Oooo, this one is going to be fun...> Some of the articles by people who legitamately claim to be socialists (none
> of whom mind you are legitimate) have made me disgusted.
Just what is illegitimate? The claim to be socialist, or socialism itself? Ambiguity #1. And what did we do to disgust you, if you've never even met us?
> How dare you continue to corrupt and trample upon the true, just, and rational
> system that has saved mankind from the Dark Ages!
Oddly enough, the Dark Ages was ended by the rise of country-wide feudalism. Truth has always been relative, justice has always been a myth and rationality began before the Dark Ages (at least, Thales of Miletus was one of the first "rational" philosophers, and he lived in 500 B.C.).
> Capitalism, unlike socialism, is a system that bases itself upon the nation
> of a PERCEIVED REALITY, and not upon the fanciful mystical doctrines of
> altruism, mysticism, zen buddhism, and free love & peace.
Since every system is based on the perceived reality of the person who thought of it, this claim is not merely false, it's utterly meaningless. The central assumptions behind capitalism are no more founded than the assumptions behind Communism. Of course it's a ruddy mystical doctrine, unless you believe in the actual existence of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of market forces.
> The tenants, set forth by our founding fathers, are simple:
I think you meant "tenets", not "tenants". Unless your founding fathers enslaved the people they found when they colonized. If you're a Yank, this is probably true.
> Reality is what we perceive to be. This means no metaphysical and unproveable
> theories about how our perceptions can be false.
If you examine your syntax, you'll find you said the opposite of what you meant to say, albeit in very bad English.
If reality is what we perceive it to be, then the reality of someone who believes in fairies is no less "valid" than the reality of someone who believes in free market economics. Or are you assuming that your reality is somehow any better than mine?
> The whole entire basis for our existence is on what we percieve, and the way
> to approach the world is to use our tools to perceive what we can. Thus, at
> base we assume reality is what we perceive through our senses and legitmate
> rational processes.
How long have you thought you were God? To me, the basis of our existence seems to be the product of a random event a long time ago.
Nor can we assume that our tools have any direct connection to the "real" world, as all such tools are utilised and controlled by someone who perceives reality from their point of view.
To assume that reality arises from what we see and what we can think up is:
a)limited (as human senses are finite and fallible)
b)unsustainable (as "rationality" is as much a human construct as "logic" or "mythology").
c)blatantly false (unless you believe that humanity _can_ know
everything that has ever been and assume that it is "real".)
It also leaves absolutely no room for abstract concepts (who first thought up the idea of "logic", if they had no first principles on which to work?) or non-linear dynamic systems ("chaos").
Of course, some assumption goes on that we see the "real" world, but there is absolutely no proof that we do.
> In this perceived reality, there are humans, who unlike the animals, can use > reason. Thus, it is this faculty which directs their lives. See how simple
> and true this is!
Over-simple and utterly untrue. Humans most certainly do _not_ have a monopoly on reason - indeed, it could be said that, in destroying our environment and threatening our existence, we show less evidence of reason than do the animals you malign. If you had ever seen a squirrel on an "obstacle course" (with food at the end), or a chimp using tools to eat with, you would understand that they are capable of memory and abstract reasoning (or "thinking" if you prefer the catchall term).
> Based upon our perceptions, we see that we make decisions and act upon them.
> Thus we control our destiny.
Of course we control our destinies. So when the latest hurricane flattens our houses, or global climate change dries up our lakes, we can be utterly comforted by the fact that we knew it was coming all along and that everything is working out according to plan.
Of course, as this implies the non-existence of unstable dynamic equilibria ("chaotic" processes like the weather or the human cardiovascular system), we none of us exist, but I'm sure you can think your way around that using logic...
And being omniscient, we never make the wrong decision, prevaricate, change our minds or act indecisively.
> Nature has built into us the will to survive as the foremost priority, since
> we naturally defend ourselves against any impending death.
Which means that altruistic activities never happen and never will, as everyone is looking after number 1. Of course, since most of the danger to humans is other humans, the only simple solution to this is to kill everyone else but yourself. Which is actually pretty much what this society is trying to do.
> A is A, there are no if's and's or metaphysical abstractions about it.
Again, this only works if you're God. If you aren't, you have no reason to support the assertion that A is A without any corroborating proof.
> We see by our senses and use of reason that if any single free-acting
> individual impedes upon the life of another by taking the things necessary to
> his life, given to him naturally by nature (property to use to live, freedom
> of action to live, and the state of his life), that individual also forfeits
> his right to retain his rights, since it sets of a series of conflicts which
> could end in his own life being taken.
This rather unwieldy paragraph appears to assume the existence of a "natural justice" in the world, by saying that it stands to reason that an unspecified person has a right to bully a bully, as the bully started it by bullying.
Of course, if you look at the history of the world, you'll find that bullies generally become a) rich or b) powerful or c) both.
Justice is, as I said, an entirely human construct.
> Thus, a community which respects the rights of reasoning humaning beings must
> be formed, and an agency must be given power to ensure that no natural rights
> are trampled upon (the right to live your life as you choose so long as others
> are not harmed).
That is the position of the classical liberal socialist. I think you'll find that bona fide "capitalists" recoil from the word "community" in horror, as being something that suppresses competition. Certainly, in such a community (or "commune") as outlined above, companies like Union Carbide or Shell would not exist.
> So many nations have yearned for freedom!
But how many of them have ever seen it?
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
> And you neglect what you have been given and trample upon your own successes
> you socialists!
Hmm, let's see...Given: One world, slightly damaged. One life: extremely restricted. One body: semi-poisoned.
That's some gift, especially considering what we could get.
> A king is a thug with immense power and a monopoly on force, using it to exalt
> himself at the expense of other rational beings, that is all, there is nothing
> moral about it so far as the senses and rational mind can perceive.
Of course, in these days of secular power and global capitalism, substitute "Western capitalist businessman" for "king". Or don't you believe that William J Gates III has immense power (and, should he want to, a monopoly on force with respect to Joe Public)?
Or that the board of McDonald's can hire lawyers good enough to persuade a judge that black wasn't black (providing the judge was tilted their way anyway). If that isn't power and wealth, what is?
this is the juicy bit
> Thus out with all such nonesense on "divine right of kingship etc..."
> SOCIALISM IS IMMORAL BECAUSE IT FORCES PEOPLE WHO HAVE NATURALLY AND MORALLY
> OBTAINED AND AMASSED PROPERTY TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT THEIR SUCCESS AND ALSO
> FORCES THEM TO GIVE IT TO OTHERS WHO HAVE NOT EARNED IT.
end of juicy bit
Under a capitalist system, a competition results in winners and losers. What the winners get is what the losers had - thus, in a very real sense, they have taken the money from the losers as surely as a highway bandit would.
And you pretend that a king has no right to do that where a businessman does? A businessman acquires wealth by depriving others of it. A billionaire has the money that originally belonged to thousands of people. How can you pretend that amassing wealth thus is bad for a king yet fine for a capitalist?
Auto-contradiction.
Of course, your earlier claim that bullies had forfeited their rights not to be bullied also contradicts this, as if someone deprived you of your money thus, it would give you the right to deprive them of theirs in a similar or equal way.
> IT BASES ITS CLAIM ON ALTRUISM WHICH CANNOT BE PROVEN TO BE A REAL
> PROSPECT...HENCE IT IS IMMORAL, UNTRUE, AND UNJUST!
On the contrary, altruism is observed as much in the non-human world as it is in the human one. What socialism rests on is actually the equivalence of all persons, and their equal right to a slice of the cake. Of course, your earlier comment that:
"We see by our senses and use of reason that if any single free-acting individual impedes upon the life of another by taking the things necessary to his life, given to him naturally by nature (property to use to live, freedom of action to live, and the state of his life), that individual also forfeits his right to retain his rights"
says that everyone also has an equal right to a slice of the cake and a right to punish those who would deprive them of it. So, you espouse Socialist principles while at the same time condemning them. Doesn't seem like the action of a consistent and omniscient God to me.
> Capitalism is fair, because it is a series of AGREEMENTS, not decisions forced
> upon you by a gun.
That's exactly what capitalism is. It is maintained, fuelled, and taught by coercion. Witness what happens when people do something as abhorrent as smoking marijuana.
I certainly didn't sign a social contract or agree to live in this society, it angers me that the Government assumes I did. Of course, under global capitalism, I don't have the freedom to leave this society, either.
Apart from all else, the pollution caused by this society affects the entire Earth, not just the capitalist bits of it, making an impact on my life wherever I go. Is that OK according to your assertion?
> The money you get is the worth of what you put out, it is a 100% fair system.
> The People are the sole judge of that worth, and no one is thus oppressed.
By that, you imply that the world's richest 5% are worth more to the world than anyone else. Of course, everyone else would probably disagree there, but since they don't count as much (obviously, they can't be "people") that's OK. Or do you feel that minorities should rule? (perhaps even by "divine right"?). The fact remains: capitalism is an excellent machine for the oppression of masses by minorities.
Either your last claim is inherently self-contradictory, or you're talking fluent crap. On the rest of the post, I'd have to say that the "crap" theory is more likely.
> You system is based upon "universal laws" and "universal altrusitic ideals"
> that cannot be proven. It is not truth but falsehood, which makes it immoral.
Any system based on ideals , be it socialism or capitalism, is based on things which cannot be proven. As you can no more prove the absolute truth of capitalism than you can prove the absolute falsity of socialism, your statement is unjustified (and somewhat immoral!)
> You FOOLS...our founding fathers never guaranteed economic rights! Only
> RIGHTS TO ACTION! And now you evil socialists have corrupted us!
Actually, my founding fathers never guaranteed anything, but since they lived at least 7000 years ago, history doesn't really have many records.
I note that you are again advocating your right to take action against bullies. Does that include the robber barons of capitalism?
As for corrupting you, I stand with Socrates here. If trying to make the world a better place is "corrupting" it, pass me the hemlock. I'm not going to recant.
> The Creator, if there is one, is a Creator of Reason who wishes for us not to
> speculate as witch doctors about unperceived metaphysical ideals and entities,
> and live in our imagination so full of falsehood, but instead to use the
> faculties he has given us to operate fairly and freely in the physical world!
> That is the tenant of Captalism and Freedom. We do not base our assumptions
> on the whims of human emotion, BUT INSTEAD BASE IT SQUARELY ON WHAT IS KNOWN
> AND REAL, AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE FALSE! False system like socialism do not
> work. Real and fair systems like captalism do work.
Now that's foolish. The entire world is our imagination, our social and moral systems are born in the imagination of visionaries. There are as many articles of faith in The Wealth of Nations as there are in the Bible.
(I note that you assume a god exists and is male...I could having guessed anyway, from the rabid preacher style of your post (not to mention the incoherence)).
Of course our world is influenced on the whims of human emotion. We are, after all, human. Our "leaders" are human. Had the Bay of Pigs incident resulted in nuclear war, it would have been due to human whims and emotions, not "rationality and reason". The stock market crashes of 1929 and 1987 were due to human whims and emotions. We are _not_ rational beings, and the pretence that we live on a mystical "plane of reason" above the common animals is one of the most dangerous and foul lies ever to pollute the minds of egocentric humans.
You can't even say what you know, any more than I can. You certainly can't say that capitalism "works". Freedom existed long before capitalism and will continue to survive long after humanity has died or evolved.
(Of course, I don't believe you will have had the patience to read through this far in my response, since you obviously won't agree, but I continued for the benefit of third parties, in the offchance that anyone is that bored...)
Gideon.
