A New World Order


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : A New World Order

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Message 1052993 - Posted: 4 Dec 2010, 12:42:17 UTC - in response to Message 1052985.
Last modified: 20 Mar 2014, 23:29:01 UTC

-----

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1053028 - Posted: 4 Dec 2010, 15:48:16 UTC - in response to Message 1052993.

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?

apples and oranges thanks for stirring the pot.

I'm pretty sure the evil empire would want to find ET so it could rule of him too
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Message 1053335 - Posted: 6 Dec 2010, 13:43:02 UTC
Last modified: 20 Mar 2014, 23:31:07 UTC

-----

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1053366 - Posted: 6 Dec 2010, 17:36:09 UTC - in response to Message 1053335.

you are so right. Germany, France, England, Japan are suffering from it but what do I know
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1759
Credit: 206,464,226
RAC: 11,173
Australia
Message 1053525 - Posted: 7 Dec 2010, 9:18:31 UTC

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.

Message 1053555 - Posted: 7 Dec 2010, 14:51:42 UTC - in response to Message 1053525.
Last modified: 20 Mar 2014, 23:38:39 UTC

-----

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,955,958
RAC: 1,529
United States
Message 1053612 - Posted: 7 Dec 2010, 22:28:44 UTC - in response to Message 1053555.

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. Why do you think Marx thought that the proletariat would rise up and overthrow it? Not that the 20th century's experiments with socialism and communism were any more successful.

So, yes, democratic governments (i.e. those that are of the people), will continue interfere with business practices, and if the people want it, governments will to create systems of social welfare. All you followers of Ayn Rand, get used to it. Though these same governments are unlikely to take full control of the means of production, Marxists and communists, get used to it.

The "mixed economy" is going to be around for a while, no doubt the balance between public and private will vary over time and by nation.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile hiamps
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 4292
Credit: 72,971,319
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1053927 - Posted: 8 Dec 2010, 15:23:57 UTC - in response to Message 1052985.
Last modified: 8 Dec 2010, 15:24:31 UTC

One World government? And giving them power to stop any resentment? Not for me, I want the ability to pack up and move on....If any suceed in setting a World Government it won't be one everyone wants, it will be one that gives that group unlimited power...I guess if you are on their side it would be great, but not for those that oppose...Power corrupts to the core, we need checks and balances.
____________
Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12998
Credit: 7,664,797
RAC: 6,729
United States
Message 1053948 - Posted: 8 Dec 2010, 16:35:12 UTC - in response to Message 1053612.

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.


____________

Message 1053992 - Posted: 8 Dec 2010, 17:49:49 UTC - in response to Message 1053948.
Last modified: 20 Mar 2014, 23:37:54 UTC

-----

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9087
Credit: 259,333
RAC: 85
Canada
Message 1053993 - Posted: 8 Dec 2010, 17:55:16 UTC - in response to Message 1053948.
Last modified: 8 Dec 2010, 17:55:55 UTC

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?
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9087
Credit: 259,333
RAC: 85
Canada
Message 1053995 - Posted: 8 Dec 2010, 18:00:09 UTC - in response to Message 1053992.

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.



...
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...)

...


Really? So the industrial mills never happened? The grinding poverty of the working class is hardly a celebration of personal freedom. Perhaps the deaths of those people, or those immigrants who worked in mines in the US don't count?
I suspect if you were black at the time you also had a very different opinion on just how great a time it was.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1054069 - Posted: 8 Dec 2010, 21:07:47 UTC - in response to Message 1053992.

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?


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

____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,547,289
RAC: 949
United States
Message 1054073 - Posted: 8 Dec 2010, 21:21:02 UTC - in response to Message 1053992.

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?


Wait? What? You read so fast you didn't even realize you weren't responding to one person but two, and so contradicted both yourself and someone who, up until your post here, seemed to be in your philosophical zone? Please do slow down, read carefully. Think before you post. :)

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,955,958
RAC: 1,529
United States
Message 1054117 - Posted: 8 Dec 2010, 23:19:30 UTC - in response to Message 1053993.

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?


Hey Es, good to see you and Sarge back on the Politics forums. However, evolution doesn't give a fig about species, it's the best suited individual (at least that's what I learned from Dawkins' The Selfish Gene). And before the Objectivists or whatever say, "see, Capitalism is the same as Evolution", Dawkins devotes a chapter ("Nice Guys Finish First") to altruism and why some evolutionary processes promote it.

No, Capitalism and Evolutionary Theory are not the same thing by any stretch, and Social Darwinism (aka Eugenics) has been responsible for some of the grossest crimes against human rights committed in the 20th century.

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


Thanks for spotting that skildude. It would be foolish of me to argue that all wars are the result of unfettered capitalism, indeed, as a whole, capitalists suffer when wars are taking place, though a few make a great deal. No my criticism was of the direct effects of unfettered capitalism on the people that provide labor. Labor has its hard won protections, it will not give them up easily, and rightly so.

On the wider point that was being raised, it should be noted that I did say that the 20th century's experiments with social and communism were not any more successful [than the 19th century's experiments with unfettered capitalism]. I'm not blinkered to the atrocities carried out in the name of Marx. FWIW, while the largest figures on this http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html are listed against Communists of various guises (given that Stalism and Maoism are generally lumped in with Communism), it's not fair to say the page details only "round numbers of how many people marxist/socialist/communist dictators killed", dictators are of the right as well as the left. To call Hitler a socialist (which some of the right would like to do) because some some industries were nationalized under his rule, and the Nazi's had "Socialist" in the party name, misses the point of why socialists nationalize industries. Hitler did it to create a more efficient war machine. You could similarly call Stalin a capitalist as he used money. Truth be told Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were not the political descendants of Marx or any other socialist thinkers.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12998
Credit: 7,664,797
RAC: 6,729
United States
Message 1054124 - Posted: 8 Dec 2010, 23:40:07 UTC - in response to Message 1053993.

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.


____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,955,958
RAC: 1,529
United States
Message 1054135 - Posted: 9 Dec 2010, 0:25:45 UTC - in response to Message 1054124.
Last modified: 9 Dec 2010, 0:32:22 UTC

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.


No, individuals do not evolve, evolution takes place between generations.

And the survivors of one generation are consider the same species if they can produce viable offspring, so the "super survivor" getting classified as something different is also likely to be an incorrect reading of Darwin.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9087
Credit: 259,333
RAC: 85
Canada
Message 1054142 - Posted: 9 Dec 2010, 1:17:23 UTC - in response to Message 1054117.


Hey Es, good to see you and Sarge back on the Politics forums.

Thanks Bobby, I just dipped into this thread and saw that old stupid argument about Darwin being something to with Capitalism.

However, evolution doesn't give a fig about species, it's the best suited individual (at least that's what I learned from Dawkins' The Selfish Gene). And before the Objectivists or whatever say, "see, Capitalism is the same as Evolution", Dawkins devotes a chapter ("Nice Guys Finish First") to altruism and why some evolutionary processes promote it.

I think you've misunderstood. Darwin never said it was the best suited individual, and the gene is not the same as the individual. I share some of the same genes with my family members. That doesn't make us the same person.


____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9087
Credit: 259,333
RAC: 85
Canada
Message 1054143 - Posted: 9 Dec 2010, 1:19:11 UTC - in response to Message 1054124.

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'm sorry. You are just plain wrong on this Gary. It's a common misconception. Darwin never meant the individual. I've been teaching evolution for 8 years now and I'm pretty sure I've got this one right :)
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,547,289
RAC: 949
United States
Message 1054146 - Posted: 9 Dec 2010, 1:41:35 UTC - in response to Message 1053992.

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

As straw man arguments go, this is one of the most ridiculous ones I have ever seen. One need simply consider capitalism arose in the, what, 1700s, while war has been with humanity since we've had organized into societies. Are you going to attempt to put something in someone's mouth ... that they claim the Trojan's were capitalists? [That's Trojans of the famous horse story, The Iliad and The Odyssey and so on ... not the prophylactic company. ;)]

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Politics : A New World Order

Copyright © 2014 University of California