Socialism. your thoughts?

[Siamanto]

Why are we not 'fit' for such a system? I'll tell you why. Because a system such as socialism is not fit for human beings. Human beings were not meant to sacrifice themselves for others. A life dedicated to sacrifice is a life not worth living. If you sacrifice - and by sacrifice I mean to give up a higher value for a lesser one - you are not living a life, but you are a tool to whom you are making the sacrifice to.

The above is only one perception of what fits the human race. The human race is for more adaptive and has comes in may flavors. I'm afraid that your views and opinions are culturally biased.
Socialism does not equate to "a life dedicated to sacrifice, that is a caricature of it." how did you get that impression?
In some Societies, individuals would happily share - of course to a certain degree. It's just a different Social Contract.

My mother was a pioneer group leader, a good student, an athlete...I think my father was not far behind her during his youth.

He had to chase her! No?

[Objectivist]

The above is only one perception of what fits the human race.

This may be true however it is the right one.

The human race is for more adaptive and has comes in ma[n]y flavors..

Doesn't the above statement imply that there is not a single universal Reality? It implies that nothing can ever be right or good because the human race 'comes in many flavors'. So is someone who robs a bank and someone who achieves his goals by rational means equally moral because the human race comes in many flavors?

I'm afraid that your views and opinions are culturally biased.

From which culture are my views biased?

My opinions have nothing to do with my nation, where I am from, or who I am around. My views are derived by a process of integrating my senses and percepts into concepts. Also known as the process of Logic first identified in the true sense of the word by Aristotle.

Socialism does not equate to "a life dedicated to sacrifice, that is a caricature of it." how did you get that impression?

If the people work in order to provide another person with a survival, then this is sacrifice. One must live for himself and only for himself. One must take into consideration what is his highest value and devote his existence to that value. Someone who wishes to survive on the physical labor of others or on the ideas of others, is worse than a parasite. He is the one who wishes not to think and not to produce. Ultimately, he is the one who wishes to be a non-existent.

In some Societies, individuals would happily share - of course to a certain degree.

But the government should not use coercive force to share.

In a Captialistic society people are still free to share, but they are not forced to. The person who makes money is entitled to that money.

In a socialist society the people are threatened and forced into giving others the fruits of their labors. The person who wants the money is entitled to that money. The moneymakers are enslaved to the whims of any person who wants or 'needs' the money. The moneymakers' lives do not belong to them, their belong to others.

It's just a different Social Contract.

Rousseau? I don't particularly like him, but that is another topic.

Different Social Contract? So we can never know anything to be right? Again, if all politico-economic are morally correct then why not people? Why is the person who rises from the slums and becomes President of the USA have any moral supremacy over the person who loots, robs, and mooches of the producers? Why is the good any better than the evil?

Because there is only one Objective Reality which we can define and comprehend by using our conceptual faculty. We can decipher what is right and wrong and we can judge what is good and evil.

[winoman]

Objectivist - i would suggest that you get your nose out of your books and go out into the real world and see how people live and see what they do to survive. Your philosphy is all well and good - and you won't find me extolling the virtues of socialism (except perhaps as a safety net for those of us less fortunate to survive the dog eat dog darwinian capatalistic world that those like you seem so enamoured with - as if unbridled capitalism has ever proven itself to be better for the good of the great body of people - certainly not in the long term...). yeah - philosophy is nice - but where do compassion and love for others fit in? And BTW I diagree with your contention that there is only one objective reality - this statement is patently false and any who claim at all to be able to see outside themselves should understand this. So who are you to put your good above that of mankind or at least your fellow countrymen, neighbors - or what have you? And please do tell - what is your grand plan (to overcome the socialistic evils of our world and move toward your ungoverned utopia?) - yes - does it rely on major changes in the nature of man? Must people pledge to do only good so that crime can be eliminated (or do you - like Mouse - propose "Private police" etc to enforce ones will on those who cannot afford such?) - etc Yes yes -many questions - I understand the critique - but except for having heard some suggestions such as we return to Monarchy (lol - thats a laugh) or that we just be like they were in the Wild West - home on the range and such - well I have yet to hear of anything real or any realistic proposals from your ilk - OK - I know - sometimes hard to translate this stuff from the Cato forum to reality - and whats in books often don't seem to match up when faced with all the variables and unpredicatable actions of life - but please - by all means give it a shot...

[loseyourname]

And BTW I diagree with your contention that there is only one objective reality - this statement is patently false and any who claim at all to be able to see outside themselves should understand this

The statement isn't patently false, wino. Your supporting statement (in the form of an imperative, but a statement nonetheless) does not even constitute corroborating evidence. What you have claimed is that no human can step outside of his individual biases to see reality from an objective viewpoint. Even if we accept this as true (you certainly seem to, though you haven't provided those who don't already agree with a reason to be swayed), it doesn't follow that there exists no objective reality. What you have described is an epistemic shortcoming of human phenomenal experience, not an ontic feature of the universe. The latter does not follow from the former. Consider your argument form instantiated thus:

Orthodox Jews place the beginning of the earth's existence at roughly 10,000 years BP. Geologists place the beginning of the earth's existence at roughly 3.5 billions years BP. Neither can see outside of their own subjective phenomenal world. Therefore, the earth has no objective age.

Surely you can see the problem there.

[winoman]

louseyourname - regardless - the issue is as it pertains to humans - not to some timeless observing constant that we can never properly fathom. Objectivist is making a claim that his perspective is based on "the only objective reality" and this claim is clearly patently false. If I am that Jew or that scientist I am attempting to make some point that is independent of some underlying truth that has no bearing on our disagreement (and in fact may not be knowable)- so why do I care about or waste my time with such?

[ArmoBarbi]

He had to chase her! No?

Of course he had to. My mom was one fiesty little fishy.

[Siamanto]

Of course he had to. My mom was one fiesty little fishy.

Would that make you a savory dish of caviar?

[Siamanto]

The above is only one perception of what fits the human race.

This may be true however it is the right one.

"Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness."

So vanity and self righteousness are forms of Happiness?

The human race is far more adaptive and comes in many flavors.

Doesn't the above statement imply that there is not a single universal Reality? It implies that nothing can ever be right or good because the human race 'comes in many flavors'. So is someone who robs a bank and someone who achieves his goals by rational means equally moral because the human race comes in many flavors?

Just curious how did you came to that conclusion. I'm sorry, but not even close! Isn't Mathematical Logic mandatory in Philosophy?
As for your conclusion, you should be aware that Kan't only Categorical Moral Principle clearly suggests how simplistic is your view. Different moral principles do not mean lack of moral principles!

I'm afraid that your views and opinions are culturally biased.

From which culture are my views biased?
My opinions have nothing to do with my nation, where I am from, or who I am around. My views are derived by a process of integrating my senses

Yes, your "reasoning" is culturally biased. Your understanding of Socialism seems not less simplistic and caricatural then the emotional reaction of the average American to the words "communist" or "socialist" or ...
In some countries, the government alternates between a Socialist and a Capitalist government and has little to do with your caricatural depiction of such a government.
With all due respect, it seems a bit simplistic to confuse Socialism and Soviets or the Soviet regime or...

Socialism does not equate to "a life dedicated to sacrifice, that is a caricature of it." how did you get that impression?

If the people work in order to provide another person with a survival, then this is sacrifice. One must live for himself and only for himself. One must take into consideration what is his highest value and devote his existence to that value. Someone who wishes to survive on the physical labor of others or on the ideas of others, is worse than a parasite. He is the one who wishes not to think and not to produce. Ultimately, he is the one who wishes to be a non-existent.

Again, your views are culturally biased and based on a simplistic reduction of Socialism to Soviets or...You need to travel a bit more often!
By the way, not only geographically! Let's please meet for a drink when you return from your journey!

In some Societies, individuals would happily share - of course to a certain degree.

But the government should not use coercive force to share.

In a Capitalistic society people are still free to share, but they are not forced to. The person who makes money is entitled to that money.

In a socialist society the people are threatened and forced into giving others the fruits of their labors. The person who wants the money is entitled to that money. The moneymakers are enslaved to the whims of any person who wants or 'needs' the money. The moneymakers' lives do not belong to them, their belong to others.

Again, your views are culturally biased and based on a simplistic reduction of Socialism to Soviets or...You need to travel a bit more often!
By the way, not only geographically! Let's please meet for a drink when you return from your journey!

It's just a different Social Contract.

Rousseau? I don't particularly like him, but that is another topic.

Different Social Contract? So we can never know anything to be right? Again, if all politico-economic are morally correct then why not people? Why is the person who rises from the slums and becomes President of the USA have any moral supremacy over the person who loots, robs, and mooches of the producers? Why is the good any better than the evil?

Because there is only one Objective Reality which we can define and comprehend by using our conceptual faculty. We can decipher what is right and wrong and we can judge what is good and evil.

You hear a word, you think of another! Pavlovin agantch@ khosi!
It is true that the expression "Social Contract" was coined by Rousseau; but, after a couple of centuries, it became part of the French language!

Stating something about one form of government - existential statement - does not imply anything about all forms of government - universal statement - etc. etc.
I sincerely recommend you to consider Mathematical Logic as part of Philosophy curriculum! It may help!

PS. I'm absolutely - a word erased from my dictionary -convinced that there's only one Objective - another word erased from my dictionary - Reality! LOL!

[Objectivist]

"Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness."

So vanity and self righteousness are forms of Happiness?

Did I say that "Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness" or am I just imagining it?

Objectivism holds that one must devote himself to his highest value that is rooted in Reality. Happiness is just an emotion that is evoked from the achievement of one's value.

First of all, you must understand, that Happiness is not a means to an end, it is an end to a means. If everyone held Happiness as their highest convictions, then looters and presidents would be both morally correct. This of course is false - looters are the scourge of the earth. The looters use force against others while presidents protect the people from this force.

Selfishness is one of the main principles of Objectivism. It is derived from the fact that a man, in order to survive, needs to be selfish. He needs to look out for himself at all times and at all costs. A man cannot survive while constantly devoting himself to others - he will deplete himself. And he cannot live by using force against others as others will use force against him and he will be destroyed. Anyone trying to deny him of Man's Right to be selfish, of his Right to Survive must be destroyed completely and utterly.

Man must be sure about the values he holds - if he does not stick to them, or if he is not sure that his values are not correct - he will ultimately be destroyed by any man intending to use force against him. He will be crushed at the first sign of pressure.

Yes, your "reasoning" is culturally biased. Your understanding of Socialism seems not less simplistic and caricatural then the emotional reaction of the average American to the words "communist" or "socialist" or ...

If socialism isn't the enslavement of the people to others, than I don't know what is. Socialism uses coercive force to have people donate to others in need - jail time or torture or whatever the country's punishment system is. How is this a bias? It is a basic fact of socialism.

In some countries, the government alternates between a Socialist and a Capitalist government and has little to do with your caricatural depiction of such a government.

But we are still talking about the abstractions of socialism and capitalism aren't we? The philosophies of the country may switch back and forth, but the philosophy does not change because of it.

With all due respect, it seems a bit simplistic to confuse Socialism and Soviets or the Soviet regime or...

I guess Marx didn't call his political philosophy Scientific Socialism...

While it is true that Socialism isn't Communism, it does form a basis for most of the philosophy of Communism. Communism is the total equalization of the classes, there is no profit made by anyone (except by the corrupt dictators who have a desire for the unearned). Socialism would have a sympathetic government and a welfare state.

These statements are not culturally biased (as I am not influenced by the culture - only by my individual ideas). They are statements of fact.

If Scientific Socialism wasn't a part of the Soviet regime, I don't know what is.

Stating something about one form of government - existential statement - does not imply anything about all forms of government - universal statement - etc. etc.

I did not state anything about any form of government. Of course stating one thing does not refute all others - that's why they need to be refuted! I can imply that the statement I made was the right one though.

[Red Brigade]

I suggest the deluded yanks not to speak about economical theories , such as communism, which they don't understand and never will.