PDA

View Full Version : Deus Ex...the ultimate example of a Technocracy game?



Jvrol
11th Nov 2011, 00:55
Has anyone heard or played White Wolf's Mage: The Ascension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mage:_The_Ascension) (which is a gameline from White Wolf's "World of Darkness" series)? There's a organization in this game called the "Technocracy" which are Mages dedicated of wiping out the magic & the supernatural from reality in favor of a scientific based world (i.e. their own dominant paradigm) and there's a convention called "Iteration X" which draws parallels to Augmentations from DX:HR.

Well basically does anyone think that Deus Ex is a ultimate example of what the Technocracy is? Well if you added magic users & supernaturals (like Vampires, Werewolves/Shapeshifters, Ghosts, Faeries, Other Undead beings, Demons, Spirits, etc) in the Deus Ex series then it could essentially become the closest Mage (well also "World of Darkness") computer game there is don't you think?

Agent Denton
29th Nov 2011, 19:45
If I am not mistaken, a Technocracy is a form of government where 'experts' in the respective fields make all the decisions. I don't think DX is quite there, because if it were, then Taggart would not have been able to do what he was doing. Who knows though, DX was more about corporate espionage than it was portraying a technocratic society.

Romeo
29th Nov 2011, 20:10
I'm halfway in between your opinions: I don't think that Human Revolution was an example of a technocracy; It was a perfect example of a fear of technocracy. The central conflict centres around the fact that those who've physically augmented themselves have control, and far more power than the average citizen. I actually found that the game didn't really touch enough upon the alternative opinions to this: People seem hellbent on capitalism, and in doing so, don't realize they haven't equalized the balance of power, they've only shifted it to the corperate world instead. Although it was sort've touched on with Zhao and to a lesser degree, Sarif, neither one of those two stories were fleshed out enough, in my books, anyways.

itsonyourhead
29th Nov 2011, 21:31
The original Deus Ex was about establishing a technocracy (rule through technology). MJ12 was a technocracy. The Illuminati was more of a conspiratorial ruling body, while MJ12 was the R&D branch of the Illuminati. When you can create God (Helios) through technology, and then merge with it... that is the ultimate technocracy. Deus Ex Machina... literally, God from a machine.

Agent Denton
29th Nov 2011, 21:34
I'm halfway in between your opinions: I don't think that Human Revolution was an example of a technocracy; It was a perfect example of a fear of technocracy. The central conflict centres around the fact that those who've physically augmented themselves have control, and far more power than the average citizen. I actually found that the game didn't really touch enough upon the alternative opinions to this: People seem hellbent on capitalism, and in doing so, don't realize they haven't equalized the balance of power, they've only shifted it to the corperate world instead. Although it was sort've touched on with Zhao and to a lesser degree, Sarif, neither one of those two stories were fleshed out enough, in my books, anyways.

In true hand off capitalist approach, meaning no fraud is committed, not necessarily the balance of power but instead majority market share, shifts to the most efficient. I am more inclined to say DX HR is an example of what goes wrong when there is unethical behavior in a heated battle/race for market supremacy. Instead of competing with Sarif, Zhao instead used unethical means to gain the share she had by blackmail and espionage. Had she just competed with Sarif, she would have lost because Sarif had the upper hand.

Romeo
30th Nov 2011, 00:08
In true hand off capitalist approach, meaning no fraud is committed, not necessarily the balance of power but instead majority market share, shifts to the most efficient. I am more inclined to say DX HR is an example of what goes wrong when there is unethical behavior in a heated battle/race for market supremacy. Instead of competing with Sarif, Zhao instead used unethical means to gain the share she had by blackmail and espionage. Had she just competed with Sarif, she would have lost because Sarif had the upper hand.
The problem with capitalism is it plays to human greed. Sure, Walmart may be the most efficient, but unless you're the CEO, you probably don't find the wage all too alluring.

I'm sure someone is going to freak the hell out, but if a hybrid of democracy and communism were to exist, we'd actually have a decent little society, in my books.

Agent Denton
30th Nov 2011, 00:50
The problem with capitalism is it plays to human greed. Sure, Walmart may be the most efficient, but unless you're the CEO, you probably don't find the wage all too alluring.

I'm sure someone is going to freak the hell out, but if a hybrid of democracy and communism were to exist, we'd actually have a decent little society, in my books.

Really eh?? Read up on how many people died under Communism then get back to me if you want. More people died under Communism than they did in the Holocaust. Communism is great, if you want mass murder and poverty run rampant. Poor and destitute people become even more so under Communism. Do you think a Communist society could develop something as complex as the internet? Yet allow it to flourish the way it has? History tells me this would not be the case. No casualties have been reported under Capitalism. Hell it's Capitalism that allows us to have these fancy internet chat rooms, computers, and TV's last time I checked. And as for Democracy, all I can say is that Democracy is nothing more than 2 wolves and a sheep sitting around trying to decide what's for dinner. In a Republic, sheep have guns.


In a capitalist approach, if fraud is committed, it punishes those that commit the fraud, because they would not be able to run to the government. Wal-Mart and capitalism cannot be used in the same sentence because Wal-Mart gets subsidies from the government, it is a form of CRONYISM. Not to be confused with Capitalism. In a Capitalist society the practices of Wal-Mart getting government subsidies would not be allowed to occur. Wal-Mart would have to respond and adjust to market conditions. Capitalism promotes prosperity as opposed to welfarism. I would do some more home work and researching of history before making ignorant claims such as you have. The Wal-Mart rhetoric won't work on me because I see its operations for what it is. Cronyism. If you want to talk about Cronyism we can discuss banana republics all day long. But that is a different matter entirely.

Romeo
30th Nov 2011, 02:29
Really eh?? Read up on how many people died under Communism then get back to me if you want. More people died under Communism than they did in the Holocaust. Communism is great, if you want mass murder and poverty run rampant. Poor and destitute people become even more so under Communism. Do you think a Communist society could develop something as complex as the internet? Yet allow it to flourish the way it has? History tells me this would not be the case. No casualties have been reported under Capitalism. Hell it's Capitalism that allows us to have these fancy internet chat rooms, computers, and TV's last time I checked. And as for Democracy, all I can say is that Democracy is nothing more than 2 wolves and a sheep sitting around trying to decide what's for dinner. In a Republic, sheep have guns.


In a capitalist approach, if fraud is committed, it punishes those that commit the fraud, because they would not be able to run to the government. Wal-Mart and capitalism cannot be used in the same sentence because Wal-Mart gets subsidies from the government, it is a form of CRONYISM. Not to be confused with Capitalism. In a Capitalist society the practices of Wal-Mart getting government subsidies would not be allowed to occur. Wal-Mart would have to respond and adjust to market conditions. Capitalism promotes prosperity as opposed to welfarism. I would do some more home work and researching of history before making ignorant claims such as you have. The Wal-Mart rhetoric won't work on me because I see its operations for what it is. Cronyism. If you want to talk about Cronyism we can discuss banana republics all day long. But that is a different matter entirely.
Communism has always been ruled via dictatorships, themselves not having a very good track record when it comes to loss of life. Corruption has always been a huge factor in every communist regime as well (Meaning you have the same massive rift in rich and poor, except in that case - the rich are the ones making the rules). You are right in saying that Capitalism has allowed for massive advancements in ideas, but frankly, if we need to be baited as a species to improving ourselves, I'm pretty sure we deserve to head back to mud huts and sticks. There's no reason a person couldn't still come up with new ideas in a Communist economic state. Lastly, you speak of over-whelming poverty... I ask you, if the majority of finances in the US are located with a few people, and most people in the bottom rung aren't making even one millionth that level of finance, how would equalizing those two figures result in abject poverty? As for your debate on Democracy versus Republic, that's a nifty opinion. It's a shame my own country appears to do just fine as a Democracy.

Wal-Mart could stop getting every penny from the government - they still own the market. So long as they keep their costs low (By not paying the employees much) they can afford to undercut everyone and still turn a profit through sheer numbers alone. And you can call it Cronyism all you like, the simple fact of the matter is, Wal-Mart made $14.3 BILLION last year. I assure you, no matter how much the government likes them (And even then, I'm taking you at your word, as you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support the claim), the government still isn't giving them anywhere near that much money. They're making that as a result of the capitalist system. Good news if your Mr. Scott, bad news if you're his employee. And once again, Capitalism does promote properity for the select few that get the opportunity. For everyone else, it just provides the carrot on the stick to keep them working for little. I've also researched history quite a bit, and once again, adjusted the concept not as a governmental design, but an economic one. I would advise you to take the time to actually read my point before telling me to read my history books.

Agent Denton
30th Nov 2011, 04:22
Communism has always been ruled via dictatorships, themselves not having a very good track record when it comes to loss of life. Corruption has always been a huge factor in every communist regime as well (Meaning you have the same massive rift in rich and poor, except in that case - the rich are the ones making the rules). You are right in saying that Capitalism has allowed for massive advancements in ideas, but frankly, if we need to be baited as a species to improving ourselves, I'm pretty sure we deserve to head back to mud huts and sticks. There's no reason a person couldn't still come up with new ideas in a Communist economic state. Lastly, you speak of over-whelming poverty... I ask you, if the majority of finances in the US are located with a few people, and most people in the bottom rung aren't making even one millionth that level of finance, how would equalizing those two figures result in abject poverty? As for your debate on Democracy versus Republic, that's a nifty opinion. It's a shame my own country appears to do just fine as a Democracy.

Wal-Mart could stop getting every penny from the government - they still own the market. So long as they keep their costs low (By not paying the employees much) they can afford to undercut everyone and still turn a profit through sheer numbers alone. And you can call it Cronyism all you like, the simple fact of the matter is, Wal-Mart made $14.3 BILLION last year. I assure you, no matter how much the government likes them (And even then, I'm taking you at your word, as you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support the claim), the government still isn't giving them anywhere near that much money. They're making that as a result of the capitalist system. Good news if your Mr. Scott, bad news if you're his employee. And once again, Capitalism does promote properity for the select few that get the opportunity. For everyone else, it just provides the carrot on the stick to keep them working for little. I've also researched history quite a bit, and once again, adjusted the concept not as a governmental design, but an economic one. I would advise you to take the time to actually read my point before telling me to read my history books.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/

So here you go. And yes you should read your history more closely. Communism has killed more people than the holocaust. Doesn't matter how you try to spin it. That was Communism plain and simple. Cronyism has run rampant in my country and there is only one person speaking out against it. You can watch him here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc5N5liBh0U


So again, Wal-Mart and capitalism cannot be used in the same sentence. Nintendo is an example of Capitalism. You can see why here:

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/nintendo-ceo-takes-50-pay-cut-3ds-debacle-182401783.html

This is an example of a company taking a capitalist approach. Something Wal-Mart has yet to do since its inception. You also said they have market share. This is partially true but only becasue the government gives them special treatment in the same manner they do GE. Again CRONYISM. Not to be confused with capitalism. Before capitalism, people had to fend for themselves. It was not until the emergence of capitalism that gave people the means to get off the farm and make something more of themselves. A communist society cannot flourish for the same reasons that my country is on the verge of imploding on it self. The concept of central economic plannings the fallacy. So there you go, I don't go spewing rhetoric like Wal Mart is capitalist and communist societies are good with out research. So please elaborate how communism is good knowing it was responsible for the deaths of over 50 million people. The Capitalist system you reference is non existent in my country and hasn't been for sometime. It's CRONYISM that let's the government and businesses operate the way they do in my country and believe me. In the words of Herbert Stein, "If something cannot go on forever, it will end." Capitalism will come back and when it does, the economy will start to come off life support.

Romeo
30th Nov 2011, 05:51
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/

So here you go. And yes you should read your history more closely. Communism has killed more people than the holocaust. Doesn't matter how you try to spin it. That was Communism plain and simple. Cronyism has run rampant in my country and there is only one person speaking out against it. You can watch him here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc5N5liBh0U


So again, Wal-Mart and capitalism cannot be used in the same sentence. Nintendo is an example of Capitalism. You can see why here:

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/nintendo-ceo-takes-50-pay-cut-3ds-debacle-182401783.html

This is an example of a company taking a capitalist approach. Something Wal-Mart has yet to do since its inception. You also said they have market share. This is partially true but only becasue the government gives them special treatment in the same manner they do GE. Again CRONYISM. Not to be confused with capitalism. Before capitalism, people had to fend for themselves. It was not until the emergence of capitalism that gave people the means to get off the farm and make something more of themselves. A communist society cannot flourish for the same reasons that my country is on the verge of imploding on it self. The concept of central economic plannings the fallacy. So there you go, I don't go spewing rhetoric like Wal Mart is capitalist and communist societies are good with out research. So please elaborate how communism is good knowing it was responsible for the deaths of over 50 million people. The Capitalist system you reference is non existent in my country and hasn't been for sometime. It's CRONYISM that let's the government and businesses operate the way they do in my country and believe me. In the words of Herbert Stein, "If something cannot go on forever, it will end." Capitalism will come back and when it does, the economy will start to come off life support.
Wow, I think I can feel my IQ dropping with each reply, where to begin...

I'm well aware Communism as it stands has killed many. I wasn't asking for Communism in the manner it was ever proposed, as I've said twice now, but you're either dyslexic, or are building up a really weak straw man. But, I'll throw you a bone: I hope you don't drive a car, because every year they kill 10% the level of people that were killed by the Holocaust. Every. Single. Year. And yet, somehow I bet you don't condemn the idea of the automobile for it's troubled past and present.

I'm sorry, I really tried watching the near 16:00 video you posted, but by the eighth minute it, it still hadn't addressed it. It hadn't even touched on it. Perhaps you could highlight the part where Wal-Mart's advantage is brought up. In the mean time, the fact the CEO of Nintendo took a paycut doesn't define Capitalism. In fact, if you really want to get stupid about the definition of it, the definition only necessitates wages, private ownership, competition and profit-driven directives. Now, I'm fairly certain that Wal-Mart pays a wage; Is owned by Mr Lee Scott; Has competition from Safeway, Save-On, London Drugs and more; And judging from the fact they made MORE THAN TEN BILLION DOLLARS, I'd say they worry about profits too. Cronyism is an example of inequality, but it isn't mutually exclusive to Capitalism.

As for people not having the means to defend themselves before Capitalism, I'm surprised that humans must've been capitalist for about 150000 years now. Interesting, concerning the concept of organization and currency are newer than that.

Agent Denton
30th Nov 2011, 14:30
Wow, I think I can feel my IQ dropping with each reply, where to begin...

I'm well aware Communism as it stands has killed many. I wasn't asking for Communism in the manner it was ever proposed, as I've said twice now, but you're either dyslexic, or are building up a really weak straw man. But, I'll throw you a bone: I hope you don't drive a car, because every year they kill 10% the level of people that were killed by the Holocaust. Every. Single. Year. And yet, somehow I bet you don't condemn the idea of the automobile for it's troubled past and present.

I'm sorry, I really tried watching the near 16:00 video you posted, but by the eighth minute it, it still hadn't addressed it. It hadn't even touched on it. Perhaps you could highlight the part where Wal-Mart's advantage is brought up. In the mean time, the fact the CEO of Nintendo took a paycut doesn't define Capitalism. In fact, if you really want to get stupid about the definition of it, the definition only necessitates wages, private ownership, competition and profit-driven directives. Now, I'm fairly certain that Wal-Mart pays a wage; Is owned by Mr Lee Scott; Has competition from Safeway, Save-On, London Drugs and more; And judging from the fact they made MORE THAN TEN BILLION DOLLARS, I'd say they worry about profits too. Cronyism is an example of inequality, but it isn't mutually exclusive to Capitalism.

As for people not having the means to defend themselves before Capitalism, I'm surprised that humans must've been capitalist for about 150000 years now. Interesting, concerning the concept of organization and currency are newer than that.

Your argument about the automobile is null and void. Society accepts those losses. Yes I drive a car becasue I enjoy driving. I am also a car enthusiast. Without the automobile how would you suggest business conduct shipping? What would you suggest? Only make cars that go 15 mph? Or perhaps go back to horse drawn carriages? As far as the video if that wasn't the one I can find the one where he talks about Cronyism and how it has impacted my country. I don't see you providing any facts or links yet you call me out for not doing so then when I do you are dismissive. How about YOU post some LINKS with some FACTS that support your theory that communism is this great and wonderful society? I dare you. Post one fact that supports your claim. Just 1. I bet you can't. Capitalism is superior to Communism in every aspect. We have only been Capitalist for 200 years or so. Not sure where you are getting this 150000 year thing. Back then it was barter and trade. This for that. How about you post some fact Romero instead of your misplaced RHETORIC, then we can continue this discussion. Other wise we can sit here and talk about your opinion. Which is like talking about the next persons ass. Thanks! So before I go looking for anymore FACTS how about you post some?

Here is the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8EplJSNWqs

Wal-Mart is concerned with profits but they are not capitalistic. They are an example of Cronyism and a recipient of Corporate welfarism. /

Romeo
30th Nov 2011, 16:13
Your argument about the automobile is null and void. Society accepts those losses. Yes I drive a car becasue I enjoy driving. I am also a car enthusiast. Without the automobile how would you suggest business conduct shipping? What would you suggest? Only make cars that go 15 mph? Or perhaps go back to horse drawn carriages? As far as the video if that wasn't the one I can find the one where he talks about Cronyism and how it has impacted my country. I don't see you providing any facts or links yet you call me out for not doing so then when I do you are dismissive. How about YOU post some LINKS with some FACTS that support your theory that communism is this great and wonderful society? I dare you. Post one fact that supports your claim. Just 1. I bet you can't. Capitalism is superior to Communism in every aspect. We have only been Capitalist for 200 years or so. Not sure where you are getting this 150000 year thing. Back then it was barter and trade. This for that. How about you post some fact Romero instead of your misplaced RHETORIC, then we can continue this discussion. Other wise we can sit here and talk about your opinion. Which is like talking about the next persons ass. Thanks! So before I go looking for anymore FACTS how about you post some?

Here is the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8EplJSNWqs

Wal-Mart is concerned with profits but they are not capitalistic. They are an example of Cronyism and a recipient of Corporate welfarism. /
Right, society accepts those losses with the intent of improving upon itself. Which is what I had suggested three times now - improving upon the concept of communism - which is something you honestly can't seem to comprehend. Now, post links to support a theory of something that thus far, does not exist? Are you honestly retarded? And the 150000 year comment was a jibe at your assertation that capitalism is the only economic model that allows us 'to fend for ourselves'. I was making the point that we as a species CLEARLY did fine without it, as we've been around for close to 1000x longer than it. Holy hell, post some fact instead of rhetoric? WHAT I HAVE SUGGESTED HAS NOT BEEN DONE BEFORE. Such an idea is based QUITE LITERALLY ENTIRELY UPON RHETORIC. Also, it's Romeo, it's in your quote for Christ's sake. As for facts, here you go:

Amount of losses by automobile, each and every year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate)
Losses during the Holocaust. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust)

Now, normally I'd tell you to simply divide, but you've demonstrated enough idiocy to make me question if that's a realistic expectation, so I'll go ahead and do it for you: 10000000 died in the Holocaust (All groups). 1260000 automotive deaths every year, according to the World Health Organization. 1260000 is 12.6% percent of 10000000, or one eight the Holocaust every year. And yet I don't hear you calling for the end of the car with all the deaths it caused. Interesting.

Definition of Capitalism. You'll notice Wal-Mart fulfills every possible point. (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=capitalism&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCapitalism&ei=G1HWTtibAeSaiAK56r2yDA&usg=AFQjCNEs9weTxH-ZiwZr_DR6I1eSy9IHpA)
Definition of Cronyism. You'll notice Wal-Mart does not fulfill every point. (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cronyism&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCronyism&ei=glPWTsaHIqbgiAKtoN3NDA&usg=AFQjCNHZwdvSHqg4Sjc79kHElgrnEH2fxg) With you being so hep on Cronyism, perhaps you should research what it is. Now, if you refer to as Crony Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism) (Hey, wonder what that second word is doing there...), again, I had asked for proof of that with Wal-Mart.

Holy hell, seriously, this'll be my last reply to you, it's obvious you don't want a discussion, you're either too stupid for one, or simply don't care. You can reply to this is you want, but it's falling on deaf ears at this point, I'm done with you.

Agent Denton
30th Nov 2011, 16:55
Right, society accepts those losses with the intent of improving upon itself. Which is what I had suggested three times now - improving upon the concept of communism - which is something you honestly can't seem to comprehend. Now, post links to support a theory of something that thus far, does not exist? Are you honestly retarded? And the 150000 year comment was a jibe at your assertation that capitalism is the only economic model that allows us 'to fend for ourselves'. I was making the point that we as a species CLEARLY did fine without it, as we've been around for close to 1000x longer than it. Holy hell, post some fact instead of rhetoric? WHAT I HAVE SUGGESTED HAS NOT BEEN DONE BEFORE. Such an idea is based QUITE LITERALLY ENTIRELY UPON RHETORIC. Also, it's Romeo, it's in your quote for Christ's sake. As for facts, here you go:

Amount of losses by automobile, each and every year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate)
Losses during the Holocaust. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust)

Now, normally I'd tell you to simply divide, but you've demonstrated enough idiocy to make me question if that's a realistic expectation, so I'll go ahead and do it for you: 10000000 died in the Holocaust (All groups). 1260000 automotive deaths every year, according to the World Health Organization. 1260000 is 12.6% percent of 10000000, or one eight the Holocaust every year. And yet I don't hear you calling for the end of the car with all the deaths it caused. Interesting.

Definition of Capitalism. You'll notice Wal-Mart fulfills every possible point. (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=capitalism&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCapitalism&ei=G1HWTtibAeSaiAK56r2yDA&usg=AFQjCNEs9weTxH-ZiwZr_DR6I1eSy9IHpA)
Definition of Cronyism. You'll notice Wal-Mart does not fulfill every point. (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cronyism&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCronyism&ei=glPWTsaHIqbgiAKtoN3NDA&usg=AFQjCNHZwdvSHqg4Sjc79kHElgrnEH2fxg) With you being so hep on Cronyism, perhaps you should research what it is. Now, if you refer to as Crony Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism) (Hey, wonder what that second word is doing there...), again, I had asked for proof of that with Wal-Mart.

Holy hell, seriously, this'll be my last reply to you, it's obvious you don't want a discussion, you're either too stupid for one, or simply don't care. You can reply to this is you want, but it's falling on deaf ears at this point, I'm done with you.

I am going to reply, but this too will be my last.
The fact that you are resorting to name calling and dismissing me already proves you have lost the intellectual battle. It's not hard to see why when you go on spouting ignorant remarks such as you did, that started this discussion. Retarded? I would stoop to your level and call you something even beyond that, but then I would be as low as you and I refuse to do so. You cannot compare death tolls a year for automobile accidents to the holocaust. Here is why your argument fails. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head about driving a car. Now there sure as hell, were guns drawn when herding people into what they believed were showers. There is a huge difference and you bringing this argument up only makes you appear that much more ignorant that you have already made your self out to be. Automobile ownership: Voluntary. Being placed in an internment camp in 1930's Germany: Not voluntary. No one is calling for an end to the automobile becasue it is voluntary. No one is forced by the barrel of a gun to purchase a car. So you are comparing apples to oranges and this argument holds no merit.

As far as your definition of Capitalism where does it say that businesses get hand outs and 1-UPs from the government? It doesn't. The very fact that Wal Mart gets hands outs from the government negates the very principle of Capitalism. This is a quasi form of Corporate Welfare and cronyism.

As far as you saying people were better off before Capitalism??? Are you serious? Where would we be? Still on camel and or horse back? Still on unpaved pathways? there would be no internet, no computers, no TV, no radio, no cars, no grocery stores, there would be nothing. How would business be conducted? What about the sick and elderly? Capitalsim has made it possible for people to lead longer and more robust lives than before its emergence. You are in need of not only a history lesson, but also an economics class. Maybe that will help you take off the blinders, as your history is flawed. Severely. And since you are so quick and dismissive I will treat you in the same fashion. Done here and with you as well.

TrickyVein
30th Nov 2011, 18:04
Hey guys, what's up? How's it going?

Solid_1723
30th Nov 2011, 18:31
As far as you saying people were better off before Capitalism??? Are you serious? Where would we be? Still on camel and or horse back? Still on unpaved pathways? there would be no internet, no computers, no TV, no radio, no cars, no grocery stores, there would be nothing. How would business be conducted? What about the sick and elderly? Capitalsim has made it possible for people to lead longer and more robust lives than before its emergence. You are in need of not only a history lesson, but also an economics class. Maybe that will help you take off the blinders, as your history is flawed. Severely. And since you are so quick and dismissive I will treat you in the same fashion. Done here and with you as well.

People were able to conduct business as befitting their needs in feudalism and mercantilism well enough and even the roman empire had a network of roughly 80000km of paved roads. It is true that the rise of capitalism greatly speeded up the process of industrialisation and brought about those great achievements you mentioned at an increased speed, but to surmise that none of these things could possibly exist without capitalism is a bit much.

Also you've been great so far in ignoring what Romeo said about communism. As he frequently stated, he never suggested to impose the same form of communism that existed in the past and failed. He was talking about improving on it's concept, which is in theory a wonderful idea. History has shown thus far, that communism just doesn't fit the current human mindset as well as capitalism, but that might change in a rather distant future. It would be sad if our modern capitalism was indeed the pinnacle of our social advancement as it is deeply flawed when it comes to equality and distribution of wealth on a global and even national scale. I agree with you, that right now, capitalism is probably the best we can do, but hopefully there will be a change to another system in the future which could well be more akin to communism/socialism than modern capitalism.

TrickyVein
30th Nov 2011, 18:43
It is also very much the case that cronyism (or CRONYISM as Denton likes to say) dominates when there are no regulatory measures imposed on a "pure" capitalist system (by, say...government). That practically the system devolves into pettiness and caters to greed much like Romeo says; just like how communism has historically failed when employed under the directives of dictators and has yet to be paired with an appropriate form of government.

I can't see where the argument is stemming from. The ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

ilweran
30th Nov 2011, 18:51
As far as you saying people were better off before Capitalism??? Are you serious? Where would we be? Still on camel and or horse back? Still on unpaved pathways? there would be no internet, no computers, no TV, no radio, no cars, no grocery stores, there would be nothing.

Because we need television, the internet, and computers and all the other gadgets we 'rely' on these days. Not saying I want to give these things up and go live as a hunter gatherer - I don't - but I do recognise that much of what we are encouraged to spend money on is not necessary and the Western lifestyle is unsustainable unless we make some drastic changes.


Capitalism vs Communism. They both fail for the same reason - human nature.

TrickyVein
30th Nov 2011, 18:58
Back to the original OP, it seems that the major players in the world of Deus Ex are not seeking to employ problem solving skills from engineering and related tech-fields to run government and make the world a better place. Technology is simply a means through which individuals may gain and wield control over the population.

JC19
1st Dec 2011, 03:39
Voluntary Socialism is fine. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21fi6mYjhKI)

Other than that, I agree with Agent Denton.
Ron Paul's cool.

kabukiman1973
2nd Dec 2011, 10:09
If you want a mix of capitalism and comunism you have China. Economy that is capitalist and goverment that is comunist. And hardly a nice place to live.

zenstar
2nd Dec 2011, 12:08
If you want a mix of capitalism and comunism you have China. Economy that is capitalist and goverment that is comunist. And hardly a nice place to live.

If you mix communism and capitalism you kind of get socialism. UK is a socialist government (amongst others).

As with _any_ government / social ideal, they tend to be much better when people don't get involved and there is always corruption and greed and the bad always works to undermine the good.

You just need to find the right balances. Technically the benign, intelligent dictator is the best government in the world on paper. Add a human into that mix though and you're screwed.

Romeo
2nd Dec 2011, 21:01
If you mix communism and capitalism you kind of get socialism. UK is a socialist government (amongst others).

As with _any_ government / social ideal, they tend to be much better when people don't get involved and there is always corruption and greed and the bad always works to undermine the good.

You just need to find the right balances. Technically the benign, intelligent dictator is the best government in the world on paper. Add a human into that mix though and you're screwed.
Precisely. If humans weren't such jerks to one another, Capitalism would be great in my eyes too. The problem is we get CEOs raking in billions, while the people doing the actual work might struggle to make $70000. That ain't right.

itsonyourhead
2nd Dec 2011, 23:13
Precisely. If humans weren't such jerks to one another, Capitalism would be great in my eyes too. The problem is we get CEOs raking in billions, while the people doing the actual work might struggle to make $70000. That ain't right.

What if there were federal regulations limiting CEO's salaries? I suppose companies would find other "incentives" though.

The main problem with capitalism is that the rich very often get richer, while the poor have a harder time improving their lot.

It's not hard to make billions when you have your money (and everyone else) work for you.

At least all the rich people die.

Romeo
2nd Dec 2011, 23:33
What if there were federal regulations limiting CEO's salaries? I suppose companies would find other "incentives" though.

The main problem with capitalism is that the rich very often get richer, while the poor have a harder time improving their lot.

It's not hard to make billions when you have your money (and everyone else) work for you.

At least all the rich people die.
Precisely. I have no problem with people making money, I have a problem with essentially using those beneath one's self to further spread the gap in salary.

Probably the absolute worst example of this was Chrysler during the auto bail-out. Whereas Chevrolet used the funding to try and improve their technology, and Ford simply cut wages to the CEO/managers to prevent needing money, Chrysler instead went in a different direction than both and gave 23 million (I believe that was the figure) to the top 13 best paid people in the company. The same people who's poor decisions essentially ran Chrysler in to the ground each got 23 million (As "incentives" to keep them), while the workers who weren't at fault had massive lay-offs. Crap like that is exactly where my problem with capitalism stems from.

And before people say "oh that's just the auto industry", Brian Farrell (THQ CEO) made two and a half million last year (http://people.forbes.com/profile/brian-j-farrell/79755), while laying off hundreds of people. Even assuming each designer was paid $100000/year, that would mean he could've kept twenty four people employed while still living comfortably. And yet, to suggest that would've been inconcievable, this is capitalism! And let's not start on Bobby Kotick and his almost $6 million a year wage (http://people.forbes.com/profile/robert-a-kotick/1126).

Tverdyj
3rd Dec 2011, 00:42
Really eh?? Read up on how many people died under Communism then get back to me if you want. More people died under Communism than they did in the Holocaust. Communism is great, if you want mass murder and poverty run rampant. Poor and destitute people become even more so under Communism. Do you think a Communist society could develop something as complex as the internet? Yet allow it to flourish the way it has? History tells me this would not be the case. No casualties have been reported under Capitalism. Hell it's Capitalism that allows us to have these fancy internet chat rooms, computers, and TV's last time I checked. And as for Democracy, all I can say is that Democracy is nothing more than 2 wolves and a sheep sitting around trying to decide what's for dinner. In a Republic, sheep have guns.


In a capitalist approach, if fraud is committed, it punishes those that commit the fraud, because they would not be able to run to the government. Wal-Mart and capitalism cannot be used in the same sentence because Wal-Mart gets subsidies from the government, it is a form of CRONYISM. Not to be confused with Capitalism. In a Capitalist society the practices of Wal-Mart getting government subsidies would not be allowed to occur. Wal-Mart would have to respond and adjust to market conditions. Capitalism promotes prosperity as opposed to welfarism. I would do some more home work and researching of history before making ignorant claims such as you have. The Wal-Mart rhetoric won't work on me because I see its operations for what it is. Cronyism. If you want to talk about Cronyism we can discuss banana republics all day long. But that is a different matter entirely.

umm, as someone who grew up in a post-Communist society, I can assure you, it may be many things, but poverty ain't it.
to let you know: in Soviet Union, every person had free healthcare. they had guaranteed free secondary education (provided they had the ability and the desire for it). also, every person was guaranteed a job. in fact, it was a crime to be unemployed.

Also, "Capitalism never killed anyone".... i'm sorry this mankes me laugh. Spanish Civil war--every single casualty was because a part of the country did not accept Communists, who were legitimately elected by the majority of the population.
to throw a few more examples out there: all the deaths of Pinochet's regime, pretty much every dictator in South + Central America from the 70s on, who does NOT espouse communism, has been placed there by the US (which is, and was, capitalist)

look, capitalism has its ups. but like every system out there, it's terribly flawed. it's built on the pre-conception that "people always act in their own best interest and make rational decisons to benefit themselves".
the catch is, 99% of the time, people are NOT making rational decisions. which makes the system completely flawed. it doesn't mean that it doesn't work, but to hold it up as a paragon of ultimate virtue.... give me a break.

things aren't always black and white, you know. As a Ukrainian, I'm resentful towards the USSR and Stalin in particular for starving 4-10 million of my countrymen to death in order to eliminate landed peasantry, both as a class, and a source of conservative, nationalistic, anti-communism opposition.

at the same time, i'm well aware that my grandmother, who comes from a village in the middle of nowhere in Russia would never have had a chance to receive post-secondary education, and millions of people would never have seen electricity in their homes, were it not for the development programs run by the USSR. it's impossible to separate one from the other. you need to take the good with the bad.

The reason I hate this topic is because it inherently becomes politicized. People claim all the deaths caused by communism, never pausing to reflect that it very rarely had a chance to develop unopposed. I suppose you don't know that prior to WW2, Communist party was the second strongest political force in France--the same france which is considered the cradle of modern democracy (not talking about Athens here, I know about Athens). it was actually suggested that given a few more elections, Communists would take power in France democratically, since their support was swelling. Ofc, following WW2 and the Cold War, things have gone quite difficulty, but here again, we have the external political factor.

Oh, and to get back on topic: Romeo, The Scandinavian countries are probably the closes to the fusion of "communism+ democracy" that you are looking for.

Romeo
3rd Dec 2011, 01:10
I hope so. As I said, the issue I've seen with communism has never been communism, it has been the corruption in charge of it. If the people had a say, I think much of that corruption could be stemmed.

Tverdyj
3rd Dec 2011, 02:21
I hope so. As I said, the issue I've seen with communism has never been communism, it has been the corruption in charge of it. If the people had a say, I think much of that corruption could be stemmed.

you know, the people weren't always corrupt.
it's just that the times they weren't there was some outside influence *cough* capitalist corporations and governments *cough* that were hellbent to make sure the experiment failed.

itsonyourhead
3rd Dec 2011, 02:42
you know, the people weren't always corrupt.
it's just that the times they weren't there was some outside influence *cough* capitalist corporations and governments *cough* that were hellbent to make sure the experiment failed.

Right, because the Soviet Union wasn't taking over countries and putting puppet governments in place.

Romeo
3rd Dec 2011, 03:17
you know, the people weren't always corrupt.
it's just that the times they weren't there was some outside influence *cough* capitalist corporations and governments *cough* that were hellbent to make sure the experiment failed.
Regardless of the source of that corruption, point being, there was a corruption in power condemning it to fail. Like I said, that needs to stop.

Tverdyj
3rd Dec 2011, 04:52
Right, because the Soviet Union wasn't taking over countries and putting puppet governments in place.

not trying to play the victim card here.
however, in some places, Communism enjoyed legitimate support of the population. Shocking, I know. look into Chile right before Pinochet came to power, for example.

or, once again, try Spain prior to the Civil War. that's actually a better example, since it's predates Cold war.

JC19
4th Dec 2011, 12:33
JacobSpinney (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY41G8jYywQ&feature=player_embedded) has the right idea about the "capitalism vs socialism" debate, and I feel it's something people on both sides (if this thread is any indication) should learn.

Tverdyj
4th Dec 2011, 20:35
JacobSpinney (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY41G8jYywQ&feature=player_embedded) has the right idea about the "capitalism vs socialism" debate, and I feel it's something people on both sides (if this thread is any indication) should learn.

hmm, interesting vid. Way too idealistic though. "if we get rid of coercion"......kinda undermines the whole point.

pardon me if i'm being cynical, but inequality's better for business. I don't see that changing any time in the next few hundred years. esp considering we are operating in a finite system, with finite resources and not nearly enough to go around.

not to mention that his scenario suggest that equality = no progress, which I don't see as true.
his primary argument is "every system is hierarchical"- I don't think anyone disputed that. the underlying idea of communism-- "from each according tho their ability, to each according to their needs" stresses that inequality. in order for the system to work properly, it would require an ideal morality from all of its members--which is why it's an ideal, just as the perfect capitalist society, where every individual makes rational decisions to maximise their interest all the time is an ideal.

both systems have something to offer. the discussion here started when some people painted one system as the devil and the other as a world savior from the devil.

Romeo
5th Dec 2011, 00:04
That's a good point, if we're truly talking about idealism, I'd suggest no economic model of any kind. Technology would simply be freely shared between everyone. The issue of inequality regarding transhumanism (For one example) goes right out the window if that's available to everyone, regardless of contribution.

Obviously though, humans would never be able to organize and work together on such a colossal scale. So that leaves economic models to look at.

zenstar
5th Dec 2011, 10:36
That's a good point, if we're truly talking about idealism, I'd suggest no economic model of any kind. Technology would simply be freely shared between everyone. The issue of inequality regarding transhumanism (For one example) goes right out the window if that's available to everyone, regardless of contribution.

Obviously though, humans would never be able to organize and work together on such a colossal scale. So that leaves economic models to look at.

Basically: Star Trek.
Where replicators mean that anyone can have anything they want and people don't work for money. They work because they love the job or they want to give something back to society.

Of course this only works when everyone can have whatever (material possession) they want for free and money becomes useless. As soon as there's some form of inequality that cannot be replicated for everyone the whole proccess starts all over with the new thing being the wealth of the day.

Romeo
5th Dec 2011, 15:33
Basically: Star Trek.
Where replicators mean that anyone can have anything they want and people don't work for money. They work because they love the job or they want to give something back to society.

Of course this only works when everyone can have whatever (material possession) they want for free and money becomes useless. As soon as there's some form of inequality that cannot be replicated for everyone the whole proccess starts all over with the new thing being the wealth of the day.
I almost see us as a species as on the cusp of being able to do that already. Once we've accomplished the basic sort of requirements (Health, housing, basic industrial aspects) the rest of things would be easy to share, and in some respects, we've almost been dipping our toes in to that, with gaming itself being a shining beacon: Mods. Mods take hours upon hours of effort, are entirely a labour of love, and are then freely given to others simply to richen up their experience. To a lesser degree, I do this with some of the stuff I've discovered hot-rodding, by either telling other how to do them, or by doing it for free for those unable to do it on their own (With some things).

As you just said though, basic human greed renders this so far out of reality though, I have little doubt such a society wont be seen for several generations, if it ever does.

Agent Denton
5th Dec 2011, 16:40
umm, as someone who grew up in a post-Communist society, I can assure you, it may be many things, but poverty ain't it.
to let you know: in Soviet Union, every person had free healthcare. they had guaranteed free secondary education (provided they had the ability and the desire for it). also, every person was guaranteed a job. in fact, it was a crime to be unemployed.

Also, "Capitalism never killed anyone".... i'm sorry this mankes me laugh. Spanish Civil war--every single casualty was because a part of the country did not accept Communists, who were legitimately elected by the majority of the population.
to throw a few more examples out there: all the deaths of Pinochet's regime, pretty much every dictator in South + Central America from the 70s on, who does NOT espouse communism, has been placed there by the US (which is, and was, capitalist)

look, capitalism has its ups. but like every system out there, it's terribly flawed. it's built on the pre-conception that "people always act in their own best interest and make rational decisons to benefit themselves".
the catch is, 99% of the time, people are NOT making rational decisions. which makes the system completely flawed. it doesn't mean that it doesn't work, but to hold it up as a paragon of ultimate virtue.... give me a break.

things aren't always black and white, you know. As a Ukrainian, I'm resentful towards the USSR and Stalin in particular for starving 4-10 million of my countrymen to death in order to eliminate landed peasantry, both as a class, and a source of conservative, nationalistic, anti-communism opposition.

at the same time, i'm well aware that my grandmother, who comes from a village in the middle of nowhere in Russia would never have had a chance to receive post-secondary education, and millions of people would never have seen electricity in their homes, were it not for the development programs run by the USSR. it's impossible to separate one from the other. you need to take the good with the bad.

The reason I hate this topic is because it inherently becomes politicized. People claim all the deaths caused by communism, never pausing to reflect that it very rarely had a chance to develop unopposed. I suppose you don't know that prior to WW2, Communist party was the second strongest political force in France--the same france which is considered the cradle of modern democracy (not talking about Athens here, I know about Athens). it was actually suggested that given a few more elections, Communists would take power in France democratically, since their support was swelling. Ofc, following WW2 and the Cold War, things have gone quite difficulty, but here again, we have the external political factor.

Oh, and to get back on topic: Romeo, The Scandinavian countries are probably the closes to the fusion of "communism+ democracy" that you are looking for.

That's great that they took their power "democratically". But when you look at it what is Democracy?

Democracy, as great and idealistic as it sounds, is nothing more than a mob ruling in which 51% of the majority control the rights, liberties, and freedoms of the other %49. I am sorry but Communism does not have the contributions on the books that Capitalism has.

Communism = deaths of more than 50 million people wide spread poverty and serfdom

Where would the inspiration to be let's say a Dr, or even a scientist come from if the trash man is making the same amount of money?

Are you familiar with "Brain Drain"? Read up on it and see which countries are suffering from this dilemma and what type of governments they have.


Capitalism = innovation, advances in technology, and it gave people the chance to get off the farm and go make something of themselves in developing cities.

Hell even in countries where they pay "slave wages" look into what alternatives those kids have if there weren't a factory to work in. It is usually prostitution. If the going rate in a poverty stricken community is let's say, .25 cents an hour. And a business comes in, puts up a factory and makes the going rate .75 cents an hour. The business has just tripled the standard of living for the people that will fill its factory. When I look at it in those terms, Capitalism does not look anywhere as bad as Communism in action. Communism , I will concede, looks good on paper, in the same manner that someone who lied on their resume does.


You are always going to have some form of inequality. But I as an individual do not believe for 1 second I have a God given right to someone else's wealth simply becasue I exist.


Slightly off topic but it's this kind of mentality that is continuing unabated, and if enough of these type of people are allowed to vote, what will happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUW2vCPX7w

If enough people like this vote, what would you think would happen to a society based on individual rights, liberties, and freedoms? Think Democracy. :)

Mother Germany is going through something like this right now by having to pick up the tab for Greece, because socialism worked out so well for them. I feel bad for my countrymen in Germany, but it is the result of entitlement run rampant. Why should anyone be entitled to someone else's wealth, simply because they exist. Why should Germany have to pick up the bill for Greece?


So in a society where "everyone works together" who would pay as the woman in the video demands someone needs to pay for this????? and why should they have to????

If it were possible to make a wager on two groups of people, 1) being those who support Communism, and 2) being those who support Capitalism and put each group on an island to fend for themselves.

I would be interested to see who is more prosperous(I am leaning Capitalism, just based on what history has shown us). That would be one hell of a controlled experiment.

Romeo
5th Dec 2011, 18:32
That's great that they took their power "democratically". But when you look at it what is Democracy?

Democracy, as great and idealistic as it sounds, is nothing more than a mob ruling in which 51% of the majority control the rights, liberties, and freedoms of the other %49. I am sorry but Communism does not have the contributions on the books that Capitalism has.

Communism = deaths of more than 50 million people wide spread poverty and serfdom

Where would the inspiration to be let's say a Dr, or even a scientist come from if the trash man is making the same amount of money?

Are you familiar with "Brain Drain"? Read up on it and see which countries are suffering from this dilemma and what type of governments they have.


Capitalism = innovation, advances in technology, and it gave people the chance to get off the farm and go make something of themselves in developing cities.

Hell even in countries where they pay "slave wages" look into what alternatives those kids have if there weren't a factory to work in. It is usually prostitution. If the going rate in a poverty stricken community is let's say, .25 cents an hour. And a business comes in, puts up a factory and makes the going rate .75 cents an hour. The business has just tripled the standard of living for the people that will fill its factory. When I look at it in those terms, Capitalism does not look anywhere as bad as Communism in action. Communism , I will concede, looks good on paper, in the same manner that someone who lied on their resume does.


You are always going to have some form of inequality. But I as an individual do not believe for 1 second I have a God given right to someone else's wealth simply becasue I exist.


Slightly off topic but it's this kind of mentality that is continuing unabated, and if enough of these type of people are allowed to vote, what will happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUW2vCPX7w

If enough people like this vote, what would you think would happen to a society based on individual rights, liberties, and freedoms? Think Democracy. :)

Mother Germany is going through something like this right now by having to pick up the tab for Greece, because socialism worked out so well for them. I feel bad for my countrymen in Germany, but it is the result of entitlement run rampant. Why should anyone be entitled to someone else's wealth, simply because they exist. Why should Germany have to pick up the bill for Greece?


So in a society where "everyone works together" who would pay as the woman in the video demands someone needs to pay for this????? and why should they have to????

If it were possible to make a wager on two groups of people, 1) being those who support Communism, and 2) being those who support Capitalism and put each group on an island to fend for themselves.

I would be interested to see who is more prosperous(I am leaning Capitalism, just based on what history has shown us). That would be one hell of a controlled experiment.
Oh boy, here we go again...

Say what you want, but frankly if 51% of people are in favor of something, that still means more people are in support of something than against it. The alternative is to have the minority pleased while upsetting the majority. Not particularly rational.

Again, you can tout the 50 million figure all you want, but as I've pointed out, plenty of things in history, the most notable being the automobile, have caused MORE deaths than that, and yet, you are AOK with them as a concept. So, quit dismissing the idea that communism could work if altered for the very same reason.

Oh jeez, I don't know, where does the inspiration come to be a trash man come if you're going to be paid like crap anyways?

Again, Capitalism is not the reason we advance. Considering we had made huge technological strides long before the concept of an economic model was ever even in place, I'd say that's busted, right out of the gates. All Capitalism does is make something amazing for humans everywhere - and ensure only those who can foot the bill will ever see it. I have an insulin pump - it's an amazing device that keeps a variable rate of insulin constantly pumped in to my body, keeping my bloodsugars extremely level, almost to the point where I don't appear diabetic. It costs $6600 just for the pump. The needle/tube combo is $70 every two weeks, the reservoirs to hold the insulin another $50 every two weeks, test strips to test my blood sugar $100 every two weeks and various other expenses. I can afford them because I got lucky with my career. My half sister, on the other hand, cannot afford the pump and would not be able to keep up with the supplies even if she could. So her option is instead to suffer more ecclectic blood sugars, which will in time blind her, take out her kidneys, cause nerve damage and eventually cardiac arrest. But hey, so long as Medtronic's CEO can afford another Ferrari, amirite?

Again, the person you replied to grew up in a communist state - just remember that before we continue. Now, furthering on, remember how I pointed out Activision's CEO made 6 million last year? Now, I don't know about you, but spread out with the rest of the people in Activision, I can't imagine how we suddenly get, say: (9 x $80000/year, 1 x 6000000/year) / 10 = Abject poverty. I can't help but feel you're missing what literally everyone in this conversation but you has been saying.

I don't believe I have a right to someone else's wealth either. What I do believe is that the guy who sits up top in office smoking $100 bills just because he can is completely unjustified. He is no better than the guy scrounging together everything to make sure his kid has a decent shot at life - period.

As much as I hate stupid people, what would you propose, denying them rights? Because I'd hate to imagine the guy speaking of atrocities commited by communism saying such a thing. It'd be unthinkable.

Why should anyone pay for anything? Guy gets cancer and can't afford the treatment? Gosh, what a leech on society, I shouldn't have to help him, I could be buying more car stuff! Thank goodness you've shown me the error of my ways.

If everything is equal, logically speaking neither "group" would be more prosperous. The side sharing resources would all have equal resources, and the side with capitalism would have one guy with a ton of resources, and everyone else doing their bidding. You'd still have the same amount of "stuff", logically speaking.

Tverdyj
5th Dec 2011, 18:34
That's great that they took their power "democratically". But when you look at it what is Democracy?

Democracy, as great and idealistic as it sounds, is nothing more than a mob ruling in which 51% of the majority control the rights, liberties, and freedoms of the other %49. I am sorry but Communism does not have the contributions on the books that Capitalism has.

Communism = deaths of more than 50 million people wide spread poverty and serfdom

Where would the inspiration to be let's say a Dr, or even a scientist come from if the trash man is making the same amount of money?

Are you familiar with "Brain Drain"? Read up on it and see which countries are suffering from this dilemma and what type of governments they have.


Capitalism = innovation, advances in technology, and it gave people the chance to get off the farm and go make something of themselves in developing cities.

Hell even in countries where they pay "slave wages" look into what alternatives those kids have if there weren't a factory to work in. It is usually prostitution. If the going rate in a poverty stricken community is let's say, .25 cents an hour. And a business comes in, puts up a factory and makes the going rate .75 cents an hour. The business has just tripled the standard of living for the people that will fill its factory. When I look at it in those terms, Capitalism does not look anywhere as bad as Communism in action. Communism , I will concede, looks good on paper, in the same manner that someone who lied on their resume does.


You are always going to have some form of inequality. But I as an individual do not believe for 1 second I have a God given right to someone else's wealth simply becasue I exist.


Slightly off topic but it's this kind of mentality that is continuing unabated, and if enough of these type of people are allowed to vote, what will happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUW2vCPX7w

If enough people like this vote, what would you think would happen to a society based on individual rights, liberties, and freedoms? Think Democracy. :)

Mother Germany is going through something like this right now by having to pick up the tab for Greece, because socialism worked out so well for them. I feel bad for my countrymen in Germany, but it is the result of entitlement run rampant. Why should anyone be entitled to someone else's wealth, simply because they exist. Why should Germany have to pick up the bill for Greece?


So in a society where "everyone works together" who would pay as the woman in the video demands someone needs to pay for this????? and why should they have to????

If it were possible to make a wager on two groups of people, 1) being those who support Communism, and 2) being those who support Capitalism and put each group on an island to fend for themselves.

I would be interested to see who is more prosperous(I am leaning Capitalism, just based on what history has shown us). That would be one hell of a controlled experiment.

umm, right, did you even read what I wrote?
I particularly love the part about "Capitalism gives people a chance to get off the farm and into developing cities"... in response to me telling you my family did just that in a communist country.

as for your views on democracy.: fair point, I suppose it depends on your upbringing. A lot of the places where Communism was popular stressed community well-being over that if the individual. those types of values are infinitely more conducive to this than individualism.

I am quite curious where we got the whole "capitalism is hte only way to innovation" idea. since, you know, the USSR, communist as it was, produced some pretty brilliant minds and was on the level with the US intellectually throughout the Cold War.

as for your point about "brain drain"--I'm well aware of that, my parents were part of it... after the system collapsed.

lastly, wrt to Greece, and the World financial crisis as a whole: it is endemic to capitalism. we are seeing the same "bubble burst" we've seen during the Great Depression. basically, if you let the market run unregulated, this type of thing will happen every time: the market is not smart. it tends to devour itself, when there is nothing left.

Agent Denton
5th Dec 2011, 18:48
Oh boy, here we go again...

Say what you want, but frankly if 51% of people are in favor of something, that still means more people are in support of something than against it. The alternative is to have the minority pleased while upsetting the majority. Not particularly rational.

Again, you can tout the 50 million figure all you want, but as I've pointed out, plenty of things in history, the most notable being the automobile, have caused MORE deaths than that, and yet, you are AOK with them as a concept. So, quit dismissing the idea that communism could work if altered for the very same reason.

Oh jeez, I don't know, where does the inspiration come to be a trash man come if you're going to be paid like crap anyways?

Again, Capitalism is not the reason we advance. Considering we had made huge technological strides long before the concept of an economic model was ever even in place, I'd say that's busted, right out of the gates. All Capitalism does is make something amazing for humans everywhere - and ensure only those who can foot the bill will ever see it. I have an insulin pump - it's an amazing device that keeps a variable rate of insulin constantly pumped in to my body, keeping my bloodsugars extremely level, almost to the point where I don't appear diabetic. It costs $6600 just for the pump. The needle/tube combo is $70 every two weeks, the reservoirs to hold the insulin another $50 every two weeks, test strips to test my blood sugar $100 every two weeks and various other expenses. I can afford them because I got lucky with my career. My half sister, on the other hand, cannot afford the pump and would not be able to keep up with the supplies even if she could. So her option is instead to suffer more ecclectic blood sugars, which will in time blind her, take out her kidneys, cause nerve damage and eventually cardiac arrest. But hey, so long as Medtronic's CEO can afford another Ferrari, amirite?

Again, the person you replied to grew up in a communist state - just remember that before we continue. Now, furthering on, remember how I pointed out Activision's CEO made 6 million last year? Now, I don't know about you, but spread out with the rest of the people in Activision, I can't imagine how we suddenly get, say: (9 x $80000/year, 1 x 6000000/year) / 10 = Abject poverty. I can't help but feel you're missing what literally everyone in this conversation but you has been saying.

I don't believe I have a right to someone else's wealth either. What I do believe is that the guy who sits up top in office smoking $100 bills just because he can is completely unjustified. He is no better than the guy scrounging together everything to make sure his kid has a decent shot at life - period.

As much as I hate stupid people, what would you propose, denying them rights? Because I'd hate to imagine the guy speaking of atrocities commited by communism saying such a thing. It'd be unthinkable.

Why should anyone pay for anything? Guy gets cancer and can't afford the treatment? Gosh, what a leech on society, I shouldn't have to help him, I could be buying more car stuff! Thank goodness you've shown me the error of my ways.

If everything is equal, logically speaking neither "group" would be more prosperous. The side sharing resources would all have equal resources, and the side with capitalism would have one guy with a ton of resources, and everyone else doing their bidding. You'd still have the same amount of "stuff", logically speaking.

Oh boy, despite our differences you can save the the diabetic rebuttal because guess what Romeo? I too am diabetic and in the same situation you are. With an insulin pump. Despite this disease, I have gone on to be modestly successful. I own a house , a car (which your car argument is null and void, it holds no merit, because no one is forcing anyone to buy a car at the barrel of a gun. On a side note you never did address where society would be w/o cars, unless you are a fan of horse drawn carriages.) but guess what? Before I got my foot in the door and worked my ass off for the company I do now, it wasn't always this way. I worked for a company that offered ****ty insurance and I had to pay for a lot of my **** out of pocket too. Test strips and all. I had to forgo a lot of luxuries my friends had and had to live at home with my folks. Instead of feeling pity for my self and demanding someone else pay for my disease, I simply worked harder. And you know what? The hard work eventually paid off and I am thankful that I have the job I do with the benefits it offers. Luck only played a small part in my situation. The rest was hard work, aspiration, and the drive to better myself despite the 2, 7 off suited hand (worst hand in poker) life dealt me with my disease. So you get no sympathy from me in that regards. People aren't always dealt the same hand in a game of poker and aren't so in life either. It's what you do with it and how you play it. I only chose to respond to you becasue of our similar life situations. If you are attributing your place in life to just luck, perhaps you should take additional steps, becasue I do not now where I would be if I had to rely solely on luck. As far as your sister goes, that's a tough break, can I ask you, has she taken the same steps that you took to get where you are at? Make the same decisions you made? Because I will tell you I have some friends who while they were out partying I was educating myself and I am in a better spot in life as they are. Could the fact that I was going to school and had my nose in the books while they are out having fun got anything to do with that? I obviously can't talk economics with you so maybe we can get off on a better foot given our situations in life are not different but exactly the same. We both came up short on the genetic end of the stick. Are you suggesting that we should get insulin pumps on the rest of societies dime? If so, then at the expense of whom? Please answer that question.


No one said anything about denying anyone rights. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You are not guaranteed anything else. Why should I have to be responsible for someone else's kids and poor decision making? Please answer that question. And the fact that you would criticize someone for what they want to do with THEIR money that THEY earned shows your collectivist nature. And the fact that you would get all uppity about assuming what I do with MY money... well... all I can say is..... I SEE YOU'RE TRUE COLORS SHINING THROUGH!!!!! :D

How is "mob ruling" of Democracy, any different from slavery? Making a group of people slaves to the will of the majority? When enough of this happens, you set the stage for civil warfare.

Given our state of genetic dismay, you should really look to history and re-visit where people like you and I would end up in the Communist state. We would be looked upon as a burden and more than likely rounded up and placed in camps. Hint: they won't be the kind of camps where everything is as jolly as you would think it be in a Communist society, and we would not be sitting around a fire roasting marshmallows. History shows us that our asses would roast in the same manner that the "intolerants" roasted in Nazi camps. There also, would be no insulin pump(s).

So, despite the fact you have resorted to the lowest rebuttals of all (name calling) please elaborate with some kind of reference to history and fact, besides using the "ZOMG Cars kill people!!!!!" rhetoric. Because that's all it is is rhetoric. No one forces people into cars with the barrel of a gun in the same manner people were forced into poverty and serfdom under communism.



I leave you with this:
"Do not consider Collectivists as sincere but deluded idealists. The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of others is not an ideal; brutality is not idealistic, no matter what its purpose. Do not ever say that the desire to do good by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives."

-Ayn Rand

Agent Denton
5th Dec 2011, 19:00
lastly, wrt to Greece, and the World financial crisis as a whole: it is endemic to capitalism. we are seeing the same "bubble burst" we've seen during the Great Depression. basically, if you let the market run unregulated, this type of thing will happen every time: the market is not smart. it tends to devour itself, when there is nothing left.


My apologies as I should have focused on the means you were discussing as to how they democratically were coming to power. So my bad on that.

As far as this being a result of capitalism this is simply not true. The Greece situation is a result of something called unfunded liabilities. Look into that if you are not familiar. When you promise enough people some one else's money, they get uppity when it comes time to pay out and there is no money. The question is what do the German people have to do with bad decisions made by Greece bureaucrats? Nothing. So why should they be required to foot the bill? Please someone just answer this question. This is not the result of capitalism, but entitlement run rampant. As far as you saying that markets are unregulated you should do some research. The Federal Reserve is the "price fixer" and "rate setter", so the markets are enslaved to a group of private bankers. Markets are not free, they are regulated.


Oh yeah I am familiar with how the USSR went broke becasue that kind of system, a system where the government laughably attempts to allocate resources in the same manner that an entrepreneur would, except entrepreneurs do it better. Central Economic Planning by a bunch of fat bureaucrats never works. My country is in shambles and heading towards the ****ter because of this, and it again shows, that central economic planning, be it by government or by private bankers never works. You instead give rise to secondary markets in futile attempts to quell market demand.


Here you go. Listen to how Dr. Paul educates the Mr Monopoly Man Himself. He calls him out about regulating markets through currency manipulation. Please do not confuse this with Capitalism because it is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q

and once again educating THE MAN on what money is and calls out the cronyism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NJnL10vZ1Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am2MZ74BBn0&feature=related

Romeo
5th Dec 2011, 22:01
Oh boy, despite our differences you can save the the diabetic rebuttal because guess what Romeo? I too am diabetic and in the same situation you are. With an insulin pump. Despite this disease, I have gone on to be modestly successful. I own a house , a car (which your car argument is null and void, it holds no merit, because no one is forcing anyone to buy a car at the barrel of a gun. On a side note you never did address where society would be w/o cars, unless you are a fan of horse drawn carriages.) but guess what? Before I got my foot in the door and worked my ass off for the company I do now, it wasn't always this way. I worked for a company that offered ****ty insurance and I had to pay for a lot of my **** out of pocket too. Test strips and all. I had to forgo a lot of luxuries my friends had and had to live at home with my folks. Instead of feeling pity for my self and demanding someone else pay for my disease, I simply worked harder. And you know what? The hard work eventually paid off and I am thankful that I have the job I do with the benefits it offers. Luck only played a small part in my situation. The rest was hard work, aspiration, and the drive to better myself despite the 2, 7 off suited hand (worst hand in poker) life dealt me with my disease. So you get no sympathy from me in that regards. People aren't always dealt the same hand in a game of poker and aren't so in life either. It's what you do with it and how you play it. I only chose to respond to you becasue of our similar life situations. If you are attributing your place in life to just luck, perhaps you should take additional steps, becasue I do not now where I would be if I had to rely solely on luck. As far as your sister goes, that's a tough break, can I ask you, has she taken the same steps that you took to get where you are at? Make the same decisions you made? Because I will tell you I have some friends who while they were out partying I was educating myself and I am in a better spot in life as they are. Could the fact that I was going to school and had my nose in the books while they are out having fun got anything to do with that? I obviously can't talk economics with you so maybe we can get off on a better foot given our situations in life are not different but exactly the same. We both came up short on the genetic end of the stick. Are you suggesting that we should get insulin pumps on the rest of societies dime? If so, then at the expense of whom? Please answer that question.


No one said anything about denying anyone rights. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You are not guaranteed anything else. Why should I have to be responsible for someone else's kids and poor decision making? Please answer that question. And the fact that you would criticize someone for what they want to do with THEIR money that THEY earned shows your collectivist nature. And the fact that you would get all uppity about assuming what I do with MY money... well... all I can say is..... I SEE YOU'RE TRUE COLORS SHINING THROUGH!!!!! :D

How is "mob ruling" of Democracy, any different from slavery? Making a group of people slaves to the will of the majority? When enough of this happens, you set the stage for civil warfare.

Given our state of genetic dismay, you should really look to history and re-visit where people like you and I would end up in the Communist state. We would be looked upon as a burden and more than likely rounded up and placed in camps. Hint: they won't be the kind of camps where everything is as jolly as you would think it be in a Communist society, and we would not be sitting around a fire roasting marshmallows. History shows us that our asses would roast in the same manner that the "intolerants" roasted in Nazi camps. There also, would be no insulin pump(s).

So, despite the fact you have resorted to the lowest rebuttals of all (name calling) please elaborate with some kind of reference to history and fact, besides using the "ZOMG Cars kill people!!!!!" rhetoric. Because that's all it is is rhetoric. No one forces people into cars with the barrel of a gun in the same manner people were forced into poverty and serfdom under communism.



I leave you with this"
"Do not consider Collectivists as sincere but deluded idealists. The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of others is not an ideal; brutality is not idealistic, no matter what its purpose. Do not ever say that the desire to do good by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives."

-Ayn Rand
Why do I get the distinct impression you read one out of every three words I write? I too have an insulin pump, and I too have worked for it. My sister also works hard, but the simple fact of the matter is, a lot of people can't afford a $6600 expense (Even one for health), as well as the few hundred a month that gets tagged on with that. It is because of profits that the thing costs as much as it does, as you know it's no more than a simple screw drive wrapped up in some nalgene with about as much code as a scientific calculator. But because they can charge $6600 - they do. Now, as to saying luck only played a small part in your situation, no, it clearly didn't. I don't know if you're naive, narcissistic or what, but for example my dad works just as I hard as I do, and has been working for much longer, and yet I effectively stumbled on to a job that pays just as much as his does. My half sister works not one, but two full time jobs and still pulls in less annual income than I do. In what world would you consider that not "luck"? As for asking if we should be helping others get pumps, were the things not outrageously expensive, it wouldn't be difficult in the least to implement. A stepper motor with even more positions than the one in our pumps are routinely used in IAC circuits in cars. The entire IAC assembly costs $70 for the dealer. Factor in a very limited amount of programming, and wrap it up in a vacuum-pressed nalgene case, and the thing shouldn't cost more than a couple hundred dollars. Given that there are one million diabetics in Canada, however only 300000 who take insulin via injection, that means it would cost the average Canadian citizen precisely $1.82. Unfortunately, thanks to the capitalist system having no control over the costs, to implement the same system as is would cost each canadian $60. That becomes much harder to justify, as humans are inheritly selfish creatures. To finally close your point though, yes, I do believe society should work together to aid those who's situation was beyond their control. If a guy has never smoked a day in his life, and has always worn his respirator at work, is it fair to leave him saddled with the tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands worth of hospital bills?

I do have a problem with excess when it costs other, and I haven't denied that once this whole conversation. If you're "seeing my true colors" it could be because you're finally looking at my posts. You see, the issue I have with THEIR MONEY is that often times THEIR MONEY comes at the expense of THEIR WORKERS, who have no hope in hell of getting to that level of income. I have no issue with wealth. If everyone on earth could afford Ferraris, I'd be happy as a clam. But they can't, so instead they'll cut the throats of those below them to ensure that at least they can afford one. Again, whenever a company starts to dip in to the red, it is exceptionally rare that the CEO, CFO and managers take pay cuts. Inevitably they simply lay off the people beneath them and just keep smiling.

And again, your alternative is what? To deny the majority? The vast majority of people oppose slavery in the US. There are some who see no issue with it. Would you have the minority over-rule the vote of the majority? Not a damned chance, because people know what they want. It should be noted that for someone who loves the idea of people voting with their credit cards, you are strangely opposed to them voting with... Well, votes.

Oh my god. Please, just read my first post. Just read it. If you can find the part where I said "I <3 the way communism was" I will concede defeat and leave the argument. Not once have I said that, you just keep throwing on the blinders and rebuttling a point that was never made. I said I would like an altered form of communism. Where the government was not an untouchable corrupt entity, but a normal government that exists today. Where the wealth from the entirety of the nation is shared 100% equally amongst all people (Government included) that work. I don't want the Nazism that plagued it in the past. I don't want to Goulags. I don't want harsh labour conditions. None of that. I even tried to simplify the point down to it's simplist manner for you: Could you imagine if instead of Bobby Kotick making seven figures while everyone who actually does the work in that company makes five, if the wealth was distributed evenly, from top to bottom? Sure, Bobby Kotick's standard of living would almost certainly not involve buying stuff for the saking of buying it, but the standard of living for virtually everyone beneath him would take a sizable upswing.

Once again, I'm not arguing against the car. If you've read any other post I've ever made on here, you'll know I live, breathe and dream cars. I hold them above all others as my hobby and passion. However, that being said, they have killed MILLIONS. That does not make me opposed to them as a concept, nor do I think we shouldn't keep looking at improving upon them as a concept. Now, word for word, take my previous two sentences and apply them to communism. It has killed MILLIONS. That does not make me opposed to it as a concept, nor do I think we shouldn't keep looking at improving upon it as a concept. Are you starting to understand the point I'm illustrating here, or is this all still flying above your head?

Interesting quote, but given that capitalism quite literally caters exclusively to the power-lust in humans, perhaps a touch counter-intuitive?

Agent Denton
5th Dec 2011, 22:19
@ Romeo

"And again, your alternative is what? To deny the majority? The vast majority of people oppose slavery in the US. There are some who see no issue with it. Would you have the minority over-rule the vote of the majority? Not a damned chance, because people know what they want. It should be noted that for someone who loves the idea of people voting with their credit cards, you are strangely opposed to them voting with... Well, votes."

If enough people , like the woman in the video, get to vote, how is that different from slavery? Because she said it, SOMEONE HAS TO PAY SOMEONE HAS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. The quote I left you says it all. Collectivism is akin to slavery. Capitalism, caters to the consumer. As far as having true government it is not existent. There is reformation coming where I live and it will be sooner rather than later with the way things are going. Hell, the way the U.S. is now, the way the USSR was in the 60's and the way China was under Mao proves. that central economic planning does not work. It will never work no matter who is at the helm. The Commy with their sickle or the bankers with their printing presses. It NEVER works.

In a utopian society where every one is on equal footing. What would become of the Dr's who require inordinate amounts of schooling? Would he/she be inclined to come visit in the middle of the night if someone got sick? Meanwhile, the unskilled laborer who only works part of the day and is not on call etc, makes the same amount of money? That is asinine. How would you suggest handling the demand and supply factor of goods and services? Because I am a fan of leaving it up to the consumer. Where would the innovation come from? Who would produce? As far as your true colors, when you make elitist comments and belittle those for what they do with their money, that is a symptom of someone who is collectivist, or at least has that hive mentality.

Don't worry bro I wonder if you have been reading my posts, but I have just been wondering. Thanks again for the lovely name calling earlier too BTW. Very becoming of a Moderator on a chat forum. Thank you sir may I have another?



As far as capitalism catering to the power lust in humans it does not. Capitalism rewards risk, production, and proper allocation of resources, and the consumer, sets the price by deciding who gets their money.

Tverdyj
5th Dec 2011, 22:50
for the record: USSR offered free healthcare to all its citizens. any invalids (ppl with disabilities were cared for by the state, which provided them with numerous benefits, including free public transit, and no-waiting in line service in stores, to name a few. in fact, it is the very system of benefits Russia has monetized only recently.

now, onto more salient points:

first off, it's hard to discuss anyhting rationally, given your inherent bias towards collectivism. I'm not trying to persuade you that you're wrong, but there is such a thing called cultural relativism. you should try to understand that not everyone places as much emphasis on personal right s and freedoms as do others, you know.

with regard to your point about "why would anyone go to school for x extra years to become a doctor?", my answer is simple: because they wanted to. you see, the beauty of such a system is that everyone is actually free to pursue their interest--not just somehting that makes them money, but somehting that genuinely interest them. and you know, the education system was based on that--everyone had to learn a basic amount of things -including all natural sciences, a most humanities, and a foreign language--regardless of whether or not it'd be useful in their career. this was done to give people full exposure to all that's out there so that they can pick what they want to do. and if your needs are satisfied regardless of what you do for a living, would you not choose to do what you liked? that's the basis of the system.

oh, and btw, before you get all uppity about this, I can easily concede the point about central planning: given that it is being run in direct competition with a capitalist system, which is far more flexible, (not being concerned with providing everyone a bare minimum), the central planning model is bound to fail, unless
1) it is actually completely insular and self-sufficient
2) it is run by people who are incorruptible.

so, yes, it's an ideal scenario. Capitalism if far more practical--I don't think I ever denied that.

that being said. I go back to the basic presumption. Capitalism works well when everyone makes informed decisions. the reality is, most of the time, we do not.

with regard to regulation: I actually completely agree with you that if the US was running pure capitalism, hten there'd be no bailout, and the whole system would have collapsed right now. however, that doesn't alleviate the point that it was capitalism running unchecked, with CEOs making long-term stupid decisions for short-term gain that led to the financial crisis in the first place.

wrt Greece: Germany acceded to acceptance of economically unprepared states to the EU. I'm not trying to say this is their own fault, but if politics are defining economics, we can't talk about a rational system and still expect some meaningful outcome

Romeo
5th Dec 2011, 22:51
@ Romeo

"And again, your alternative is what? To deny the majority? The vast majority of people oppose slavery in the US. There are some who see no issue with it. Would you have the minority over-rule the vote of the majority? Not a damned chance, because people know what they want. It should be noted that for someone who loves the idea of people voting with their credit cards, you are strangely opposed to them voting with... Well, votes."

If enough people , like the woman in the video, get to vote, how is that different from slavery? Because she said it, SOMEONE HAS TO PAY SOMEONE HAS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. The quote I left you says it all. Collectivism is akin to slavery. Capitalism, caters to the consumer. As far as having true government it is not existent. There is reformation coming where I live and it will be sooner rather than later with the way things are going. Hell, the way the U.S. is now, the way the USSR was in the 60's and the way China was under Mao proves. that central economic planning does not work. It will never work no matter who is at the helm. The Commy with their sickle or the bankers with their printing presses. It NEVER works.

In a utopian society where every one is on equal footing. What would become of the Dr's who require inordinate amounts of schooling? Would he/she be inclined to come visit in the middle of the night if someone got sick? Meanwhile, the unskilled laborer who only works part of the day and is not on call etc, makes the same amount of money? That is asinine. How would you suggest handling the demand and supply factor of goods and services? Because I am a fan of leaving it up to the consumer. Where would the innovation come from? Who would produce? As far as your true colors, when you make elitist comments and belittle those for what they do with their money, that is a symptom of someone who is collectivist, or at least has that hive mentality.

Don't worry bro I wonder if you have been reading my posts, but I have just been wondering. Thanks again for the lovely name calling earlier too BTW. Very becoming of a Moderator on a chat forum. Thank you sir may I have another?



As far as capitalism catering to the power lust in humans it does not. Capitalism rewards risk, production, and proper allocation of resources, and the consumer, sets the price by deciding who gets their money.
Again, I'm not saying democracy is perfect, but frankly, I can't imagine a better alternative. Again here, what exactly are you proposing in it's stead? Anarchy? Feudalism? Dictatorship? Something new entirely? If so, what?

It's a nice blanket statement, however my country does just fine. Hell, we even have the government's hands in health care (Read: They own and run it) and the vast majority of Canadians are happy with that. It eases the burden on those who wouldn't be able to afford medical care. And it's a drop in the bucket for those who don't need it. And once again, you need to forget the notion that Capitalism = The only method for progress. Thousands upon thousands of years beforehand humans evolved just wonderfully without it. Hell, even in non-capitalist countries great strides were made. Even without the carrot to lead them, people will still naturally progress forward. It isn't because of capitalism, all that has done is allow us to hoarde our innovations.

They'd still go for school before hitting the field? Very simple solution. But I don't understand where this sense that doctors somehow deserve more stems from. I hate to break it to you, my dad is a plumber FOR the hospital. Sure, a doctor may get called in late. But I can attest to the fact that the "unskilled" labourer you seem to attribute with laziness, he gets called in about once every other night. And if he didn't, that doctor would be swimming in refuse, chemicals or in the worst case, acids. And while we're on the subject, without the electricians there, that doctor would be without light, power tools or electronic aide of any kind. Without the metal worker, he'd be without tools in very short order. Without the mechanic, he'd be on housecall, because there'd be no ambulances. Without the HVAC worker, he'd be without compressed/clean air. The doctor is quite literally one detail, and yet, somehow you seem to think he is better than everyone else around him. And once again, I stand by belittling those who place the dollar above their fellow man. Whatever "color" that is to you, I wear that proudly.

I could, but as many members after me already laughed at you, I don't particularly need to. The community has spoken out against you. As to my being a moderator, that does not entail laying down and playing dead with every disagreement.

It does. It is the very reason it exists. As you yourself said, it allows people to make something of themselves. Precisely, it allows people to gain more power. And people seem to assume the market will allow anyone to get ahead. It allows very few to get ahead, most often at the expense of others. In order for people to rise above the standard of living, it relies upon people falling below that point as well.

Agent Denton
5th Dec 2011, 23:01
Again, I'm not saying democracy is perfect, but frankly, I can't imagine a better alternative. Again here, what exactly are you proposing in it's stead? Anarchy? Feudalism? Dictatorship? Something new entirely? If so, what?

It's a nice blanket statement, however my country does just fine. Hell, we even have the government's hands in health care (Read: They own and run it) and the vast majority of Canadians are happy with that. It eases the burden on those who wouldn't be able to afford medical care. And it's a drop in the bucket for those who don't need it. And once again, you need to forget the notion that Capitalism = The only method for progress. Thousands upon thousands of years beforehand humans evolved just wonderfully without it. Hell, even in non-capitalist countries great strides were made. Even without the carrot to lead them, people will still naturally progress forward. It isn't because of capitalism, all that has done is allow us to hoarde our innovations.

They'd still go for school before hitting the field? Very simple solution. But I don't understand where this sense that doctors somehow deserve more stems from. I hate to break it to you, my dad is a plumber FOR the hospital. Sure, a doctor may get called in late. But I can attest to the fact that the "unskilled" labourer you seem to attribute with laziness, he gets called in about once every other night. And if he didn't, that doctor would be swimming in refuse, chemicals or in the worst case, acids. And while we're on the subject, without the electricians there, that doctor would be without light, power tools or electronic aide of any kind. Without the metal worker, he'd be without tools in very short order. Without the mechanic, he'd be on housecall, because there'd be no ambulances. Without the HVAC worker, he'd be without compressed/clean air. The doctor is quite literally one detail, and yet, somehow you seem to think he is better than everyone else around him. And once again, I stand by belittling those who place the dollar above their fellow man. Whatever "color" that is to you, I wear that proudly.

I could, but as many members after me already laughed at you, I don't particularly need to. The community has spoken out against you. As to my being a moderator, that does not entail laying down and playing dead with every disagreement.

It does. It is the very reason it exists. As you yourself said, it allows people to make something of themselves. Precisely, it allows people to gain more power. And people seem to assume the market will allow anyone to get ahead. It allows very few to get ahead, most often at the expense of others. In order for people to rise above the standard of living, it relies upon people falling below that point as well.


Again you are assuming. And as far as the community speaking out against me it's been you and I sir. I never said the Dr is "better" than anyone around him. My point being is that while the unskilled worker makes the same, yet the Dr has to sacrifice more??? And for what? To serve the needs of many? So you are suggesting the Dr become a slave to those he serves by being required to have more schooling, etc??????? A Dr requires sacrificing leisure time for education while others may be living it up. So you tell me? Knowing this, should the Dr get more? No one is putting the dollar above their fellow man. Not one person on here has said anything of the sorts. I am tired of this distinction that people who are libertarian are somehow not compassionate. I prefer the voluntary method of compassion meaning, the people who want to see those goods and services, should donate their money and not vote to donate someone else's. IE collectivism. I never said anything negative about your pops either. I will give it to you at least you are not ending sentences with retard or anything else, whether or not we disagree. Name calling is a sign of losing an argument.

Tverdyj
5th Dec 2011, 23:27
you know, the argument is, once again, "did the person want to become a doctor to make their own life better" v "did the person become a doctor because they genuinely like medicine, had genuine interest in studying medicine and applying what they've learned". because, in both cases, throughout their schooling, the two hypothetical doctors learn that the job requires extra hours, that you are expected to see more in a patient than a source of cash, and that it's in the job description to go above and beyond.

in this case, when presented additionally with the fact that there is no extra benefit for this work, person no1 may reject this idea to pursue a calling which requires less effort, maximising the efficiency (in terms of amount of work per amount of reward"), while person number 2 perseveres, since thier interest goes beyond the material reward, since they derive additonal satisfaction from doing something they genuinely like.

as I see it, this is the crucial difference between the two approaches. you can still be individualistic. it's only since in our society individualism is linked with obsession with material reward that sch a stark conflict arises.

Agent Denton
6th Dec 2011, 00:21
you know, the argument is, once again, "did the person want to become a doctor to make their own life better" v "did the person become a doctor because they genuinely like medicine, had genuine interest in studying medicine and applying what they've learned". because, in both cases, throughout their schooling, the two hypothetical doctors learn that the job requires extra hours, that you are expected to see more in a patient than a source of cash, and that it's in the job description to go above and beyond.

in this case, when presented additionally with the fact that there is no extra benefit for this work, person no1 may reject this idea to pursue a calling which requires less effort, maximising the efficiency (in terms of amount of work per amount of reward"), while person number 2 perseveres, since thier interest goes beyond the material reward, since they derive additonal satisfaction from doing something they genuinely like.

as I see it, this is the crucial difference between the two approaches. you can still be individualistic. it's only since in our society individualism is linked with obsession with material reward that sch a stark conflict arises.

That is great and I see your point(s) as they are valid. However, the truth of the matter is this: how could one expect a Dr. to get by on an unskilled laborer's wages? Just think about the amount of debt that a Dr graduates school with. In the type of perfect society that some people on here are advocating you could not retain your individualism with out succumbing to the "will" of the majority.

I am all for doing something for benefiting society and what not, I just believe that it is the people who want these goods and services that should have to put up their own capital and resources instead of voting to use other people's money. That's all I am saying.

A clear example of what I am seeing in my home country. My pop and I were in line behind a woman with 4 kids. She was paying for her food with food stamps(nope wasn't judging). When I was done with my shopping, you know buying food with my money, not other people's, I went outside and low and behold this woman was getting into a Dodge Durango that was newer than my car. My car that I work my ass off to drive. Now I am all about being compassionate for my fellow man, but this type of sheer abuse is disgusting. My pops, being 100% Mexican, made a remark about how she gives us a bad name by playing into the stereotype of the welfare recipient. This is why I say people who make bad decisions should not be able to vote themselves other people's money. You know, people who made the right choices, go to work, and earn a living. It's out right immoral to have the mindset that it is ok to place a lien on some one's life simply because they exist. This is why collectivism is despicable and it is immoral. It is not ok to sit back, collect money on the government's dime while other people work for theirs. At least I can sleep soundly at night knowing that I fend for my self. It may be tight some months, but hell, it's better than having someone else pay for my ****. This is why I hate the government because it is them who perpetuate this welfare state we find ourselves in, and that is why I hate cronyism, becasue all it is is a form of corporate welfare on the backs of modest, hard working people.

More corporate welfare:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2787070/posts



This is what my country is becoming and it is sickening to its core. You can talk all the smack you want about compassion for your fellow man (Looking at you Romeo :) ), but in the end, even Jesus, who was the embodiment of what was good in us all, could not solve for poverty..... that is, if you read that type of stuff.......

And after seeing this, it is hard for me to be sympathetic. I have a hard enough time trying to support my own hobbies, interests, and day to day living needs with out having to worry about people like this:


http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Hundreds-line-up-for-Dallas-County-Rental-Vouchers-125555383.html

This kid, whoever he/she is, I applaud their mindset as they are oviously aware as to what the **** is going on:

http://the53.tumblr.com/post/11308741323/this-ones-going-to-go-a-long-way

Tverdyj
6th Dec 2011, 04:59
That is great and I see your point(s) as they are valid. However, the truth of the matter is this: how could one expect a Dr. to get by on an unskilled laborer's wages? Just think about the amount of debt that a Dr graduates school with. In the type of perfect society that some people on here are advocating you could not retain your individualism with out succumbing to the "will" of the majority.

I am all for doing something for benefiting society and what not, I just believe that it is the people who want these goods and services that should have to put up their own capital and resources instead of voting to use other people's money. That's all I am saying.

A clear example of what I am seeing in my home country. My pop and I were in line behind a woman with 4 kids. She was paying for her food with food stamps(nope wasn't judging). When I was done with my shopping, you know buying food with my money, not other people's, I went outside and low and behold this woman was getting into a Dodge Durango that was newer than my car. My car that I work my ass off to drive. Now I am all about being compassionate for my fellow man, but this type of sheer abuse is disgusting. My pops, being 100% Mexican, made a remark about how she gives us a bad name by playing into the stereotype of the welfare recipient. This is why I say people who make bad decisions should not be able to vote themselves other people's money. You know, people who made the right choices, go to work, and earn a living. It's out right immoral to have the mindset that it is ok to place a lien on some one's life simply because they exist. This is why collectivism is despicable and it is immoral. It is not ok to sit back, collect money on the government's dime while other people work for theirs. At least I can sleep soundly at night knowing that I fend for my self. It may be tight some months, but hell, it's better than having someone else pay for my ****. This is why I hate the government because it is them who perpetuate this welfare state we find ourselves in, and that is why I hate cronyism, becasue all it is is a form of corporate welfare on the backs of modest, hard working people.

More corporate welfare:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2787070/posts



This is what my country is becoming and it is sickening to its core. You can talk all the smack you want about compassion for your fellow man (Looking at you Romeo :) ), but in the end, even Jesus, who was the embodiment of what was good in us all, could not solve for poverty..... that is, if you read that type of stuff.......

And after seeing this, it is hard for me to be sympathetic. I have a hard enough time trying to support my own hobbies, interests, and day to day living needs with out having to worry about people like this:


http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Hundreds-line-up-for-Dallas-County-Rental-Vouchers-125555383.html

This kid, whoever he/she is, I applaud their mindset as they are oviously aware as to what the **** is going on:

http://the53.tumblr.com/post/11308741323/this-ones-going-to-go-a-long-way

haven't had the time to watch the videos, so i'll respond to the first part, by restating: under communism, post-secondary education was free. so, no student debt for going to med school, no issue with everyone having the same wage, as long as you do what you actually like doing. And yes, it's not a 100% economically sound system, as has been shown time and again, but i'm not setting out to prove that.

wrt to entitlement+ such: I'll adress that point when I have sometime. SInce I just came home from work (it's 11 PM over here. I go to law school and I have to pay for that, too, so I work evenings)

Jvrol
6th Dec 2011, 22:04
Actually the Technocracy (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Technocratic_Union) I was talking about is from Mage: The Ascension not the real life one. Of course I was asking if anyone has played White Wolf's games and Deus Ex is the ultimate representation of the Technocracy from Mage. I see that the misunderstanding has turned into a political discussion all the sudden and none of you guys didn't even bother to click on the link in my OP to know what I was really talking about.

Tverdyj
7th Dec 2011, 04:36
*raises hand*
I was kinda aware of what that Technocracy was. it's just that the discussion spun out of control before I had a chance to contribute that way.

although I disagree with you a bit: iirc, Technocracy in Ascension was kinda like Camarilla in Masquerade: its main purpose was to keep ppl form knowing about the masquerade, and the World of Darkness that lurks just behind the mask in our own.

in that regard, the illuminati in HR don't strike me as that. with a stretch, you could say Walton Simons and MJ12 in the original DX fits that type. Though the Illuminati ending for IW would be the absolute best fit, imho--since they essentially gain full control over information, and supposedly can control distribution of nano augs, establishing a monopoly, and granting them only to their own, who remain always in the shadow.