Socio-Politics Debate

[Delacroix]

In request of solicitations in the thread Rogue States, I'm open this thread in the intention of respect the integrity of the original thread.


By Lazarus:

[...] (though I do not understand who "they" are, or why "they" should want to keep me from employment - ?).

Very good question. For ignorance I was very reticent in my last post (They, who? Ocult forces .).
Seriously, when I say "they" from the point of view of the unemployed I was talking about the State, the economic Logic(actual), Ideology(Marx interpretation), and us(the rest of society who have conditions[The insiders, consumists]).
So in other words my expression "They" is , in fact , very poor, and unsussesfull, I will substitute it for the expression "We"(Because "They" is from their(The Refuse) view, "We" is much more interesting, since is from our view)
Why?
Well We(this include the view above, us, State, and some others personificated concepts), in fact create the Human aliens(sorry for the term). If you ask to everybody individually, if someone must stay without job, of course everybody will say no. But our logic and ideology and our actions say yes. We know the wellfare state has died , but today it seems to have died 300 years ago.

In fact, Lazarus, you are a great example of what am I saying(We from the tops of consumism create the Refuse.). If I ask you if someone must keep without job, or if that little child(daughter of the one without job) must stay without education and heath; you as an act of humanity will say no. In other hand, you are against education and health tax, because you don't have to pay somebody else childrens health and education; you say one must find his own job, but without a context, if there is no job? If the economic logic is for demissions? If the State don't work on a social view?
Ps: I told you as an example but I'm not excluding myself of the responsability, I also am part of We.

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by Delacroix
In request of solicitations in the thread Rogue States, I'm open this thread in the intention of respect the integrity of the original thread.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Delacroix
Very good question. For ignorance I was very reticent in my last post (They, who? Ocult forces .).
Seriously, when I say "they" from the point of view of the unemployed I was talking about the State, the economic Logic(actual), Ideology(Marx interpretation), and us(the rest of society who have conditions[The insiders, consumists]).

I understand. Be careful, though, in using Marxist terminology as a BASIS for this discussion. Not everybody agrees with Marx. Personally, I do not like the “us versus them” dichotomy. I view the world only as a series of individuals, and don’t like grouping them together into opposing camps.

Originally posted by Delacroix
So in other words my expression "They" is , in fact , very poor, and unsussesfull, I will substitute it for the expression "We"(Because "They" is from their(The Refuse) view, "We" is much more interesting, since is from our view)
Why?
Well We(this include the view above, us, State, and some others personificated concepts), in fact create the Human aliens(sorry for the term).

The term “human aliens” I do not understand - ? Are you speaking of unemployed?

Originally posted by Delacroix
If you ask to everybody individually, if someone must stay without job, of course everybody will say no. But our logic and ideology and our actions say yes. We know the wellfare state has died , but today it seems to have died 300 years ago.

The job issue is the real crux of this matter, so let me take a moment to give my opinion of it. Our discussion developed from this idea that you (and many, many people) believe that the government should take some responsibility for the employment and education of it’s people. My view is that people should be left to their own devices to find employment and education. Your counter-point is that if it is simply left up to the individual, then some individuals will fail to find work, and will, presumably, become homeless or starve, or whatnot. Am I fairly stating the issue?

Well, let us pretend that I am out of work. I look for a job, but cannot find one. This is your “worst-case” scenario. You propose (correct me if I am wrong), that it is now time for the government to step in and provide me with a job. How? How will the government create a job, where I could find none? And, if it does “create” such a job, doesn’t that mean that it has just forced an employer to hire someone that they otherwise would not have hired? And, if so, won’t this make the company less competitive? Won’t this eventual lead the company to simply fire me again?

My point is simply that the government cannot “force” the market to create jobs. It can play around with economic factors (ask Allen Greenspan about that), but it cannot make something out of nothing.

Originally posted by Delacroix
In fact, Lazarus, you are a great example of what am I saying(We from the tops of consumism create the Refuse.).

The term “Refuse” I do not understand in this context.

Originally posted by Delacroix
If I ask you if someone must keep without job, or if that little child(daughter of the one without job) must stay without education and heath; you as an act of humanity will say no. In other hand, you are against education and health tax, because you don't have to pay somebody else childrens health and education; you say one must find his own job, but without a context, if there is no job? If the economic logic is for demissions? If the State don't work on a social view?
Ps: I told you as an example but I'm not excluding myself of the responsability, I also am part of We.

I understand the dichotomy you are trying to point out here: on the one hand my “humanity” which should want every individual to have a good job, good education, and proper health care versus my ideology which would not allow for this to be the case (because I do not like taxes, etc.)

Understand this: I do NOT believe these two factors to be in opposition to one another. As I have stated: I do not believe that the government can do what free and rational individuals can not do. The ONLY thing the government can do (in the context of this discussion) is force the re-distribution of wealth. This I believe to be morally wrong.

I await your response – and anyone elses. I have a busy schedule, so it may take until next weekend, but I will respond.

[Obsidian]

Marxism is an interesting idealogy. The whole concept of the proletariate (sp) rising up to overthrow the upper class. This brings to our head the concept of thousands of uneducated, poor serfs rebelling. As was the case in Russia. However, this was the way things turned out, not how they were meant to be, ask Trotsky .
The rebellion was not meant to occur until the nation had reached a high standard of living, so that EVERYONE could live in luxury and there would be, theoritacally, no desire for more anything.
I agree with a lot of the Left wing ideologies on a mental level, but question their practicality.
In response to the government creating jobs, for the most part Lazaras, you are correct. The Gov't cannot Create jobs. It can create oppurtunity for jobs by playing with economic factors, a good gov't can greatly reduce the unemployment rate through tax incentives to business, and, unfair as it sounds, lowering minimum wage to the living requirements of the time. The bread policy. This way, employers can hire more people without as great a risk to the well being of their business.
The Gov't other option is make work projects like bridges and dams that involve massive man power that the Government itself can pay for.
Throughout these however, the rights of the worker must be protected.

[Delacroix]

By Lazarus:
The term “human aliens” I do not understand - ? Are you speaking of unemployed?

Well, yes. But if you become unemployed you will not become an Alien. Why? because in a few time you will get job again. You have other ways to survive. Alien in the meaning of "it is not part of society". Not exactly unemployed. From my point of view, Alien, the refuse, are the bad consumist(who not buy anything), the ones who ocupes senseless meaning to the economic life.

By Lazarus:
The job issue is the real crux of this matter, so let me take a moment to give my opinion of it. Our discussion developed from this idea that you (and many, many people) believe that the government should take some responsibility for the employment and education of it’s people. My view is that people should be left to their own devices to find employment and education. Your counter-point is that if it is simply left up to the individual, then some individuals will fail to find work, and will, presumably, become homeless or starve, or whatnot. Am I fairly stating the issue?

Yes, but is not a fail of the individual, because there was no oportunity to suscess at all; See it as a fail, is also a propaganda of justice. "You had the chance, but fail". In fact there was no chance at all. Since this individual was not educated poperly when child, for example.

By Lazarus:
Well, let us pretend that I am out of work. I look for a job, but cannot find one. This is your “worst-case” scenario. You propose (correct me if I am wrong), that it is now time for the government to step in and provide me with a job. How? How will the government create a job, where I could find none?

It will be nescessary a change of politics from the government. For example for do some investment with low gains but in the objective of create jobs.

By Lazarus:
And, if it does “create” such a job, doesn’t that mean that it has just forced an employer to hire someone that they otherwise would not have hired?

Yes.

By Lazarus:
And, if so, won’t this make the company less competitive?

Maybe, probably yes.

By Lazarus:
Won’t this eventual lead the company to simply fire me again?

Yes. As I say the economic logic and ideology are guilty, corrupted, part of We. Responsible for the context.

By Lazarus:
My point is simply that the government cannot “force” the market to create jobs. It can play around with economic factors (ask Allen Greenspan about that), but it cannot make something out of nothing.

You are wrong, of course the government, and the society can create jobs. And of course this will afect individuals gains(is not something from nothing; here I agree with you, it is impossible to do something out of nothing, lots of people will be sacrificed, especialy us).

By Lazarus:
The ONLY thing the government can do (in the context of this discussion) is force the re-distribution of wealth. This I believe to be morally wrong.

Morally wrong?! See the logic of today. We must balance the importance. Your pleasure to drive a BMW against someothers life basic needs(food, health and Education). My pleasure to play the new awesome Blizzard Game against the Job of someone else.

By Obsidian:
Marxism is an interesting idealogy. The whole concept of the proletariate (sp) rising up to overthrow the upper class. This brings to our head the concept of thousands of uneducated, poor serfs rebelling. As was the case in Russia. However, this was the way things turned out, not how they were meant to be, ask Trotsky. The rebellion was not meant to occur until the nation had reached a high standard of living, so that EVERYONE could live in luxury and there would be, theoritacally, no desire for more anything.

I'm not marxist. In my post i just use one of his terms. But you are right. England was a better option than Russia in that time. Something I realy would like to see.

[mediev]

Marxism is an interesting idealogy. The whole concept of the proletariate (sp) rising up to overthrow the upper class. This brings to our head the concept of thousands of uneducated, poor serfs rebelling.

The poor peasantry was led by the significant and developed working class (serfdom was "technically" abolished in 1861), and was not a peasant-led revolution.

However, this was the way things turned out, not how they were meant to be, ask Trotsky

The revolution went "according to plan", the future of the Soviet government (and the European revolution), however, did not.

The rebellion was not meant to occur until the nation had reached a high standard of living, so that EVERYONE could live in luxury and there would be, theoritacally, no desire for more anything.

Er, I don't quite understand what you're saying here, but what I think you mean is the concepts of menshivism, not bolshevism. The menshiviks adapted the "two-stage" theory, relying on a bourgeois government (that had been established in the 1905 revolution) to develop capitalism, and then the proletariat would overthrow this regime and establish socialism--in the far off future of course. The point is that menshivism was representative of the bourgeoisie (the party of socialist "intellectuals", the means of education being in the propertied classes), and Trotsky had been a radical menshivik internationalist, and a bolshevik (meaning he did not oppose the insurrection) by the october revolution.

[Jace]

My view is a sort of middle ground between Capitalism and Socialism.

The State should provide:-

Infrastructure:
Water (inc Sewage)
Electricity
Telecoms
Transport
Law and Justice
Education
Health Care
Fair and Open trade
(not a compleate list)

Free Market should provide:-
Jobs
Goods
Serices (to both state and market)


The state should seek to support the market without becoming involved and should keep private interests out of infrastructure.

The state of the UK rail transpot is a good example of what happens when you involve private interests in infrastructure.

On the education side of things, it should be free. Having a well educated population opens up many more ways of generating new jobs and new revinue streams. Free education supports the free market. It does not restrict competition. Standard of education is one of the criteria used for measuring a countries political, social and ecconimic standing.

[Lazarus]

Lunch - time for a quick response

@Delecroix: You make no argument against the bulk of my “economic” arguments, but reduce the debate down to ethics. I will concentrate on that subject,too.

Originally posted by Delacroix
Morally wrong?! See the logic of today. We must balance the importance. Your pleasure to drive a BMW against someothers life basic needs(food, health and Education). My pleasure to play the new awesome Blizzard Game against the Job of someone else..

Yes. Here, again, we come to our old argument again. You say that we CAN have a fully employed, educated, (health) cared-for society – it will simply come at the expense of my BMW. (Correct me if I am mis-interpreting.)

You have heard this from me before, but I will state it again: your view of morality requires that I become a slave. You say to me: “You have a good job, you earn a lot of money, but look at the poor in your town – they have nothing. I am going to take your money and ensure that these other people can survive.”

I know this is a very common, very “progressive,” very popular view right now. But you must understand that it really cannot be considered a more moral position than mine, when it requires that I work for someone else, for no benefit to me (i.e. I become a slave). Maybe I have earned a lot of money. Maybe I even give no money to charities, AND I buy a new BMW every year. So? I have EARNED that money. It is mine. I have worked for it, and I should have the FREEDOM to do with it as I see fit. Who are you to take that money and give it to someone else?

So, Ivan, I understand you believe yourself to hold a higher moral ground, but I have another view. I wish people to be free – you wish to maintain them in a state of slavery.

@Jace: There is an old debate which pertains directly to some of the issues you raise. You can peruse it
here.

Feel free to expand in that thread, or this one - they are very much related.

[Delacroix]

By Lazarus:
@Delecroix: You make no argument against the bulk of my “economic” arguments, but reduce the debate down to ethics. I will concentrate on that subject,too.

I admmit it. But this is a logic situation since I am against the economic argument, so I cannot use it. I elevate the debate up to ethics. .

By Lazarus:
I know this is a very common, very “progressive,” very popular view right now. But you must understand that it really cannot be considered a more moral position than mine, when it requires that I work for someone else, for no benefit to me (i.e. I become a slave). Maybe I have earned a lot of money. Maybe I even give no money to charities, AND I buy a new BMW every year. So? I have EARNED that money. It is mine. I have worked for it, and I should have the FREEDOM to do with it as I see fit.

Take the money of someone else, is good? No it is not; I agree with you. But the balance still is needed. Buy a BMW every year; Have 10 planes and want one more, ever one more; Take bath with Perrier; Have lands of the area of small countrys, and want a little more; Apear in Oscar with a necklace of XXXXXX$; Have a Monet in the personal hall. Commom, this is sickness, patology, socio-patology.
Who you are trying to defend, you cannot buy one BMW every year. Why the voices of the 40 BMW owner is comming from you?(Foucault?). Please don't say you are defending Freedom. Freedom is live where everybody can live properly, with no poverty in our eyes. A dream only avaiable as a dream.

By Lazarus:
Who are you to take that money and give it to someone else?

Solidariety or the State. Since I don't believe in people solidariety(even mine), I believe in the State, The Leviathan, who protect you, and without him you cannot live.

By Lazarus:
So, Ivan, I understand you believe yourself to hold a higher moral ground, but I have another view. I wish people to be free – you wish to maintain them in a state of slavery.

I admmit my proposition have lots of mistakes, it is not perfect in any way; the simple fact to take something from its owner is incorrect, but is better to hold the life and give up the private property. As I say before your Neoliberal freedom reality is causing poverty and death, in the world, context that make me feel very caged.

[Lazarus]

End-game

@Delacroix: as usual, we seem to have come to an impasse in our discussion. You agree that your system (involving expropriation of property and re-distribution of wealth) "is not perfect." I agree that my system (ultra-liberalism) does not automatically provide all individuals with health care, education, employment, etc. You believe human life to be better served by your system, I believe it to be better served by mine.

See you around!