OverclockedJesus Posted:

Right, because there would be no lifeforms which have desires and will, and there would be no scarcity. So we can simply dispense with that counterfactual posit, as we do have desires and will. And there will always be scarcity.

Not everyone can have everything so scarcity of non-essentials is a fact, but as far as food and shelter, the only 2 things we actually NEED, scarcity is not a necessary condition. There are people starving in North America and it sure as hell is not an issue of scarcity, just one of lack of money for certain people. As far as non-essentials go the issue becomes greed which is the number one problem. Yes there will be scarcity but if we get rid of the mentality that we need to have every game, electronic device, piece of clothing/furniture then they would not suffer for lack of it. At least not enough to be a great issue.

Capitalism is not the closest thing to a perfect communist state (which I agree is not likely to ever happen in any reasonable timeframe) it is the complete opposite. Socialism is the closest thing we have so far since Communism runs off of a desire for the wellbeing of the State, which of course includes all of its inhabitants, while Capitalism cares only for the wellbeing of the individual and is meant to work through the principles of the Invisible Hand. The closest ever achieved of this was during the industrial revolution which will quite clearly show just how well that worked out for the general populace. It was only the introduction of communist ideas such as Unions that the quality of life began improving for the working clbum and they must be considered in an ideal society, even just a good society if you wish to avoid the Nirvana Fallacy (which is what you’re you’re trying to point out that we may be foolishly doing)

And as for money being a standardized replacement of the barter system. Of course it is, but the barter system itself relied on that motivation to work which was provided by money. People didn’t simply give away what they created because they had more than they needed and others needed some (Which is what I would consider ideal motivation, a bit of empathy for your fellow man) but rather in order to get all the things they needed or wanted. As such the overall schema is based on greed even if an individual component was a standardized replacement.

Although mankind is stuck in a mindset which makes a working communism impossible at this point, I don’t believe that it is in principle impossible, but rather a worthy goal to try and work towards.

CrinkzPipe Posted:

Just hoppin’ in to lol at people who think their version of “Ideal society” is the same as every one else’s.

You must have missed the page where we all uniformly agreed that unbelievers would be separated and eliminated in order to ensure ideological purity. Maybe they got stuck together…

That or we were actually disagreeing about what is an “Ideal society” and I have no clue what you’re talking about.

Dunatis Posted:

You must have missed the page where we all uniformly agreed that unbelievers would be separated and eliminated in order to ensure ideological purity. Maybe they got stuck together…

That or we were actually disagreeing about what is an “Ideal society” and I have no clue what you’re talking about.

I’ve mainly looked at the “arguement” between hobart and overclockedjesus

let me give a sincere shrug

Log in to see images!

just kill the poor and the sick and lets live in a big walakia

Dunatis Posted:

Not everyone can have everything so scarcity of non-essentials is a fact

Scarcity period is a fact. And there are no needs; there are only higher- and lower-order wants/desires. Value is subjective, not objective.

Dunatis Posted:

Capitalism is not the closest thing to a perfect communist state

Perfection is a Platonic anti-concept, and communism is inherently unworkable for a “society”.

Dunatis Posted:

(which I agree is not likely to ever happen in any reasonable timeframe) it is the complete opposite. Socialism is the closest thing we have so far since Communism runs off of a desire for the wellbeing of the State

How disgusting of it! The state is a coercive expropriating territorial monopoly, and to care for the well-being of that is to care for theft and all sorts of other rights-violations. No thanks.

Dunatis Posted:

which of course includes all of its inhabitants, while Capitalism cares only for the wellbeing of the individual

By that I gather you mean individual atomism, which is a strawman. Further, the industrial revolution which you disdain was part of what brought a mbumive increase in the standard of living for people. The introduction of communism has always regressed the standard of living.

Dunatis Posted:

And as for money being a standardized replacement of the barter system. Of course it is, but the barter system itself relied on that motivation to work

No, it relies on the fact that humans have desires and seek to sate those desires in various ways, one of which is trade.

Econ: learn it.

I think this forum should be called Dave Barrys, because that guy is a nut.

duca Posted:

Ducaism = drink beer, sleep with pretty boys/girls, eat cheese, be awesome.

Isn’t that Epicureanism on a budget?

Veer Posted:

This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. And any ideal society demands respect for human beings: even from a rational self-interested point of view, society as a whole would prosper better and be more self-sustaining in a truly egalitarian society. After all in a society with a down-trodden underclbum there’s the risk of a rebellion and rich people or reactionaries end up being murdered. U.S.S.R. yo

It’s in the best interests of people to be good to other people by the virtue of the Golden Rule. If that’s your only reason to be good to others, you’re kind of a sad person but this is the easiest argument for it

I was going to comment, but holy crap, you summed it up pretty damn well right there.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Only in the sense that we all have the same rights.

Personally I disagree with the concept of human Rights in the sense that they cannot ever be removed. They should be considered privileges that can be revoked. I have the privilege to walk outside but when I go bumaulting people, I lose that privilege.

Also equality can mean an infinite number of things. As an example, at the place I work, all people (full-time, Part-time, Casual) all pay the same union dues which is equal. If we were to pay union dues based off of hours worked. This is also equal as we all still pay the same, only it is now an equation rather than a base number. We could also run a monthly draw where the person chosen gets no pay and is instead killed and their organs harvested for sale on the black market which is used to cover the union expenses. As we all have equal chances of being drawn we are still being treated equally. I hate when people bumume that equality has only one way to be presented which is for the baseline number.

As far as the Golden Rule goes, really Christians should just erase the entire bible EXCEPT for that until they can live by that one rule. That’s for the most part all Jesus really had to say and it’s the best part of the bible IMHO.

Although I would add an addendum to the Golden Rule so that it read “Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated with the knowledge that not everyone is exactly like you” To avoid people like sado/masochists taking that literally and hurting others.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Revoked…by whom? If they can be revoked, who gives them in the first place (unless you’re just speaking metaphorically).

Therein lies the problem, or rather where the legal system comes in. We all agree on actions which are considered to be violation of our privileges and those who violate those of others have their own revoked in such a manner as to prevent them from being able to infringe on others. Really it’s nothing more than a semantics argument regarding the use of the words Rights.

My contention is that by calling it a Right, people get it into their heads that nothing can be done to have it removed. As we infringe on the rights of criminals in order to protect the Rights of others can we really call them Rights in the first place? To say that it is a Right to bear arms, then we cannot remove that Right from those who go around murdering. Yet as a privilege we can revoke it if you decide that you will commit murder in a robbery or some other illegal act. It’s a subtle consideration as to how people think of their actions as if we believe that we only have privileges some may act in a slightly different manner in order to preserve them.