A New World Order

But if evil takes control and supresses individual freedom for their own selfish needs, how will we ever put together the resources again to search for ET life?

But if evil takes control and supresses individual freedom for their own selfish needs, how will we ever put together the resources again to search for ET life?

Socialism doesn't work. Look at history. It has failed every time it has been tried. What makes us so pretentious to believe we can do it right this time?

you are so right. Germany, France, England, Japan are suffering from it but what do I know
____________
Proud member of TSWB.

End terrorism by building a school

So Socialism hasn't worked, maybe, maybe not. But has Capitalism done any better ?

It wasn't Socialism that brought England down. It was Capitalism in the same form that has screwed the U.S. Greedy, unbridled speculation with borrowed money and no responsibility taken.

Any political sytem will work when it's implemented in it's pure form, but they all fall apart when greed and lust for power are thrown into the mix.

T.A.

So Socialism hasn't worked, maybe, maybe not. But has Capitalism done any better ?

It wasn't Socialism that brought England down. It was Capitalism in the same form that has screwed the U.S. Greedy, unbridled speculation with borrowed money and no responsibility taken.

Any political sytem will work when it's implemented in it's pure form, but they all fall apart when greed and lust for power are thrown into the mix.

T.A.

Negative, there, ghost rider... It was capitalism encumbered by marxist, socialist, communists in the parliment. Same thing in the U.S. congress. If we keep rewarding failed corporations for failure, they will continue to fail. (Which, by the way, is in George Soros's (and like minded people's) plan to eventually lead us to a one-world dictator and a caste system for generations to come. If we keep relying on government to solve problems, and keep giving them more and more, they'll just take more and more and continue to ask for more and more, while giving even less back. It's a mathmatical equation that can never be balanced. I would hope those in this community could understand that basic formula--especially since we're so wrapped up in fast search algorythms.

LOL, gotta love the dedication to love of unfettered capitalism, don't you know that died in the 19th century? It killed (quite literally) too many people.

You do realize that capitalism and Darwin's law are the exact same thing don't you?

To change a natural law you will have to apply a lot of force. Likely kill exactly as many as if you had done nothing. The difference will be in who is dead and the entropy -- for lack of a better word -- to survive of the civilization at the end of the experiment.

LOL, gotta love the dedication to love of unfettered capitalism, don't you know that died in the 19th century? It killed (quite literally) too many people.

You do realize that capitalism and Darwin's law are the exact same thing don't you?

To change a natural law you will have to apply a lot of force. Likely kill exactly as many as if you had done nothing. The difference will be in who is dead and the entropy -- for lack of a better word -- to survive of the civilization at the end of the experiment.

What? Let's compare. How many people did capitalism kill in the 19th century? I suppose your premise is that because capitalists exist, war exists. Is this correct? Only capitalists cause war, right?

http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml

Here are some round numbers of how many people marxist/socialist/communist dictators killed in the 20th century.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

I could probably make the case that the 19th century was the best 100 years of personal freedom, inovation, invention, and happiness (across the plains of the U.S., at least...)

Change natural law? Yes, true, in order to defy the law of gravity, you have to apply an equal and apposite force. Who do you think will win in the long run?

LOL, gotta love the dedication to love of unfettered capitalism, don't you know that died in the 19th century? It killed (quite literally) too many people.

You do realize that capitalism and Darwin's law are the exact same thing don't you?

To change a natural law you will have to apply a lot of force. Likely kill exactly as many as if you had done nothing. The difference will be in who is dead and the entropy -- for lack of a better word -- to survive of the civilization at the end of the experiment.

What? Let's compare. How many people did capitalism kill in the 19th century? I suppose your premise is that because capitalists exist, war exists. Is this correct? Only capitalists cause war, right?

http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml

Here are some round numbers of how many people marxist/socialist/communist dictators killed in the 20th century.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

I could probably make the case that the 19th century was the best 100 years of personal freedom, inovation, invention, and happiness (across the plains of the U.S., at least...)

Change natural law? Yes, true, in order to defy the law of gravity, you have to apply an equal and apposite force. Who do you think will win in the long run?

LOL, gotta love the dedication to love of unfettered capitalism, don't you know that died in the 19th century? It killed (quite literally) too many people.

You do realize that capitalism and Darwin's law are the exact same thing don't you?

Actually, they are not...and even if they were, that would just be a stronger argument as to why we really shouldn't run a capitalistic society.

I certainly wouldn't want my hospital going "extinct" halfway through my cancer treatment, or my school dying out before I get an education.

House on fire? Sorry, the fire department went extinct. You're out of luck.

However, Darwin is based on survival of the best adapted species. Guess what one of the adaptations is that humans have that have made us so successful as a species (remember, nature doesn't give a flying f@*k about individuals within a species..only we care about that)? It's our ability to co-operate and help each other. So perhaps as a species we should be looking at basing our system on something like that?

I think he is directly speaking about Capitalism and corporations that lacked safe work environments for workers. Be it a coal mine, steel smelter, or railroad each was fraught with dangers to life and limb. Oh and if you lost a limb and didnt die.. you were fired

LOL, gotta love the dedication to love of unfettered capitalism, don't you know that died in the 19th century? It killed (quite literally) too many people.

You do realize that capitalism and Darwin's law are the exact same thing don't you?

Actually, they are not...and even if they were, that would just be a stronger argument as to why we really shouldn't run a capitalistic society.

I certainly wouldn't want my hospital going "extinct" halfway through my cancer treatment, or my school dying out before I get an education.

House on fire? Sorry, the fire department went extinct. You're out of luck.

However, Darwin is based on survival of the best adapted species. Guess what one of the adaptations is that humans have that have made us so successful as a species (remember, nature doesn't give a flying f@*k about individuals within a species..only we care about that)? It's our ability to co-operate and help each other. So perhaps as a species we should be looking at basing our system on something like that?

Applying the associative law to Darwin you do get what you said. However his statement was the survival of the fit. That means individually. Remember he was talking about an individual evolving to be better that others. Sum all individuals and apply the associative law and you get to a species. ergo one super survivor can hold up a species above extinction, although that super survivor might get classed as a new species itself.

Just consider that a dollar is a survivability unit. Capitalism generates these units. Without capitalism we would all still be hunter gatherers.

I suppose your premise is that because capitalists exist, war exists. Is this correct? Only capitalists cause war, right?