ForumsWEPRWhat type of Government do YOU believe is right?

221 55660
Thrillology
offline
Thrillology
78 posts
Shepherd

This is just curiosity and so people can talk about how they feel about the government of their country or what government they believe is right.
Personally, I believe in a small government where the government hardly does anything to affect your life, but people just don't care nowadays what happens: They just want free stuff, like money, food to make them fatter, other free junk from what the government 'romises' also known as 'lies' and the government has just controlled people.
So, I believe in a small, democratic government that won't control your daily life. That would include Capitalism as well.

  • 221 Replies
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,087 posts
Bard

considering the different governments,
Dictator: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Democracy: unwieldy for large countries.
Republic: people are often tricked by lies.
Communism (not what the Russians had but true communism): has to be the best government because everyone shares everything and there are no classes, (although it is hard to put into practice).

that's all i can think of, best to worst is bottom to top

Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,421 posts
Nomad

considering the different governments,
Dictator: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Democracy: unwieldy for large countries.
Republic: people are often tricked by lies.
Communism (not what the Russians had but true communism): has to be the best government because everyone shares everything and there are no classes, (although it is hard to put into practice).

that's all i can think of, best to worst is bottom to top


A dictator is an autocratic form of government, where one person rules.
A democracy is where the demos (people) rule.
A republic is where the demos rule through a representative.
Communism is a socio-economic ideology.

Communism has failed every it has been tried. Capitalism has succeeded everywhere it has been tried. I would LOVE to debate this.

Communism is the liquor of the envious.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Communism has failed every it has been tried


Perhaps that is because it has only been tried by ineffective dictators?

Capitalism has succeeded everywhere it has been tried.


Like South Africa?

If the Soviet Union somehow proves communism failed, then the great depression proves that capitalism fails. You can't just name one instance when something worked and one instance where something did not and say the first is better.

I would LOVE to debate this.


Go ahead.

Communism is the liquor of the envious.


Then capitalism is the wine of the avaricious.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,421 posts
Nomad

Perhaps that is because it has only been tried by ineffective dictators?


It has failed because a centrally planned economy is impossible. the amount of calculations for the needs of everyone to be met for only one week would require a super computer. Regardless, you cannot suppress human greed.

Even if you get rid of religion and educate the masses, greed is what drives humans.

Like South Africa?


Don't know what you're trying to say here, but if you are implying that apartheid is part of capitalism, you're wrong.

If the Soviet Union somehow proves communism failed, then the great depression proves that capitalism fails. You can't just name one instance when something worked and one instance where something did not and say the first is better.


Capitalism has not failed. I can give you a simply explanation of how the distortion of the free market led to a collapse. Herbet Hoover's policies caused the Great Depression and FDR extended it. We didn't get out of the depression until the end of WWII. Cuba, USSR, China, Cambodia, and North Korea. All of them have failed.

Then capitalism is the wine of the avaricious.


It is therefore, the wine of everyone. Regardless, if you try to put equality before freedom, you're not going to either. There are many examples of that.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,444 posts
Jester

Like South Africa?


In the top 30 by GDP, the highest in the continent.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

It has failed because a centrally planned economy is impossible. the amount of calculations for the needs of everyone to be met for only one week would require a super computer. Regardless, you cannot suppress human greed.


Since of course no government has the resources of such things that we only discovered in the 1960s?

Even if you get rid of religion and educate the masses, greed is what drives humans.


Is it now? Are you saying that humans are just pawns? If this was true, then why would communism exist in the first place?

Don't know what you're trying to say here, but if you are implying that apartheid is part of capitalism, you're wrong.


I am saying that capitalism has failed in many parts of the world, just look at the poor places.

Capitalism has not failed. I can give you a simply explanation of how the distortion of the free market led to a collapse. Herbet Hoover's policies caused the Great Depression and FDR extended it. We didn't get out of the depression until the end of WWII. Cuba, USSR, China, Cambodia, and North Korea. All of them have failed.


Then that is failed, the same why that the socialist nations you listed had failed do to messing with communism, despotism of the leadership, and suppression of knowledge.

I am sure you can name some capitalist nations that have failed? Listing random nations does not prove that communism failed, no more then naming random capitalism proves that it fails.

It is therefore, the wine of everyone. Regardless, if you try to put equality before freedom, you're not going to either. There are many examples of that.


Before freedom? Communism is freedom! True communism is the most free government there is, much freer than capitalism. How can you say you are free, if you are just a slave to some man in a big house?

In the top 30 by GDP, the highest in the continent.


And a quarter of the population is unemployed and lives off less then two dollars a day. So obliviously capitalism is not helping.
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,087 posts
Bard

you can not say communism has failed when it has never been implemented.

Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,421 posts
Nomad

Since of course no government has the resources of such things that we only discovered in the 1960s?


Are you suggesting that a supercomputer could, in fact, complete all those enormous calculations?

Command economies are inefficient, lack innovation, and restrict freedom. The top-down structure of this model makes it inefficient because it cannot adequately meet the needs and demands of consumers in the economy. In addition, the inefficient creation and delivery of products can cause widespread shortages of basic consumer goods.

As of 2010, many nations which continue to call themselves Communist have large free market sectors with relatively little government intervention. It is easier to start a small business in China than it is in the US, which is ridiculous. Even countries where their leaders call themselves Communists, still believe in the free market.

Japan, where it's people largely promote collectivism, has a free market, a system which promotes individuality. Communism will never work no matter what technologies you have. The free market is the best allocation of resources. One entity can not accurately choose what everyone needs even with all the advancements in the world.

The command economy, on the other hand, can be more responsive to political needs, as governments can simply mandate production in needed areas. However, the lack of efficiency in a command economy reduces the ability to produce goods with the same amount of natural resources. For example, under normal conditions, a given area of farmland would be able to maximize its productive output under a free market system, which ensures the availability of necessary prerequisites such as fertilizer and farm labor. These may not be available under a command economy, because the normal rules of supply and demand are replaced by government decisions. This introduces inefficiencies into the ability of the farmland to produce, so its maximum output would be lower than is possible under freer economic conditions.


Is it now? Are you saying that humans are just pawns? If this was true, then why would communism exist in the first place?


I see that you, instead of providing a counterargument to the idea that greed is what drives humans, have chosen to suggest something completely different, without any reason to stray from the original question.

I am saying that capitalism has failed in many parts of the world, just look at the poor places.


You should read a summary of the wealth of nations or any economics textbook at all. Countries are poor to a wide variety of reasons. There are so many variables in determining why a country is poor.

Either way, the economy for South Africa is one of the largest in Africa. Apartheid is responsible for many of the reasons so many people are unemployed and malnourished.

Then that is failed, the same why that the socialist nations you listed had failed do to messing with communism, despotism of the leadership, and suppression of knowledge.


You fail to realize that to achieve Communism is extremely difficult, and even more difficult to keep people from leaving the country.

Socialist ideologies suppress economic freedom and replaces it with economic equality. Those who put equality before freedom will get neither, but those who put freedom before equality will get a fair bit of both. Either way, Communism is immoral in the sense that you have no say in what you have to live on.

Instead of making everyone rich, it makes everyone poor, which the USSR has shown a great deal of. Though the USSR was not Communist, it limited economic freedom and placed equality before freedom. Both of these policies are a result of Socialism.

I am sure you can name some capitalist nations that have failed? Listing random nations does not prove that communism failed, no more then naming random capitalism proves that it fails.


Let's stop referring to them as capitalist because capitalism is different from the free market. The free market is based on many things, one of those being competition and voluntary exchange. In a voluntary society, if I buy a candy bar for $5, that means that I would prefer to have the candy bar than the $5, The seller would prefer to have the $5 than the candy bar. It is a win-win situation. The same for wage labor. If I decide to work at a coal mine for $3 an hour, that means I would prefer to have the $3 for the amount of work I do than not have the $3. The same goes for the employer because he prefers to give me the $3 for the amount of work I do than not have the work done at all.

Almost all nations promote voluntary exchange to a certain degree. They also support competition. Businesses want to maximize profits. If a business wants to maximize profits, it will have to compete with other businesses. How does a business compete to maximize profits? It provides better goods or services to customers and tries to lower the cost so that more people will be able to afford it. There are a finite number of resources and people. Businesses competing provide the best possible allocation of these resources and people through competition because they want to maximize profits. Under a state monopoly of the finite number of resources and people, it would provide a worse allocation of resources and people because it has no outside influence nor does it have any incentive to change.

I chose to answer you like this because arguing whether capitalist nations have failed or not is futile and will prove nothing. It would turn out into a debate over history rather than principle.

Before freedom? Communism is freedom! True communism is the most free government there is, much freer than capitalism. How can you say you are free, if you are just a slave to some man in a big house?


How am I free if I have to eat what someone hundreds of miles away decides what I want to do.

Freedom, by definition, is the ability to choose.

And a quarter of the population is unemployed and lives off less then two dollars a day. So obliviously capitalism is not helping.


Voluntary exchange was limited during apartheid. Not only that, economic freedom is still limited.
armorjamesus
offline
armorjamesus
17 posts
Peasant

The best government is no government, the 10% good that it does doesn't make up for the 90% evil that it does.

toemas
offline
toemas
339 posts
Farmer

Iâd say a democratic republic (thatâs Americas)

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Kevin, do you even know what Communism is? It is not a state run economy, it is not a state controlling everything, it is the people controlling everything. When you go to eat in a true communism, you are not getting government rations, you are eating food that someone else made for the rest of the populace. Instead of greed driving innovation and work ethics, it would have to be another motivating factor, unless you are saying that no one, in any culture, would work their hardest for the good of civilization rather than a pay check?

You seem to be thinking that communism is socialism, a common but incorrect belief. The Soviet Union and other "communist" nations are called so not because they are a communist government yet, but because they are trying to be. Marx believed that all countries would progress to socialism, the state run economies, under a benevolent dictator. Most of the countries who have gotten that far just stay there, after all most "benevolent" dictators don't like to give away their powers. No country has been a communist nation yet, so no communist nation has failed.

Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,421 posts
Nomad

Kevin, do you even know what Communism is?


Communism is a socialist ideology. Socialism, the actual ideology, requires government. Once Socialism is in place, the state will no longer be needed because religion is gone and education will be available to the masses, so the need for a ruler will be obsolete. This is Communism as Marx described in the Communist Manifesto.

Communism's core is a society where class no longer exists and the means of production will be in the hands of the proletariat, or the workers, because they create the wealth. The idea is that the workers create the wealth for the capitalist but get to keep only the scraps. There is a popular cartoon that shows a capitalist demanding his workers to work harder to make $100 toys, when the worker is only paid $5. The conclusion is that the worker is paying the capitalist $95 for working hard.

Marx famously uses the labor theory of value to support his theory that capitalists have an oligopoly on the means of production. But you have to realize why inequality arises. That is the fundamental flaw in everything Marx has said.

To answer your question on what I believe Communism is, it is essentially a socialist ideology without a state. There are multiple ways to how it can be achieved, but essentially, everyone is equal.

It is not a state run economy, it is not a state controlling everything, it is the people controlling everything.


I believe I was arguing against Socialism. Socialism is the state controlling everything through the people. There is also market socialism and decentrally planned economy, but the Socialism most advocate is based on a command economy.

I do argue against Communism in the sense that economic equality is a pipe dream. People are naturally unequal. Everyone has a different skin color, different family sizes, different needs, different sex lives, and the list goes on and on. The notion that people can be economically equal even though everyone is socially unequal is completely crazy. The thought that anyone in this day and age would even think of being a Marxist or Socialist is crazy. In an ideal world where all humans are naturally equal, it might work. However, that is not the world we live in and the evidence has shown that trying to make everyone equal has not worked.

West Germany and East Germany are perfect examples. You have East Germany, which is sort of socialist because people there are all economically equal, and you have West Germany, which is sort of capitalist because people there are all economically unequal. One put freedom before equality and the other put equality before freedom.

Instead of greed driving innovation and work ethics, it would have to be another motivating factor, unless you are saying that no one, in any culture, would work their hardest for the good of civilization rather than a pay check?


You have not given one human characteristic that would replace greed driving innovation. I'll ask again, have you ever read the Wealth of Nations? One pursuing his self interest benefits the rest. Steve Jobs made the iPhone to maximize profits. He didn't do it because he wanted something other than money in return. Everyone has benefited from the iPhone because of that. What incentive do I have to produce something that will benefit society if my standard of living barely increases?

Socialism is counterproductive because it relies on the good of everyone and everyone's motivation to help others. The fact is, I have no motivation to help others. Not only that, it takes away any feeling of accomplishment. If everything is given to me by a silver spoon, I will feel like I have accomplished nothing personally.

You seem to be thinking that communism is socialism, a common but incorrect belief.


Communism is a socialist ideology. Socialism, with an uppercase S, is the ideology that Marx thought would lead into Communism. Communism is socialist, with a lowercase s, because it socializes the masses. Communism is not Socialism, but similar. However, Communism is socialist.

The Soviet Union and other "communist" nations are called so not because they are a communist government yet, but because they are trying to be.


The USSR called itself Communist though it was not. It was a totalitarian regime where the masses were forced to be equal. What resulted from that was widespread poverty. China had the good enough sense to change to a market in 1976 because they realized that the dream of Communism was a crackpot idea.

Marx believed that all countries would progress to socialism, the state run economies, under a benevolent dictator. Most of the countries who have gotten that far just stay there, after all most "benevolent" dictators don't like to give away their powers. No country has been a communist nation yet, so no communist nation has failed.


Sinclair's halfbaked book "The Jungle" talked about how socialism would have to be a worldwide movement. No purely socialist nation has ever existed, but neither has any pure market nation. What have had are varying degrees of each. The nations that have had economic equality and classlessness, which is a socialist idea, have failed. The nations that have had economic diversity and classes, which is a market idea, have succeeded.

The funny thing about all the countries that called themselves Communist have been agrarian or feudal prior.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
325 posts
Peasant

For once, I actually agree with 314d1.

Communism is, in essence, the perfect government. Everybody is equal, and working for the greater good of the entire country. And all those countries we have labeled as 'communist' aren't actually communist. They're just a form of dictatorship or socialism with a communist label.
No country that has been legitimately communist has failed, because no country has been legitimately communist.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Communism is a socialist ideology. Socialism, the actual ideology, requires government. Once Socialism is in place, the state will no longer be needed because religion is gone and education will be available to the masses, so the need for a ruler will be obsolete. This is Communism as Marx described in the Communist Manifesto.


So you do get what it is! So why do you keep bashing socialism, when we are talking about communism? It would be like bashing a revelation when we are talking about the country. Socialism is just meant to bring the world into communism, witch you are supposed to be arguing.

I do argue against Communism in the sense that economic equality is a pipe dream. People are naturally unequal. Everyone has a different skin color, different family sizes, different needs, different sex lives, and the list goes on and on. The notion that people can be economically equal even though everyone is socially unequal is completely crazy. The thought that anyone in this day and age would even think of being a Marxist or Socialist is crazy. In an ideal world where all humans are naturally equal, it might work. However, that is not the world we live in and the evidence has shown that trying to make everyone equal has not worked.


We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...

What are you saying? Are you saying people of different skin color, ethnicity, and sex lives should be economically different? Why? Economic equality will eventually lead to social equality, considering most of the cause of racism in the stuff is often economic trouble.

West Germany and East Germany are perfect examples. You have East Germany, which is sort of socialist because people there are all economically equal, and you have West Germany, which is sort of capitalist because people there are all economically unequal. One put freedom before equality and the other put equality before freedom.


East Germany was poor, ruled by harsh dictators who would not hesitate to kill their own citizens, and of course was socialist. It can hardly be said that the Soviet bloc valued equality, it was just a rule by another name.

You have not given one human characteristic that would replace greed driving innovation. I'll ask again, have you ever read the Wealth of Nations? One pursuing his self interest benefits the rest. Steve Jobs made the iPhone to maximize profits. He didn't do it because he wanted something other than money in return. Everyone has benefited from the iPhone because of that. What incentive do I have to produce something that will benefit society if my standard of living barely increases?


How about common human decency and a lust for inventions? The Greek philosophers did not get payed well, but they continued to innovate. Innovation for innovation sake, and for the sake of the rest of humanity.

And of course crime is much greater in a capitalist society. Many people sell drugs in order to make money. Why do they need to make money? Economic inequality forces them into situations where they are unable to afford the lifestyle they want and are often willing to murder another person in order to make some capitalist money.

Socialism is counterproductive because it relies on the good of everyone and everyone's motivation to help others. The fact is, I have no motivation to help others. Not only that, it takes away any feeling of accomplishment. If everything is given to me by a silver spoon, I will feel like I have accomplished nothing personally.


Then use that to go to work! If you feel that you have accomplished nothing, then go and accomplish something! For the good of the rest of humanity, it would be simple to use the feeling of obligation to make people work.

In the same paragraph, you said you would not work for humanity for nothing. Then you turn around and say that if you where receiving everything but not giving anything to the world, you would feel guilty. Does that not show that many people would work?

Communism is a socialist ideology. Socialism, with an uppercase S, is the ideology that Marx thought would lead into Communism. Communism is socialist, with a lowercase s, because it socializes the masses. Communism is not Socialism, but similar. However, Communism is socialist.


Fine. You are arguing against Socialism instead of communism. is that better?

The USSR called itself Communist though it was not. It was a totalitarian regime where the masses were forced to be equal. What resulted from that was widespread poverty. China had the good enough sense to change to a market in 1976 because they realized that the dream of Communism was a crackpot idea.


Do you really think that communist China and Soviet Russia strove for equality? They where attempting to be a step of it. But as you said, there are many causes of poverty. Dictators typically have poor economies, especially in large countries, so wouldn't it be more logical to assume it is an issue with government type not economic type?

Sinclair's halfbaked book "The Jungle" talked about how socialism would have to be a worldwide movement.


And the game Bioshock teaches how capitalism, if left unchecked, can go wild. I don't see the relevance, it isn't like I have time to read a book during the summer...

. The nations that have had economic equality and classlessness, which is a socialist idea, have failed


Really? Can you name a relatively large nation that actually focuses on equality, one that is not an oligarchy in a mask?

The nations that have had economic diversity and classes, which is a market idea, have succeeded.


Except of course the ones who have failed?

The funny thing about all the countries that called themselves Communist have been agrarian or feudal prior.


Since of course the poor want equality, the rich hardly want to give up their money.

And that is usually one of the causes of the communist nations being poor. After all, you can't go from a poor economy to an amazing economy, a poor economy becomes a slightly richer economy.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,421 posts
Nomad

Communism is, in essence, the perfect government. Everybody is equal, and working for the greater good of the entire country. And all those countries we have labeled as 'communist' aren't actually communist. They're just a form of dictatorship or socialism with a communist label.
No country that has been legitimately communist has failed, because no country has been legitimately communist.


Communism is stateless in the sense there is no government.

I've said this before and you didn't bother to read what I said in reference to 314d1 or you. Communism creates economic equality. The USSR is a country which created economic equality. East Germany created economic equality as well. That was the fundamental reason they both perished.

You are obviously an idealist. It would be nice if everyone was equal, but the reality is that people are unequal and it makes no sense to try to make people have an equal amount of wealth.

So you do get what it is! So why do you keep bashing socialism, when we are talking about communism? It would be like bashing a revelation when we are talking about the country. Socialism is just meant to bring the world into communism, witch you are supposed to be arguing.


I keep bashing socialism because they both center on creating economic equality.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...


"Well, I just read a quote that contradicts what you are saying and therefore it must be right and you must be wrong." - That's the logic you are implying by quoting that.

Regardless, men are created equal. It's called equal opportunity. Communism seeks to promote equal outcome. It does not say in the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was inspired by Adam Smith and advocated small government, that all men are equal.

What are you saying? Are you saying people of different skin color, ethnicity, and sex lives should be economically different? Why? Economic equality will eventually lead to social equality, considering most of the cause of racism in the stuff is often economic trouble.


People are different in almost every aspect. Not to mention the immoral aspects of Communism, it is illogical to believe the economic equality will create social equality. As long as ignorance and intolerance exists, there will be discriminat
ion and social inequality.

Regardless, social equality is impossible and immoral. You squander individuality and diversity in favor of the collective. The only respect I have towards any socialist are Anarcho-Communists because they actually know what they are talking about instead of Marxists.

[quote]East Germany was poor, ruled by harsh dictators who would not hesitate to kill their own citizens, and of course was socialist. It can hardly be said that the Soviet bloc valued equality, it was just a rule by another name.


You admitted it was Socialist. So I ask you, if Socialism and Communist both value economic equality and equal outcome, then what is the difference if it has a government or not? The logic goes that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck, right? The minute difference, though very large and important, is government, but the fundamental principles are still there. After all, Socialism is just the transition into Communism. So if you're going to go against Socialism, which I think you are, then why are you not against Communism?

How about common human decency and a lust for inventions? The Greek philosophers did not get payed well, but they continued to innovate. Innovation for innovation sake, and for the sake of the rest of humanity.


1. Greek philosophers don't innovate in the sense that they create newer and better products for profit. They practice philosophy, which does not create newer and better products for profit. Most philosophers lecture or write books for profit. They spread their ideas for profit. They do not "think" for profit.

2. Competition creates innovation. Companies compete to create better products for their customers so they can maximize profits.

3. Your only example would be relevant if we lived thousands of years ago. Many inventors say they want to create inventions so they can profit off of them.

4. If you look at old videotapes of the USSR, you see how people would wait in line for two hours if they wanted to buy bread. Monopolies do not create better products. If you are forced to buy from one supplier who has no competition, what incentive does he have to manage resources efficiently if he will gain a profit either way? Monopolies, whether state or not, do not manage resources efficiently. Innovation for innovation's sake is fallacious and all you do is provide phrases that are not even provided by any logical evidence.

This is a debate between non-market and market ideas. You provide no substantial evidence for your opinion that not having a market is just.

And of course crime is much greater in a capitalist society.


More laws, more offenders. Do you even know what Anarcho-Capitalism is? It is the purest form of capitalism!

Many people sell drugs in order to make money. Why do they need to make money? Economic inequality forces them into situations where they are unable to afford the lifestyle they want and are often willing to murder another person in order to make some capitalist money.


Many people will sell books in order to make money. What's your point?

People don't need to make money. There is this practice called subsistence farming.

You are cherrypicking dyer situations that occur in a mixed economy, even though the murder rate in many mixed economy countries is relatively low. You speak of it as if it is an epidemic. You also make the assumption that if one does not have the lifestyle he desires, he will murder another for it. Most murders are crimes of passion. If anything, one would steal.

I'll give you an example of how a free market society where the currency is backed by gold through a genuine gold standard would work.

So, let's say I am poor. Well, I know that I can easily steal money, but then I would have to face the problem of imprisonment by a defense firm. I don't have any money to pay for a defense firm myself so I know that if I steal from a rich person, I am likely going to get caught and imprisoned with no chance of being found innocent. I know this because a rich person would probably have invested his wellbeing in a good defense firm. Stealing is out of the question.

Because there is a lot of economic opportunity, I can start a small business. I will take out a loan from a bank for the amount of money I've calculated I will need to start a small business. I will buy "X" amount for apples from a supplier of apples at "Y" cost. I don't have enough money to start in a business so I begin selling my apples in the street. The apples I sell are very cheap and have a low markup, but at least I'm making enough money to grow my business a bit.

I could also take the alternative route and be an employee. I am poor but determined and friendly. I decide to wait tables for my favorite restaurant. The pay is not much, but I like the independence and the experience it gives me. I decide to place the money I earn into an education fund. With this education, I will be able to get into a better paying job. Because colleges are competing to provide a better education at a better price, the cost of education will go down, allowing low income people, like me, to have the possibility of a better job.

Or, I could just work at a factory as a janitor and ask for some training in another skilled job. Or I can be an apprentice for someone and gain skills that will benefit me in the future. The list goes on an on to what I can do and what I have the choice to do.

Under Communism, if I know that I can get the same standard of living for doing a less technical job than being a pharmacist, then what incentive do I have to become a pharmacist?

Then use that to go to work! If you feel that you have accomplished nothing, then go and accomplish something! For the good of the rest of humanity, it would be simple to use the feeling of obligation to make people work.


There is a sense of accomplishment that most people feel when they help themselves rather than help someone else.

In the same paragraph, you said you would not work for humanity for nothing. Then you turn around and say that if you where receiving everything but not giving anything to the world, you would feel guilty. Does that not show that many people would work?


You make the assumption that one works for accomplishment or money. They can work for both.

Do you really think that communist China and Soviet Russia strove for equality?


If you're going to deny that, then it truly does show how ignorant you are. Even if, like you said, they didn't want equality, it still goes to show how creating economic equality, which is what they did, doesn't work. It also shows how monopolies are inefficient.

What resulted from that was widespread poverty. China had the good enough sense to change to a market in 1976 because they realized that the dream of Communism was a crackpot idea.


They where attempting to be a step of it. But as you said, there are many causes of poverty. Dictators typically have poor economies, especially in large countries, so wouldn't it be more logical to assume it is an issue with government type not economic type?


So if they were attempting to create equality, then doesn't that contradict what you said earlier? The fundamental cause of poverty is that resources are misallocated. Some argue that the cause of poverty is private property. I disagree with those, but I digress.

The economic system of Communism is set up to fail because of it's setup.

And the game Bioshock teaches how capitalism, if left unchecked, can go wild. I don't see the relevance, it isn't like I have time to read a book during the summer...


Your not even addressing my main argument that was stated later in the paragraph.

Really? Can you name a relatively large nation that actually focuses on equality, one that is not an oligarchy in a mask?


lolwut. It is possible to have a democracy/oligarchy/monarchy/autocracy/technocracy/aristocracy/meritocracy that focuses on equality. It's just that the rulers are unequal but the rest are. It focuses on economic equality but not political. You're basically asking "can you name a relatively large fruit that actually tastes sour, without it having a stem?"

Your mixing two separate things together. One is a economic policy and the other is a form of government.

Except of course the ones who have failed?


1. Define "fail"
2. Name which ones have "failed"
3. Tell me why they have "failed"

You are trying debate with witty remarks rather than substance.

Since of course the poor want equality, the rich hardly want to give up their money.


Do you know a poor person who wants to give up their money? Didn't think so. The rich use GOVERNMENT to make themselves richer. The poor use GOVERNMENT to make rich poorer.

And that is usually one of the causes of the communist nations being poor. After all, you can't go from a poor economy to an amazing economy, a poor economy becomes a slightly richer economy.


Didn't you say no country has ever been Communist? You're contradicting yourself. Estonia and Czech Republic are relatively rich after a relatively short amount of time.
Showing 196-210 of 221