If you're commenting on the monetary system in general, is there any alternative that takes human laziness into account?

Social Anarchy and Socialism, are two schools of thought that denounce the monetary system............. unfortunately complete social reform takes a long time, and corporation's have a stranglehold on the human population :(

Therein lies the problem.

No reform of social structures can ever change the two basic human traits, greed and laziness.

With no monetary system, there is no system in place (not even a severely flawed one) that can gauge a person's labour. With no meter ticking, lazy and greedy people (the majority of the human population) have no reason to work.

Simply speaking, social systems that depend on goodwill and voluntary labour will never work.

In Tom Clancy's book "Rainbow Six", a team of biochemists concoct a virus that'll kill nearly all of the world's population with flu-like symptoms. Their objective was to return the planet to a non-polluted, more natural environment. After reading it's 800+ pages, I nearly found myself taking the side of the Bio-terrorists.
If only I had been born previously in this evolutionary chain:
http://elchevelle.homestead.com/files/Evolution.jpg

Social Anarchy is more or less every man for himself......... the only reform necessary is the overthrowing of all ruling parties, be it a democracy, dictatorship or even a theocracy. BTW - Social Anarchy actually works around humans inherant laziness, and in fact justifies it.

But you are correct, most humans are greedy and lazy, perhaps a system where you work and earn hour-credits......... ie...... mr x. works for 8 hours as a garbageman and mrs. y. works for 8 hours as a teacher, and both get 8 hour-credits....... I've read papers on systems that work similar to this although I am missing some of the finer details.

useless fact: im trying to popularize the term "unitedstatesian" which comes from the spanish word for americans estadounidenses.

I know some people (some of whom frequent this forum) that are still stuck on the first step of this evolutionary chain. :D

I am an avowed opponent of socialism- it stifles the proper flow of capital and materia- and on top of that, the system is incredibly ineffecient since so much power is put on too few individuals that are incable of making correct decisions. (No one person or committee could ever administrate an economy correctly; its impossible)

Come on now, this is basic econ 101 here-

The eternal question "Which economic system will we choose" boils down to these two questions: "How will resources be allocated?" and "Who will decide how they are allocated" (i.e. the market or the government)

America allows the market to dictate prices with minimal govt. intervention for the most parts (i.e. tariffs taxes)

European countries in general allow the markets to have their say, but are always interfering by putting in price ceilings, floors. And, they put large sales taxes on all items that cause consumers and
businesses to spend less- which creates less economic activity,
which creates less growth opportunity/potential, which creates less replenishment of the capital-stock, and on and on and on. It is incredibly stifling to expansion and profit.
The large amount tax money collected is then dumped into govt services. Many times, these are services that would be bettr off privatized. The BBC I think is a prime example; taxes are collected for it, and yet, many American programs are sold to the BBC to be aired on it. Waste! Better programming comes through competition. Better healthcare as well. When there is no competition, there is stagnation.

The USSR was socialism without market forces deciding allocation- rather a small cadre of elites did the deciding. And we all know how they ended up. That is the worst case scenario, yet i feel many politicians long to imitate this model for some godforsaken reason.

[b]IMO, It is more just and humanitarian to allow raw market forces decide the distribution of wealth and resource; anything that interupts it is unnatural. [b]The unrestricted free market is the closest thing to a true democracy people will ever create- as it forces every participant (i.e. every consumer) to contribute to it.

I swear, college macroeconomics should be taught beginning 9th grade- maybe then all the gross misconceptions of socialism/communism/anarchy could be cleansed out of the general mind for good.

do i need Business 1 and Economics 1 more than health and phys ed? damn strait i do. but because of the wonderful govenment, i'm stuck doin stupid shit. guess theyre just trying to reduce their future social security payouts.

xerxes: damn...i was just about to say that too :D

Xerxes, you da man. :D

Carmagio, why would I be in college getting a degree if when I got out, I couldn't earn more than the garbage man? If I make the same, no matter what the job, why wouldn't I just work at McDonald's? Oh wait, no one could afford to own a McDonalds if we all made the same amount of money.

If there are no wealthy people, there are no jobs. Capitalism promotes econmic growth. Anything else stagnates and collapses.

As for anarchism. . . no laws, no government, nothing at all. All societies started as Anarchy. Why do you think they evolved past that point? Anarchy does not work.

Anarchy always turns into monarchy/dictatorship. These monarchies generally evolve into democracies. If/When these democracies turn into socialism, they fall.

Firstly, what you learn in an economic class is not a good argument. That's like me arguing to a non believer that god exists by quoting the bible.

Secondly, we did not start out as an anarchic society..... even the most primitive of species employ some sort of hierarchy. It would actually be a evolution for us to switch to a socialistic society.......... one, I should mention, without any taintings of capatalism.

Please Curios_George, obviously if a society were to embrace a perfect model of the socialistic society or anarchistic society, wealth, economic growth etc, would not need to be considered, as they wouldn't exist..... I just want to know why you think or don't think anarchy/social anarchy would/wouldn't work, without resorting to "capatalism works because....."

I'm not saying this is something that could work any time soon, but it is a step that I feel we are bound to take.

I would like to hear your opinions on this, but please refrain from subjective arguments. Don't argue something from your current bias. Be open minded and see it as if you were an outside viewer.

In case your wondering, i'm not some young punk that gets his jollies by drawing anarchy symbols on everything he owns, or i do not embrace the "different" in order to appear cool.

Are there any comments on this:

What the social anarchists understand, and what the neo-conservatives fail to understand is that minimal government is key in preserving the "mediating institutions" that all conservatives should be in favor of preserving. It is government that deserves the blame for the destruction of our local institutions in the 20th century. The government’s courts have done more to destroy freedom of association and freedom of religion than any libertarian movement could ever do. It is our government which has taken upon itself the mission of cleansing our American communities of anything religious and classifying any references to God as "hate speech." It is government which has ruined our local communities by creating a dependence on a snooping federal government which seeks to centrally plan every aspect of our lives.

When exactly was it when a bunch of social anarchists rose up and demanded that all Americans give up their current way of life for the "libertarian" way of life? Social anarchists fully accept that civil society is full of institutions like family and church which govern our actions and do not allow complete freedom. All these institutions, though, unlike the state, allow fluid and free entry and exit. Social anarchists recognize that in order to receive the benefits of family and church, certain "tradeoffs" must be made. Such tradeoffs are a good thing, but apparently, voluntary tradeoffs like these don’t count when viewed through the eyes of a neo-conservative

Social engineering and social policy is the stuff of government, not social anarchy. Only when the arrogance of government apologists allows them to think their plan for society is superior are the valued institutions of American civilization trashed in the pursuit of the "better society". This, of course, is the central inconsistency of neo-conservatism. They feel that they can somehow figure out a way to use government to shape society more along the lines of what they would like to see. In order to do this, however, they have to make sure that government remains strong enough, so that when they do occasionally get some power, they can use that power to shove their intellectualism down everyone else’s throats. The real American tradition of conservatism is that of limited government to allow the natural development of mediating institutions within American civil society. It is not a tradition of conservative scheming to socially engineer American society.

Who used their economics class as an arguing point? Xerxes said it should be taught. I didn't even mention a class.

Take a group of people (Think larger than survivor). Put them in an uninhabited place to survive. Right now there are no rules, no economy, just chaos. (eg: Anarchy) One of two things will happen. Either someone will emerge as the leader by simpy being the strongest, most capable in the group, or the group will basically elect a leader.

In the first case, we now have a dictator: ruling through strength and fear. This would later be considered a monarchy if the family line retained the leadership for generations. This likely would be eventually overthrown when the people became unhappy with the leadership. In this case, the people would elect a leader. (see case 2)

In the second case, we skipped or finished the dictator step and went straight to democracy. This might also take place by electing a group of leaders rather than a single leader. In any case, here we are, in a democracy. Usually takes longer than three minutes, though. :)

This is the way it generally happens. Whatever your belief in the evolution/creation of humanity, there was a time when there was no governing body. Eventually, one evolved from the anarchy. This was also the case when the UK decided to drop all the criminals onto Australia. A productive society evolved from these criminals. Of course, these criminals also killed off the natives. :(

It is true, moving to a socialism political system would be evolution from democracy. Unfortunately, humans are not capable of existing in a socialist society. No one will work when there is nothing to be gained. There will never be enough people who care so deeply for society that they will slave away creating science and technology so that they might recieve the same pay as their garbage man. Honestly, can you say that you would? I'd get the easiest job in the world, or else I would call in sick every single day.

Humans will never work when they are not required to. If you don't have to work to survive, you will not. Why do you think our welfare system is so perverted? No one wants off the system. The only people who ever get off welfare are those the government refuses to support any more and the ones that wish to earn more money. More money is always an incentive, and socialism doesn't have it.

Think about it. You see a penny onthe street. You might just pass it by, right? I would. It's not worth taking the time to pick it up. Now, you see a one hundred dollar bill on the ground. You don't get this either, though, because there were four other people who saw it at the same time as you and they are all fighting over it. That's the human greed kicking in. You have to have an incentive or you will not work. A penny might not be enough of an incentive, but a hundred dollar bill probably is.

Anarchy basically just means that there is no government. People would resort to bartering (which is actually just a form of capitalism) until a better economy and political system evolved. Socialism and anarchy can't truly mix, because socialism would have to be government enforced (though it could be a democratic government). Anarchy, by definition, cannot exist in conjunction with a government.

In anarchy, socialism is completely impossible, because bartering would have to be the economic choice. If everyone owned everything equally, then there would be no production of anything at all. Even less so than in a socialist market. If one man grows crops and everyone takes them, he will immediately stop taking care of his crops. On the other hand, if he is trading these crops for, say gold and beef, then he will grow as much of these crops as he possibly can.

If we take this step, our society will fall. No one will work, or ay least not hard enough to matter. The economy will suffer and eventually it will collapse.

I think I did that this time. If you'd like for me to argue why capitalism is so much better (read: competition), I'll do that, too.

Sorry, I was refering to Xerses' comment


LOL.... I cannot honestly disagree with you, which is why I stated that this is not a system that is attainable any time in the near future. We would have to transcend our greed and hatred in order for such a sytem to work.


Social anarchy is a system of no ruling parties, where the well being of social standards is upheld through mutual respect..... once again, not something attainable by today's standards :(


Economy will have no precedence as it would be negated. Just try and remove yourself temporarily from your capitalistic mindset and picture a system without any form of currency, or need for trading.........


Thank you, it's good to know that someone is capable of posting a reply without resorting to "im a god" or "america sucks because it just does".

I'm too tired to post a coherant reply right now, but I'll be sure to get back to you in the morning.

thnx

That's just the thing, though. If there is no government, no money, and no trading, where is this all coming from? There wold ave to e goernment, if ony to organize the distribution of food and products.

You, too. A good debate is sort of fun. Good night.

It really depends on which system your talking about........ with socialism, goods are distributed by the common population, this being regulated simply by the goodwill of your fellow man. This system requires a lot of trust, and it leaves no room for laziness. Forms of socialism actually do exist in today's society. Several places have communes where you can go and live a life free of cash and corporations. Of course the communes require some sort of income as they exist in a strictly capatalistic world, so the members of the commune work together to create a product to be sold outside their society. The jewish community also have something called a kabutz (sorry about the spelling) which if I'm not mistaken uses the same principle, one catch however, you have to practice judaism.

With social anarchism, once again distribution is left up to your fellow man. The thing with this system is it's a system of free choice. Nothing is forced on you, you embrace it or you don't, end of story.

This web site is a little one sided, but it gives some great points for Social Anarchism..... quite a comprehensive site

ya'll know the news. isn't a little ironic after starting a thread with such a name that america gets a kick in the ass?

a little tasteless, but you're right, the irony is thick.


Not only that, I argued against capatalism and the symbol of american capatalism was destroyed :(

I'm just waiting for America to finally use its military might for once. And open up a can of whoop ass on 'em.

we may get to see it soon

I'm pretty sure Bush is going to make sure someone gets an Southern-style Ass-Whoopin'.

I pity da fool.

sorry car.. i wasnt tryin to be funny or offensive. its just the truth.


didnt u guys see on the news. they say america is attacking the capital of afganistan.

no prob, I understand........ still not sure if america's doing the bombing though.... could be due to the civil war they're fighting......



Now worries.... I wasn't offended :D

ok good. i hope this all works out. read my 'uh-oh' post

No, we are not. They are busy bombing themselves in a Civil War.

What goes around comes around (with pain)...
 

You motherfuckers.... I'm from Serbia and I had in 20-th year of my life 77 days to listen NATO airplanes and bombs... 71 bomb fall 1km southeast of my hose...
Was it nice... Well... it wasn't... But I hope that you'll burn in hell ....
You deserve it...
Enjoy your masterwork... It is all you'r fault...
}:o>

Fuck you too asshole. We are all responsible for our own fates. After all, do you think that happened to you for nothing? Ha!

Hey Obi...
 

I wish you could be here.. at those days... And that you could drink cold beer with me while watching missiles spoting your neighbourhood...
And ofcourse that you are right... I am resposible...
But could you tell me why???
Oh wise one....
My fault is cause I'm born....
Talk that to someone other...
Pass what I did and then try to talk something on this question.

Re: What goes around comes around (with pain)...
 

Somehow, you are not responsible for anything, but everyone in America is? I'm sorry that you have people bombing in your area, but it's not my fault either.

I'm no more responsible for this than you are. However, there are quite a few people in the Middle East who are terrorists. There aren't a whole lot of people in America who commit terrorist attacks against other countries.

America doesn't attack others unless we are provoked, or if we are protecting one of our allies. That's what allies are for. When our allies are attacked in the Middle East, then we protect them. When terrorists from the Middle East attack us, who are they protecting? No one. They are only bringing more attacks against their countries by killing innocent civilians.

Don't blame me. And don't rejoice because innocent Americans died. Remember what you said: What goes around comes around.

FUCK anyone who praises those who cause death to innocent people!

all those people from serbia and cosovo and all those 3rd world countries have every right in the world to mad at US!!

the reason is obvious.

i support you abraksas.

You are joking, right?

Why should they be mad at the US?

cuz. so many inocent people die from those bombings, of course i know that 50,000 thousand people were murdered today and its really awful. im just sayin abraksas(or wutever) can bitch all he wants.

Well, I know that we bomb them, but it isn't exactly unprovoked when it happens.

Serbia has quite a few morons perpetuating their problems.

And he still shouldn't be happy when innocent people die. I don't throw parties when innocent Saudi Arabians die.

thats sick shit. celebrating inocent people die? well, it probly makes them happy cuz so many of them died.

People like Beer Baron are the reasons many other countries hate Americans
 

The main thing that limits America's greatness is that too many Americans think that there's no limit to America's greatness.

Why can the american army kill thousands of Irak andK osovo people and nobody cares and when somebody flies a plane to a silly building the whole world is shocked. fuck this american attitude Fuck george bush fuck American hipocrisy. Fuck America

Flowhow

I do not care squat for america, what I care and grieve about is the loss of thousands of civilian, HUMAN lives. :(

Me too. america sucks.the government asked for it with their stupid military politics.
Poor people though.
oh and once again
. Fuck george bush. The really should have dropped a plane on him.
If there is gonna be a 3rd world war I am sure it is gonna be his fault.

Flowhow