capitalism/communism/political ideology

[Baud]

I am not necessrily saying that governments should control people or land outside its borders. Just people and land for which it is responsible. This is currently defined as citizens, resident aliens, and land and resources within the borders. This is fine, but does not necessarily need to be so.

And, BTW, the UK does have a say in how France conducts its internal affairs. The UK can vote a EC regulation or directive that France would not agree to, but which would - if approved by the necessary majority of states - be applicable in French internal affairs. This is not directly influencing France internal affairs, but in general all EU governments have now some responsibilities towards all people living in the EU. Of course this is limited to the EU territory, but nothing says that the concept could not evolve.

I am not saying that we should have a world government, but that the post-Westphalia Treaty concept of the Nation-State should not limit how we view government.

Baud

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, and thank you, Baud!

I don't wish to sound ignorant, I want to make sure we are seeing and speaking of the same things. By "control people or land outside its borders", are you implying the vestiges of the colonial era, the satellite subjects wholly beholding and dependent upon their patrons? If so, I had counted such in my mind as a part of a nation's sphere of influence. If not, please explain.

I confess to some lack of knowledge about the specifics in how the EU operates. I haven't had a need to look deeply into the matter. If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt), then the United States of Europe are modeled somewhat differently than in the US. The individual states here have no great influence on the internal affairs of the other states, other than perhaps on occasion to voice concerns. I suspect this may be because the US states are beholding foremost to our central government, and through the central government we have no trade barriers, language differences, currency differences, etc., as each of the states are bound to each other fairly intimately. At least, more so I would think than the emerging Common Market of Europe. In this much I would say that a (collection of) US state(s) could petition our government to address an issue of concern, and after going through the legal process, enact law that would bind all states similarly. This is not how things are done typically, as lobbyists usually present their cases before the legislature, but in theory it could proceed in such a manner. My point being that an individual state, or collection of states, have no direct influence on the internal affairs of any other state(s). For example, the death penalty is allowed in only a small number of states in accordance with state law, not national law. Because there is no national law against it, it is up to the individual states to decide. The flip side of this is that our national government does utilize the death penalty (in rare circumstances), which leaves the legislative door open for any states that wish to utilize that form of punishment. The states, however, are not required to observe the death penalty. Whether for or against, the individual states do not sway the internal affairs of the others. Kentucky, for example, can not directly influence California on affairs of state, but it might hold discussions with neighboring Tennessee about pollution concerns from factory emissions, and Tennessee would not necessarily be bound by those discussions unless it unilaterally agreed to. Kentucky might petition the central government, and after legislative process law might be enacted which would then become incumbent upon all 50 states.

If I understand you correctly, it seems the EU is more of a gentleman's club for nations. In order to join (Turkey is the example in my mind at the moment), a nation must conform to an agreed set of standards incumbent upon all members. Where that nation's internal affairs and governmental conduct are contrary to the agreed upon standards, that nation must bring its methods into compliance in order to gain acceptance by the EU. Is this correct?

I am not familiar with the Westphalia Treaty. What is it, and how does it define nation-state? I have no formal description in my mind at the moment of what constitutes a nation-state, and I am attempting to keep a broad and open view for the purpose of discussion.

I can't help by think there are social and cultural issues that stress bonds such as the EU. This is not intended as a slight. In the US, the various states have their social and cultural differences, but by far we share more than we differ. When there exists extremes in cultural and social differences, intimate ties would seem to me difficult to maintain. While the main part of Europe shares a great deal of culture and society, in large part by proximity, reaching out to a nation as dissimilar as Turkey seems a stretch. I sincerely hope that particular bond works over time, it would demonstrate a flexibility in the EU that I hadn't foreseen.

[Susma Rio Sep]

If I may:

Please, Juan and Baud, can each of you make a tabulation at this point of what each of you think the other is sympathetic to as regards facts and as regards ideals. Then we can have two tabulations each divided into two columns representing each poster's perceptions.

After this display from each poster, Juan and Baud, you two can continue to expatiate on your respective positions of the issues you two bring up. For me at least I have the benefit of quick acquaintance with the ideas each of you hold and take exceptions to -- so far.

Thanks in advance.

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Susma!

I had thought to put together a summation earlier, but I do not wish to seem to be placing words in Baud's mouth.

If I may be allowed the luxury, expecting correction if necessary, I believe what we agree on for the moment is:

government is necessary

government is responsible for those within its sphere of influence.

government is responsible for its environment in its sphere of influence.

government is responsible for the people within its sphere of influence.

government is responsible for the economics within its sphere of influence (conjecture by default).

government is responsible for the society (societies) within its sphere of influence.

government is responsible for the culture within its sphere of influence.

government is responsible to protect its sphere of influence, within and without.

Once these matters are clarified, we can attempt to discuss the best manner in which to accomplish these goals, while respecting other governments.

Again, this is a rude summary. If I am off or if I have overlooked something, I expect correction.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Baud!

I did not intend to overlook these:

- "Maximize the well-being" covers all aspects one could imagine: negative aspects (guarantee external and internal security, removing threats, etc.) and positive aspects (encouraging initiative, redistribution of wealth, promoting trade, etc.).

This is largely contained in the summary above. I think it would be correct to consider each individual government on its own merits, "case-by-case" if you will, so some form of flexibility seems to me necessary. The really difficult part of our exercise is in attempting a "one-size fits all" solution. What works for France, South Africa, or Brunei, may not work so well with India or China.

-Why to "help" maximize? Because I think that the primary responsibility for well-being is an individual responsibility. The government should not be the sole provider of well-being.

Wonderful! We do seem to agree the individual person has the ultimate responsibility for their person, and should not be wholly reliant on government for their support. Provided that government has adopted and adapted an economic model that creates wealth, giving it a pool of resources to work with, it then has the ability to provide and support further means to grow and expand its citizenry, which ultimately grows and expands its governmental abilities. This can create a self-perpetutating cycle, but that cycle is very easily disrupted.
Perhaps I should clarify what it is I mean by "grow and expand." When a government provides resources for education, for example, it provides its citizens with a means to become more productive, thus creating more wealth. By providing for better health, those citizens remain able to create wealth. By providing a less restrictive business climate, it encourages creation of wealth. A government's ability to provide these things must always be tempered with its genuine ability to do so, and with its previous obligations such as environmental concerns and national defense. To borrow from an old Charlton Heston movie, "The Ten Commandments", speaking of the slaves after having robbed the royal graneries-"the full make many (bricks), the starving make few, the dead make none." With no bricks, no work gets done, no wealth is created, and no redistribution can occur.

- "Whenever possible" means that it is impossible to maximize the well-being of each and everyone together. There must always be compromise between conflicting interests.

Yes, that is a purpose of government, to distribute between competing interests, ostensibly for the greatest good for the most, without doing so at the expense of the least. At some point, granting more resources into some endeavors is much like the proverbial "beating a dead horse." That encourages graft and corruption. If, for example, traditional telephonics is being replaced by cellular technology, it would be unwise for a government (or business) to continue to invest in traditional telephonics. An exception might be made if cellular was not and could not be made available in that particular region, in which case old technology is better than none.

- "Of the people and land" because government does not only have a responsibility for human beings but also for for sustainable development, nature preservation, and natural resources management.

I am in total agreement here. The US has made admirable moves in this direction, but there is a great deal yet to be done. When and where possible (in my mind, every possible effort MUST be exhausted), business (and by extension government) should consider the environmental impact of its actions. When the impact is great, some form of restitution should be made for restoration, or forego the business endeavor or find an alternate method/solution.

- Who is "under its responsibility" could be for the government to decide, but not always. Asylum seekers should be protected as well as citizens. You will notice also that I didn't refer to nation, territory, boundaries or ethnicity. So a government could be resonsible for people well outside its boundaries (theoretically, my definition would not see any specific or necessary link between government and territory).

Again, provided the government has the resources (created wealth) to be able to do so. And returning to the concept of the individual being ultimately responsible for self, I believe that assistance to other governments should be as much or more in development, not hand outs. Exceptions might be made for emergency situations. But it is better in my view to teach another government "how to." As for asylum seekers, I feel that term should have a limited definition. Granting full benefits automatically without stipulation encourages illegal immigration. This has a negative psychological impact on the legitimate citizenry, and can overwhelm a government's resources. Genuine asylum seekers should not carry such stigma in practice, provided they are limited in number and with legitimate cause. In this, the US is famous for accepting "the tired, the poor, the downtrodden." Culturally, there is always a difficult period of integration.

- Refraining from hurting others should be implied, but I add it anyway because it shows that government could not maximize the well-being of 99.9% of its citizens to the detriment of 0.1% without having to care. Likewise, government should not be authorized to maximize the well-being of its citizens while pludering someone else's riches (see our discussion on rich nations exploiting or not the poor ones).

I believe I already stated "to the benefit of the many, not at the expense of the few." The exception might be (and I realize this is a stretch) unless by accomodating the few, the many are unduly restrained. A society's culture tends to make these distinctions, the government merely enables those accomodations (or lack thereof). Certainly this accomodation is possible within a nation's sphere of influence, but it becomes problematic beyond that reach. In this, I return to the above statement of teaching other nations "how to." When a nation charitibly gives to another, it is effectively redistribution of wealth on a global scale. This matter ultimately resides in the natural distribution of resources. What if a nation/government does not have a needed resource within its sphere of influence? It looks beyond, in order to trade and do business. And in that trade, a nation/government uses its available resources to create wealth in order to provide for its citizenry. This is so on both ends of the deal. If a nation has a resource, but not the means to "value-add" (to borrow a business term), it either sells that resource in the raw state, or it develops the means to value-add and sells the resultant product. As global business expands, this is becoming more the reality. In the tennis shoe example, a nation that once had only the raw materials sold those materials abroad, where they were made into shoes. As production costs become prohibitive in traditional manufacturing countries, companies are increasingly opening new facilities where the resources are located (or where importation is less prohibitive). Where previously only the owners of the rubber plantations could gain wealth, now positions are opened in the manufacturing facilities that create wealth for the employees. The government now has a greater base from which to draw monetary resources from to redistribute. In effect, Anzac's argument is moot. While he endorsed global redistribution, he lamented that jobs were moving from traditional places of manufacture (this is the latent argument in disparity of wages). In this case, one cannot have their cake and eat it too. Now wealth is increasingly being redistributed, and it shows no signs of letting up. In the short term, this is beneficial for the consumer. As things become more equitible globally, who knows? And as tommorrow brings new technologies, the importance of particular resources shifts. For example, what resource will OPEC nations draw from when oil is no longer needed for transportation? Hopefully, those governments will have invested in some alternative to create wealth and continue to provide for their citizenry.

[Baud]

Loads of interestings things. I will first of all answer Susma's request by avoiding it. Actually, my position on the purpose of government in short form is what I have stated in bold in a previous post. The answers to all the questions I mentioned before would simply be the detailed implementation ("simply" meaning by a very complex process) of the basic principle. I think from Juan's reply that we generally agree on these basic premises.

Now to turn to Juan's questions. I apologize if I was a little technical before - comes from working on a regular basis in this field. I will still be somewhat technical now, and I apologize in advance.

Actually, States can and do influence each other's internal affairs in the US in some way. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the States, while the House represents the interests of the People generally. This bicameral system is typical from federal states. On the other hand, in a lot of states, like in the US or in Belgium senators are elected and do not really represent the interests of their State/Region.

The EU is built on the same principles. There is the Parliament, representing the People of Europe and directly elected, and the Council representing the Member States. Contrarily to the US Senate, the members of the Councils are ministers of the Member States and are not directly elected. To become law (European laws are called regulations or directives), a proposal must go through the legislative process (there are different processes for different areas of policy), but in the most used process at this time the proposal must receive the agreement of the Parliament and the Council. The way the Council votes also varies depending on the policy area, but under the qualified majority voting now widely used, a majority of States can outvote the others and "force" them to implement a law.

However, an important thing to remember is that US federal power is limited to what powers are granted to the US by the Constitution. Other powers remain for the States to exercise. The same applies in the EU. Only matters covered by the EU or EC Treaties can be touched by European laws. Income taxation, for instance, remains a responsibility of the Member States.

Now about the Treaty of Westphalia, I have actually been looking for its text for quite a number of years. It is made of two treaties signed in 1648 between Spain and the Netherlands, and France and Germany to end the 30-years war. They solved a number of religious (catholic/protestants) and territorial disputes between the parties. It did not attempt to define the Nation-State, but it is widely seen as having been the end of the Holy Roman Germanic Empire, a loose confederation of small German States, and to have consecrated the primacy in international affairs of political entities based on one ethno-cultural Nation residing within a territory, as opposed to the medieval concept of personal and somewhat willing one-to-one fealty to a lord without necessary regard to ethnicity or location.

I hope nobody is bored yet...

Baud

[Baud]

And as far as "controlling people and land beyond its borders" is concerned, I should have used a more generic term than "controlling". What I mean to say is that the sphere of responsibility of government is currently very generally seen as being over its citizens and its own territory. I don't think that this is entirely true anymore, nor that it should remain this way. It wasn't supposed to be a reference to the consequences fo colonialism, but this would certainly be included. The reach of government is now reaching well beyond the territory, and government have in my opinion some responsibility there.

You will notice that, in my definition, I have taken intergovernmental organisation like the UN or the EU to be "government". Maybe not in the usual sense for what concerns the UN, but it cannot in my opinion be excluded from the analysis of the purposes of government.

Baud

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Baud!

I hope nobody is bored yet...

Not at all, please continue.

... it is widely seen as having been the end of the Holy Roman Germanic Empire, a loose confederation of small German States, and to have consecrated the primacy in international affairs of political entities based on one ethno-cultural Nation residing within a territory,

Very good. I have a cursory familiarity with recent European history , but it is by no means extensive. I understand Germany to have a very complex and muddled recent history, until the mid-1800's, my impression brought on by its affiliation with the Vatican. The Treaty of Westphalia ending the 30 years' war would explain some.

The reach of government is now reaching well beyond the territory, and government have in my opinion some responsibility there.

Sphere of responsibility, ok. Perhaps I am missing something, and I wish in no way to be rude. Would there not be complications inherent in such? Complications are not an automatic disqualifier, ways to accomplish such have to be found. I suppose if a nation has a friendly and cooperative history with another, such is not a great problem. The problem I see is in influencing nations who do not want nor have invited such outside "responsibility." If I am misunderstanding, please clarify. I can see how such could be perceived much like a "nosey neighbor." The kind that know how everybody else should run their affairs, but not a clue how to run their own affairs.

in my definition, I have taken intergovernmental organisation like the UN or the EU to be "government".

Very well, I had a somewhat different perception. The UN seems to me a place for nations to interact, but by and large, able to dismiss. Perhaps this stems from American arrogance, something I sincerely wish to set aside in my own reasoning. Yet, the bigger dogs in the pack get to make the rules, and choose whether or not to follow those rules. This is not equitable, but it is reality. I do feel the UN has some good qualities, and certainly is a vehicle for promoting human welfare, especially in lesser developed countries. But as for seriously influencing "the big dogs", its hands are effectively tied. The nature of the creature requires, in my mind, a unique perspective on government. It is a government attempting to govern governments.
The EU I understood to be (primarily) an economic agreement, not unlike NAFTA, or the South-East Asian trade bloc. If I read you correctly then, the EU is far more than a trade bloc, sharing intimate legislation beyond that of economics.

So, where do we go from here?

[Baud]

I wasn't entirely clear. When I wrote that I consider the UN to be government, I didn't mean "a government". I see it as a branch, or emanation of governmental power, and as such having the same basic purpose, like the IRS is also government. None of them are "a government" in the strict sense, though.

FYI, this is a list of the areas where the EU is authorised to make policy or legislate: free movement of goods; agriculture; free movement of persons, service and capital; visas, asylum and immigration; transport; competition, taxation and approximation of laws; economic and monetary policy; employment; commercial policy; customs; social policy and education; culture; public health; consumer protection; networks; industry; economic and social cohesion; reserach and technology development; environment; development cooperation; economic cooperation with thrid countries; common foreign and security policy; and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Please keep in mind, however, that in many of these areas, the EU competence is shared with the member states.

Baud

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Baud

I wasn't entirely clear. When I wrote that I consider the UN to be government, I didn't mean "a government". I see it as a branch, or emanation of governmental power, and as such having the same basic purpose, like the IRS is also government. None of them are "a government" in the strict sense, though.

FYI, this is a list of the areas where the EU is authorised to make policy or legislate: free movement of goods; agriculture; free movement of persons, service and capital; visas, asylum and immigration; transport; competition, taxation and approximation of laws; economic and monetary policy; employment; commercial policy; customs; social policy and education; culture; public health; consumer protection; networks; industry; economic and social cohesion; reserach and technology development; environment; development cooperation; economic cooperation with thrid countries; common foreign and security policy; and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Please keep in mind, however, that in many of these areas, the EU competence is shared with the member states.

Baud

Kindest Regards, Baud!

Very good! That gives me a better overview of the purpose and parameters of the EU and UN.

I am not intimately familiar with NAFTA or ASEAN, or the fledgling Latin American unions, I believe them to be predominantly focused on economic concerns, which include many of the same focuses and interests laid out for the EU.

So if I am I now reading you better, the UN and these other "unions" (economic and otherwise) are tools used by "conventional" governments to facilitate interaction with other governments. Yes? Is it fair to say that this is perhaps an extension of the "Treaty" process into a more physical form, granting a certain flexibility and dynamism?

Last week, one of my professors presented an interesting viewpoint I have been mulling over since. My concern is that I may not present it correctly here. My understanding of what I heard is that economics now determines the fate and rule of nations, particularly at the level of the individual. Global business will not be stopped, despite the perceived faults by some. If one could conceivably convince US business of the "error of its ways", globalism would still continue, driven if by none other than the Chinese and East Indians. Those two nations alone account for on the order of half of the world's population. Many among that population have tasted the finer things in life, found them to taste sweet, and want these things now for themselves. These markets are exploding in growth, and that growth will fuel the fires of expansion well into the middle of this century.

While it seems easy for some to consider these nations as having "backwards" societies and governments, such is not really the case. I believe it is incumbent upon developed nations to not only recognize the value of these nations (and others), but in the interest of peace and prosperity on a global scale, facilitate rather than attempt to hamper the impending progress. Instead of jumping in front of the freight train and trying to stop it "superman" style, it is better to coach the engineer in how best to throttle and control the train so that it doesn't jump the track.

Perhaps the EU, and the other economic agreements, are a form of the same thing I am alluding to. Or, as the old saw goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

[Susma Rio Sep]

The way I see it, government serves the purpose embodied in the paragraph below:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to... -- Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

By government we can start with the head of a family/home, the father or mother or both together, to the government of a state, all the way to the regional organizations like the European Union or the Association of South East Asian Nations, and to the top which is the United Nations. All these governments serve the purpose of procuring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all peoples and each single individual in their respective spheres.


Going back to the original topic of communism, capitalism, and political ideology, may I just suggest to Anzac and Juan to choose maybe two very specific areas of investigation and exchange of facts and aspirations, namely, provision of medicines and provision of foods in a communistic society and in a capitalistic society: which system does a better job.

To be even more restricted in scope, perhaps Anzac and Juan should just concentrate on the observance of morality from the part of producers and distributors of medicines and foods in a communistic society and in a capitalistic society.

May I suggest that they might consider the case respectively of healthcare and food sufficiency in the U.S. and in Cuba, from the standpoint of morality in the producers and distributors of these two most basic requirements of man in maintaining life, enjoying liberty, and pursuing happiness.

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Susma!

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to... -- Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

I am a staunch defender of the US Constitution, and the form of government we have managed to establish. Even so, there is a crucial fallacy in this assumption. All men are not created equal. If the framers of the constitution had truly believed what they wrote, slavery would not have existed in this nation from its inception. The reality is, we fought a civil war over that very thing less than 100 years later, and we still struggle with those issues today.

People do not have "equal" abilitites in strength, mental capacity, or gender. I do not have a problem with this, these differences make this country, and the world, far more interesting than it would be if everybody was "equal." The trick is in finding ways to deal effectively and equitably with those differences without hog-tying those of exceptional ability. The great things in life, music, art, culture, entrepreneurship, technology, all stem from those of greater ability. And those of lesser ability require assistance from time to time to raise themselves up to a higher level than they would achieve on their own. A lot of this is attitude.

Going back to the original topic of communism, capitalism, and political ideology, may I just suggest to Anzac and Juan to choose maybe two very specific areas of investigation and exchange of facts and aspirations, namely, provision of medicines and provision of foods in a communistic society and in a capitalistic society: which system does a better job.

This has already been done, extensively. I see no need to rehash, or to keep beating what is effectively a dead horse. We are attempting to move on, to try to discover if there is a way to either improve what exists, or to propose a more equitable system of governing and/or economics. You are looking back, we are trying to look forward.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Juan, those are very good observations about the Founding Fathers on liberty and equality. Just goes to show that people talk so idealistically but only in reference to themselves.

I don't seem to have seen any consensus between you and Anzac about the merits of capitalism and communism.

What do you think, communist Cuba is doing a better job with healthcare than capitalist U.S.? What about food sufficiency and distribution? But North Korea is doing very badly...?

Correct me if I am wrong, Canada has a government with socialist features, do you think it is doing better in healthcare and in food sufficiency and distribution than the U.S. with its tighter embrace of capitalism?

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Susma!

I don't seem to have seen any consensus between you and Anzac about the merits of capitalism and communism.

I'll grant you persistence. Either that, or sheer boredom. There is no consensus between Anzac's position and mine because there is no consensus to be had.

What do you think, communist Cuba is doing a better job with healthcare than capitalist U.S.? What about food sufficiency and distribution? But North Korea is doing very badly...?

Correct me if I am wrong, Canada has a government with socialist features, do you think it is doing better in healthcare and in food sufficiency and distribution than the U.S. with its tighter embrace of capitalism?

Perspective has a great deal to do with things. Any patriotically minded person is apt to favor the system s/he has been trained in and lives under. No different for myself. A patriotic Cuban will likely disagree with me. A patriotic Canadian will likely disagree with me. "Better" is relative.

In my opinion, Cuba does the best it can under the circumstances. Since it can no longer rely on the patronage of the former Soviet Union, it has become dependent upon an "underground" economy fed by US dollars, and foreign aid from other sources. And it does relatively well providing for its people with this "bastard" communism. But if it were to allow something closer to genuine capitalism, it would be better able to produce wealth that in turn could provide even better for its people. Democracy there is not likely until Castro dies, but a mutant form of capitalism is alive and well already.

By contrast, China saw the writing on the wall some time ago. It maintains a communist form of government, but is increasingly opening its attitudes and doors to capitalist economic methods. It has to, it has a population that dwarfs the US, let alone Cuba. Size matters. What nation, or even group of nations, can begin to support a nation the size of China with what amounts to international welfare? North Korea does so poorly because they want to remain aloof from the outside world, yet still demand welfare. They do not want to play nice with anybody else, but expect (even demand) that everybody else play nice with them. That is a very tough row to hoe in today's world. Their government is bringing their problems down on their own heads.

A lot of Canada's food comes from the US. Not all, but a significant percentage, in exchange for lumber. Canadian healthcare is good in that everybody is guaranteed a certain level of care, if you don't mind waiting in line. If you haven't got time to wait, or you want state of the art treatment, you slip over the border and get your work done in the US. US healthcare is expensive, but those proceeds drive the research that leads to even better medicine. Canada must accept only what it can afford, it is not a regular pioneer in medicine, because it does not generate the resources to be able to. If you have a lifethreatening condition that cannot wait, and you cannot afford to slip over the border, you are SOL. In that way, Canadian medicine is not such a great thing.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Which is more important to you, constant improvement (like genetic research), or doing things the old fashioned way because that's all we can afford? And by the way, the appointment to remove your lifethreatening tumor is scheduled for Monday next, in the year 2006.

Not to mention, where do the better doctors gravitate too? Where the money is. If you are going to invest 10 years or more into learning to be a doctor, and the high cost of that education, how are you going to pay back your student loans where the pay is so much lower? And if you are really into your specialty, where are you going to learn the cutting edge techniques? Just some things to think about.

[Anzac]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I'll grant you persistence. Either that, or sheer boredom. There is no consensus between Anzac's position and mine because there is no consensus to be had.

Can I add my three pence to the conversation?

Sorry about the absence, work n'all, however, it does seem to have sparked some pretty thorough debating on the whole issue of political ideology and the way in which we'd all like things done.

I'll now proceed not to knock capitalism as I could do it not only all day, but pretty much for a year constantly. As requested I shall provide an alternative. First let me answer Susma Rio Sep and his point about communism/capitalism in the words of their former political theorists:

Communism (Marx): In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

Capitalism (Mises): Competition on the market aims at assigning to every individual that function in the social system in which he can render to all his fellow men the most valuable of the services he is able to perform.

In essence neither really opposes one another, one believes in the right of the individual to own and the other believes in state ownership. This isn't opposing it as ownership is moved from the individual to the hands of the commune.

The obvious answer to me seems to come in one form. To me it seems pretty blatantly the obvious thing to do: do both. You allow people to function to the best of their abilities but at the same time not have ownership altogether, not even the state, for in my idea of society there would be no states, no countries, no nationalists (second most likely cause of war next to religion I might add) and no patriotism. People could sleep peacefully at night knowing they could wake up the next day with a roof, bed, food, job and security. How you ask? The answer? Anarchism.

Scoffs can be heard, people saying tosh and nonsense, how many of you have actually taken the time to look up anarchism? It isn't beating each other up and abusing and destroying everything, that branch of anarchism is (ironically) called anarcho-capitalism.

I intend to implement a harmonious anarchism called anarcho-leftism. In this there is no country, no state etc. There is a strong sense of individuality, harnessing the best of everybody without it being at the expense of another as you find in capitalism. If you have $780 million you wouldn't hang onto it all costs, because you wouldn't need it because there would be no money. Then what stops me from taking what I want when I want? Again, that's anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-leftism can often be called moralism because essentially that's what it is. For instance, under our current system person A has a loaf of bread and a knife, person B had some crumbs. In anarchism the knife would be used to carve the bread so all could eat readily, in capitalism person A stabs person B for their crumbs and then stabs persons C, D and E because they might get the bread from you. To me the system seems to be evidently common sense, one man starves whilst one man lives in excess seems a little anti-ethical to my liking.

As a result people often say "people are inherently evil" - are we? The only sentient animal in greater respects should be able to stop killing each other food as there is more than enough to go round if people stopped stealing it all for themselves. I put this down to education and nationalism. If you're a patriot you're a nationalist and if you're a nationalist, well, just look at Nazism... What right have I to something because I'm born in a nation? None

juantoo3 called me a coward and a traitor a while ago for not respecting the right for the nation to exist. I am not a coward as I have the courage to say no and I am a traitor as that implies going against the country - national pride is more often than not the source of violence, how often does the west put it's foot in and start killing people. Everyone has a right to life, no one is inferior or superior, we must each harness our ability to suit ourselves as capitalism dictates, but not at the expense of another.

Common sense? Seems so.