Election Season!

A warrior (Bruno) and a small dragon (Fiona) team up for fun and plunder in this fantasy comic strip.

Moderators: kmd, Ian McDonald, Limax

Re: Election Season!

Postby mouse on Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:06 am

i can't help but note that you yourself state all the socialist countries are in fact "former socialist".

if you are going to go with the country's history, then you should note that croatia, the czech republic, hungary, georgia, lithuania, macedonia, poland and slovenia are all "former communist". and all tier 1.
User avatar
mouse
Keenspot Deity
 
Posts: 10449
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: under the bed

Re: Election Season!

Postby Counterclockwise on Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:20 am

Again,a socialist system is not a gov't system. And there has not yet been a socialist country or region, merely ones that pay lip service to socialism than go all communist.

But back to my argument with you:
A capitalist system (in a perfect world where people are honest and unicorns poop rainbows) returns wealth to the people who create the means of producing it.

And the scholars? And the administration? And the service sector? And the politicians? And the entertainers?

I dare you to define wealth in such a fashion such that it satisfies every useful function of a person.

A socialist/communist system takes wealth from those who produce it and distributes it to those who do not.


That's a simplified view. In a socialist system, there is no "poor" class, or less useful class of people, because everyone is integral to the function of the system. If they do not allow themselves to be included in the function of the system . . . they are not part of the system. A socialist system is also not necessarily one where everyone has equal wealth . . . they have equal ruling power over the country, (which is usually expected to be either democratic, for small countries, or republic), which controls the wealth. Naturally, under such a system, you would expect some kind of reward system to be setup to reward those that create new things or ideas, like copyrights over here.

Also, "function", in a socialist system, is not defined by wealth, and therefore a person having a useful function could be doing almost anything. Of course, the people surrounding them would decide if what they are doing is actually useful, in the context, and regions would be determined useful by the regions around them.

You can quickly see that for the set of all rules that are possible in a socialist system, everyone who can be considered part of the system must follow the rules for the system to work well.

To deal with this, we have to come up with a system whereby people who do not follow the rules will not be able to grab a large amount of power or wealth, and if they do, they won't be able to use it effectively.
Thus, we arrive at the concept of non-ideal socialism, also known as compartmentalized socialism.

If I own part of country A, then I have the right to say that no one else can use my part of country A, and that I have the right to the proceeds of any wealth that is produced from my part of country A. If I have no choice but to distribute the wealth from my part of country A amongst the rest of the population of country A, then I do not own anything. Rather, I have the right of use as granted me in a revocable sense by the administration of country A. Rather like the DRM on mp3s from WalMart.


In case you didn't realize how this correlates with the above; you are part of the administration merely being a member of country A. There are concessions that have it be made simply living with people; attempting to create a country with other people includes evermore concessions and compromises.
Would you live in a country which legalized murder? Do you live in a country where gay marriage is contested?
These are examples of concessions you make by living in a country that limit you.

Laws that govern wealth, empower you. Because otherwise, it would be impossible to deal with other people using wealth. Any form of wealth. By having a consistent, logical protocol of wealth, and laws to enforce it, you can gain more control of your wealth.
You do not have total control of your wealth in the first place, because of the environment. For example, your ox skins today might be worth 500 bowls of soup, but three weeks from now, without tanning, they'll be rotten, and not worth any soup. But, you don't need 500 bowls of soup today, (it would almost certainly go bad before you could finish it), and tanning would cost, itself. And, paying for the soup "in advance", implies a credit system. Without credit laws, you would have no guarantee the soup seller wouldn't conveniently forget that you payed. And if that happens, we get back to the laws about not killing each other.

Even when we talk about a gold-backed or fiat currency, we need regulation on the amount that is produced and distributed for it to mean anything. Even if it is represented electronically. Otherwise, your $1,000,000 today might be worth tomorrow what 10cents is today. (See post-WWI Germany).

Thus, if we make a law specific to you that says you are not entitled to any of the wealth produced on your part of the country, we are more-or-less robbing you. But, if we make a rule saying that no one is entitled to the wealth produced on their part of the country, it empowers you as a consistent and logical rule that determines the distribution of wealth.

Btw, some people would look at owning parts of a country as owning property. Are you entitled to all wealth produced on your property?
Counterclockwise
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:44 am
Location: St. John's, NL

Re: Election Season!

Postby Ian McDonald on Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:04 pm

AisA wrote:
Ian McDonald wrote:
AisA wrote:Just curious: what are the other seven?

Here's the full list:

Algeria - former Socialist.
Iran
Oman
Sudan - former Socialist.
Burma - former Socialist
Kuwait
Papua New Guinea - former Socialist
Syria - former Socialist
Cuba - Communist
Korea, North - Communist
Qatar
Fiji
Moldova
Saudi Arabia

I don't have time to do the research right now, but a quick look at the names suggest a strong Muslim presence. I suspect that's an argument for another day. No fatwas for me, thanks, I'm on a diet.


The main reason I asked was because I'm just wondering how many of these countries, "socialist" or otherwise, are friendly (i.e. trading partners, etc.) with the United States, and the "Free World" in general...
User avatar
Ian McDonald
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: St. John's, NF Canada

Re: Election Season!

Postby AisA on Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:22 am

mouse wrote:i can't help but note that you yourself state all the socialist countries are in fact "former socialist".

if you are going to go with the country's history, then you should note that croatia, the czech republic, hungary, georgia, lithuania, macedonia, poland and slovenia are all "former communist". and all tier 1.


You're absolutely right, but as always facts...especially in aggregate...can be skewed to mean anything you want them to mean. I'm not too big to admit that I interpret the facts to fit my agenda. Otherwise, what's all this useless knowledge for?
More Bruno the Bandit at www.aimcomics.com!
User avatar
AisA
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:59 am

Re: Election Season!

Postby AisA on Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:23 am

Ian McDonald wrote:The main reason I asked was because I'm just wondering how many of these countries, "socialist" or otherwise, are friendly (i.e. trading partners, etc.) with the United States, and the "Free World" in general...


That's a good point, and the huge grain of salt that information like this has to be taken with. Trust no one. The truth is out there. Fairies wear boots.
More Bruno the Bandit at www.aimcomics.com!
User avatar
AisA
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:59 am

Re: Election Season!

Postby AisA on Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:38 am

Counterclockwise wrote:I dare you to define wealth in such a fashion such that it satisfies every useful function of a person.


So we're playing truth or dare now?

Wealth is a standard of usefulness, as barter is the only kind of free exchange between individuals. If I want what you produce, then I will barter (either exchange or pay) for it, and therefore it is useful. If I do not want what you produce, then I will not barter for it, therefore it is not useful. The more useful someone/something is (i.e. the more people have a demand for a service or product), then the more wealth the producer will acquire from making or providing that thing. Under a communal system (sort of a catchall term for socialism and communism), I do not have the right to discriminate regarding the usefulness of a product or service, as every person involved has an equal claim to wealth, so the standard of value is removed from any activity. Therefore, it is all equally as valuable, but all equally as worthless. A McDonald's fry cook is worth as much as a nuclear engineer, but conversely, a nuclear engineer is worth as little as a fry cook.

OK, My turn: I dare you to hold your tongue and say "I was born on a pirate ship". Hee hee.
More Bruno the Bandit at www.aimcomics.com!
User avatar
AisA
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:59 am

Re: Election Season!

Postby Counterclockwise on Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:49 am

AisA wrote:
So we're playing truth or dare now?


Not really no.

Wealth is a standard of usefulness, as barter is the only kind of free exchange between individuals. If I want what you produce, then I will barter (either exchange or pay) for it, and therefore it is useful. If I do not want what you produce, then I will not barter for it, therefore it is not useful. The more useful someone/something is (i.e. the more people have a demand for a service or product), then the more wealth the producer will acquire from making or providing that thing.


Your definition still contains undefined terms. If I define yes as only the opposite of no, and no as the opposite of yes, then they mean nothing except as a philosophical concept.. Worse yet, if I, as you have done, don't even define no, then we don't have any idea of what yes should be, even in philosophy.

Under a communal system (sort of a catchall term for socialism and communism),


Wrong, kinda. More like a catchall for people trying to control people with the idea of socialism.

I do not have the right to discriminate regarding the usefulness of a product or service, as every person involved has an equal claim to wealth,


Wrong, see previous post.

so the standard of value is removed from any activity.


Wrong, again, for an additional reason to the last portion. See previous post(s).

Therefore, it is all equally as valuable, but all equally as worthless. A McDonald's fry cook is worth as much as a nuclear engineer, but conversely, a nuclear engineer is worth as little as a fry cook.


Wrong, for another few reasons again previously mentioned.

OK, My turn: I dare you to hold your tongue and say "I was born on a pirate ship". Hee hee.

[/quote]

I wath bom om a piwet thip
Counterclockwise
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:44 am
Location: St. John's, NL

Re: Election Season!

Postby AisA on Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:37 am

Counterclockwise wrote:
AisA wrote:
So we're playing truth or dare now?


Not really no.

Wealth is a standard of usefulness, as barter is the only kind of free exchange between individuals. If I want what you produce, then I will barter (either exchange or pay) for it, and therefore it is useful. If I do not want what you produce, then I will not barter for it, therefore it is not useful. The more useful someone/something is (i.e. the more people have a demand for a service or product), then the more wealth the producer will acquire from making or providing that thing.


Your definition still contains undefined terms. If I define yes as only the opposite of no, and no as the opposite of yes, then they mean nothing except as a philosophical concept.. Worse yet, if I, as you have done, don't even define no, then we don't have any idea of what yes should be, even in philosophy.

Under a communal system (sort of a catchall term for socialism and communism),


Wrong, kinda. More like a catchall for people trying to control people with the idea of socialism.

I do not have the right to discriminate regarding the usefulness of a product or service, as every person involved has an equal claim to wealth,


Wrong, see previous post.

so the standard of value is removed from any activity.


Wrong, again, for an additional reason to the last portion. See previous post(s).

Therefore, it is all equally as valuable, but all equally as worthless. A McDonald's fry cook is worth as much as a nuclear engineer, but conversely, a nuclear engineer is worth as little as a fry cook.


Wrong, for another few reasons again previously mentioned.


Well this is not really an argument, is it? I mean, an argument is not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. It is a series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Or am I wrong?
More Bruno the Bandit at www.aimcomics.com!
User avatar
AisA
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:59 am

Re: Election Season!

Postby Counterclockwise on Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:09 am

I didn't have time, and it was obvious that you didn't read the previous posts.

Just a second and i'll expand those arguments.

Wealth is a standard of usefulness, as barter is the only kind of free exchange between individuals. If I want what you produce, then I will barter (either exchange or pay) for it, and therefore it is useful. If I do not want what you produce, then I will not barter for it, therefore it is not useful. The more useful someone/something is (i.e. the more people have a demand for a service or product), then the more wealth the producer will acquire from making or providing that thing.

Your definition still contains undefined terms. If I define yes as only the opposite of no, and no as the opposite of yes, then they mean nothing except as a philosophical concept.. Worse yet, if I, as you have done, don't even define no, then we don't have any idea of what yes should be, even in philosophy.


You're saying that wealth should be distributed to people who fulfill a useful function, and that the product of a useful function is wealth.
Because you have not explicitly defined either, it would appear that the ideal system, in your eyes, is for everyone to become a hermit and keep everything of any useful function that they can make?

(there are more inherent errors, but I would rather have you explicitly state them than to assume them from your previous statements)

I do not have the right to discriminate regarding the usefulness of a product or service, as every person involved has an equal claim to wealth,

Wrong, see previous post.


According to communism, yes. According to socialism, no.

What do you do with wealth? You use it to pay for useful functions you would like fulfilled. You have equal control over the mass exchange of wealth on the macroscale, but you cannot say that person X cannot give money to person Y.
If we give everyone an equal chance to fulfil a useful function, (free education, gender/racial/regional/and such equalities, free healthcare, available food services etc.), then if they do not want to fulfil a useful function, people will vote to remove that person from the system by refusing to give them wealth.

The latest socialist ideal for spreading out cash in such a way is called, "micro transactions". Y'see, the problem with using money as a form of power, is that you have no way to evaluate intangibles. In a society increasingly dependent on ideas and entertainment, it is impossible to make a significant payment to every person who has fulfilled a useful function to you. However, if 100k people each donate 2 cents to Ian for reading Bruno, he suddenly has 20k dollars.

so the standard of value is removed from any activity.


No, the stand of value is merely moved to the whim of the people. In micro-transactions, a small amount from each useful function which uses a greater function would make it's way to the creator of the greater function.
So, if I was the person who discovered the battery, every sale of battery, though I might not have made that particular design, would give me a small amount of cash, possibly .0002 of a cent or whatnot. The more removed the final design is from my design, the less I would get for it.
If I was the person who designed A battery, as in one particular design, I would only get the money for the sales of that battery, or products containing that battery.
(As you may have noted, micro transactions are an extension of the patent system. The patent system would be handled differently in a socialist system, though. most notably, only the person who has created something, not a family, not a friend, not a pet, can own a patent. That patent ends at his death, (and does not get passed on to his children), possibly before, or possibly with deprecation of value over time. Corporations cannot own patents, (and might not even exist if a suitable substitute can be imagined), only people. Copyright law follows similar modifications, (including modifications making a clear difference between private and public use), because with micro-transactions, violating copyright would actually be directly stealing wealth.)

Therefore, it is all equally as valuable, but all equally as worthless. A McDonald's fry cook is worth as much as a nuclear engineer, but conversely, a nuclear engineer is worth as little as a fry cook.

Wrong, for another few reasons again previously mentioned.


That is to say, only if someone is willing to pay as much for the fry cook's services as the nukee's share of all the designs he has helped create and his share of all the usages of his work.
You're again mixing up communism with socialism.
Counterclockwise
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:44 am
Location: St. John's, NL

Re: Election Season!

Postby AisA on Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:23 am

The argument has passed the point where I have time or brainpower to care about it. I have spent the last three evenings soaking my limited supply of gray matter in expensive vodka, and I no longer trust my motor reflexes, let alone my higher brain functions. You may count this as a win, simply because in an argument like this, victory goes to the person who cares more. Congratulations. I'll think of this fondly the next time I get all frothy over my copy of "The Fountainhead."
More Bruno the Bandit at www.aimcomics.com!
User avatar
AisA
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:59 am

Re: Election Season!

Postby Counterclockwise on Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:32 am

The only way to win an argument is to get the other person to understand your point, (not necessarily agree with it).

I have obviously lost.
Counterclockwise
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:44 am
Location: St. John's, NL

 
Previous

Return to Bruno The Bandit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest