Is relativity the root of the problem? - Theory of a floor a

[Supermodel]

Here's the dilemma and I'd really appreciate your thoughts on it.

In my world, fresh milk in the refrigerator and clean clothes every day are essentials. A car that runs reliably and has a good sound system is an essential.

In my world, a luxury is an item of jewellery, dinner in a nice restaurant, tickets to the theater.

Now compare this to the poor countries of the world where anything at all to eat is an essential. Decent food every day is a luxury. No one has jewellery, restaurants or theater.

It seems to me that "utopia", if we can break tribal and national barriers, would not prehaps take us all to a "happy medium" or the absolute midpoint of everyone's reality globally. Utopia could be approached by denying everyone the least utilitarian of the luxuries until all in the world had a "floor" level of essentials in the sense of food, medicine, clothing, shelter, law enforcement.

Would it not be the most practical solution to our political, tribal and cultural issues globally if we agreed where that floor was, agreed what the most unnecessary of luxuries was, and put floors and ceilings in place, just like nations do with currencies?

I know I could go without my luxuries if the outcome was hope and security for all of mankind.

I just don't think we will get started at all if economic (or class, if you want to call it that) equality can only be defined as everyone in the world having the same.

By the way, part of my theory is based on my own feminist belief that men see many of women's needs as luxury items, because beauty and serenity are part of a woman's world.

[Guest]

Property is an extention of oneself. It is symbolic of achievement and excellence. For me it is a pay off for the hard work I allocate my time for.
We do live in a society which is prosperous enough to allocate a fair amount it is capital labor and machinery for the purposes of creating items of luxury. This is a tribute to the spirit of free enterprise, a tribute to the spirit of humanity when it is free to think and acquire.
Competition is human nature. People push themselves harder when they are allowed to compete for recognition and/or status. When I put the substance of my being up against another mans I intend to win the contest. It is not just a race for monetary wealth and a better job title, it is a tribute to my character, my legacy.
The United States is the only country in the world that has taken such a chance with the human condition. The dispareties of wealth that you see in the world is proportional to the amount of freedom that is enjoyed by the people. It is no coincidence that the first country to rightfully pursued their rights as humans and defeated England's tyrannical rule has a head start, and leads the world in many aspects. The right of life, liberty and the pursuit of property remain fundamental to a free society. There is no other way to insure human rights. Communism/socialism is in dire opposition to these principles.
You say that you would give up all of your assets if it would help the lives of others. I say put your money where your mouth is. Take your nice car, your house/apartment, jewels, electronics, and money; go down to your local food kitchen, and divide it up amongst the poor people, for which your heart bleeds. See how much better you feel when the opportunity you gave those people is wasted. I dare you to see just what happens when you give somebody something for nothing.
Not convinced? Too drastic? Join the peace corps. Make your own choice to help people. Do what you can, but don't force others to do it for you. The only persons money you have the right to give away is your own. Do not advocate theft. Set up your own private charitable organization and raise the funds by requesting people for help.
It is not the mandate of the United States government to redistribute income and resources, no matter how long the liberals have encouraged you that it is. We are not at fault for the failings of others. They should be responsible for making the wrong choices and allowed to learn from their own mistakes.
Just because you don't mind laying down your rights for the welfare of others, does not mean the rest of us our willing. I am not talking greed, for I own nothing of significant value. I am talking about the disruption of freedom, the assasination of the human spirit. Rest assurred when someone comes to reallocate my property they will be met with resistance. An attack on my personal property is an attack on my person and will be met with force.

[Supermodel]

In really appreciate that point of view. No, I haven't given everything away because others have less, although I actually know a few people who have. My argument is that that is asking too much of every human being. That is the basis for my ceiling and floor approach to material equilibrium as opposed to absolute straight line rationing.

My car is not that nice by the way.

For some reason people here think I'm rich, I guess that's because I employ people in my businesses. Can we for Christ's sake get away from the image of Rockefeller with his top hat and cigar as the stereotypical business owner? It's a good day if I have pantyhose without a run in them. But then, massive diamond rings do tend to snag nylon (SWL)

I get more confused by the day by the things I read on this website. there seems to be a confusion between poverty and socialism, subsistence farming and socialism, manual labor and socialism.

All I can say is that Che's first strategic move in taking over Cuba was to accellerate the industrialization of the economy. He gave pride and status to the guajira without doubt, he believed in equality, but he was not confused about the need for nations to run massive industrial complexes and to trade with other nations.

[vox]

The guest's comments are ridiculous and have been dealt with ad nauseum on this board, so will be ignored.

SM,

As I recall, the UN (I think it was the UN) put the price of lifting everyone in the world out of extreme poverty at $80 billion, which isn't very much money.

No one was interested.

vox

[Supermodel]

vox, great to chat with you again. What a crying shame. Bill Gates could fix it on his lonesome.

How come we can't get real, practical ideas like this working on a global scale? If the UN won't lead the charge, or the WB or the IMF or FIFA or the Morman Tabernacle Choir, when will these problems get fixed?

Thanks for listening.

[vox]

Well, we could go on forever as to why. I think it's because the people in charge (or, in the terminology I use, the ruling elite) know exactly what they're doing and know that they benefit from it. See the recent Bush Administration report about global warming: yep, it's a problem, but we're not gonna do nuthin' 'bout it. Drill us some more oil, boys! Yeehaw!

I suppose that this is what separates someone like you from someone like me.

However, you might be interested in this piece about Joseph Stiglitz (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020610&s=press), who is a Nobel Prize winning economist and was the chief economist at the World Bank but who now crticizes, and harshly, the "Washington Consensus." It's a little long, and you might want to print it out and read it at your liesure, but I think you'd find it interesting. Stiglitz isn't a Marxist, by the way, he's a capitalist.

You can then look at something like the IMF and decide for yourself, based on what you know, why it continues to insist on structural readjustment programs that, time and time again, exacerbate the problem of poverty and do nothing to stabilize the economy.

It's all out there, right in the open, for all to see.

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from vox on 10:41 pm on June 6, 2002
The guest's comments are ridiculous and have been dealt with ad nauseum on this board, so will be ignored.



Translation: That makes too much sense, I can't generate my usual pretenteous, self righteous liberal drivel to counter utter logic.

[vox]

CI,

Go through the archives. It's clear you've no idea what you're talking about. Indeed, many people are sick of having to answer the same objections over and over again. I'm one of them. Do a little more reading and stop expecting to be spoonfed your entire life.

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

How dogmatic

[concerned]

Quote: from vox on 10:41 pm on June 6, 2002

As I recall, the UN (I think it was the UN) put the price of lifting everyone in the world out of extreme poverty at $80 billion, which isn't very much money.

No one was interested.

vox


I wonder how they came to that figure and if it is even accurate. And even if it was, it would help get rid of poverty for how long, a day maybe? Getting rid of poverty is not about giving away free money to poor people. In order to get them out of poverty they need jobs and produce at least their consumption's worth.

In Ecuador there was once an experiment (by a crazy president) of giving away free money to poor people, and most of them used it to get drunk. It was good for nothing but creating even more poverty in the long run.

Tanzania is the country that has received the most development aid of any country, bothe from the US and Europe, and yet Tanzania is still one of the poorest countries in Africa and in the World. It takes much more than money to get out of poverty.

There is no quick fix for poverty. Getting over poverty takes time, hard work and dedications. These were key elements of the industrial revolution.

[Guest]

Vox,

Spoonfed? You are the one who wishes the government would take charge of the situation and make sure that everyone is getting spoonfed, not Capitalist Imperialist. From what I know, CI got an education and earns his living honestly. I don't hear him supporting welfare and suggesting that the U.S. should step in and solve all the World's problems.

[concerned]

You bring up a very good point Guest. I wonder where Vox went.... do you have an answer for this one professor?

[Fabi]

well, one thing i am pretty fucking sick of is the fact that the so-called capitalists around here, or out in the real world, do NOT have any valid arguments.
the situation is improving? people can get somewhere by working hard? etc...

well, guess what, all of those changes are things accomplished by people OPPOSED to capitalism.
women's rights are for a great part an anarchist effort, and so are workers rights and workers unions...

things are NOT improving because capitalism is great, but because people fight capitalism.



and i can understand that vox is tired of answering the same questions again and again. it is all out there people, go and read.
just one thing, as a start. there is a difference between posessions and property.
another thing: would you all be opposed to some totalitarian country?
wouldnt all of you be opposed to a government who you have to work for, which tells you what you can say and what you cant, what you can wear, and what you cant wear? and if you wanted to get away you would have only the choice of going to another oppressive country?

well, guess what, that is exactly the way companies are. the companies you work at. you spend a huge part of your life in a company, at a job, where you are being told what to do, what to wear, not allowed to 'talk back'....

Robert E. Wood, the chief executive officer of Sears has something to say about this... you might find it interesting coming from someone NOT to just be considered a leftist freak... "[w]e stress the advantages of the free enterprise system, we complain about the totalitarian state, but... we have created more or less of a totalitarian system in industry, particularly in large industry." [quoted by Allan Engler, Apostles of Greed, p. 68]


well... that's it for now...

[Guest]

In response to:

"just one thing, as a start. there is a difference between posessions and property."

Really, do you mind telling me exactly what that is? I would love to hear your reasoning. In fact, "The New Webster's Dictionary" defines a possession as "a possessing; that which is possessed; (pl.) property". Property is the plural of possession. Is that the difference which you speak of? In the context that I was using the word, the two are pretty much interchangeable. Let me guess, you are one of those anarchist. Anarchist are notorious for redefining the language according to the purposes that they desire. See the thread, "Totalitarianism", for my rebuttal of anarchist philosophy, if you want further information.

[Fabi]

i will go to that thread.

hey, and who is redefining the language?
the libertarian party, maybe, who isnt libertarian at all?
;)

well, then dont call it possession, call it 'somethingyouhaveandneedanddontusetohavepoweroverp eople' ... ;) ;) i think you know what i mean. this is not about language, but about the fact that abolishment of (private) property doesnt mean that people will just take away your belongings.. (maybe that would be a good word for what i am talking about.... maybe...)
someone seemed to imply that in this thread.. that was what i was concerned about...

[concerned]

The same questions again and again? HA!. Right. Great way to avoid pretty direct questions.

You know what Fabi, I would take the time and answer your questions, but lets just say that the answer is already "out there" and there is really no need to repeat the same things over and over. HA!.

So, go read.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Fabi on 2:23 pm on June 13, 2002
well, one thing i am pretty fucking sick of is the fact that the so-called capitalists around here, or out in the real world, do NOT have any valid arguments.

Actually, Fabi, I think for the most part the opposite is true. Communists argue mostly theory, while capitalists can cite real-world data and behavior to support our claims.


and i can understand that vox is tired of answering the same questions again and again. it is all out there people, go and read.
just one thing, as a start. there is a difference between posessions and property.
another thing: would you all be opposed to some totalitarian country?
wouldnt all of you be opposed to a government who you have to work for, which tells you what you can say and what you cant, what you can wear, and what you cant wear? and if you wanted to get away you would have only the choice of going to another oppressive country?

well, guess what, that is exactly the way companies are. the companies you work at. you spend a huge part of your life in a company, at a job, where you are being told what to do, what to wear, not allowed to 'talk back'....

Robert E. Wood, the chief executive officer of Sears has something to say about this... you might find it interesting coming from someone NOT to just be considered a leftist freak... "[w]e stress the advantages of the free enterprise system, we complain about the totalitarian state, but... we have created more or less of a totalitarian system in industry, particularly in large industry." [quoted by Allan Engler, Apostles of Greed, p. 68]


well... that's it for now...

[Moskitto]

The libertarian party isn't libertarian. The libertarian party's own website admitted that they were socially conservative. True libertarians such as those in Europe are socially liberal. The Welfare States of Holland and Denmark are at the forefront of Gay, Minority and anti-censorship legislation. However the libertarian party and websites such as capitalism.org consider these states to be oppressive because of their welfare states.

[Fabi]

well, i agree that there are also 'commies' here, who dont really know what they are talking about, and that is not to say that i am all-knowing...
but they only get on my nerves when they get ME into 'trouble' cause they used stupid arguments... i can ignore those, but i cant ignore the 'cappies' who ask questions....

btw concerned, i opened a thread called 'the difference between property and possession' to make things a little clearer... you probably already stumbled across it...

CI, i was thinking of some guest talking about not wanting to live in a country where you are being told where to work and where they can take away your car and your favorite toothbrush etc. ... he was using it as an argument against communism, and to me it sounded a little uninformed.

concerned, i usually try to answer questions and stuff... and i usually back up what i am talking about... you sound pissed...

gotta go to sleep... g'night... ;)

[Moskitto]

I wonder if any of the capitalists here know which "commies" consider themselves communists and which consider themselves socialists.

[Capitalist Imperial]

well, I can differentiate out the stalinists, then it gets fuzzy, how many differect sects of communism are there???

[Moskitto]

It depends upon what you define as a "sect" as you put it.

Derminator would disagree with me but I think that everyone subscribes to their own ideology which is unique to them.

They might however be based upon other ideologies.

Basically you could put most leftists on this forum into 1 of 3 types.

Totalitarian Communists - The Stalinists.

Libertarian Communists - Those who define themselves as communists but do not believe in the totalitarianism of the Stalinists.

Socialists - Most other people.

And the last 2 are hard to differenciate.

[concerned]

Fabi,
I was particulary referring to your defense of Vox, who has avoided my questions and that of many of us here in the forum just under the pretext that it has "been explained" before. And even if that were the case, which it isn't, he should at least point out where.

Now if he is so annoyed at questions, why come to the forum in the first place...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Yeah, Vox's usual comment is "This topic has been reviewed ad nauseum and I refuse to address it again."

He's a pompous ass.

[Guest]

The only difference between a liberal, a socialist, and a communist is the country that you live in and what you decide to call yourself. To quote a liberal view, 'the similarities far outweigh the differences'.

[Fabi]

guest, i do not know if i agree with you... i know what you mean, but you still shouldnt generalize...

there is a huge difference between an anarchist and a stalinist.... (if you consider stalinists 'left', which people, more often than not, do...) in my opinion EXTREME state communism is nothing but fascism (or leads to it) and is definitely nowhere close to any kind of 'liberal'..........

still, i know what you mean... (at least i think so...)

[Guest]

That is if you use liberal in the true sense of the word. The word liberal has been newly defined in the U.S. to mean the exact opposite of what it was intended. This corruption of the language is typical of 'liberals', and is eerily reminiscent of Orwell's "new-speak".

[Moskitto]

There's a quote from an anti-totalitarian site which fits you nicely guest.

"Obviously he can't see the difference between social democracy and communism, like communists can't see the difference between conservatism and fascism."

BTW speaking of that quote gives me a thought, do you run anti-communist action?