What is your religion?

[Acriku]

To add, posting it here gives other people with ideas to respond as well. Instead of being in the unknown about such an im.

[Alia_of_the_Knife]

One post, that is all. I have resigned myself from religion threads.

I am Christian. I don't like to be labled like Mennonite, or Methodist, or anything like that. I am Christian, plain and simple.

[ordos45]

Okay, she made a smart move that I should follow. After all its religious debates like these that I've been accused of not even being Christian by people that know me.

Things I have been labelled by my fellow Christians for showing tolerance:

Witch

Pagan

Heathen

Heretic

Evil

Satanist

Insane

Father of All Evil

Anti-Christ

Satan

And those are from people who know me in real life. So before it goes into that sort of infighting, I resign.

[emprworm]

Now, lets check out Edric.

First of all, let me make it clear that I am not your average socialist. Many of my ideas and ideals have nothing to do with clasical socialism. That is why I make this disclaimer: I will speak only for myself, not for socialism as a whole.

perfect. I will return to you the dignity to examine your statements in light of your own claims, and not judge them or compare them to classical socialism. Well, let us begin...shall we?

Problem is that the people will decide they want to have private property. So then what? Will the government OVERRULE the people in that case? What Edric is saying flat out is that there is no such thing as private property. You own nothing. Government owns all.

No, that is not what I want. First of all, it would be ludicrous to abolish private property. Every person must have personal belonginigs: his/her house and everything in it. BUT there must be no private ownership of the means for production and distribution (no private companies and enterprises). The people should collectively own all "firms" and "companies".

If they don't want that, then what are we doing ruling their country in the first place? If the people don't WANT socialism, we won't be elected!

well this is truly a different iteration on socialism. Ok, I will try to grasp this: people own property, but no one owns a business? Yet the problem is that as soon as you allow people to own property and material goods, they will start trading amongst each other (ever see ebay, for example?). Thus as the people of society buy/sell/trade from each other, you in effect have a sub-economy that is pure capitalism. How will you stop that? Surely you dont think that the people of this government will not want to aquire possessions and/or make money selling theirs??? And in a capitalist society, the public DOES INDEED own companies. Ever hear of stock? But I take it to mean that all citizens in your society own all companies. What if I want to sell my ownership in all my companies in your government? What about families that save money for 5 generations and want to invest it so that their grandchildren will be rich? Is there even a such thing as investment in your economy? Or will you just come knocking on the door 100 years later to take away the savings of that family simply because their children had an unfair "advantage" or "head start" in life?

WAnd what about things like nice homes, or expensive cars? How about jewlry, fancy clothes, yachts. Will such luxuries ever be attainable...by anyone? Will anyone ever own a yacht? Will such a desire be considered a crime? What will you do with all those people that want to have such things? Or does everyone in society have equal wealth...basically they all live in the same cubic commodes driving the same cars. How, for example, in your society would there be a type of car that is superior to another type of car? Would a Porsche or BMW even exist? Or does everyone drive the standard government issue?

There is no true freedom because innovation is squelched. In Edric's government, there will be no innovation, no real desire for quality since there is no competition. Advances in technology would come to a screeching halt.

You've just hit a VERY important issue. Incentive. I agree that any functional system MUST give the people an incentive to work. But there are more ways to do this. Competition is only one of them. For one thing, each person's work should be "evaluated" by its own merits, and not by comparing it to other people's work! And the better the end-result of your work is, the more you get paid.

What kind of work are you talking about? This sounds like capitalism. The better your game, for example, the more you get paid. What happens to the game designers in your society that make a crappy game OR make a game no one wants? HOw can a game be considered 'good' when no one likes it? How can a novel be considered 'good' if no one likes it? In a capitalist society they dont get paid. I fail to see what you are saying here.

There should also be a big bonus for anyone that invents or discovers something useful. The invention then becomes collective property.

So for the guy that spends a year of his life writing a novel or painting a beautiful masterpiece, does he own it? What if the musician wants to start selling his music? Is it HIS music? And since he is selling it, does society now own it because he is starting a business? What happens if 1 million people just LOVE his music and 1 million people send him a check for 10 bucks via the internet to buy a copy of his CD. Do you take his money away?

No no no! People are evaluated by the ones who use their products, not by some huge beauracracy! So, basically, your customers decide how much you get paid. However, there have to be certain commissions that make sure nobody is being treated unfairly. Basically, they would listen to complaints from people who think they're not being paid enough.

and just how in the world are you gonna get "customers" to evaluate you? But wait! I like this idea!! Lets say I'm a very charismatic guy. I make a TON of friends and we all get together and agree that were gonna evaluate each others products VERY VERY highly, and we all make bank out of it! SOUNDS GOOD TO ME! I can make a fortune and not do much of anything! woo-hoooo ;D

I think I already adressed the issue of wages. What matters is the quality of your products. This is different from capitalism, where the only thing that matters is if people WANT your products or not. If you write a splendid novel but nobody buys it, capitalism calls you a failure.

well now you really lost me. In the exact same paragraph you said that quality is what matters, yet you call a failed novel a success? What the? A failed novel is not quality. Its a failure. How do you determine that something is quality if NO ONE LIKES IT? Sounds like failure to me, or do you have government workers that read all these novels and then make subjective judgments as to their "quality?" SO if i write a novel that fails to sell in your government, I get paid? Dang, with such an easy job like that, you just stripped away all incentive. What about movies? Just WHO hands out the paychecks? YOu have government movie critics that determine quality? Who pays the quality clothing designers that no one thinks are in style? Who determines just how much 'quality' they are? Who SETS THE PAYROLL? Your goverment is HUUUUGGGEE. Its bigger than the population itself, and who is gonna pay all those gazillions of government workers evaulating products for 'quality' since demand is irrelevant? What a mess, Edric!!! When I see a great movie like Lord of the Rings or the Matrix....ONLY CAPTIALISM my friend could ever hope to spawn something like that. There is no way movies like that would arise from your government. No way at all. And if you are paying ppl huge sums of money for outstanding quality or remarkable invention then you will STILL have an upper and lower class of people, since many ppl will just be naturally lazy while others work 70 hour workweeks so that they can be "rich" and part of the upper class. I explained this in more detail in my last post, but you never addressed that issue. So not only do you have a capitalist-like upper and lower class of people, you got the biggest government in the history of the world with people capitalist-style trading among each other in a pseudo-socialist society. Belch!

And you are contradicting yourself, Edric. You are trying to talk incentive (that quality matters) yet at the same time say that demand is irrelevent. How do you determine that something has quality if no one cares for it? And if demand is irrelevant to pay, then how do you have any kind of society where people can get paid for making quality things that no one wants? Someone could make a very very high quality brick of ductile iron, but who in the world cares? Yet I guess he gets paid just as well. The problem in your society, Edric is that money will have NO VALUE. When you remove demand from the picture, suddenly 1,000,000 dollars buys you a loaf of bread, if that. We've seen this kind of thing happen multiple times in history. Your government sounds like it will be manufacturing all this money to pay people for unwanted products, that in the end only make money itself worthless.

And, obviously, you can make better products if you co-operate with others...

but with no concern for demand, how can you tell if it is better?

Everyone takes a turn working the toilets and flipping burgers.

That's insane! I would NEVER support something like that!

well then who would ever do such job when they know the government will take care of them even if they sit around at home writing quality novels? After all, who cares if people actually want to read them.

Yes. The wheel belongs to everyone, not just to the guy who invented it! If you discover the cure for AIDS, then it should be given for free to those who need it, instead of using their agony for your own gain!

You should get paid A LOT if you invent something (the exact sum depends on how useful your invention is), but then your discovery belongs to HUMANITY!

In capitalism, way too many people are deprived of basic things like healthcare on the grounds of copyright!

Ok fine. I'll grant you this entire point. One of the very FEW points I have granted you. See? I'm a reasonable guy aint i?

WHO ON EARTH would be a paramedic? A surgeon?

Vital people such as medics (and policemen, and firemen) fall under the "public services" category and their wages are kept high by the government. However, if this causes everyone to suddenly want to be a surgeon, the government sponsoring only applies to a certain number of people.

lol amazing. SUpply and demand, yet being controlled by big government. This is horrendus.

My government would tell him: "Great! Go ahead and join one of our game-making co-operatives. But if you suck at making games, you go back to burger flipping and get a cut in pay for all the time you wasted."

Lol. HOw can you tell if someone sucks at making games if you also say that no one wanting the play the game does not mean it sucks. Who, exactly, is this guy in the government that looks at a game and goes "that sucks"? Maybe its a QUALITY game that your little government pee-on just doesn't like? And lets say your government pee-on says "well, ya, it kinda sucks, but i like the cool graphics, so I'll give it a 6/10". Yet no one buys this game...at all. But since your big government decided it had SOME quality, who decides how much pay?

Basically, everyone should do what he/her is best at. Any country (or indeed, the whole world) has a diverse enough population so that they're not all good at the same thing.

Impossible. I bet at least 80% of any population works for a living in a job they would not prefer, yet they do anyway because its all that there is available. If everyone did the job they wanted, then there would be no one around to do the jobs that are required. Again, does anyone own yachts in your society? Luxuries? Are there nice cars? I see no way your econonomy could work without demand. How would money have any value at all? How do you stop people with private property from having a very capitalist sub-culture? And WOULD you try to stop it since that is obviously what people want to do? And what about that musician that sells 1,000,000 CDs via the internet? You come knocking on his door?

[TMA_1]

tolerance is accepting other religions. Not believing them but allowing them as "o.k." You are undoubtedly a good believer Ordos. I can tell by how you talk. Remember though that the lord doesnt want us tolerant. He just wants us not to judge. We can evaluate a religion though without our personal opinion and say that by the bible, religion is evil. Tolerance is accepting and that is dangerous. at the same time though we are not to judge. That is up to the lord. We just dont argue. We simply dont agree with unbelievers. its up to the lord to handle his work.

[guusr5644]

OMG! emprworm keyboard starting to crash from all writing ;D hes fingers must write write and more.... now really emprworm your posts are like reading a book cant you make them shorter (long messeges make me sad coz i cant read them.. them ALL) ;D ;D ;D

[Caid Ivik]

Okay, she made a smart move that I should follow. After all its religious debates like these that I've been accused of not even being Christian by people that know me.

Things I have been labelled by my fellow Christians for showing tolerance:

Witch

Pagan

Heathen

Heretic

Evil

Satanist

Insane

Father of All Evil

Anti-Christ

Satan

And those are from people who know me in real life. So before it goes into that sort of infighting, I resign.

Witchies were hunted, but today not really, just from recesion. Name one. Pagan? If it's an atheist, you can see, that instead of attacking them we're trying to just show them our beliefs and if they refuse, we accept. Heretics are excommunicated, if you had a company, and someone is still yellingat you what are doing badly, you would kick him off I think too. Evil is evil, should THAT be tolerated? Satanists are wide problem, LaVey's church should be tolerated, but for example Ordo Templi Orientis is doing bloody rituals, even with humans. Insane people are cured by specified institutes, also the Church runs some. And for Satan? If he's father of all evil, how should we tolerate it? But first, how you want to even contact him? I wish you wouldn't ;D We must do good things, what is only offence against Satan. You think we have to do bad? Then you won't tolerate anything instead Satan. That's the principe of satanism.

[Anathema]

Emp, you keep accusing me of saying nothing but "That's communism". Bernard Shaw was a controversial socialist. He was a member of the socialist organisation Fabian Society, but his views were often not shared by the other members- therefore Shaws ideas are not representative of all socialists from that time, let alone from all socialists ever.

As I said before, utopism is a form of socialism. Communism is a form of socialism. Plan socialism is a form of socialism.

Plan socialism (modern socialism) does NOT strife for the equal distribution of property, as I have stated numerous times before.

You have quoted a text from an enceclopedia- fine, that supports your argument. But I've quoted text from another enceclopedia and you just ignore it, acusing me of not backing up my claims.

Let me give a prediction of what you will say next:

Earthnuker is simply using the excuse "that's communism" again. Wow he's such a 13 year old idiot.

You keep saying that, regardless of the arguments I use to back up my claims. Untill you actuall READ my posts, and stop accusing me, I'll ignore YOUR posts.

[Anathema]

Oh as for one of your other numerous accusitions, I never redefined socialism- I simply described the defenition shared by numerous others. As for you, you need to stop hiding behind your

In socialism there is no private property and the state runs everything

Just because a few select people thought that in the past, doesn't mean that it's true NOW.

[emprworm]

learn from edrich earthnuker. He is addressing my questions. Thats all I expected from you. Instead you turn it into a dictionary war. You accused me of confusing communism with socialism. I did no such thing. I just described socialism as I understood it. Now if you have another brand of socialism fine. Then *explain it*

If you accept private property in your government, then just start explaining how it works. What countries, specifically, use these so-called brands of socialism. Give me examples. Show it to me in action, and if you cant show it to me, explain how it would succeed and how people could be 'free'.

Answer some of my questions and quit changing the topic to a dictionary war. A waste of my time.

[Anathema]

I read your defenition of socialism, and I find it to resemble my defenition of communism. Now, please, give me your seperate defenitions of socialism AND communism, and we can continue.

[nemafakei]

Interesting. I proposed a suitable system for government, and ensured that it would be flexible enough to decide upon sensible decisions, not on populism. This system is totally open to change to a better system; all it would require is a some councils to be created to analyse each facet of the issue of governance.

Capitalism and individualism are not necessarily the way the system can be implemented, therefore.

You also assert people's right to vote idiots in, as I recall (assuming enough people DO vote idiots in). I question this: surely the point of votes was to secure a good and non-corrupt government? And therefore, if a better system arises (one which would eliminate corruption), voting becomes obsolete.

Note also that power would be divided anyway; the feeling of power/weakness thing in only a note on the side, not crucial, because they are actually truths, not just illusions. We must, however, ensure that all know the truth.

"I see this as a problem, but not a problem that a government should mandate"

The problem is of the governmental system itself! Therefore the government must change to make itself more effective. Doing otherwise is merely passing the buck, not solving the problem.

"And they are common because they are necessary"

Good. I merely do it in a slightly different fashion. I would have it that decisions are divided up, just not quite in the same way as they are today.

"But I am GLAD that making new laws is messy and difficult"

Depending on the type of law, it WILL remain diffiicult (less so with simpler, less important decisions). But these decisions will not be made by those who are more prone to being corrupted, since there is no such focus on elected candidates as randomly selected candidates. Moreover, there would be no real way for someone to corrupt them.

"since a law is something that constricts the actions of citizens"

Hmmm. A law is something which improves the way the country runs. It does not necessarily have to be restrictive, it can be legalising something. It can also be protctive.

"If people are apathetic because they are satisfied with life under their government"

Or belief that they are unable to do anything... so they don't.

"Government should not be trying to impose emotion"

Don't twist my words. Each indivisual must *learn* that they are not able to manipulate decisions that affect others.

"Government is not about making people feel particular emotions or having a certain perception"

Government is about making the right decisions, not about standing by while people things that are untrue.

"Isnt government supposed to serve its citizens or are you reversing it now?"

Reversing it? No. But a popular decision is not always a well-informed or logical decision. The individuals are in government to serve each other.

"There are people in this world that think they are God"

Perhaps, yet those who cannot make sensible decisions will not govern. There's something in there about proficiency tests, I think.

"Nema's proposal of government according to this post consist to solve two "problems""

These are some of the reasons for the problems persist. The actual problems are all around you - excess CO/2 emissions, 3rd world poverty (perhaps not around *you*) - because of the profit/loss and self-interest based systems that can be found in all places. And that for most people, the world is very messed up.

"there goes democracy. and just WHO is in charge of 'selecting' people? All I know is that if I was the one running the selection booth, I would make sure that certain people were selected. hehe lol"

We have electoral rolls, yes? Well, a new roll could be drawn up of possible councillors, and they would be selected randomly by computer. To ask who was choosing who would be randomly selected does not follow. There goes corruptible democracy. The people will rule. Just not in the way with which you are familiar.

I don't think I've mentioned my "interested, not involved" idea yet... that'll be explained later, I think.

"BUt nothing in this post said anything about issues of private property, copyright, creative work, motivation, quality, distribution of wealth, etc"

Private property: Effectively as per today - you'd have to rent big things like houses, and it'd be taken out of the payment you are given. You could save money the money you're assignesd, up to a point - not so much that you hoard it for no reason and in great quantity.

Copyright/creativity: You are paid to develop books and things (for others' enjoyment), but not for their sale. (see shopkeeper analogy).

Motivation/quality: If you're lazy, you get paid less.

Distribution of wealth: If you fulfil your potential to the community, then you are paid far more well than if you don't. As I've said.

In effect all it is is co-ordinating ourselves so that we work togetther, rather than against each other, as per today.

[DukeLeto]

First of all, let me make it clear that I am not your average socialist.

So you agree to being a socialist? THAT'S all *I* wanted to hear. SO I leave you with this thought:

BACK ON TOPIC!!!

[Edric O]

Emprworm, with a few more of these posts we could write a book! :)

Let's begin then...

well this is truly a different iteration on socialism. Ok, I will try to grasp this: people own property, but no one owns a business? Yet the problem is that as soon as you allow people to own property and material goods, they will start trading amongst each other (ever see ebay, for example?)

What's wrong with that? This kind of trade (in goods) is not capitalistic! It has been around since the Stone Age. People will always exchange gifts, or swap personal items, etc.

But I take it to mean that all citizens in your society own all companies.

Yes. And naturally, there won't be several companies competing at doing the same thing. They will get together and form a larger company by co-operating.

What if I want to sell my ownership in all my companies in your government?

You can't. That kind of ownership cannot be bought or sold. It is a right that all people are born with.

What about families that save money for 5 generations and want to invest it so that their grandchildren will be rich? Is there even a such thing as investment in your economy? Or will you just come knocking on the door 100 years later to take away the savings of that family simply because their children had an unfair "advantage" or "head start" in life?

If my system is put in practice, we need to completely re-think the monetary system. I'm not an economist, and my answer to this issue is that I just don't know. I'm only one person. Capitalism has been tested and refined throughout several centuries. I can't give you an answer to everything... YET.

"We're working on it"!!

WAnd what about things like nice homes, or expensive cars? How about jewlry, fancy clothes, yachts. Will such luxuries ever be attainable...by anyone? Will anyone ever own a yacht?

No. Luxuries serve no practical purpose. They only express the corruption and oppulence of the rich. This is why it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

Will such a desire be considered a crime? What will you do with all those people that want to have such things?

They can WANT whatever they like. But for every potential rich man that gets mad at us for taking his surplus money away, there are 100 poor starving people who will thank us for the money we give them. That is DEMOCRACY. In time, this system will eradicate poverty and people will get used to it. And at any given moment, we will have the majority on our side.

Or does everyone in society have equal wealth...basically they all live in the same cubic commodes driving the same cars. How, for example, in your society would there be a type of car that is superior to another type of car? Would a Porsche or BMW even exist? Or does everyone drive the standard government issue?

There will be many choices of cars and houses! They will all have the same VALUE, but that doesn't mean they have to look the same! You can do many different things with the same amount of money.

And yes, everyone will have more or less equal wealth. You don't have the right to be rich, but in echange the government ensures that you will never be poor.

What kind of work are you talking about? This sounds like capitalism. The better your game, for example, the more you get paid. What happens to the game designers in your society that make a crappy game OR make a game no one wants? HOw can a game be considered 'good' when no one likes it? How can a novel be considered 'good' if no one likes it? In a capitalist society they dont get paid. I fail to see what you are saying here.

There will always be SOME people who buy your product. Those people will evaluate whether your product is good or not. That is HALF of the evaluating process.

The other half consists of a series of councils like the ones Nema described. They will be composed of experts in that particular field. And they will regulate EACH OTHER to eliminate fraud. You see, all councils are part of a giant network. They are interconnected. To make a fraud, you would have to get thousands of people to go along with it.Practically impossible.

And even if you could somehow do it, when you divide the gain from that fraud between so many people, it amounts to nothing.

So for the guy that spends a year of his life writing a novel or painting a beautiful masterpiece, does he own it? What if the musician wants to start selling his music? Is it HIS music?

No, it is not his music. He can't sell it. But he gets paid for it, by the system I described earlier.

What happens if 1 million people just LOVE his music and 1 million people send him a check for 10 bucks via the internet to buy a copy of his CD. Do you take his money away?

Those checks would be gifts. Of course we don't take people's gifts away! That would be stupid and insane. But why would 1 million people do something like that? Don't you support the idea that people are naturally greedy and self-centered? (that's what capitalism says)

If I somehow got everybody to be altruistic and generous, then I have served my purpose in this world and I can die happy.

I make a TON of friends and we all get together and agree that were gonna evaluate each others products VERY VERY highly, and we all make bank out of it! SOUNDS GOOD TO ME! I can make a fortune and not do much of anything! woo-hoooo

Well, if you have tens of thousands of friends, maybe... ::) (see above on the issue of councils)

since many ppl will just be naturally lazy while others work 70 hour workweeks so that they can be "rich" and part of the upper class

So if you're lazy you're relatively poor, and if you work hard you are relatively rich. Sounds good to me!

Impossible. I bet at least 80% of any population works for a living in a job they would not prefer, yet they do anyway because its all that there is available. If everyone did the job they wanted, then there would be no one around to do the jobs that are required.

Not true. If there is a job that nobody wants, then there must be something wrong with that job. We will ask the people how to make it more appealing, then do it.

How do you stop people with private property from having a very capitalist sub-culture? And WOULD you try to stop it since that is obviously what people want to do?

I have already adressed this point in the beginning of my post. But I would just like to point out that people DO NOT normally want capitalism. All they want is what's best for them. If my system is better than capitalism, then the people will NOT want a capitalist sub-culture.

ONLY CAPTIALISM my friend could ever hope to spawn something like that.

WRONG. Fundamentally wrong! Even if my system would be utter crap, it is ridiculous to claim that capitalism is the best possible government!

There is ALWAYS room for improvement and nothing lasts forever. Capitalism WILL fall and be replaced by something else, sooner or later. You can't prevent it.

Any attempts to maintain the status quo are doomed to failure. The world never stagnates.

[Anathema]

Another quote from my enceclopedia:

The power of capitalism lies in the interest, that the individual benefits from an individual achievement as great as possible, by wich the common interest is served. The disadvantages- crisis, unemployment, and social abuses- attempt to discontinue social economical policy.

Captilism is, as it name implies, a system in where the money comes first and then the people. Great individual achievements are not possible in an environment in wich the people cannot get proper education.

Socialism (in general) puts the people in the first place, and strifes for the elimination of poverty. Socialism comes in varying forms, communism being the most radical.

The western nations of today (including America) are not purely capitalistic. Instead they are a minglement of capitalist and socialist ideals- wich is better then strictly capitalist or strictly socialistic, as I have already stated earlier.

[emprworm]

Regarding families that choose to save their money in order to enhance the future of their children, you respond with:

If my system is put in practice, we need to completely [re-think the monetary system. I'm not an economist, and my answer to this issue is that I just don't know.

This is not a good enough. Anything other than "well if thats what they choose to do with their money" is less than democratic. What I choose to do with my money is an extremely unbelievably important issue, and if you haven't 'thought of it yet', I see no viable means how you would ever see a system like this in place. Its like you are building a house with no foundation. I need to know if I can save my money, put it away, invest it, etc. Or does your government re-distribute money AFTER it has already been distributed once (as in forcibly re-distribute the distributions)

If the answer is yes, then I there truly is no private property in your government and I wonder: Is it even possible to demoralize someone any more than that?

No. Luxuries serve no practical purpose. They only express the corruption and oppulence of the rich.

Your world is a gray world that epitomizes lethargic misery. This game is a luxury. The Matrix (one of my favorite movies) is a luxury. Skiing is a luxury. Boating, skydiving all luxuries forbidden by you? I dont care about yachts or jewlry. But I DO enjoy top of the line synthesizers and home studio recording equpiment. This is 100% luxury. I dont have a nice car. I dont have a home (live in an apartment), but I have the most expensive and the highest top of the line synthesizer module on the market right now. This brings me some extra happiness in life. I will never afford a porchse, but I live in a society where that goal is not impossible. In yours it is. Your society is repugant to me. I envision your society like a giant ant-hill. A bunch of mindless automotans scurrying about doing just enough to stay alive- all of them metabolizing nutrients, expelling waste, ovulating and inseminating. Living a mundane, hapless existence until death inevitably takes them. I might not ever get a yacht, but I do enjoy knowing that such things are out there and attainable. So long as I have the ability to choose, I will choose societies that bring me movies like the Lord of the Rings, full of luxury and huge spending and recreational games like StarWars galaxies or even Dune, which is just one giant mega-luxury- and one that I see you enjoy as well. Only Capitalism can bring this to you. And this is capitalism at its finest, and I love it. Your society is one giant gray cloud of purposeless, hopeless existence. And if you are going to respond with "well, 1 million dollar computer games are ok, but no million dollar yachts!" then you are really in trouble. Just who are YOU to decide what counts as "luxury" and what doesnt? O wait, let me guess: you have government workers who sit around making judment calls on people's posessions. "Uh, sorry, thats a LUXURY, QUIT BUILDING THAT YACHT OR GO TO PRISON" eeeks. Man you scare me Edric

This is why it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

Greed is the reason, Edric. Not luxuries. Ever read the book of Job? Job was rewarded by God with the most priceless earthly luxuries. And it was abundant and opulent. But Job wasn't tied to his luxuries. You are mistakenly calling luxuries SIN, which is SO FALSE.

Here is an exerpt from Mark 14.

While He was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly. "Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them.(Mark 14:3-10 NIV)

Please read this commentary on account of an event in the bible (mark 14) where Jesus is annointed with expensive oil by the woman at Bethany.

The woman "broke the jar and poured the ointment on his head". [v.3] Such flasks of perfume were very valuable. A woman might be given one on her marriage to last a lifetime. She would not normally break such a beautiful object. This was extravagant and some who were there said to one another indignantly, "Why this waste of ointment? Ointment like this could have been sold for over three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor". [v.5] Three hundred denarii was perhaps the total which a labourer might earn in a year. Only Mark records the detail which emphasises the lavishness of the woman's generosity and the depth of her love and devotion. Mark goes on to say that "they were angry with her". [v.5] Giving alms to the poor was always praiseworthy and was indeed constantly expected of all who could afford it. Jewish custom called for special remembrance of the poor at Passover time. Still more praiseworthy were certain exceptional acts of kindness such as hospitality to strangers. One of these acts was that of giving decent burial to a friend and it seems that decent burial was held to include anointing the corpse.

Edric, but from what I hear from you, surely had you been there, you would be not one of those mad people complaining that such an extravagance was wasted because poor people could be fed...right? Even worse, in your society such a thing wouldnt even exist. The BIble does not condemn luxury items, it condemns greed. The woman owned a luxry item. I am pleading with you here, Edric, you really truly need to understand this. Owning a luxury item does not mean you are greedy. You are trying to play God with your government. You are trying to 'fix' mans sinful nature, but you are out of line in doing so. And as a result, you massively punish many people by stripping them of their freedoms and enjoyments in life.

They can WANT whatever they like. But for every potential rich man that gets mad at us for taking his surplus money away, there are 100 poor starving people who will thank us for the money we give them. That is DEMOCRACY.

it is greed in its fullest. There is more than enough food on this planet to feed eveyrone without taking away Bill Gates money. If your goal is to ensure people have food, clothing, and medicine, that can easily be accomplished and still allow for people to find luxuries they enjoy in life. You, once again, are a 'one or the other' mentality- the fallacy of the excluded middle.

In time, this system will eradicate poverty and people will get used to it. And at any given moment, we will have the majority on our side.

how can you say this? I dont see anyone being happy in your society. It is a miserable existence. Money will have no real value in your society so you will not eradicate poverty. All you will do is make sure everyone is fed. But everyone is already fed here in the US, plus I get to play computer games and watch "Lord of the Rings." In fact, LOTR itself - just that one single movie, a product only of capitalism, is superior to your entire society.

There will be many choices of cars and houses! They will all have the same VALUE, but that doesn't mean they have to look the same! You can do many different things with the same amount of money.

which is bizzare and impossible. Some people might want to add a CD player, others might want to add a sun roof. SOme might want to add 4 wheel drive. You just absolutely CANNOT regulate value. Value is based upon demand. Period. If no one wants your car, i dont care what its quality is, it has no value. Again, in your society money will be worthless. Within 10 years, you would have widespread rebellion and revolution. People resist government tryin to regulate value and demand. They always have, always will.

And yes, everyone will have more or less equal wealth. You don't have the right to be rich, but in echange the government ensures that you will never be poor.

then it is not a democracy. If i cant choose to save my money, if I cant choose to sell my goods and store up that money to accumulate wealth, then there is no freedom. you are not for democracy. you are for societal slavery.

There will always be SOME people who buy your product. Those people will evaluate whether your product is good or not. That is HALF of the evaluating process.

so if i make something that only 1 person buys, that 1 persons evaluation would have the same weight as 500,000 people evaluating a popular product? Kind of like distributed voting power eh? 10 eskimo votes = 10,000,000 caucasion votes?

Man your government is so huge and so full of holes, it is literally unbelievable. Here is what I do. I make a quality thing that no one wants. My friend on the internet agrees to buy it and give it a good review if I return the favor to him. I just circumvented your flawed government.

The other half consists of a series of councils like the ones Nema described. They will be composed of experts in that particular field. And they will regulate EACH OTHER to eliminate fraud. You see, all councils are part of a giant network. They are interconnected. To make a fraud, you would have to get thousands of people to go along with it.Practically impossible.

no very possible. I just described how I would get half of the process to value my product. So now this product that NO ONE WANTS, which receives GOOD REVIEWS from people in the populace goes through council who then OVERRULES the votes of the citicens? Uh, was this democracy or not? So the council has absolute power then?

No, it is not his music. He can't sell it. But he gets paid for it, by the system I described earlier.

how much does he get paid?

Those checks would be gifts. Of course we don't take people's gifts away! That would be stupid and insane. But why would 1 million people do something like that? Don't you support the idea that people are naturally greedy and self-centered? (that's what capitalism says)

people would do that because the item would be in demand. and items in demand have value. Therefore they would be willing to give a small gift relative to them for the item of value. For each one that gives a small gift, the effect on him is neglible. To the one recieving multiple small gifts, the effect is great wealth. So again, I ask, this guy that became wealthy do to a capitalistic process, what happens to him? I just want to make sure you are telling me he gets to keep all this money.

So if you're lazy you're relatively poor, and if you work hard you are relatively rich. Sounds good to me!

sounds good to me too. But I already have a government like this.

WRONG. Fundamentally wrong! Even if my system would be utter crap, it is ridiculous to claim that capitalism is the best possible government!

There is ALWAYS room for improvement and nothing lasts forever. Capitalism WILL fall and be replaced by something else, sooner or later. You can't prevent it.

capitalism is simply freedom to buy and sell presupposing equal rights for all. its very basic and pure in its true form. In every non-capitalist society that has ever existed on this planet, there was a capitalist sub-culture or "underground". People want it. Period. Its just how we are. You have something I want, I have something you want, and we have the freedom to swap or the freedom not to swap.

but good post, Edric. You are improving your post quality and I enjoy the discussion.

Any attempts to maintain the status quo are doomed to failure. The world never stagnates.

People have been the same since the fall of man. Nothing has changed.

[Anathema]

Quote:

So if you're lazy you're relatively poor, and if you work hard you are relatively rich. Sounds good to me!

sounds good to me too. But I already have a government like this.

Then you admit your government doesn't follow capitalism in its purest form?

[nemafakei]

"But I already have a government like this"

It may not be a problem for you, but it causes problems for others!

"People want it"

That's no excuse. It's occurrence doesn't mean it's good. Cities have rats. It's popularity doesn't mean it's good - take many drugs (not literally).

On the other hand, harmless luxuries are good. But we need to work a bit first. We need to check that pretty much everyone has the basics before allowing luxuries. If your air conditioning is using up excess power, all well and good, but if you're denying people of a way to cook their food by using it, it's immoral.

"Greed is the reason, Edric"

Greed is what's crippling the current system. Those in power are greedy to stay so - not because they are good at it, but because they receive money from it. Note also those in power who have accumulated huge amounts of wealth (who needs millions of pounds, let alone more?) and can therefore exert malign influence with this money. Meanwhile, this money, an expression of buying power of a percentage of the worlds's resources is sitting in an account gaining interest, producing little, rather than doing anything to help those who support the world economy - the base producers, like farmers, miners, then factory workers (slightly less so) and up the economic food chain.

[Rin0c3rus]

Well im in the Atreides religion! hows that??? :D

[emprworm]

"People want it"

That's no excuse. It's occurrence doesn't mean it's good. Cities have rats. It's popularity doesn't mean it's good - take many drugs (not literally).

ok, lets consider your point. You created an analogy of people wanting to have the freedom to buy/sell as being a 'rat'. So if people want this, then society wants it. I find this odd that you would call something people want as bad. You are making an appeal to a moral standard that is higher than society itself. how are you able to do this? Just curious.

On the other hand, harmless luxuries are good. But we need to work a bit first. We need to check that pretty much everyone has the basics before allowing luxuries. If your air conditioning is using up excess power, all well and good, but if you're denying people of a way to cook their food by using it, it's imorral.

fine, i'll go along with that. and i wouldnt say EVERYONE has the basics here in the US, but its darn near pretty close. My main point is this: there is ample food and ample means to make sure everyone on this planet has the basics and STILL allow for wealthy people. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. One thinks too narrow if he embraces such a view. There is no need to steal from the rich in order to feed the poor.

[Anathema]

fine, i'll go along with that. and i wouldnt say EVERYONE has the basics here in the US, but its darn near pretty close. My main point is this: there is ample food and ample means to make sure everyone on this planet has the basics and STILL allow for wealthy people. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. You think too narrow if you embrace such a view.

Please provide a link to an article that states so, because this is hardly a well known fact.

Fact is, how do you get cheap products like shoes if wages are high all across the world? Shoes made by workers won't be cheap anymore. For that, you'd need to automate shoe industries.

If we want to provide the same luxuries for everyone, we'd need to restructure the entire world economy- a change that would take decades if not centuries.

[Edric O]

I'm sorry, but I really don't have the time to write more than one mega-post per day. I'll have to answer you tomorrow. :(

But I just want to mention that you've got the wrong idea about my perfect world. It is NOT an anthill. It is NOT a gray, boring existence. On the contrary. The very CORE of my philosophy is that we should ensure everyone's happiness.

By "luxuries" I mean multi-million dollar possesions. Yachts, highly expensive jewelry, private jets. They are a waste of money. They are used by the rich to spit on the hopes and dreams of the poor. By building such monstrosities, the rich say:

"I'd rather have my yacht than give you money to feed your children!"

That attitude cannot be tolerated.

However, things like movies, or computer games, or your synthesizer module, are definately NOT costing you anywhere near a million dollars. They are not luxuries. They are perfectly acceptable means of increasing your happiness.

The rest of my comments will come tomorrow, I have no more time now...

P.S. I'll take time to think a lot on the issue of saving money, since you consider it so important.

(but "investing" is an obsolete concept in my system, because of the collective ownership of companies)

[nemafakei]

"So if people want this, then society wants it."

Misuse of ambiguity.

We may want something, but it may be damaging to us or to others. Therefore we must all look out that we and those around us do not damage others (or do so as little as possible). Damage to us or to others is bad. That's how I rationalise it.

"The two are NOT mutually exclusive"

Agreed, but we must walk before being able to run. Once almost everyone in the WORLD, not just the US is up to the basics, then we can apply luxury to those who work well - in accordance with how much we are capable of. Remember that we must get everyone fed and educated before we can produce enough resources as a macrocommunity to provide luxury for others.

"There is no need to steal from the rich in order to feed the poor"

Provided the rich are not just rich because they have stolen from the poor, directly OR indirectly.

[emprworm]

However, things like movies, or computer games, or your synthesizer module, are definately NOT costing you anywhere near a million dollars. They are not luxuries. They are perfectly acceptable means of increasing your happiness.

problem is Edric that one movie, Titanic, was more luxurious and more expensive than 200 yachts combined. There is no way such a thing could ever exist in a non-capitalist society. Movies are entertainment. Vacations, games, music- all pleasures of life. Capitalism is full of life's pleasures. These things are stripped in your world. The moment you cut opulence, you cut out these things as well. You cannot call LOTR anything other than what it is: meag-million dollar opulence.

And I love it.

[ordos45]

Organized religion if you were wondering what was happening to the original topic...note: this ain't my religion, just one I research.

www.cuew.org

Anyhow, Edric, what about religion?