It ought to feel a bit roomy now. If everyone on the plant were given 10 square feet we would fit on a land mass the size of Fiji. That means there's a lot of vacant real estate out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density
Printable View
It ought to feel a bit roomy now. If everyone on the plant were given 10 square feet we would fit on a land mass the size of Fiji. That means there's a lot of vacant real estate out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density
I agree we are making inroads to correcting ourselves in this country, But we are only part of the world. China and India both have greater population numbers than us and are on the way up in there economy and industry. They are where we were what 60 or 70 years ago maybe further. At this point they dont have any interest in protecting the enviroment because they are bringing their people up int prosperity. I am in no way being a naysayer or doom speaker. I am a conservationist, not to be confused with a enviromentalist for reasons I wont go into here, and I believe in protecting and working our resources for the betterment of mankind not to the detriment. And while you maybe able to reside in 10x10ft square in Fiji it takes alot more room to sustain each person on this planet.
I'd advocate the redistribution of the current comfort/wealth instead of an "increase for everybody" because it'd, in my opinion, be unsustainable.
I won't get into a discussion on your statement because is will invariably lead to a political discussion. Suffice it to say that you and I are worlds apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by payne
Payne, I can explain away your statement only because you're still young.
At some point, unless you join a group like the one in the OP, you might understand why people who've worked hard all their lives to build a life that makes them happy don't look kindly on those who want to take it all away and give it to someone they deem more deserving. It's all about fairness--getting to keep the fruits of your labor vs. getting things you haven't worked for.
We don't have to get political in order to grasp the basic concept, I think.
Ain't nobody redistributing my toys and if you step one foot on my 10 square feet you're goin' down.
Of course you can't sustain anyone on 10 square feet. My point was that people are concentrated in densely populated centers. If you cram us all together we don't take up as much space on this planet as most would think.
I agree with you B and for some personal views I don't think kids should be allowed motorcycles until age 25 minimum, nor do I think it would be healthy for the younger crowd to stay with a group such as in the OP for very long until they cut their teeth on and really appreciate LONG term hard work and the fruition of same to be realized & evident. That the youth comes to own the understanding that hard work, maturity and responsibility are the demanded ingredients to make it it in the modern world. Lest such a group inadvertently allow a young'un to get the wrong idea or impression that laziness or little/low responsibility get's you by. It doesn't and shouldn't in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
For the record these are general statements and not pointed at Payne in the lest; accordingly I have no Idea what Payne's age is.
Also, If Payne comes across this and so chooses, let's have him restate/clarify his last sentence. I have read it several times and it seem he unintentionally contradicted himself as least a little, to me any ways.
Good, juicy stuff. I like it.
Just out of curiosity -- if we cannot get "political" on this board, why do I consistently see Ron Paul advertisements on the website?
LOL!!! It had crossed my mind too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warheit
To me, the basic concept we should follow is purely moral: should we allow people to starve to death in Africa, while here in America people have 3 TVs and their own personal training gym with each individual piece costing over 1000$?Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
I do understand that it's hard to agree with the fact that what you've earned should be given to someone else, but my young mind tells me it is because we have been programmed to think that way.
If you were born in a world where everyone had the same salary, no matter what profession they are exercising, you wouldn't even care about such a thing.
The sacrifice of wealth redistribution is for the greater good, including your own.
And here, I too am guilty of not redistributing my wealth and being greedy: I have a few thousands of dollars in my bank account, and I live pretty well because my father is currently hosting and feeding me.
It is hard to choose solely on your own to do such a thing, but if I knew everyone was forced to do it, I wouldn't mind it and would find it pretty fair.
Just think of my province, Quebec, versus the USA: we are happy to pay for the universal health-care and education access, but it looks like the USA doesn't want of that because it's unfair to them. Status quo most of the time is satisfying to the majority of the population.
The fairest system I can think of would be a world-wide wealth redistribution where every human being is guaranteed a reasonable minimum salary as long are they are achieving a minimal amount of work for the society.
The disabled that cannot work, of course, would earn this salary anyways.
Most of the jobs' wage should be switched from hourly to piecework: a performance-based wage can easily reward the hard-workers while offering somewhat flexible schedules to workers.
I do realize there are many possible flaws to such a system, and I am willing to have a discussion oriented toward increasing its efficiency.
And please, do not discard my vision only because I am young. I myself respect anyone's skepticism toward it.
On a somewhat related note, why doesn't this forum accept political discussions? I believe they are great as long as people are responsible enough to not start hating each other because of different political visions.
Payne: You are now ordered by me, Warheit, to re-distribute your wealth to me for a greater good. :cowboy:
No problem. Nothing happens: we're both living well and no wealth redistribution is required. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Warheit
Payne - You are professing communism or at the least socialism. Neither has proven sustainable over time. As to your comments on state sponsored health care, the reason we oppose it has nothing to with the status quo and everything to do with timely and superior quality of care. It's why border Canadians that can afford to come to the U.S. for treatment. Yes, our system has many ills but it's preferable over being told if and when you can have your surgery.
Warhheit - The ads are targetted by key word. If I write Winter Sports you may now start seeing ads for vacations or ski resorts on the page. The Ron Paul ad may have purchased 20 keywords that would trigger a display on any site that supports any of the various ad marketing campaigns and is not controlled by the forum owner.
Generally, the only two historical sources of communism that people relate to are Russia and China. It would be hard not to admit they miserably failed at applying the concept Marx had established: Stalin and the likes have been horrible leaders that gave bad names to communism as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
But while those two examples were major failures (and with good reasons), so few actually know about the other attempts at creating communist societies. Among others, a fairly big anarcho-communist society has been implanted more than 100 years ago in Israel: the Kibboutz. They have had outstanding results. Unfortunately, an economical crisis forced them to reorganize their society, and it ended up switching to a more capitalist society. There are probably many factors that shifted the values of this society, but I haven't really studied the case.
This is just one example of a (once) successful communist economy. I am more than convinced there are many others around the world (most probably quite a few in Spain).
I'm only saying this to disprove the general fact that everyone seems to call on communism: "it is not sustainable".
Socialism, however, has never shown to be unsustainable (to the best of my limited knowledge).
Restricting the access to health care just so the richer can have instant access to care doesn't seems right to me. I prefer making sure the ones that can't afford to stay healthy are in the capacity of getting healthy without engaging into enormous debts.
The current system's over-load is mainly caused by the fact too many people abuse (knowingly or not) it by presenting themselves with stupidly minor issues that they could've stayed at home for.
For any system to work, you need the population to be properly informed and well educated.
Another way to see the "communism vs capitalism" debate: if, during communism, people had a very bad quality of life while all having the same amount of wealth, then it must either mean that it's because this system can't work, or it's because it was misapplied. In the case that it was misapplied, then we cannot say that "communism doesn't work" because it would then become a fallacious statement. In the case it's because there is not enough wealth in a society to be able to separate it equally without reaching a low quality of life, then I'm really asking myself how can capitalism be better: the same amount of wealth, but with richer and poorer people. This means there are people that willingly decided to reduce even more the quality of life of others, just so they can live better. It looks insanely immoral to me.
Now, let me tell you I do believe capitalism can work. However, the current applied systems we are seeing all around the world are extremely flawed and are not working as they should. What I advocate is that communism looks like a better alternative than capitalism.
If there is a single system I believe wouldn't work, it's anarcho-capitalism. To a certain extent, it could (and would) work, but hell, to what price!
My ideas are not very clear as of yet, and I still have some reflexions to do on my own. Travelling does help me on this side. Discussing with people is another great way to improve your knowledge.
I would've liked to polish a bit more this current post, but I have to go.
A country's success is measured on productivity. What incentive do you have to increase productivity if you will receive the same income today that you received yesterday and will receive tomorrow with no regard for the quality or level of output?
A Kibboutz is not communism but direct democracy. While sharing in both social status and finance is encouraged there is nothing to prevent an individual from improving their wealth, which they can, by choice, share with others to raise their productivity and standard of living.
Also, to add to Rick's POV...
A Kibboutz is a community not a country. People choose to enter it because they share its values and they know the drill up front. More power to them! I love it when people have choices and I'd like the same privilege. If you want to share your resources/wealth/work/whatever, that's up to you. What I do with mine, is up to me. (not you!) Live and let live.
What about this concept is so hard to comprehend?
My buddy Ivan came from bulgaria. After the fall of communism he had to leave bulgaria and go to germany in order to learn how to work. His words not mine. He said under communism there was no incentive to produce, zippo, nada, none.
redistribution of wealth is a hoax perpetrated by those that want to take control, they care nothing for the folks they're bull$hitting. I've read accounts of russians lamenting lenin and wanting the czar back. I've read accounts of starvation in north korea that cannibalism was rumoured to be happening.
I've owned my own little company for 25 years. I've worked through more lunches than I've taken,made a lot of other sacrifices that I won't go into here but if I have more wealth than somebody that didn't make that effort I deserve it.
lastly a little story from my child hood. When I was 10 years old a neighbour hired my brother and I to pick apples, 50 cents a box. His daughter and her friend were there too. we all were to pick these apples. My brother and I picked apples and hustled like crazy. We picked ten boxes to the girls one box. When time came to get paid the blankety blank decided in order to be "fair" the boxes should be added up and split four ways, BS. We deserved what we earned. I should have told our father but didn't. We were extremely poor as children and only knew one way to change that and that was to work our way up. My brother and I reminiscence about this often. It has formed some very strong opinions in me. If my children came to me and the same had been pulled on them I would be looking the a$$hole up. They would get paid their due one way or the other.
I don't want to get banned from the forum so I better quit posting about this matter.
That's what it's all about.
People who don't get it, will probably never get it. But our borders are open...the doors swing both ways. Just make sure they don't hit you on your way out.
There was a time where I was the victim of redistribution of wealth, well more than a few times. But I will discuss just this one time, because the other stories are tooo long. It happened at work. I had worked hard and put in the effort over the years to become the premadonna of the plant. Then it was sold and the new regime redistributed my wealth to employees that had just begun to work and had no long term intentions. Basically when it came time for a raise I no longer got one but it was given to the lower wage earners in the plant that had no knowledge or experience, effectively tripling their raise. This went on for 3 yrs. before I over came it and entered management. 8 yrs. later I have convinced the team to pay for experience once more!
The result of the redistribution of wealth did not improve performance, attendance, or quality of work. Changing a persons wage does not improve a person. Money is not a motivator. Motivation comes from within you, noone or no amount of money can change that for people that have none. I believe it must be instilled upon a child from day one, start on day 3 and it is too late.
. . . +1, cs.
Can't argue with that. I've seen highly paid players that weren't worth the powder and I've seen low paid workers that could work circles around two normal people. It's just who you are.
Speaking of...
Have y'all seen "Moneyball'? I am not a rabid baseball fan but the the movie is about so much more.
It's about thinking outside the box and for that, experience isn't necessary.
My take away? Keep an open mind.
As I've said earlier, the fairest system I can think of isn't communism, but more like socialism. It'd involve piecework, which is pretty much the fairest way to reward people based on their productivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by randyt
I'm not saying we should steal the money from people and just give it away to anyone, I'm saying people that are unable to reach a minimum of quality of life should indeed receive other people's money until they have reached this minimal quality of life.
People that could work, but are too lazy to, indeed do not deserve anything, and won't receive anything.
Thanks for the precision on Kibboutz, Rick.
They do today. It's called taxation (my money) supporting those that won't work (minimum quality of life). Happens in Canada, too. That has little to do with a type of government and more to do with bleeding heart #$553$$ that somehow get voted into office. Certainly there are a minority of individuals that deserve a hand up. The rest of the bums want a hand out and I make sure there is a hocker in hand for them. (I just wanted to use hocker in a sentence).
socialism = polite word for communism.
payne, will be fun to check in at about ten years from now, after you actually have to get out in the world and make your own way.....
Girl friend/wife/ kids/ job........There are some people that seem to avoid these things for quite a while.....or become professional socialist....but most succumb to the "rat race" sooner or later.
Enjoy your youth and idealism, and may you make a difference, before you get sucked in to the latest "world order".
I have alway thought that the smartest people in the world are 18 years old, I was....then got progressively stupider.
When I lived in Scotland, I got free med care because I was a "visitor." I really appreciated that! And was SO grateful.
That's doing it right if you ask me.
However, In the same place there were strung out teens alcoholic teens and pregnant GIRLS galore. It was referred to me the Scotland has the #1 teen pregnancy rate in the world. Poland Was # 2, but Scotland's numbers were double Poland's. (these facts were given to me by ministry people and may no longer be accurate.) Why the teen problems? I was told Scotland has the strongest social welfare program in the world. There too your an adult at 16 I think it was... and hard liquor is sold in the gas stations. AND- All a teen had to do at 16 is file the paperwork that their folks had kicked them out and in short order they would begin receiving guv'ment checks. Now- Had I got free guv'ment checks at age 16 only by saying I've been kicked out, and hard liquor was for sale to me everywhere, I'd have been an alcoholic too and probably impregnated a few lasses. No wonder they have the teen problem. That's obviously not a good freebie.
My point is freebies can be REALLY helpful and appreciated. However it's FAR easier and more often done wrong.
Your medical care as a visitor wasn't free. While you may have appreciated it, I wonder if the people that were "required" to pay for it felt the same way about paying for a visitors medical care.
I took it as a respectable noble notion. I think it would be honorable and noble if we offered free basic care to folks that were here on a volunteer Visa. I'd be okay with my tax dollars going to take care of folks that came here to help us out of good will (and not compensated for it.)
I'm not sure how many visitors to the United States fall into the category that you describe, but I suspect the numbers are very small. Also, keep in mind that any citizen, legal visitor, illegal alien, etc. can get emergency room care and treatment without the ability to pay. This too is not free, and one of the causes of health care/insurance costs in this country.
I agree. It would have to be quite small. I just used it as a "not abused" freebie illustration in my response above.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
But we do. No facility can deny care based on the patient's inability to pay. Ask the health care pros in California, Nevada, Arizona and Texas what that does to their bottom line or how fair and noble it is. It occurs throughout the country of course but the border states and inner city hospitals seem to bear the brunt of the burden.
I was once in Canada and required health care services, They ,too, were provide to me "free". I had the ability to pay but was given free care. I'm sure someone living payday to payday and paying taxes would not have been pleased about it.
One is an economic system, one is a political system.Quote:
Originally Posted by randyt
Might be a good idea to be in the right ball park before stepping up to the plate to take a crack at it.
that's your opinion, I have mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warheit
Actually, both are forms of government. I'm not disagreeing with you Warheit, just stepping up one notch. In essence both of you are correct. Under Marxist ideology socialism would be the first major step toward communism.
Ok, so anyone have an insight into the historical long term sustainability of communes?
They almost always start out great and then slowly deteriorate over time.
Its like piece work. You bust butt and make good money (try and redistribute that!). Then something happens outside your control and it starts eating into your pocket. Equipment malfunction, or poor communication and your our a couple of weeks pay.
Piece work is legal if set up right. You have to obey minimum wages and other governmental laws. But, you own the down time and a lot of the mistakes. Because, the boss still holds rank.
Also, no two men will every truly be equal. At least not for long. Even if they could be exactly equal, one would think he is better than the other and therefore entitled to more.
"Don't underestimate the other guy's greed!" Frank Lopez "Scarface"
I learned in seventh grade gym class that all men are not created equal LOL.
Okay, that right there is just freaky. The only man in my 7th grade gym class was the coach. Now I've got cold chills.
Rick, you are a turkey LOL. I bet in school you were the class smart acre, the teacher cringed when she saw little ricky coming through the door. <G>