I think an allusion to The Culture would have been more precise.
If we ever reach Culture-like tech… than sure. Socialism would work.
That’s one hell of a fuckin’ if though.
Socialism and capitalism is best seen on a continuum. Socialism on one side, and capitalism on the other side. If you are not 100% either, then you are some portion of both.
Communism is a highly theoretical existence, and nobody seems to be explaining it, or understanding it well here.
Communism is actually a government free society where everyone owns everything.
The communist countries actually used socialism as a way to control and temporarily hold the economy in place as the “natural” communist system fell into place.
Now why doesn’t any of this work. (And no it does not.)
The first reason is that it involves government power. Socialism is all about giving up control to the government. When a person is in power, most would have a problem giving up that power. And being in power, why should they?
The second problem is the fact that it completely ignores human nature. Actually it ignores all of nature.
Survival of the fittest is how the world works. It is also how capitalism works, when the government is not getting involved that is. People and companies need to must satisfy the needs of the customer, or the customer will go elsewhere, and so will their money.
Which brings us to the third reason socialism does not work. The government does not care who the best is for a job. The person who works hard is of no more value then the lazy bum. If you build 5 wigits an hour, then find out that your co-worker who builds one a day, yet gets the same pay and benefits as you, and is actually guaranteed to always get the same pay and benefits, are you going to continue to work your ass off making 5 an hour when you know for a fact that cutting down to one a day will not hurt you financially?
Then the 4th reason. Co-dependence. (Yes I am repeating myself. I am just consolidating everything I have said before.) People care about others, and want to do good. But you need to make sure you are helping people, and not enabling bad behavior.
One person lives a frugal life, saving for their child’s education while another spends everything they get, saving nothing. The person who saved does not qualify government paid education, but the person who did not, does. (And this is a true story by the way.) Knowing this, why should anyone save? The person who actually lived the better life now qualifies for benefits, while the person who lived a harsher one does not.
5th reason. lack of failure. There is this crazy idea that we need to eliminate the whole concept of failure. No more failing kids in school. No winners and losers in games. Everyone succeeds. But if a person cannot fail, why should they try? How important is the trophy if everyone gets one? Our efforts to eliminate pain and anxiety has institutionalized the art of spoiling people, and one thing we do not need is a nation of spoiled brats.
How can anyone benefit from a system that rewards punishes people who produce, and rewards those that do not?
I know, we are told that the rich all got their money from their Daddies, or they stole that money. But the facts do not support those accusations. (Last I knew) 95% of people worth a million or more made that money themselves.
Then the average millionaire actually works 50% - 100% more then the average person does. (60 - 80+ compared to less then 40 for the average person.) Frugality is also a prime reason for financial success. (Read the Millionaire Next Door. Lots of fascinating statistics.)
Research has shown that the single biggest factor in financial success is the ability to delay gratification. If you need it NOW, then you get the benefit of using that credit card, and paying an extra 20% for everything you buy. Of if you realized that by being patient, that car you need NOW can be bought used at half the price in ~30 months. (An investment guaranteed to lose half of it’s value in 2 1/2 years? Gee, why aren’t these people rich?)
Seriously, when you understand money and finances, you realize how easily socialism falls flat on it’s face.
[quote]oneils wrote:
pat wrote:
streamline wrote:
Why is that republicans don’t see manditory drug testing, as well as drug screening as socialism hard at work. Laws that force individuals to relinquish their freedom for employment. With continuous random period of social conformity to remind the individual that they are not in control. America is already awash with socialism, just look around at the rights, oh sorry you lost those ones.
Mandatory drug testing is wrong. It to is a violation of freedoms. The government has not place trying to control what a person ingests. It is simply none of their business.
Mandatory drug testing by the gov? Or by anyone? In either case, can’t I use Doubleduce’s logic?
If you don’t want to take drug tests, don’t become a pilot.
You have a choice. Don’t take a job which requires you to be sober.
[/quote]
Poor logic. Alcohol is out of your system in hours and it is no secret that pilots (especially in the 60’s and 70’s along with most military personel) were known to take part in getting lit on a regular basis. What does what some guy does on his weekend have to do with his job on Monday?
If you truly wanted a workplace free of all mind altering substances, you would ban people from drinking alcohol in their free time as well and develop a test that could detect it days later.
Why is it your employers business what you do in your free time unless it directly affects your job performance?
[quote]Spry wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The US is not capitalist.
Penalties can be an incentive to behavioral change, but it isn’t the same thing.
Forcing someone to change before an incident and penalizing them is not torts law. Seeing a lose board in your house and fixing it because you don’t want to get sued and a guest in your house ordering you to fix it before they might trip are entirely different even if the board gets fixed in both situations.
What in the hell is the US if it is not capitalist?
You are being stubborn on thinking penalties do not restrict behaviour. The Government orders you to fix the footpath by enforcing penalties for injury occuring from your failure to do so.
You are sort of free to not fix it and leave it to chance if someone trips and falls but that is not freedom in my mind.
That is disobediance of the law.
Anyway, what in the hell is the US if it is not capitalist?
[/quote]
A little bit fascist, a little bit socialist, very corporatist and mercantilistic and the remaining 40% are a capitalist society that finance the rest.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
oneils wrote:
pat wrote:
streamline wrote:
Why is that republicans don’t see manditory drug testing, as well as drug screening as socialism hard at work. Laws that force individuals to relinquish their freedom for employment. With continuous random period of social conformity to remind the individual that they are not in control. America is already awash with socialism, just look around at the rights, oh sorry you lost those ones.
Mandatory drug testing is wrong. It to is a violation of freedoms. The government has not place trying to control what a person ingests. It is simply none of their business.
Mandatory drug testing by the gov? Or by anyone? In either case, can’t I use Doubleduce’s logic?
If you don’t want to take drug tests, don’t become a pilot.
You have a choice. Don’t take a job which requires you to be sober.
Poor logic. Alcohol is out of your system in hours and it is no secret that pilots (especially in the 60’s and 70’s along with most military personel) were known to take part in getting lit on a regular basis. What does what some guy does on his weekend have to do with his job on Monday?
If you truly wanted a workplace free of all mind altering substances, you would ban people from drinking alcohol in their free time as well and develop a test that could detect it days later.
Why is it your employers business what you do in your free time unless it directly affects your job performance?[/quote]
I certainly wasn’t intimating being bombed at work. The hours you do not work are yours. Nobody should control your life outside of work. The company does not own you, they pay for your labor not your entire being.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
oneils wrote:
pat wrote:
streamline wrote:
Poor logic. Alcohol is out of your system in hours and it is no secret that pilots (especially in the 60’s and 70’s along with most military personel) were known to take part in getting lit on a regular basis. What does what some guy does on his weekend have to do with his job on Monday?
If you truly wanted a workplace free of all mind altering substances, you would ban people from drinking alcohol in their free time as well and develop a test that could detect it days later.
Why is it your employers business what you do in your free time unless it directly affects your job performance?[/quote]
Prof x, I wasn’t actually advocating an all or nothing approach to drug testing. I was trying to point out that issues such as this one are not so black and white. I guess I did a poor job at that.
For instance, if an airline can assure its passengers are safe in the air through precautions other than drug testing its pilots - great. If it chooses to mandate drug tests for its pilots - well fine. That is their choice. The pilots then have several options, not just one.
The don’t just have to “take it or leave it.” They can organise (i.e., unionise) and renegotiate their contract. They can even strike if they want. Or, they can each individually try to renegotiate their contract. They can lobby their elected representative and see if they can help…etc…etc.
Same goes for an employee who works with heavy machinery. If he suspects that other employees are doing drugs, he has plenty of options available, other than just quitting.
He can work with management to id and discipline these guys (that wouldn’t make him very popular, I imagine). Or, he could work with his union to develop some precautions etc…
I actually believe drugs should be legalised. But, I don’t think its unreasonable for certain employers to want to control drugs or drug use.
[quote]oneils wrote:
Professor X wrote:Poor logic. Alcohol is out of your system in hours and it is no secret that pilots (especially in the 60’s and 70’s along with most military personel) were known to take part in getting lit on a regular basis. What does what some guy does on his weekend have to do with his job on Monday?
If you truly wanted a workplace free of all mind altering substances, you would ban people from drinking alcohol in their free time as well and develop a test that could detect it days later.
Why is it your employers business what you do in your free time unless it directly affects your job performance?
Prof x, I wasn’t actually advocating an all or nothing approach to drug testing. I was trying to point out that issues such as this one are not so black and white.
For instance, if an airline can assure its passengers are safe in the air through precautions other than drug testing its pilots - great. If it chooses to mandate drug tests for its pilots - well fine. That is their choice. The pilots then have several options, not just one.
The don’t just have to “take it or leave it.” They can organise (i.e., unionise) and renegotiate their contract. They can even strike if they want. Or, they can each individually try to renegotiate their contract. They can lobby their elected representative and see if they can help…etc…etc.
Same goes for an employee who works with heavy machinery. If he suspects that other employees are doing drugs, he has plenty of options available, other than just quitting. He can work with management to id and discipline these guys (that wouldn’t make him very popular, I imagine). Or, he could work with his union to develop some precautions etc…
I actually think drugs should be legalised. But, I don’t think its unreasonable that certain employers want to control them.[/quote]
The problem I have with this again are the several known reports of pilots flying drunk. This country seems to ignore alcohol while being ridiculously concerned with everything else. The first thing to go with alcohol is judgment. I would be MORE worried about that than just about anything else.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The problem I have with this again are the several known reports of pilots flying drunk. This country seems to ignore alcohol while being ridiculously concerned with everything else. The first thing to go with alcohol is judgment. I would be MORE worried about that than just about anything else.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with that.
[quote]Spry wrote:
No, no, no.
You all did not read my question.
What if a government had the means to provide for the NEEDS of its citizens but allowed complete freedom to pursue your WANTS?
Think about Star Trek for what I mean.
Is Star Trek possible or can someone use logic to show me that such a society would ultimately fail?[/quote]
Your lazy.