitalism, the person with the most talent (whether obtained by effort or whether its latent) is paid the most - pure effort can get a person without natural talent through life, but it is very unlikely to get them to the top.

Why? Because people with natural talent who also put effort in are always going to be better than them.

So?

The world is not fair, and when we try and make it fair, we make a world where even those who would have less due to less talent, now have far less.

Would you rather make $40 an hour for your effort, while a better looking person makes $45 an hour, or would you rather live in a world where both of you made $20 an hour?

I will take the $40, thank you very much.

I wasn't actually arguing against the merits of capitalism (and yes I do believe capitalism has plenty of merits and in moderation is a great thing for society) I was arguing against the way that both you and especially HS seemed to imply that capitalism gives fair rewards directly proportional to effort which it doesn't. Capitalism isn't fair, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

I'm not naive enough to think that a purely socialist economy works properly, I'm also convinced however that a purely capitalistic economy is, for lack of a better word, evil.



tombi123 on 12 August 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:

Put Ghandi, Mandela, Fidel and Che on the left and it suddenly doesn't seem so evil.

The only country to ever drop a nuke onto another, is a capitalist country.

In a socialist country, the government can fuck you over.

In a capitalist country, corparations do fuck you over.

The only good society is a moneyless society.

1) I never said that all left countries are evil, I said all evil countries are left.

If you don't want government to have the power to be evil, don't give them the power. All left countries are countries where government has a lot of power. All right governments have far less power.

As for the Nuke. We nuked a country that attacked us. We stopped Germany from Nuking the world (we as in the allies).

And very few corporations can fuck me over. First, I have to pay them. In government, someone else has to elect them.

2) And I hope there is never a country where effort is meaningless (moneyless).

 

1) Well that simply isn't true. From your perspective (being a US citizen) most, if not all, major countries are left wing compared to the USA. So all evil countries would be left wing compared to the USA.

Also, countries most likely to 'hate' the USA would be countries with completely the opposite politcal ideas. These countries would be left wing (because the USA is (far) right wing) and thus, branded 'evil'.

There are plenty of examples of evil right wing countries, in the past. USA is hardly clean. Backing (evil capitalist) dictatorships, murdering fairly elected leaders of South American nations and torturing innocent people (Git-mo).

2) How short sighted of you. Money is meaningless. If you think money gives meaning to life, I feel sorry for you.



Squilliam on 12 August 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
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.

As I said, I agree effort is rewarded in a capitalist society. However there is only so much effort can do for you, somebody with natural talent has a far higher potential in a capitalist society than somebody without that natural talent. Natural talent carries with it a higher reward than effort in capitalism due to the nature of capitalism, the person with the most talent (whether obtained by effort or whether its latent) is paid the most - pure effort can get a person without natural talent through life, but it is very unlikely to get them to the top.

Why? Because people with natural talent who also put effort in are always going to be better than them.

So?

The world is not fair, and when we try and make it fair, we make a world where even those who would have less due to less talent, now have far less.

Would you rather make $40 an hour for your effort, while a better looking person makes $45 an hour, or would you rather live in a world where both of you made $20 an hour?

I will take the $40, thank you very much.

Lovely false dilemma you've got going there.

Do you want to live in a world where you live in constant and real fear for your life but make $50 an hour or one where you make $5 an hour but live in absolute safety?



Tease.

HappySqurriel on 12 August 2009
Rath said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
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.

As I said, I agree effort is rewarded in a capitalist society. However there is only so much effort can do for you, somebody with natural talent has a far higher potential in a capitalist society than somebody without that natural talent. Natural talent carries with it a higher reward than effort in capitalism due to the nature of capitalism, the person with the most talent (whether obtained by effort or whether its latent) is paid the most - pure effort can get a person without natural talent through life, but it is very unlikely to get them to the top.

Why? Because people with natural talent who also put effort in are always going to be better than them.

So?

The world is not fair, and when we try and make it fair, we make a world where even those who would have less due to less talent, now have far less.

Would you rather make $40 an hour for your effort, while a better looking person makes $45 an hour, or would you rather live in a world where both of you made $20 an hour?

I will take the $40, thank you very much.

I wasn't actually arguing against the merits of capitalism (and yes I do believe capitalism has plenty of merits and in moderation is a great thing for society) I was arguing against the way that both you and especially HS seemed to imply that capitalism gives fair rewards directly proportional to effort which it doesn't. Capitalism isn't fair, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

I'm not naive enough to think that a purely socialist economy works properly, I'm also convinced however that a purely capitalistic economy is, for lack of a better word, evil.

I wasn't implying that the system was fair, or that it gave rewards proportionate to effort (I would suggest you re-read my post if that was what you thought) just that it is rational and people who put effort towards developing more valued skillsets are rewarded for their effort.

To put it another way, a lot of people end up in low paying jobs is because they put their effort towards developing skills that have little value; and/or they use their time to put towards recreational pursuits. Now, there is nothing wrong with this but in many cases their choices could be equated to taking their reward today while other people worked hard to get their reward in the future.



Around the Network
pastro243 on 12 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:
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.


Well I know  many guys that are very smart and dont have to work as near as much as others do. You see it more clearly in the university.

And lack of oportunities exists, some are born with a lot and many more dont, I was raised by parents who are doctors, in a place where I saw almost no crime and with a bunch of people that were culturaly superior to the mayority of people. When you add genetics and enviorment, money, its all an advantage you have to other people, even if they make their best effort, a few will succeed, while the others, making half the effort will obtain better results.

Its not a good reality, and I would love people to have equal oportunities(on the good side), but its true, and in a world where competition is so harsh, effort isnt always enough.



- Our album on spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/56mEbEgyBYGzcDyZ1eMQ1v?si=hYKgir5YRSCrzywgGmV4oQ

- Our videoclip 

- My manga: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/blanca-the-world/list?title_no=313068

TheRealMafoo on 12 August 2009
SciFiBoy said:
TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:
i used one example to prove a point, but okay, nitpick and ignore as always, my point is this; people get paid because someone thinks they're worth/deserve that much, not because of effort

Ok, so lets talk about normal people. How is money not effort to you and me?

of couse you have to put effort in to make money, thats not the point, in one job putting in lots of effort will earn you £65k a year, in another putting in not so much effort can earn you £650k, my point is this, how if we apply the logic of amout of effort equals amount of pay, is that fair? 

If the same effort can make one person 65K a year, and another 650K a year, why does anyone do the 65K a year job?

It takes a lot more effort to make 650K. That effort might not be while he is making it, but it;s effort spent to get that job.



Rath on 12 August 2009

@TRM. Or simply talent that he didn't have to put effort in for. Some people just luck out with capitalism.



TheRealMafoo on 12 August 2009
Squilliam said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
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.

As I said, I agree effort is rewarded in a capitalist society. However there is only so much effort can do for you, somebody with natural talent has a far higher potential in a capitalist society than somebody without that natural talent. Natural talent carries with it a higher reward than effort in capitalism due to the nature of capitalism, the person with the most talent (whether obtained by effort or whether its latent) is paid the most - pure effort can get a person without natural talent through life, but it is very unlikely to get them to the top.

Why? Because people with natural talent who also put effort in are always going to be better than them.

So?

The world is not fair, and when we try and make it fair, we make a world where even those who would have less due to less talent, now have far less.

Would you rather make $40 an hour for your effort, while a better looking person makes $45 an hour, or would you rather live in a world where both of you made $20 an hour?

I will take the $40, thank you very much.

Lovely false dilemma you've got going there.

Do you want to live in a world where you live in constant and real fear for your life but make $50 an hour or one where you make $5 an hour but live in absolute safety?

Odd, I live on one of the safest places in the world, and the most capitalistic, so not sure how you say something can't be both.



Vanversive on 12 August 2009
Squilliam said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
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.

As I said, I agree effort is rewarded in a capitalist society. However there is only so much effort can do for you, somebody with natural talent has a far higher potential in a capitalist society than somebody without that natural talent. Natural talent carries with it a higher reward than effort in capitalism due to the nature of capitalism, the person with the most talent (whether obtained by effort or whether its latent) is paid the most - pure effort can get a person without natural talent through life, but it is very unlikely to get them to the top.

Why? Because people with natural talent who also put effort in are always going to be better than them.

So?

The world is not fair, and when we try and make it fair, we make a world where even those who would have less due to less talent, now have far less.

Would you rather make $40 an hour for your effort, while a better looking person makes $45 an hour, or would you rather live in a world where both of you made $20 an hour?

I will take the $40, thank you very much.

Lovely false dilemma you've got going there.

Do you want to live in a world where you live in constant and real fear for your life but make $50 an hour or one where you make $5 an hour but live in absolute safety?

Absolute safety eh… What a mundane existence, conflict is a part of life, at least in this period of time. For that ideal to even exist you would have to rewrite the laws of natural selection. I don’t care how intelligent you might think we have come to, we still have that reptilian brain present inside of us, and until we evolve past that it will be a dog eat dog world. Fear is an obstacle, conflict builds character, security is a character flaw in my book, because in the abstract it’s all bullshit.



The resistance