Discussions on Capitalism and GMOs.

[MrJames]

Good points, John. However, I'm going with the Torvalds mentality on this one: go with what works. Socialism and Communism have been proven time and again to definitely *not* work. Every country that went down that road ended up in a ditch. Name me one commie country in history that did not end up being ruled by a dictator that got his position through a coup using the military to enforce "order" which is another word for "his chair". And whenever somebody points out that fact, all socialist/communist supporters say the same thing: "well, they didn't do it right".

[JohnDeere630]

Good points, John. However, I'm going with the Torvalds mentality on this one: go with what works. Socialism and Communism have been proven time and again to definitely *not* work. Every country that went down that road ended up in a ditch. Name me one commie country in history that did not end up being ruled by a dictator that got his position through a coup using the military to enforce "order" which is another word for "his chair". And whenever somebody points out that fact, all socialist/communist supporters say the same thing: "well, they didn't do it right".

Right. I was going to add that regardless of what one thinks of communism, socialism, ownership, et al; the fact is that we all inhabit physical bodies with materialistic needs. The problem mainly lies in the human tendency to confuse "need" and "want". As Louis L'Amour said, "a person needs so little, but wants so much".

There never has been, nor is, nor will ever be, a "perfect" government. Some of the most successful and longest-lasting governments have historically been monarchies. I am currently reading about one of my favorites, Cyrus the Great.

[huggybear]

Time and time again, socialism is equated with stalinism or maoism, or whatever, on this board. And again the call for a more socially conscious society is equated with the introduction of full scale communism into a governing system. I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about taxing the shit out of someone who owns 5 villas and 20 cars, not taxing some farmer who will just get by if he manages to pay his land. That for me has nothing to do with socialism. That is rather socialism distorted to fit capitalist agendas -- the agendas of the so called left centre, the Democrats of the US if you want, or the SPD of Germany, or Labour in the UK. Those parties abuse socialist ideas in order to essentially get the same as the capitalists. For me, socialism should be studied, stripped off its negative parts and reincorporated into an already existing practical system. So, in effect, capitalism as a core can and will stay for a long time, no way around it. But I do think that the mega rich should be taxed more aggressively, so that the common man can pay less. And no, I have no problem with taxing people who have everything in overabundance.

[JohnDeere630]

I don't disagree with what you just said, HB. I concur that socialism is not communism, and the two terms are used interchangeably, but incorrectly. As for taxing the rich, few of us "not-so-rich" entirely disagree. The main problem is that the world over, the rules are made by the rich, and no one is going to extort money from themselves when they can extort it from someone else instead. 'Taint fair, but it is what it is.

[golinux]

In the end, it is always the all too human impulses of those who are in charge that taint the ideal of any form of governance. Unfortunately, those impulses tend to plummet to the lowest common denominator - it's always easier to slide down a hill than climb to the summit. This is not a matter of evolution of the species. Rather, the uphill trek must be made by each of us individually. I guarantee, there aren't many willing to curb their appetites and take even a few steps.

[Roel]

My cat has a sense of ownership. She rubs against me leaving her scent on me as a sign of ownership. Any string or toy she finds is hers and she hides it in her special storage area that she claimed for herself. Many animals pee around an area they have claimed for themselves (usually paying for the right by winning a battle). Seems to me the concept of ownership is all natural - the very thing you are in favor of.

Apart from all political points of view, I am convinced that people are born with a sense of ownership. Give candy to a baby, he/she will accept it as his/hers. Take that candy from this baby and you will have to cover your ears. You have to TEACH a child to share, it is NOT in a child's system. Even if the ownership is in one's nature, not wanting to share suddenly makes one a selfish bastard.

It seems that later on, in the real world, you have to lose a part of that sharing feeling again...

[nadir]

anti-communism is so old century.

btw: If we consider the old century, how many wars did USA go for, and how many the UDSSR ? USA with all it's freedoms and liberties, we all take for granted. I assume the right to murder people, on the chair, is one of the liberties too, right? After a 15 minute trial. The right to torture people too?
How does Cuba looked compared to it's direct neighbors? (it looks awesome compared to Germanski, when it comes to medical care).
How does Russia now look compared to before? With people dying when they are quite young. They have entered the third world.
How does the UDSSR compare to the regime of the Zar (when you still could own people)?

The communism we have seen was not perfect, but it was way better than what those countries had before and what they have now
(with the exception of eastern Germany and Czechia they all were stone age, in Europe, of suffered from colonialism and imperialism, for the rest of them).

capitalism is the war everyone agains everyone (in German it sounds better: Alle gegen alle).

If you are of the ones who gain by the capitalistic system (who takes liberties and freedom for granted): it doesn't make the terror against humanity (against the rest of the world) any better.
I for one am happy to live here, but that doesn't make me blind when i have to consider why i can live that way (export of weapons, and lately "we", the germs, go for war again).

Good one:
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/13
there you got your best system.

Edit: seems when i edit it doesn't get shown. I edited. I added the torture-line and the link at the bottom.

[nadir]

In history all systems have come and go (if not wrong usually after 500 years).
That means that the actual system should go too (sooner or later).
That doesn't mean that the next system will be better (it might also be worse), how should i know.
With the brutality we have seen so far, i bet that the actual system will rather destroy all and everything than let itself be replaced.
If it won't be replaced it will destroy all and everything too (not with a boom, but more slow, a wee bit every day).
Looks like it's a lose-lose situation...

[JohnDeere630]

In history all systems have come and go (if not wrong usually after 500 years).
That means that the actual system should go too (sooner or later).
That doesn't mean that the next system will be better (it might also be worse), how should i know.
With the brutality we have seen so far, i bet that the actual system will rather destroy all and everything than let itself be replaced.
If it won't be replaced it will destroy all and everything too (not with a boom, but more slow, a wee bit every day).
Looks like it's a lose-lose situation...

+1

Yup, my sentiments also. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

[Beewolf]

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of discussions about what's best for society seem to forget that the forest is made of trees. If the superrich earned their money through voluntary trade, taxing them heavily discourages them from ramping up or sometimes even continuing their satisfaction-delivering activities; if they got their geld through state largess, taxing them is pointless as it fails to address the real issue.

Really, the question is how does one design a system where what's good for the goose is good for the gander - knowing we'll never get anywhere fighting people's self interest, how do we tap the desire to own 5 villas or 50 cars to benefit society? Outright slavery doesn't work because the slave, never seeing much if any of the fruits of his labor, has no incentive to do more than keeps the whip away. Government bureaucracy falls down because they tend to be judged on their goals rather than their results - a steady stream of failure can easily result in more power and prestige than solving the problem. The market(that is, free, uncoerced trade) works because people won't exchange unless what they get in return has more value to them than what they give up(which comes out to some combination of effort, time and possibly goods) - at least in their pre-trade estimation - so to get something I have to give something; in this way, both parties are enriched(most of the time - buyer's remorse and all that).

In the end, all of society's problems can be traced to some form of coercion or fraud - corrupt regulators smashing competition, gang activity, dumping toxins in other people's water, etc. Ultimately, the question is how to best eliminate - disincentivize - such antisocial activities.