2008 Presidential Election - Page 393

They're going to have to restructure the party. There were already rumblings about breaking ranks with the Fundies after the Dems took congress in '06. I imagine that that topic will again become one of frequent discussion.

Devin is right. The notion of "small government" in this modern globalized world is delusional. Maybe when you were a strict farming country that was possible, but not today.

Why not?

That's my point.

The Republican party really need to be split up in two parties.

Hmmm, but what happens to the Fundies?

Or they're just unhelpful demagogues.

There's a key point Devin makes that is very difficult to refute. People say they want less government but they love their social security. They say they want smaller government but they like their roads and their infrastructure, levees, schools, internet, etc.... They don't want high taxes but they don't want to live in a 3rd world country.

The whole paradox is encapsulated by an oft repeated liberal quote "Keep the government out of my Medicare!"

They create their own party and effectively remove themselves from being a national threat.

It doesn't change the fact that on paper, as a theory, Communism has great ideas. The whole thing about human nature is that it's gonna corrupt EVERY political, or organizational idea. Tell me that democracy ain't corrupt?

Unfortunately, the people in the Republican party who have adopted this approach appear to be the crazy ones, who want support of Sarah Palin to be their litmus test for worthiness. Fiscal conservatives who aren't religious/racist lunatics will have to find a new home if the Palin Republicans get their way.

Two party system has to go. It can't continue like this.

Something awful, hopefully.

Another argument against communism is that it would stop the successful from reaching their widest breadth of success - a point that has been achieved by a minority in North America, who have as much influence as some governments anyway. Less governmental restrictions are put on them, and so given freer reign to fucking with people as would any corrupt government. But they are truly working only in their own interest - unless you can afford to be a shareholder, but even then, you're only looking out for yourself and the only message you can give them is to merely take your money to a different, corrupt corporation.

I hope Sarah's handlers talk her into heading up something like this. She has the charisma and support to grab all those fuckheads in one fell swoop. And then they can jump off a fucking cliff.

Communism is an economic theory at its heart, not a legal theory. Every human being has equal rights... therefore classes should not be established under that premise. However, Communism attempts to eliminate classes economically. That simply cannot, will never, and should never work. People are not equal economically.

There is a reason why Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are worth more than anyone here in this thread. They are self-made men who worked hard and accomplished great things. Under a true Communist ideology, the government would be the means of production and all people would own the means (in theory, never in practice).

The fact is that there is no real incentive or drive in Communist ideology. Technology would be stifled because of the lack of competition. Communism grants no reward system to an inventor or self-made man. There would be no reason to take risks or pump capital into a project that could benefit society, i.e. the computer.

Yes, I'm sure da Vinci thought a lot of people would go for his hang glider in the sixteenth century. Or that others would think they could build one.

There are no self-made men in communism. I'm not even sure to what extent the self-made man exists. Surely Gates or some of these modern inventors received government grants?

The drive is the greater good. The idea that everyone has skill sets, and that they are weighed differently is arbitrary. That Steve Jobs has a mind for computers, and that a plumber is good at plumbing can be equal if that's what both are good at. The question Communism poses, and its greatest failing is that it requires self-motivation, and theoretically removes class and family benefits.

For those still concerned about why NC is still grey, they are going down to provisional ballots. No data on how many provisional ballots they have to count but it should be a couple days.

I didn't want to derail the thread on a discussion of Communism, but what devin mentioned about "small government" and how it is impractical just reminded me of it. I think we can all agree that there are some nice sounding goals to both those ideologies, but I don't see any successful workable examples.

Communism is only practical in a third world nation where the vast majority are cripplingly poor. And even then it's only a stepping stone to a better form of economy.

BTW, the free market is like small government - a delusion that a few continue to cling to despite all evidence to the contrary.

But the occupations and responsibilities of Steve Jobs and Joe the Plumber are not equal. Steve Jobs is the CEO and chief engineer for a multi-billion dollar company as well as being one of the major architects of the modern information age. Joe the Plumber is just a plumber.

Yeah but when you're up to your knees in overflowing shit your iPod isn't much of a help.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the GOP. They could shed the Fundamentalists, drop issues such as abortion and gay rights, focus on free market policies and limited government (not "small" government but "smaller"), and they could do really well. And the Wingnuts have the numbers and the, erm, Passion to be viable as a third party (sadly/scarily). Or they could reverse that and move hard-core to the right, trust that the global situation will remain unstable and try to build on fear of brown people and the assault on "our" values, and put a charismatic diehard like Huckabee or even Palin back into the mix in four years.

True, but you can just hire another plumber.

Again, once you remove money from the equation, what necessarily makes the person who makes food better than the person who invents things? The idea that certain skill sets are viewed as better is tied to concepts of money, and you seem to not be able to wrap your head around that.

Money is meaningless. It's a proxy for scarcity, which exists in every system.

I disagree with that, though. Even if you take money out of the equation, I think you have to look at the level of skill required to do a certain job. No disrespect to any plumbers out there (except Joe - fuck that guy), but it's not incredibly hard to become a plumber. It doesn't require an awful lot of training or education. Whereas not just ANYBODY can be the next Steve Jobs. I don't think it's a case of one being better than the other - I respect a hardworking busboy just as much as I respect a self-made millionaire like Jobs or Gates, but you can't deny that the level of training is way way different. And, well, now to bring money back into it - I believe the level of compensation should be different.

Never forget:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-Yuy...eature=related

Yes, that's the way the world works now, but if communism is like a body, a shin can't be a heart. A red blood cell has a job just as a brain does, and the whole can't work without specialized labor.

I'd love to know why you respect a hypothetical busboy and a CEO equally.

Because no human life is worth more than another, and the minute we suggest that one is we've lost part of our humanity?

Hardwork deserves respect? Local college student is busing tables to help pay his way through college? Dude buses tables as a second job because hours are short on the first and he needs to make ends meet? High school kid does it to earn pocket money and learn a little responsibility?

EDIT - and yeah, what Dre said.

We aren't talking about the value of human life, we're talking about the economic/business value of certain kinds of employment. 99% of the people in this country can be a busboy, it's a job that's not worthy of respect.

Actually I take that back, every job is worthy of respect on some level... but some are much more worthy. That's why they're called 'better jobs'.

Do you understand the concepts we're discussing here?

Probably not.

I think maybe you're getting respect and admiration mixed up. And it's not necessarily the job - it's the person. How are any of those hypothetical people I mentioned deserving of any less respect than anyone else?

It looks like he starts to sing "Now, tell me Hank why do you drink?" and then stops and shakes his head at 1:55. And he was doing so well.

I hate you forever.

I don't think you can remove money from the equation. If so, you have to replace it with something. The fact is that without some sort of reward system (the greater good, while admirable, is not a real reward system), there would be no reason to advance.

The greater good can't really be a real reward system because all human beings think differently. All human beings have self-interests and in order for Communism to be successful, those self-interests must be purged. Your greater good is different from mine. I think the greater good would be to provide for my family monetarily rather than society. Sure, I work with charities a lot, but you don't see me dropping out of law school to join a monastery and live a life of poverty and silence.

In this specific case, an occupation does not automatically grant more respect over another. However, when you compare jobs... the CEO's job is far more important than the busboy's. That's why they are not equal economically.

Take the plumber for example. If we eliminated Steve Jobs from existence and his gifts to society never have happened, we would lose a lot. If we eliminated one plumber from existence, we would simply have one plumber. Now, if we eliminated Sir John Harington (arguably the founder of modern plumbing), we would lose a lot more.

Every human being has different skill sets and those sets are worth more in comparison. However, the greater good cannot be the main or sole reason to create or work in our society. Some sort of reward system for the individual has to be presented. Currency is the most universal because it can be used as barter for something that benefits the individual in some respect.

You can't trade the greater good solely for your hard work and capital.

What would we lose if Steve Jobs was gone? Seriously.

All men may be created equal, but social footing, education, etc. etc. determine much of our lives, so a capitialist system creates inequality.

If people were truly good (and who's to say if they are or aren't) then understanding that working for the betterment of each other should be enough, because peace, love and flowers and some shit. Carrots are just easier because it's what we're used to.

Again, though, communism is like utopia.

To you comparison, if Communism = human body, yes the human body loses more when brian cells die than blood cells, but that doesn't mean blood cells don't have important jobs too.

I don't expect this to be some revelatory answer, and obviously the world wouldn't stop if we lost Steve Jobs tomorrow, but I think he and his cohorts are big guns in the furthering of certain aspects of technology. And while we wouldn't LOSE alot, we would stop gaining as well. Obviously in the big picture, 30gig Nanos and iPhones aren't major objective gains, but I think they do represent progress in some capacity and that is important.

EDIT - is revelatory even a word?

Forget Steve Jobs, look at surgeons, particularly cardiovascular and neurosurgeons. Years of intense training, ludicrous hours and staggeringly high stress, in addition to rare physical skills needed to perform those tasks. If you're born with the traits that would allow you to perform the job, you still need the incentive to do it. Otherwise, why not just go sweep floors for essentially the same reward?

This and Steve Jobs was just an example. Replace him with Gates or Wozniak. Replace them with Marconi.

Because the work is the reward. But, just so we're both clear, Communism didn't work because people are inherently selfish.

Also, if Steve Jobs didn't exist, who's to say there wouldn't be someone who created the same things? Just because there are lots of plumbers and one Steve Jobs doesn't mean that removing one would not create an immediate surrogate.

You're answering your own question, there are lots of plumbers and very few Steve Job's. The skills he brings to the table are far more rare than that profession.

I guess the only argument there is what's stopping the surrogate now? There's no invisible barrier keeping The Next Steve Jobs from throwing their hat into the ring, the fact that there has yet to be one probably says something.

We started with the primaries and are now on page 393 talking about communism. What a long strange trip this thread has been.

Getting somewhat off topic, has GA and NC reported in?

Work is not the reward. The reward is what you gain after the work. I know of no person who volunteers as a job. Someone who makes no money whatsoever and is truly self-sufficient. An exception to the rule would be nuns and monks as they gain their reward through their faith, but that requires a purging of self-interest.

Exactly. The skill set of one plumber is far less than of Jobs, Gates, or Wozniak. That is specifically why they get paid far more than the average plumber.

A quick aside to your discussion, I find it ironic that it is religious people from the right screaming the loudest about socialism. The early Church's foundation was built on these same socialistic principles.

The moral of the Sermon on the Mount wasn't exactly, "Make money. Money."

A lot of this just seems to be held over hysteria & paranoia from the Cold War.

Why is there only one Steve Jobs? Because there can be only one Steve Jobs. The idea being that because Steve Jobs took the Steve Jobs mantle, we have fulfilled that need. We have no idea what the replacement would be, but it is possible that eventually - because of the evolution of our society - it would have created a Steve Jobs. The idea being that the system works to create the things it needs, and it needed a steve jobs and a million plumbers.

Again with work being the reward, the idea being that people can and do like what they do for a living, and that they do what they are good at for the greater good. I like my job. There are other things I would rather be doing, but I do like it. I wouldn't do it if I didn't. You're coming from the presupposition that people inherently don't like what they do for a living, and only pursue ends because they want more money. I don't think that's always true.