Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tell us how you really feel!

 Frazzled wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.

Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.

The regimes in China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua prove the falsehood of that statement.

To be fair, Vietnam isn't too bad a place to be by Southeast Asian standards. It's certainly no Okinawa when it comes to standards of living, but it's sure as hell no North Korea.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.

Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.

The regimes in China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua prove the falsehood of that statement.

To be fair, Vietnam isn't too bad a place to be by Southeast Asian standards. It's certainly no Okinawa when it comes to standards of living, but it's sure as hell no North Korea.

No the quite was referencing that the ruling party has it substantially better than the average drone.

 dæl wrote:

Do you really think that our system is better than any possible communist system? Even if the communist system worked and meant not a single child ever died of hunger again? I am an idealist in that I think certain ideals are what we should aim for, but if a differing ideology actually worked perfectly then I would happily take that for the good of everyone.

But I don't believe that a communist system can work. I don't believe it because for it to work, humans would have to stop being human or we would have to have such a vast amount of resources available to us as a species as to make personal possessions meaningless.

As it stands, the systems that we have in place in western european capitalist democracies are pretty good at making sure that no child should die of hunger ever again. I vastly prefer trying to expand that system to the rest of the planet than to strive for something that will never be.

PhantomViper wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Do you really think that our system is better than any possible communist system? Even if the communist system worked and meant not a single child ever died of hunger again? I am an idealist in that I think certain ideals are what we should aim for, but if a differing ideology actually worked perfectly then I would happily take that for the good of everyone.

But I don't believe that a communist system can work. I don't believe it because for it to work, humans would have to stop being human or we would have to have such a vast amount of resources available to us as a species as to make personal possessions meaningless.

As it stands, the systems that we have in place in western european capitalist democracies are pretty good at making sure that no child should die of hunger ever again. I vastly prefer trying to expand that system to the rest of the planet than to strive for something that will never be.

With the correct application of intellect and technology we could arrive at a post-scarcity society within the next century if not much sooner. Although our current system will do everything to not let that happen, look at what capitalism did to Tesla's work toward free electricity.

 dæl wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Do you really think that our system is better than any possible communist system? Even if the communist system worked and meant not a single child ever died of hunger again? I am an idealist in that I think certain ideals are what we should aim for, but if a differing ideology actually worked perfectly then I would happily take that for the good of everyone.

But I don't believe that a communist system can work. I don't believe it because for it to work, humans would have to stop being human or we would have to have such a vast amount of resources available to us as a species as to make personal possessions meaningless.

As it stands, the systems that we have in place in western european capitalist democracies are pretty good at making sure that no child should die of hunger ever again. I vastly prefer trying to expand that system to the rest of the planet than to strive for something that will never be.

With the correct application of intellect and technology we could arrive at a post-scarcity society within the next century if not much sooner. Although our current system will do everything to not let that happen, look at what capitalism did to Tesla's work toward free electricity.

we could achieve it in two to three generations with brainwashing and absolute control. I don't see how we can achieve a post-scarcity society within a century using tech. All I see is oil reserves drying up one by one, rainforests put to the torch like no tomorrow; meaning energy crisis worsening and clean air getting harder to get at. When iphones and ipads are hot products along with all the other latest gadgets, you can perpetually drive consumer scarcity, and because people are fundamentally stupid, they will continue buying things they don't need, to their financial detriment. Take war gaming as another example. Do i really, honestly, do i really need 7 armies from one system?

 poda_t wrote:

we could achieve it in two to three generations with brainwashing and absolute control. I don't see how we can achieve a post-scarcity society within a century using tech. All I see is oil reserves drying up one by one, rainforests put to the torch like no tomorrow; meaning energy crisis worsening and clean air getting harder to get at. When iphones and ipads are hot products along with all the other latest gadgets, you can perpetually drive consumer scarcity, and because people are fundamentally stupid, they will continue buying things they don't need, to their financial detriment.

Fusion is of course 20 years away (just like it was 20 years ago)
Seriously though we could solve our energy needs with Thorium or with solar farms and Archimedes death rays in deserts transferring the power with superconductors around the world. The march of consumerism is something that needs to be addressed, for the mental wellbeing issue as much as the resource one.

Take war gaming as another example. Do i really, honestly, do i really need 7 armies from one system?

Yes, we all do.

 dæl wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

we could achieve it in two to three generations with brainwashing and absolute control. I don't see how we can achieve a post-scarcity society within a century using tech. All I see is oil reserves drying up one by one, rainforests put to the torch like no tomorrow; meaning energy crisis worsening and clean air getting harder to get at. When iphones and ipads are hot products along with all the other latest gadgets, you can perpetually drive consumer scarcity, and because people are fundamentally stupid, they will continue buying things they don't need, to their financial detriment.

Fusion is of course 20 years away (just like it was 20 years ago)
Seriously though we could solve our energy needs with Thorium or with solar farms and Archimedes death rays in deserts transferring the power with superconductors around the world. The march of consumerism is something that needs to be addressed, for the mental wellbeing issue as much as the resource one.

Take war gaming as another example. Do i really, honestly, do i really need 7 armies from one system?

Yes, we all do.

i completely agree with you, but whatever the reasons are, utility was crushed under the iron heels of wealthy industrialists. I'm not kidding you, but the products that you buy now are absolute trash. Case in point, apple. It's overhyped, oversold, overadvertised, and the people just can't crawl far enough up into your..... ..... .... with their tongues to make you buy it and believe it. Now I have an apple device, I can't understand how people continue to give it such good ratings, because it falls short on so many features. It's just a glorified fancy toy. The market needs to produce garbage, so that it can continuously and incrementally "improve" on the device and re-release it every 6-12 months, all the while maintaining profits. Look at the computer gaming industry. Spacmarine is a brilliant example of trash and excrement sold as gourmet top of the line... Face it, the game was unfiinished when it went to market, and the expansions which expanded the game functionality in multiplayer had to be bought. I mean, people beat and stamp eachother to death every thanksgiving for a discount.... you can't address that anymore, it's so deep as to require a complete cultural overhaul. As to the energy, I'm well aware that the US has a GIGANTIC stockpile of thorium, and they wouldn't even have to mine it for quite a few years after building a reactor. Boggles my mind. I don't see how cheap and nearly-free energy is going to kill jobs. If you have the energy, you will have people stepping forward to take advantage of it: maglev lines, electric vehicles, countless electronic devices, urban decorational lighting, highway lighting, etc. for every 100 jobs killed, 1000 would be created.

 dæl wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

we could achieve it in two to three generations with brainwashing and absolute control. I don't see how we can achieve a post-scarcity society within a century using tech. All I see is oil reserves drying up one by one, rainforests put to the torch like no tomorrow; meaning energy crisis worsening and clean air getting harder to get at. When iphones and ipads are hot products along with all the other latest gadgets, you can perpetually drive consumer scarcity, and because people are fundamentally stupid, they will continue buying things they don't need, to their financial detriment.

Fusion is of course 20 years away (just like it was 20 years ago)
Seriously though we could solve our energy needs with Thorium or with solar farms and Archimedes death rays in deserts transferring the power with superconductors around the world. The march of consumerism is something that needs to be addressed, for the mental wellbeing issue as much as the resource one.

Take war gaming as another example. Do i really, honestly, do i really need 7 armies from one system?

Yes, we all do.

You have no concept of world energy needs now, much less when China and India reach First World status.

 poda_t wrote:
Your tiny flaw is the individual human will. The human will is not founded in reason, but in unreason. Why should one human being believe himself the equal of another when the other lacks a penis, has a mental disorder, scores well below average on every exam, speaks with an accent, has a different skin color, wears a different hat than you do, or has an inferior preference for cats instead of Dachshunds? Communism makes a lovely argument, but opposes millennia of history and failure. Sure, "communism" does and has worked on small scales where the entire community hauls together to survive, where each member knows the other by first name, but the moment you make a permanent settlement, is the moment you establish the definition of property, of what's mine and what isn't. The sheer quantity of energy required to eliminate needs and make wants meaningless is so far off as to be ridiculous, and what we are left with is, at best, to provide a socialist structure where the needs of minimum daily calorie intake, a roof, running water and enough heat so you don't freeze to death in the winter are met. Understand, communism can't be seen as a working structure when a supposedly set of christian nations are filled with people that refute science and reason, opt for a ridiculous lies about the history and the origin of the world, use that to inform their science, while at the same time being as devout as they are on Sundays proceed to piss on the homeless and the needy every day of the year except Christmas and Thanksgiving. Oh but wait, some foreign country was just hit with X catastrophe. Let's continue pissing on our own citizens, cut the support they are getting, and instead send aid to countries that have made it clear they don't want our assistance, all the while everything we send over to those countries inevitably ends up in the hands of drug-funded warlords..........

*sigh*
Firstly, cats are better than dachsunds.
Secondly, your main argument seems to be that things are in such a mess now that however much they improve, they will never get that far.
You are also saying that people will always think other people are worth less than them because they're other people, not them.
Towards both your points, might I take you back to a previous example I gave concerning slavery? In roughly 200 years, slaves who were dying in droves in the bottoms of mines suddenly gained freedom and the ability to say "Nah, I don't feel like working in that mine any more." Had you told one of the Roman slaves that within 2 centuries they'd have that choice, they'd have laughed, before being whipped to death for laughing rather than working.
And sure, a reasonable number of people still think that black people are worth less than white people. But the percentage of people that believe this is falling. And those that still do believe it often keep it to themselves because of peer pressure, and so might as well not believe it, even if inwardly they do.

You're going to private school now correct? Would you like a system where a person who did not invest years in school, deferred their lives to get thats schooling, make no more than someone who didn't?

Yup. I would. And before you call me a hypocrite, I'm going to a private school so that I can become better educated, which will allow me to better help the entirety of humanity in the future.

And anyway, if I wasn't at the private school someone else would be, so that would solve nothing in any case.

 p_gray99 wrote:
Yup. I would. And before you call me a hypocrite, I'm going to a private school so that I can become better educated, which will allow me to better help the entirety of humanity in the future.

And anyway, if I wasn't at the private school someone else would be, so that would solve nothing in any case.

So will you donate all money your make over the minimum wage to charity?

 p_gray99 wrote:
*sigh*
Firstly, cats are better than dachsunds.
Secondly, your main argument seems to be that things are in such a mess now that however much they improve, they will never get that far.
You are also saying that people will always think other people are worth less than them because they're other people, not them.
Towards both your points, might I take you back to a previous example I gave concerning slavery? In roughly 200 years, slaves who were dying in droves in the bottoms of mines suddenly gained freedom and the ability to say "Nah, I don't feel like working in that mine any more." Had you told one of the Roman slaves that within 2 centuries they'd have that choice, they'd have laughed, before being whipped to death for laughing rather than working.
And sure, a reasonable number of people still think that black people are worth less than white people. But the percentage of people that believe this is falling. And those that still do believe it often keep it to themselves because of peer pressure, and so might as well not believe it, even if inwardly they do.

are you kidding me? cats are jerks.
have you studied roman history in detail then, have you? or is that greek history? And are you aware of this problem between religious individuals [censored] on their own religious teaching on any day that isn't Sunday? Or how about the fact that at the end of the day, like how my uncle's own personal wealth meant more to him than his family, he just does what he wants and leaves the family out to hang? You can physically counter each of my arguments sure, but countering the spirit of my argument is going to be impossible, because you have the entire human history to work against, though I do grant that there are some actual rays of sunshine in there.
You can also make a remark about how the lot of the black person has been improved through the abolishment of slavery. I'm sure they felt the same way when people dressed as point-hatted ghosts started appearing in their neighbourhoods, or about how social discrimination continued to persist for so long that we will continue to deal with the ramifications for the next century--assuming we are actually progressively working toward correcting wrongs and actually leveling the playing field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p_gray99 wrote:
Yup. I would. And before you call me a hypocrite, I'm going to a private school so that I can become better educated, which will allow me to better help the entirety of humanity in the future.

And anyway, if I wasn't at the private school someone else would be, so that would solve nothing in any case.

this is naive. Granted you are young, and you have some growing up to do. You are not the first person who stepped forward with this in mind, and many times have been people with altruistic motives that have caused more damage than help.

I'm scared of Dogs, literally i have a phoebia

as a free-paying (i don't give money) school child in what might be his last year, i would like to point out to the person that is going to private school that you are being hypocritical as private schools immediatly produce a class divid of those that can and those that can not afford to go.

In addition i don't know your results, i'm Scottish so your results are diffrent from mine, and don't tell me your results, this is the internet so there is no way to prove your results, anyway back to the point i am trying to make, what about the the really intelligent people who are to poor to go private thus go to state, but have much better marks than you and might do better than you, surely it is better to have the toip people in the top positions and not simply have education based on how much money you'r parents earn.


BTW did i see China and India mentioned, when they become a first world country either things will dramatically increase due to the increase in 2 huge economies (at the time), or it will fall apart in which case capitolism will be to much of a selfish way to proceed.

poda_t wrote:are you kidding me? cats are jerks.
have you studied roman history in detail then, have you? or is that greek history? And are you aware of this problem between religious individuals [censored] on their own religious teaching on any day that isn't Sunday? Or how about the fact that at the end of the day, like how my uncle's own personal wealth meant more to him than his family, he just does what he wants and leaves the family out to hang? You can physically counter each of my arguments sure, but countering the spirit of my argument is going to be impossible, because you have the entire human history to work against, though I do grant that there are some actual rays of sunshine in there.
You can also make a remark about how the lot of the black person has been improved through the abolishment of slavery. I'm sure they felt the same way when people dressed as point-hatted ghosts started appearing in their neighbourhoods, or about how social discrimination continued to persist for so long that we will continue to deal with the ramifications for the next century--assuming we are actually progressively working toward correcting wrongs and actually leveling the playing field.

Cats aren't jerks! They're our lords and masters, and we must bow before them! All hail the mighty cat-gods!
Yeah, there's quite a bit of bleak stuff in the history of humanity, it's undeniable. And improvements have often been closely followed by collapses that take things back to a level close to the previous one, sometimes worse than. However, in Europe at around the year 0 (AD or BC), there was little in the way of human rights. Ok, many people actually got a vote (hurrah!), but only if they were male Roman citizens (which wasn't all that many of them), and the vote of the rich counted for far more than the vote of the poor. But digression over, those who had anything like a vote were a vast minority considering the size of the roman republic. Considering the average level of human rights back then compared to the average level of human rights now, it's impossible to say that it hasn't improved drastically. Yes, there's still a small amount of racism, but it's dying out. Overall, things have changed drastically for the better, and as I see it there's little reason why that couldn't (in the best case scenario) continue to happen until we reach a stable form of communism.

 p_gray99 wrote:
Yup. I would. And before you call me a hypocrite, I'm going to a private school so that I can become better educated, which will allow me to better help the entirety of humanity in the future.

And anyway, if I wasn't at the private school someone else would be, so that would solve nothing in any case.

this is naive. Granted you are young, and you have some growing up to do. You are not the first person who stepped forward with this in mind, and many times have been people with altruistic motives that have caused more damage than help.

True. What's to say it'll be the same for me though? I'm not denying that it's unlikely that I'll do any good at the rate things are going. But the chances are drastically higher than if I wasn't at a private school.
And as I said before, it wouldn't do any good if I didn't go to private school, because there would simply be some other bugger with more money than sense getting a great education that they don't deserve. I've always agreed that I've done nothing to deserve what I have: Private education, a good home with a loving family, living in Britain where you don't have to worry about where to get your food if your entire family suddenly becomes unemployed, not having to work from the age of 8 or have to struggle to get food and clean water...
But, heck, who here with internet access can say they've worked their way up from an African slum via hard work? And if you did, then does even that mean you deserve it? I mean, look at my previous points about a strong will being nothing more than luck...

strybjorn Grimskull wrote:as a free-paying (i don't give money) school child in what might be his last year, i would like to point out to the person that is going to private school that you are being hypocritical as private schools immediately produce a class divide of those that can and those that can not afford to go.

In addition i don't know your results, I'm Scottish so your results are different from mine, and don't tell me your results, this is the internet so there is no way to prove your results, anyway back to the point i am trying to make, what about the the really intelligent people who are too poor to go private thus go to state, but have much better marks than you and might do better than you, surely it is better to have the top people in the top positions and not simply have education based on how much money your parents earn.

*sigh*
I think that you're missing the point about luck. Yes, I'm exceptionally lucky and I'm luckier than you. I'm sorry for making you feel jealous but I'm not going to drop out of school just because of that.
But you were born in Scotland, where there's free healthcare. Are you going to drop out of the EU and let someone else have your free healthcare, free school, certainty of a house etc. because they deserve it just as much?

Now, if someone is born clever (as in your example), what have they done to deserve that? They happen to be born with good genes that give them a lot of intelligence. Does that mean they deserve a better school than everyone else? And yes, it's better to have the best people in the best positions. What can you do about it? What can any of us do about it? Apart from, well... push for communism?

Next point: I'm on a scholarship. If you're intelligent enough to be leading the country then you can get to a private school without paying a penny for it, and with parents who have lower-middle-class jobs at best, don't say that I've been born with a silver spoon in my mouth; it was only stainless steel with a silver coating.
And anyway, you talk about how much their parents earn. I think you'll find that parents whose kids go to private school may get payed a heck of a lot, but they barely earn a penny of it. Earn, after all, implies that you deserve it.

strybjorn Grimskull wrote:as a free-paying (i don't give money) school child in what might be his last year, i would like to point out to the person that is going to private school that you are being hypocritical as private schools immediately produce a class divide of those that can and those that can not afford to go.

In addition i don't know your results, I'm Scottish so your results are different from mine, and don't tell me your results, this is the internet so there is no way to prove your results, anyway back to the point i am trying to make, what about the the really intelligent people who are too poor to go private thus go to state, but have much better marks than you and might do better than you, surely it is better to have the top people in the top positions and not simply have education based on how much money your parents earn.

*sigh*
I think that you're missing the point about luck. Yes, I'm exceptionally lucky and I'm luckier than you. I'm sorry for making you feel jealous but I'm not going to drop out of school just because of that.
But you were born in Scotland, where there's free healthcare. Are you going to drop out of the EU and let someone else have your free healthcare, free school, certainty of a house etc. because they deserve it just as much?

Now, if someone is born clever (as in your example), what have they done to deserve that? They happen to be born with good genes that give them a lot of intelligence. Does that mean they deserve a better school than everyone else? And yes, it's better to have the best people in the best positions. What can you do about it? What can any of us do about it? Apart from, well... push for communism?

Next point: I'm on a scholarship. If you're intelligent enough to be leading the country then you can get to a private school without paying a penny for it, and with parents who have lower-middle-class jobs at best, don't say that I've been born with a silver spoon in my mouth; it was only stainless steel with a silver coating.
And anyway, you talk about how much their parents earn. I think you'll find that parents whose kids go to private school may get payed a heck of a lot, but they barely earn a penny of it. Earn, after all, implies that you deserve it.

I noticed in all that, you didn't answer my question as to whether you would be donating ALL benefits you receive over minimum wage to charity.

I'm not sure if we should each earn money according to what we contribute in everyday life, but it's certainly a better system than what we currently have. But it's not like we can do anything about that... sorting out that kind of paying system would probably need a centralised government in charge of it all, and would pretty much lead to all the same problems as communism but with the system paying out less fairly overall.

But I'm trying to convince people that, beside the point of whether it could ever work, communism is the most fair possible system, and for some reason nobody is arguing with me. That's unlike dakka, I've never had it before. Heck, normally if I said "I'm standing upright" it'd start the debate of the century.

Oh dear gods, why on Earth did I just say that? I just have started the debate of the century!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I noticed in all that, you didn't answer my question as to whether you would be donating ALL benefits you receive over minimum wage to charity.

I'll be putting all my available resources towards creating a communist society.

And, of course, I've got to keep myself motivated so that I can keep on giving away money like that, so I'll have 3 riptide battlesuits and two kabalite warrior squads, please

So thats a no, you won't be giving your money to charity. Got it.

DE wussy. Real Men plays demons and cackle at the utter randomness of the utter whims of the chaos god of Dice!

 Frazzled wrote:
So thats a no, you won't be giving your money to charity. Got it.

DE wussy. Real Men plays demons and cackle at the utter randomness of the utter whims of the chaos god of Dice!

And the Ovearching Great god Of Chaos Lord Weenie

Damn straight. Demons are the only list6 who's god visits you on the actual game table, expressing its pleasure or displeasure through random luck.

My soulgrinder drops oh wait its held back a turn
Hah hah! now it will drop oh wait it randomly goes over there, right next to those er...terminators...yerghh...

 p_gray99 wrote:

But I'm trying to convince people that, beside the point of whether it could ever work, communism is the most fair possible system, and for some reason nobody is arguing with me.

No, its not. And I'm arguing with you.

Me and my family deserve more than the bum on the street corner because we work harder, are smarter, better educated and have the mental strength to not be addicted to drugs and / or alcool.

Communism doesn't reward effort, it just rewards existence.

Your entire existence as a person argues against your "beliefs". You haven't even left what appears to be a very sheltered existence in a private school and yet you are claiming that your higher educational standards allow you to see what is better for humanity clearer than the rest of the 90% of the people! Do you even realise how elitist and un-communist that is? Or actually it isn't, because that is the entire foundation of all the Communist (or socialist-marxist not to offend Dael), countries in the world: the vast, vast majority of them were founded by sheltered higher middle class people that thought that their ideals were all that was needed and that the unwashed masses would just follow them into utopia...

And your slavery example is also incredibly flawed.

Slavery wasn't in human nature and the abolishment of slavery had nothing to do with some higher state of human enlightenment. Slavery was made illegal in most instances simply because machines were invented that were more efficient and cost effective than slaves. Heck, people may even reasonably argue that there are several examples of slavery happening currently, just because it was made illegal doesn't mean that it magically stopped happening! Let me know when humanity manages to eradicate racism and xenophobia and we can start discussing the possibility of changing human nature.

PhantomViper wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:

But I'm trying to convince people that, beside the point of whether it could ever work, communism is the most fair possible system, and for some reason nobody is arguing with me.

No, its not. And I'm arguing with you.

Me and my family deserve more than the bum on the street corner because we work harder, are smarter, better educated and have the mental strength to not be addicted to drugs and / or alcohol.

Finally, a reasoned argument against me!
Right then.

Suppose you didn't know where in society you would be born: What parents you would have, what genes you would have...
The Veil of Ignorance is just this philosophical idea that you can only be truly fair if you consider what you would do in a position where you have no idea where in society you will be born; that all you know is that you will be born human. Of course, you would say that if one person does better than another because s/he was born to a richer family, s/he doesn't deserve more money simply because of mere luck?
And what if he was male rather than female, or black rather than white, then they still deserve the same amount of money? After all, the person doing better has done no more than the other man would have done had he been given the chance, it's simply chance that one is doing better and surely you don't deserve more money because you were lucky?
Ok then, so what if you were born with more intelligence? Surely that's luck as well, whether it's due to nature or nurture? Being lucky, after all, doesn't mean you deserve any more!
So surely, then, the thing that separates people and shows how one group deserves more is how much effort they put in, right? ...right?
But (as I've said before) firstborn children do better than second-born children. They have (on average) the same genes and the same family, and the same number of opportunities. The only thing that makes them better is their willpower. And yet, here is a strong link between being born first and being stronger willed.
And of course, some families for generations have all been strong-willed, while other families over the generations have simply kept their heads down and carried on working. Perhaps it's genes? Perhaps it's upbringing? But either way, it's pot luck. And surely pot luck doesn't make you deserve more than anyone else?

Communism doesn't reward effort, it just rewards existence.

And what is effort? If you find yourself wanting to do a job well, what causes that? You may think "I cause it," but that's a lie. You were brought up to enjoy it? Or maybe you just naturally enjoy it. You can't have chosen to enjoy it, and even if you did what made you choose it? Your upbringing or your genes, maybe?

Your entire existence as a person argues against your "beliefs". You haven't even left what appears to be a very sheltered existence in a private school and yet you are claiming that your higher educational standards allow you to see what is better for humanity clearer than the rest of the 90% of the people! Do you even realise how elitist and un-communist that is? Or actually it isn't, because that is the entire foundation of all the Communist (or socialist-marxist not to offend Dael), countries in the world: the vast, vast majority of them were founded by sheltered higher middle class people that thought that their ideals were all that was needed and that the unwashed masses would just follow them into utopia...

The majority of humanity, if given a single wish by a genie, would probably choose something along the lines of a loving partner, or to win the lottery, or some such thing. What would you choose?
I, for one, would choose greatest happiness for the greatest number. Of course, people are trying to make themselves happier by wishing for winning the lottery or similar things, but they don't know that's what they want, at least consciously. People want happiness and certainty, yet they wish for love and money in a failed attempt towards this. I'm not saying I'm the perfect guide for humanity, but I'd say that I have a better idea of what people want than most of them do. Perhaps that's arrogant of me. But did you say greatest happiness for the greatest number, or greatest happiness for yourself? Because, let's be honest, that's what you want.
The entirety of human life is trying to become happier. Eat your favourite food? Makes you happier. Fall in love? Makes you happier. Get good grades at college? Makes you happier. When's the last time you strived to do something that you didn't think would make you happier at some level?

And your slavery example is also incredibly flawed.

Slavery wasn't in human nature and the abolishment of slavery had nothing to do with some higher state of human enlightenment. Slavery was made illegal in most instances simply because machines were invented that were more efficient and cost effective than slaves. Heck, people may even reasonably argue that there are several examples of slavery happening currently, just because it was made illegal doesn't mean that it magically stopped happening! Let me know when humanity manages to eradicate racism and xenophobia and we can start discussing the possibility of changing human nature.

Slavery may not be in human nature. Wanting other people to do your work for you, however, most certainly is. Xenophobia has also been proven to be a trait of humanity; in fact scientists found a gene that causes it. I'm not saying we've gotten rid of these, I'm saying that society as a whole has got rid of them in that anyone saying "I dislike black people" will be thrown out of society, and everyone thinks that everyone else wants them to think people are equal, to the point where peer pressure is actually causing it.
The work is far from complete, I agree, but it's a heck of a lot better to how we had it 2000 years ago!

 p_gray99 wrote:
Lots of stuff

All you've said may even be true, in a philosophical sense. In the real world we have a little thing called scarcity of resources, which means that for me to have ALL that I wan't (and make no mistake, I do want it ALL), someone else will have to settle for less.

For someone to be a doctor and understand the joys of saving a life, or to become an astronaut and be able to travel into space, someone else will have to sweep the streets or go down into a sceptic tank to clear a blockage.

In your communist utopia, with our current resources, I would be a doctor one day and be up to my neck in human excrement in the next, because everyone would be able to live their dreams, but the functioning of society would still need to be maintained and as much as dirty jobs are hated by everyone, they are just as important for it and HAVE to be done by someone. And most importantly, in your society I would have a 0% chance of improve my lot in life, because I would be just like the guy next to me, no matter how much luck nature and upbringing could make me better than him at any given task. And I might not have been lucky enough to be brain surgeon in our society, but at least I'm not forced to be the guy in the sewer through no fault of my own.

To finalise, yes, I'm incredibly lucky in my family, my education and even my intelligence and those were all of the things that allowed me to reach where I am today, but in your model of society, my job would be made by someone that would have gotten it, not through ability, but simply by existing and that job wouldn't be done as well as I can do it and as infinitesimal as my contribute is to the betterment of the human race, it is that contribute and the billions like it that all put together allow our race to progress and evolve and you simply don't have that in communist societies, leading to stagnation and eventual regression and collapse.

Your "wish" doesn't work in real life, real life is a zero sum game, for some people to be as happy as they possibly can be, an equal or larger number of people will have to be a bit more miserable then they could be. For every newborn child, there will be a little less oxygen, food and drinking water for the rest of us. For every someone that falls in love and gets married for life, every other single person will have a slightly less chance to find true love...

 p_gray99 wrote:

Slavery may not be in human nature. Wanting other people to do your work for you, however, most certainly is. Xenophobia has also been proven to be a trait of humanity; in fact scientists found a gene that causes it. I'm not saying we've gotten rid of these, I'm saying that society as a whole has got rid of them in that anyone saying "I dislike black people" will be thrown out of society, and everyone thinks that everyone else wants them to think people are equal, to the point where peer pressure is actually causing it.

No, society hasn't gotten rid of racism or xenophobia, you just haven't gotten in touch with them because of your sheltered existence. Go take a walk in your poorer neighbourhoods and you'll see it thrive. Take a year to attend a public school and then come back and say that racist people are "thrown out of society".

 p_gray99 wrote:

The work is far from complete, I agree, but it's a heck of a lot better to how we had it 2000 years ago!

It is, but its been made better by the model that we have in place today. What you are saying is that since our model is imperfect, we should throw all the work we've done away and replace it with good intentions and that, as all the socialist-marxist countries have exemplified, is the pavement on the road to hell.

Frazzled wrote:
You have no concept of world energy needs now, much less when China and India reach First World status.

It's astronomically large, and growing exponentially, but the number is dwarfed massively by the levels of available energy even from solar, wind, wave and geothermal power, never mind such things as Thorium or Fusion.

PhantomViper wrote:
Me and my family deserve more than the bum on the street corner because we work harder, are smarter, better educated and have the mental strength to not be addicted to drugs and / or alcool.

But there but for the grace of god go us all, you have no knowledge how hard the bum on the street has worked. He could have worked tirelessly for decades only for the stars to align against him resulting in his home repossessed and him out on the street.

Communism doesn't reward effort, it just rewards existence.

Capitalism isn't exactly a meritocracy though, look at the likes of Paris Hylton.

Slavery wasn't in human nature and the abolishment of slavery had nothing to do with some higher state of human enlightenment. Slavery was made illegal in most instances simply because machines were invented that were more efficient and cost effective than slaves.

I don't know about other countries but that wasn't the case in England, slavery was effectively outlawed in 1772 in Somersett's case where the judge ruled

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged

This was later supported by the slave trade act of 1807, and the slavery abolition act of 1833. There was nothing to do with industrialisation to it as it did not originally stem from Parliament, but from the moral outrage of a single judge.

The emancipation of women over the last century is probably a better example of social change toward fairness. There is no capitalist reason for giving women the vote, or the right to own property and yet it has been universally accepted in the western world as the right thing to do.

 dæl wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Me and my family deserve more than the bum on the street corner because we work harder, are smarter, better educated and have the mental strength to not be addicted to drugs and / or alcool.

But there but for the grace of god go us all, you have no knowledge how hard the bum on the street has worked. He could have worked tirelessly for decades only for the stars to align against him resulting in his home repossessed and him out on the street.

Things don't exactly work like that in western europe. If you've worked all of your life you've had to have had massive amounts of bad luck to end up in a situation like that, more often than not the people that do end up on the street do so because they've made some pretty spectacularly bad choices in life.

 dæl wrote:

Communism doesn't reward effort, it just rewards existence.

Capitalism isn't exactly a meritocracy though, look at the likes of Paris Hylton.

Cool story, do you wan't me to share all of my own stories that prove the exact opposite? Capitalism is much more based on individual merit than Communism will ever be, the fact that you can find some random anecdotes that don't follow the general system doesn't prove anything.

 dæl wrote:

Slavery wasn't in human nature and the abolishment of slavery had nothing to do with some higher state of human enlightenment. Slavery was made illegal in most instances simply because machines were invented that were more efficient and cost effective than slaves.

I don't know about other countries but that wasn't the case in England, slavery was effectively outlawed in 1772 in Somersett's case where the judge ruled

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged

This was later supported by the slave trade act of 1807, and the slavery abolition act of 1833. There was nothing to do with industrialisation to it as it did not originally stem from Parliament, but from the moral outrage of a single judge.

No, there has been people outraged with slavery for the entirety of human history. You can bet your caboodles (hey that is a real word who would have thunk), that if the industrial revolution didn't happen then that single judge's outrage wouldn't have changed a thing and that the act of 1833 wouldn't have been passed. And again, cases of human slavery still happen today, even in jolly old Britain, just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean that its stop happening.

 dæl wrote:

The emancipation of women over the last century is probably a better example of social change toward fairness. There is no capitalist reason for giving women the vote, or the right to own property and yet it has been universally accepted in the western world as the right thing to do.

And again the emancipation of women has very strong ties to the fact that women were needed to take the places of men in production during the industrial revolution and especially during world war 1. It certainly wasn't done for any reasons of fairness, it was done because women assumed a much more active role in the capitalist economy.

And again, even today, women are still paid less than men when performing similar jobs, there goes that theory of modern societies fairness and enlightenment out the window again!

PhantomViper wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Capitalism isn't exactly a meritocracy though, look at the likes of Paris Hylton.

Cool story, do you wan't me to share all of my own stories that prove the exact opposite? Capitalism is much more based on individual merit than Communism will ever be, the fact that you can find some random anecdotes that don't follow the general system doesn't prove anything.

It proves that hard work is not needed if your family have done well out of capitalism already, and the further back you go the more exploitative it seems that the doing well came from. Inheriting a fortune is not based on any form of individual merit.

No, there has been people outraged with slavery for the entirety of human history. You can bet your caboodles (hey that is a real word who would have thunk), that if the industrial revolution didn't happen then that single judge's outrage wouldn't have changed a thing and that the act of 1833 wouldn't have been passed. And again, cases of human slavery still happen today, even in jolly old Britain, just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean that its stop happening.

England has common law, so that single judges outrage would have changed everything, the only way to overturn it would be through a higher court. All the later Acts of Parliament changed was how the colonies were governed. Besides the capitalist model would much rather have slaves than free men who you have to pay, that comes straight out of the profit margin. The abolition of slavery was far more to do with morality than economics.

And again the emancipation of women has very strong ties to the fact that women were needed to take the places of men in production during the industrial revolution and especially during world war 1. It certainly wasn't done for any reasons of fairness, it was done because women assumed a much more active role in the capitalist economy.

I don't think you are giving the sufferage movement the credit it is due, they changed social attitudes and from there the law slowly caught up (and still hasn't). If it was only for the factors you mentioned then why did Portugal allow women the vote in 1976? The industrial revolution was long over and there were no wars to speak of. Or did the economy of Portugal only need the labour of women in the seventies and not before?

 dæl wrote:

It proves that hard work is not needed if your family have done well out of capitalism already, and the further back you go the more exploitative it seems that the doing well came from. Inheriting a fortune is not based on any form of individual merit.

Agreed, but maintaining that fortune requires effort, lets see how her estate fairs when her father dies. So far she is the equivalent of a minor that is provided for by her family.

 dæl wrote:

No, there has been people outraged with slavery for the entirety of human history. You can bet your caboodles (hey that is a real word who would have thunk), that if the industrial revolution didn't happen then that single judge's outrage wouldn't have changed a thing and that the act of 1833 wouldn't have been passed. And again, cases of human slavery still happen today, even in jolly old Britain, just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean that its stop happening.

England has common law, so that single judges outrage would have changed everything, the only way to overturn it would be through a higher court. All the later Acts of Parliament changed was how the colonies were governed. Besides the capitalist model would much rather have slaves than free men who you have to pay, that comes straight out of the profit margin. The abolition of slavery was far more to do with morality than economics.

No, the capitalist model doesn't prefer to have slaves that is a preposterous notion!

First of all, slaves are only good to preform the most menial of tasks, tasks that are perform infinitely faster by machines in modern times. For the type of economy that we have you need an educated and motivated work force, that wouldn't be possible with slaves.
Second, the capitalist system obviously wouldn't prefer slavery simply because we live in a capitalist system and slavery was made illegal by that same system...
And thirdly the most large scale examples of "modern slavery" come from the USSR and PRC that were both Socialist-Marxist countries...

 dæl wrote:

And again the emancipation of women has very strong ties to the fact that women were needed to take the places of men in production during the industrial revolution and especially during world war 1. It certainly wasn't done for any reasons of fairness, it was done because women assumed a much more active role in the capitalist economy.

I don't think you are giving the sufferage movement the credit it is due, they changed social attitudes and from there the law slowly caught up (and still hasn't). If it was only for the factors you mentioned then why did Portugal allow women the vote in 1976? The industrial revolution was long over and there were no wars to speak of. Or did the economy of Portugal only need the labour of women in the seventies and not before?

No wars to speak of? Really? I know that the Portuguese Colonial Wars aren't very well known outside of our country, but a conflict that raged from 1960 to 1974 and puled more then 150.000 males out from the workforce had something to do with it?

And pre-revolutionary Portugal (<1974) was a very backwards country relying mostly in an agricultural subsistence economy. The country only really started developing industrially after the Carnations Revolution of 1974.

PhantomViper wrote:

 dæl wrote:

It proves that hard work is not needed if your family have done well out of capitalism already, and the further back you go the more exploitative it seems that the doing well came from. Inheriting a fortune is not based on any form of individual merit.

Agreed, but maintaining that fortune requires effort, lets see how her estate fairs when her father dies. So far she is the equivalent of a minor that is provided for by her family.

Actually, most rich people simply spend a large amount of money (though not large in comparison to their total sum) to hire people to look after it for them. This means that the majority of the fortune is safe (unless the owner is a complete idiot and doesn't listen to the people they hired) and they barely have to waste a second thinking about it.

 dæl wrote:

No, there has been people outraged with slavery for the entirety of human history. You can bet your caboodles (hey that is a real word who would have thunk), that if the industrial revolution didn't happen then that single judge's outrage wouldn't have changed a thing and that the act of 1833 wouldn't have been passed. And again, cases of human slavery still happen today, even in jolly old Britain, just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean that its stop happening.

England has common law, so that single judges outrage would have changed everything, the only way to overturn it would be through a higher court. All the later Acts of Parliament changed was how the colonies were governed. Besides the capitalist model would much rather have slaves than free men who you have to pay, that comes straight out of the profit margin. The abolition of slavery was far more to do with morality than economics.

First of all, slaves are only good to preform the most menial of tasks, tasks that are perform infinitely faster by machines in modern times. For the type of economy that we have you need an educated and motivated work force, that wouldn't be possible with slaves.
Second, the capitalist system obviously wouldn't prefer slavery simply because we live in a capitalist system and slavery was made illegal by that same system...
And thirdly the most large scale examples of "modern slavery" come from the USSR and PRC that were both Socialist-Marxist countries...

No, the capitalist model doesn't prefer to have slaves that is a preposterous notion!

Yeah, why on Earth would any capitalist want to be allowed to pay their workers less than the minimum wage? Whether you have a person doing the job or a machine is beside the point, and you're always going to need at least a few humans to do jobs such as hoovering. Which, by the way, it's cheaper to buy a slave to do than hire someone at the minimum wage. And yet, when's the last time you saw a hoover being dragged around by a guy in chains?
And as we have discussed before, just because the USSR did something does not mean that communism has anything to do with it. The USSR was bad, we agree, but that has nothing to do with the conversation.

PhantomViper wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:
Lots of stuff

All you've said may even be true, in a philosophical sense. In the real world we have a little thing called scarcity of resources, which means that for me to have ALL that I wan't (and make no mistake, I do want it ALL), someone else will have to settle for less.

Please, explain to me what resources have to do with fairness? Honestly, I'm intrigued as to how you could ever think that fairness and resources are linked in any way. Until you answer that, you haven't answered my point.

For someone to be a doctor and understand the joys of saving a life, or to become an astronaut and be able to travel into space, someone else will have to sweep the streets or go down into a sceptic tank to clear a blockage.

Yup. Is there a problem with that? I'm not saying it shouldn't be that way, I'm saying that they should get equal pay. Because the person saving someone's life is only in that better position due to luck.

In your communist utopia, with our current resources, I would be a doctor one day and be up to my neck in human excrement in the next, because everyone would be able to live their dreams, but the functioning of society would still need to be maintained and as much as dirty jobs are hated by everyone, they are just as important for it and HAVE to be done by someone. And most importantly, in your society I would have a 0% chance of improve my lot in life, because I would be just like the guy next to me, no matter how much luck nature and upbringing could make me better than him at any given task. And I might not have been lucky enough to be brain surgeon in our society, but at least I'm not forced to be the guy in the sewer through no fault of my own.

I never said that! It's entirely ridiculous to think that you'd need to change jobs! ALL I SAID WAS THAT FAIRNESS = EQUAL PAY, not fairness = everyone doing every job! Those two ideas are completely different!

And as for everyone being just like they guy next to them, that's just as ridiculous! Being payed the same as someone else doesn't instantly transform you into being the same person! Of course you could change your position to one you preferred, and of course some people would be better than others!

Please, please, PLEASE read what I've written and answer than, rather than reading what I've written and answering what you think I'm trying to say! I never said people would be the same because they get payed the same, I never said people would have to switch and share jobs, I never said everyone would be able to live their dreams. I only said that it is unfair to pay people better for being more lucky.

You know what? I'm not even going to bother reading the remainder of your post, until you have proven to me that you read mine without jumping to conclusions, assuming I meant something or having some LSD in the middle of it.