Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (3026)	11/1/2000 1:48:24 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I think a balance of powers is necessary for economic systems just as it is for good government. Capitalist and Socialist policies can mingle- and build a good society. Too much of either can be just awful.

To: E who wrote (3026)	11/1/2000 3:35:40 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

It was a limited program-- nationalization of various services and industries, but capitalism remained the dominant economic system All Utilities were nationalized, and major commodities such as coal were grabbed by the State. Companies such as British Aerospace and Rover were taken over for the benefit of the Nation. Likewise, Roosevelt with his New Deal built schools, hospitals, etc. Later, we have the Great Society aimed at by Johnson. These programs not only provided the services, but gave employment, and allowed people to claw their way out of hopelessness. What is a Nation without people? These were not pure socialism; But, rather, forays into the Welfare State. However, I think it makes the point that Socialist mechanisms such as Planned Economy, National ownership, etc. may be temporarily justified in a very sick patient. Personally, I prefer to see as little Socialism as possible, but think that a rational State can make use of it from time to time. The problem with Socialism is that it operates from premises that are simply not true. Even if we accept the goodness of people, even if we accept intrinsic value--it is a leap to translate that into usefulness or into character. Socialism means a global system of social organization based on: Common Ownership, Democratic Control of Production, and Production to satisfy needs rather than to profit. Everyone gives what they can, and takes what they need. Here is the crux of the problem: Who decides?? If the people decide, then how genuine and motivated will their giving (their labor) be? How honest and laudable will their taking (receiving of goods and services) be? Add to that the inherent inequality of value represented in the human population, and we have a system of parasitic domination over skilled laborers, advanced thinkers, and people of sincere character that give the maximum and take the minimum. Instead of a society that exalts humanity, we get one that degrades it to the level of animals striving to see who can be most immoral, and be the least exploited and used. In this intense battle by humankind to establish a system in direct opposition to Evolution--I have no doubt that Evolution will win. People are not anymore equal in productive value than they are in other realms of interaction. Ugly people would like to marry handsome people. Should it be enforced? Lazy people would like to marry capable peole. Should it be enforced? No. We do not attach the same value to people in our personal circles. We do not alow a hired hand onto the family farm, that can only eat, but can't produce--and can only set a parasitic example for our children. We do not marry rapists or murderers, etc. If we do, we are making a value judgement of our own worth. Should we set up a society where we pretend that everyone has equal value, but where the few give and the rest take? This would not be the Utopian Society that Einstein desired. His impersonal philosophy, coupled with a genuine sympathy for humankind, allowed him to dream such an ideology. If all people were like that, then Socialism would work...but who would need it? Socialism would destroy the finer values, and qualities that have evolved in humans over time. Appreciation (rather of art or people) would have no merit; Compassion and empathy would be replaced by resentment and distrust. It would be a stagnant world that would die on the planet, leaving only the roaches to weary out their endless days. The Evolutionary model is working for the human race. Many are recognizing the interrelationships that create value and worth amongst people and the whole ecosystem. To place people who do not understand these things in charge of the planet (assuming they are the majority), would be an act of insanity equal to the most thoughtless and vicious acts in human history. The qualities of respect and responsibility that we have come to consider so important would be eroded under socialism. It would truly be a saintly person who could continue to love.