User talk:Wejer

Feel free to leave a message. Wejer   15:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

STICKY: Forum rules
Hello, and welcome to the forum!

I have volunteered to provide my talk page as a discussion ground for politics and philosophy. With Dtm142's permission, I have been granted that privelege, as sanctioned under Forum rule No. 1. Feel free to discuss any topic you like, as long as you are being civil about it!

However, there are some guide lines existant. They are not compulsory to follow, however they will make the debating climate so much the better:


 * No personal attacks - even for the sake of winning an argument.
 * Keep an open mind - remember, you have two ears but only one mouth.
 * Avoid logical fallacies - and read this!

Thank you for your support. Enjoy your stay! Wejer   16:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

STICKY: Political Compass Test
Would you like to know where you stand in the deep bog known as politics? Are you a libertarian, or an authoratarian? Are you a communist, or a capitalist? Or perhaps you are a little of everything?

Take the Political Compass test, and find out today! Take the test here! Wejer    16:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My Political Views
Ok, so you seem to be similar in some respects and not others. Here's mine: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-7.75&soc=-6.56

I disagree with your economic policy. I don't think that profit should be the grounding objective of a person. If you believe this, then you can be held responsible for the boom/bust economic climate since capitalism became the status quo. The drive of individuals to personal wealth incites them to find new ways to make money. Now thats fine, but money is limited. This either leads to inflation - everyone has more money, but actually the value of everyone is the same OR distortion of world - exploitation of others.

Now we currently believe that inflation is the expected answer. That's fine. But sooner or later someone realises that to actually improve they need to do more than gain money. To actually improve you need to gain money faster than everyone else is. So they bend the rules. Hence some stockbrokers bent the rules to enable their company and hence them to become richer. So that left the banks with assets that they couldn't retrieve the money from. This leaves them unrecoverable debt and as such the credit crunch.

This isn't a new problem. In 1929 people bought shares beyond their means and when suddenly people asked 'is a 1 man business really worth this much', the same thing happened.

This is the systematic problem with capitalist countries. And every time they break down, the government steps in with a socialist measure, totally undermining the point of having a capitalist system. The Bail-Out, The New Deal. Obama's policy of getting people to help on civilian projects is more or less the same as Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps.

Incidently Roosevelt created Fannie Mae. It was then privatised by the Republicans but now bought back.... The signs are there. Capitalism is broke.

Thanks for reading ~ King Runite1 13:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I'll admit that Global Warming is over-hyped, but Peak oil is a realistic possibility, so we do need to limit the oil usage anyway. I've always thought that if there is a clean and harmless way to do something and a way that isn't, one should pick the clean and harmless path, so for me, going green is a no-brainer. I don't think carbon credits and bio-fuels is the answer. King Runite1 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS: Final point. I'm not going to be pulled into the pro-life/pro-choice argument. Personally I think that a child badly brought up is a bad place to be. I'm pro-choice (pro-death?) and not pro-life (pro-forced?). King Runite1 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello King Runite1, and welcome to my talk page.

I am glad you have taken an interest in national economic policies, but must none the less disagree with some of your views.

The main point of having a capitalist system is not for everyone to have more money. As you say yourself, that would be pretty ridicolous. That is why economies based on printing more money constantly ultimately fail. The socialist economy of Zimbabwe may give us some clues why this is.

No, the main point is effectivization. When businessmen want to sell their product, they must make it more attractive than the product of their competitors. Otherwise, they would just lose money and have to shut down. This 'greed' and 'egoism' thus spurs invention! Ultimately this could lead to a lot of different things, from cheaper production costs, a higher quality product or even better wages for workers in 3rd world countries (ever heard of fair trade? That's capitalism in action!). When I claim that free trade will increase the standard of living for everyone, I am not kidding. Protectionism is probably the biggest reason why 3rd country people are forced to live on such small wages. If the market was free, those people would choose a better work place, with better wages and less working hours!

When you claim that some stockbrokers are idiots I must agree with you. However, that is NOT a reason to cover up their asses with taxpayers' money. Teach them to handle their money responsibly, instead of encouraging them to repeat their mistakes! A true capitalist would make those stockbrokers take full responability for their freedom of action.

Wejer   11:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I missed out to answer your PSs. How silly of me.


 * Thing is that I don't like fossil fuels that much myself. Even if I don't think they contribute much to global warming, I still think that the acid rain and global dimming they produce is bad enough. That is why I like nuclear power, because it's cheap and (relatively) safe if handled responsibly. Solar and wind power are of course renewable (a good thing), however, the electricity isn't cheap, the solar panels have toxins in them and the wind turbines are noisy and ugly. Naturally, more research into renewable sources would increase efficiency, but the same is true of nuclear power. Until the day comes when renewable energy becomes a more realistic option, I think we shall stick with cheap energy sources like nuclear power.
 * Your stance on abortion seems quite close to my own one, that it is the woman herself that shall decide over what to do with her body. However, the conservatives have a point when they say abortion could be substituted with adoption. Even so, I think that ultimately it is her choice what to do with her baby.

Wejer   11:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No you are wrong. Fair trade isn't capitalism. It's a socialist invention designed to undermine the capitalist system which seeks to exploit whatever it can in order to reduce costs. The capitalist system led to the introduction of the set-up which benefits a specific sub-group of producers. One example of this is the EU trade committees and the French 'wine lake'. Exploiting a group of workers is common capitalist policy. It used to be black slaves, now it's Chinese and LEDC country citizens.


 * "Protectionism is probably the biggest reason why 3rd country people are forced to live on such small wages." Protectionism is the capitalist's method of defending their market share. Protectionism is NOT socialist policy. I'd be the first to abolish it.


 * The stockbrokers are not idiots. They are exploiting a weakness in the system. They are incredibly clever and I salute them for it. One man (George Soros) managed to bankrupt the British economy gaining more than $1 billion dollars on Black Wednesday. He's not an idiot. He's living proof that capitalist systems are broke.


 * "Teach them to handle their money responsibly, instead of encouraging them to repeat their mistakes! A true capitalist would make those stockbrokers take full responability for their freedom of action"


 * How do you teach someone who's probably still going to get millions in bonuses. How do you teach a system which, if it collapsed, every single person with a mortgage would be doomed. How do you teach a system, which is, beyond the reach of the government's control to a large extent. It's got so bad, that in Iceland, the country's GDP is less than the debt of their banks! Bonuses have been so absurd that one bank's employees could have actually bought their bank on the stock exchange just through bonuses!


 * Regarding the fossil fuel scenario. There are plenty of places to put solar panels and wind farms. We have an uninhabited desert in Africa, covering that in said technology would provide vast amounts of electricity that can be transmitted on power lines wherever. The price issue is irrelevant. It's expensive because it's rarely used. This is a prime example of the capitalist market that should decrease the price as it's bought. But no-one can be forced to drop the price through capitalist methods.


 * I'm not really that strong on abortion, mainly because the right answer is neither abortion nor adoption, but the prevention in the first place.

~ King Runite1 12:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like we speak the same language. Perhaps I shall try and clarify.


 * When I say that fair trade is a example of capitalism I mean that it has become a product of supply and demand. Generally, if a product has a fair trade sticker on it, it is seen as positive, because it helps sell the product. Now, when you say that fair trade is a product of socialism, I can relate to that, because the essence of socialism is wealth redistribution. However, the main difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism (as I know it) is often enforced top-down by a couple of "enlightened" rulers while capitalism (as I know it) is enforced bottom-up by individuals who govern themselves. Because the Fair Trade organization was formed on voluntary basis and not by a government agency, I can claim that it is a product of capitalism. This is regardless of how much wealth redisribution the fair trade practice generates, because capitalism tolerates any amount of wealth redistribution as long as it is voluntary.


 * I don't know where you fished up the statement that "Protectionism is the capitalist's method of defending their market share". However, I am glad that you agree with me on the issue. Let us abolish protectionism together!


 * Indeed, stock brokers are not stupid. I apologize for that rude comment. However, I must admit I have never heard about the Black Wednesday, so I can not give you any through in-debt analysis up-front I am afraid. However, from initial glance it seems that Mr. Soros is nothing more than a criminal, and deserves punishment and not a salute. By the way, shouldn't a massive wealth redistribution in favour of "the rich" bother socialists like you? Just curious.


 * I am not going to discuss any outragous bonuses some companies choose to give their directors. That is up to them. Short to say, if salaries in a company do not correspond to the work they provide, they will pretty quickly fail anyway, because of loss of profits. Other, more adaptive companies on the free market will take over instead. As competition increases we witness how former giant monopolies come crashing down, only to be replaced by companies who give products and services of higher quality and lower price. This is progress, and it is desirable because it leads to a better world for all of us. (And it will probably also lead to less differences in salaries, so socialists should be happy of this surely?)


 * Priceing and efficiency is very important, and this is true of energy issues as well. I will illustrate this with a hypothethical scenario:


 * Mr. A and Mr. B are both workers at the same office. However, Mr A works more effectively than Mr B (Mr B is an average worker. Also notice that I say "effectively" not "harder"). In fact, Mr A works so effectively that he can finish his chores 1 hour before Mr B is finished. His employer has noticed this, but instead of increasing his salary (which the employer cannot afford in this scenario), he allows Mr A to take 1 hour off every day.


 * One passion of Mr A is charity work. Specifically, he likes to work with treating drug addicts. After each work day, he voluntarily takes 1 hour off in order to tend for these needy individuals. He one day realises that he wouldn't have had the time to do his voluntary work if he didn't work so efficiently that he finished his chores 1 hour before anybody else.


 * Conclusion: By spending less work to gain acces to our energy (or in Mr A's case, his salary), we will have more time to do other things (in Mr A's case, charity work). Thus we should use the most effective energy source we can (with some reservations, of course).


 * You claim that "the capitalist market should decrease the price as it's bought". This is a misunderstanding. Increased demand means that the product or service is more sought-after. The general reaction to this is that price goes up. Long-term, this leads to increased supplies (more of the product is produced). If the supplies are higher than is sought after by the market, the market price goes down and stabilizies. If you have any questions about this supply and demand theory don't hesitate to ask.


 * I agree personally with you on what is best when it comes to abortion, although I think it is for the best if that desiscion is taken by the individual and not top-down from above.


 * Thank you for your time. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 16:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Responses

 * I've bulleted my answers to every section.

When I say that fair trade is a example of capitalism I mean that it has become a product of supply and demand. Generally, if a product has a fair trade sticker on it, it is seen as positive, because it helps sell the product. Now, when you say that fair trade is a product of socialism, I can relate to that, because the essence of socialism is wealth redistribution. However, the main difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism (as I know it) is often enforced top-down by a couple of "enlightened" rulers while capitalism (as I know it) is enforced bottom-up by individuals who govern themselves. Because the Fair Trade organization was formed on voluntary basis and not by a government agency, I can claim that it is a product of capitalism. This is regardless of how much wealth redisribution the fair trade practice generates, because capitalism tolerates any amount of wealth redistribution as long as it is voluntary.


 * Ah... No. You are confusing the style of leadership with the policies they enforce. Socialism is about the equality of people. Socialism is not about the way it has been implemented. Unfortunately the most socialist policies are typically advocated by extreeme governments in order to get into power (the extreeme right does this as well). Once in power, the leadership is a dictatorship, the top-down style you note. Stalinist Russia and former Chinese both advocated socialist policies. However, when in power they were not liberal, rather the opposite. Liberal communism works, the other doesnt.


 * Capitalism has nothing to do with up-down and down-up. That is the liberal and conservative factor. Capitalism is merely an idea of assignment of wealth. The enforcement is not related to the capitalist/socialist idea.


 * Again this is not exclusively a socialist policy. Mahatma Gandhi is the closest real-world political leader representing my political beliefs. No-one can claim he was a dictator. He created a peaceful overthrow of a domineering British military presence.


 * The idea that you can claim that Fair Trade is a product of capitalism is absurd. It is a product of a socialist society undermining the existing capitalist system to support the redistribution of wealth. Capitalism itself doesn't tolerate voluntary wealth distribution, this is a socio-liberal allowance present in a government that isn't hardline capitalism.

I don't know where you fished up the statement that "Protectionism is the capitalist's method of defending their market share". However, I am glad that you agree with me on the issue. Let us abolish protectionism together!


 * Easy. Capitalist countries wish to defend their interests, at whatever costs. Protectionism is the method they use - making it harder for countries from the outside to sell products (of equal value and quality - often better!) to them.

Indeed, stock brokers are not stupid. I apologize for that rude comment. However, I must admit I have never heard about the Black Wednesday, so I can not give you any through in-debt analysis up-front I am afraid. However, from initial glance it seems that Mr. Soros is nothing more than a criminal, and deserves punishment and not a salute. By the way, shouldn't a massive wealth redistribution in favour of "the rich" bother socialists like you? Just curious.


 * It does bother me. Indeed that someone is able to become extreemely rich is not a nice thought. Does anyone really think that Bill Gates as a person is worth his fortune, when you realise how little some LEDC people get. However, Mr. Soros and Bill Gates both legitimately earned their fortunes at the expense of others. Mr. Soros helped the UK into a recession lasting half a decade. Bill Gates is perhaps less obvious - many people call him a philanthropist but if you look at the money donated compared to how much he gets. Indeed people like him ONLY donate to charity because it creates a good public image, which in turn benefits their sales and hence, they probably gain more than they donate.

I am not going to discuss any outragous bonuses some companies choose to give their directors. That is up to them. Short to say, if salaries in a company do not correspond to the work they provide, they will pretty quickly fail anyway, because of loss of profits. Other, more adaptive companies on the free market will take over instead. As competition increases we witness how former giant monopolies come crashing down, only to be replaced by companies who give products and services of higher quality and lower price. This is progress, and it is desirable because it leads to a better world for all of us. (And it will probably also lead to less differences in salaries, so socialists should be happy of this surely?)


 * Competition only exists because of the Competition Commissions, a liberal/socialist attempt to prevent the existants of an unelected set of people that can control a country. IMHO, the largest problem as we see at the moment, is that when these huge capitalist organisations fail, it is up to the government to protect them. The simple fact is that if a large bank goes under, huge numbers of people have no house or job and so on. So the governments (like today) are using socialist principles to back up capitalist mistakes. But note that the problem is not the socialist fix (the bailouts), but the capitalist set-up initally.

Priceing and efficiency is very important, and this is true of energy issues as well. I will illustrate this with a hypothethical scenario: Mr. A and Mr. B are both workers at the same office. However, Mr A works more effectively than Mr B (Mr B is an average worker. Also notice that I say "effectively" not "harder"). In fact, Mr A works so effectively that he can finish his chores 1 hour before Mr B is finished. His employer has noticed this, but instead of increasing his salary (which the employer cannot afford in this scenario), he allows Mr A to take 1 hour off every day. One passion of Mr A is charity work. Specifically, he likes to work with treating drug addicts. After each work day, he voluntarily takes 1 hour off in order to tend for these needy individuals. He one day realises that he wouldn't have had the time to do his voluntary work if he didn't work so efficiently that he finished his chores 1 hour before anybody else. Conclusion: By spending less work to gain acces to our energy (or in Mr A's case, his salary), we will have more time to do other things (in Mr A's case, charity work). Thus we should use the most effective energy source we can (with some reservations, of course).


 * I'd like to discuss this. However, I disagree with the existence of charities. They are largely a waste of resources. Charities, IMHO are a failing of the government to intervene with the correct policy (typically liberal in nature). Again this example shows that underneath the system, we are liberal people, trying to benefit others in a socialist way - helping those less fortunate than ourselves - in otherwords providing underground socialist systems where in effect the problem is the capitalism surround.
 * PS: I did actually answer this one. I realised that by not answering I wouldn't be able to justify my position. So I've striken the first sentence and a bit, which changes the meaning of the second sufficiently. King Runite1 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You claim that "the capitalist market should decrease the price as it's bought". This is a misunderstanding. Increased demand means that the product or service is more sought-after. The general reaction to this is that price goes up. Long-term, this leads to increased supplies (more of the product is produced). If the supplies are higher than is sought after by the market, the market price goes down and stabilizies. If you have any questions about this supply and demand theory don't hesitate to ask. I agree personally with you on what is best when it comes to abortion, although I think it is for the best if that desiscion is taken by the individual and not top-down from above. Thank you for your time.


 * Heh, I did Business (Still do some). Supply and Demand is all well and good, but the competition in the market (is there any? perhaps a socialist competition commision should intervene - they don't because it's 'not a key market'), should reduce this effect. The supply of the materials, is I understand, not an issue.
 * Mass Production should have a far greater impact. For example, the car, when invented, was a luxury for the very rich. However, despite the demand being the same, and the supply of the materials used to make them, the price of a car has vastly decreased (in comparison to the average income of a typical person). This should be the same for the solar panels.


 * Don't worry, it's been a brilliant discussion so far :) King Runite1 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's one extensive reply you have made. I will make sure to have a proper look at it tomorrow. Until then, good night. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

About the jungle of words
It is clear that the way we use our words is different. I will begin by clarifying myself. Then I will (try to) clarify you:


 * Capitalism - (For me): Free-market economics/classical liberalism forwarded by philosophers like Ayn Rand and Adam Smith; (For you): Red-neck-economics à la USA, "extreme right"
 * Socialism - (For me): (Often state-sanctioned) interventions into the market with the aim of a planned economy (ie abolishing private property etc.); (For you) Any form of wealth-redistribution, voluntarily or not + abolition of private property.
 * Equality (economics) - (For me): Equal rules for everybody; (For you:) Equal result for everybody (different rules for minorities is tolerated to some extent)
 * Communist state - (For me): A dictatorship with a planned economy (like Cuba, but not China); (For you) Any state sufficiently left-wing, regardless of social policies
 * Fair trade - (For me): A product/service that free individuals may spend their private property on; (For you): A hidden conspiracy to undermine (your defenition of) the capitalist system
 * Protectionism - (For me): A state-intervention into the free market, a step towards the planned economy (my defnition of socialism); (For you) Proof that red-neck-economics cannot compete with left-wing economics and thus try to cement their standing through force (ie by making a closed market, mercantilism).
 * Competition - (For me): The logical result of a free market; (For you): The invention of Competition Commisions (?) (help me here!)

As you can see, me trying to define you may not be 100% adequate. Btw, may I call you a syndicalist? It seems like your "utopia" is not very far from theirs. Wejer   08:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link of modern collectivist societies. Check it out! Wejer    08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Response
I think syndicalist is probably a pretty fair definition of my stand point, although given the allowance for privatism, maybe communism is nearer. At the end of the day, they are trying to cover a fairly broad spectrum of political standpoints under 3 definitions (egalitarianism, syndicalism and communism). Obviously this doesn't work or voting would be somewhat more straight forward!


 * Capitalism - No I recognise that capitalism is a range of view points. That said to link it with liberalism is a flawed point of view. The capitalist philosophy is not, by default, liberal
 * Socialism - Why does it matter who authorises it. This doesn't change the actions taken. Socialism doesn't imply a government taking action.
 * Equality - No. Equal is equal. The phrase "everyone is equal but some are more equal than others" is not my stand point. - Animal Farm is an example of Communist principles gaining someone power and then abandoned. Animal Farm is a good example of why Communism doesn't work in practice, but it does show the ideas. I'm not quite sure why you gave me my definition.
 * Communist state - Accurate. As I said, states that presume to be communist but are dictatorial are NOT communist, they are simply moving the class boundaries.
 * Fair Trade - I agree with your definition, but dispute the idea that it is a capitalist policy. I don't think I used the words hidden conspiracy. I think movement is nearer the mark. But as for it undermining the capitalist system, yes that I agree with
 * Protectionism - Interesting. I'm not entirely sure that Protectionism is a capitalist idea, or a conservative idea - the two being different. Basically in my view, it states that, one region is, for no apparent reason, better than other and that therefore, it's goods should be benefitted. It's a sort of country-based inequality. I disagree with it on the grounds that 'all countries are equal', and that some are not 'more equal than others'. Which I suppose IS a communist view, but typically communism is reffering to people rather than countries.
 * Competition - Hmm I like your idea and it'd be nice. But in reality, a company exists to make profit. And a company makes the most profit by selling the most goods. Each person requires a limited number of goods. So the company that sells the most must control the largest market share. Thus the ideal of company is to monopolise it's industry. If a company controls 100% of the oil reserves for instance, there is no competition. Nor can the market naturally enable such competition. Nobody can gain a market share because they can't enter the market. It would be impossible to buy up some of the company, because the value of the commodity to society is such that they could control the currency through price manipulation.
 * So in response, the governments set up commissions to prevent companies from gaining a monopoly. They block the takeovers where it would create such a monopoly and do their utmost to prevent companies acquiring such a share.

Hope this was a reasonable response that allows you to see my POV. ~| King Runite1 10:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Respone

 * Capitalism - I have to point out that historically, the word 'liberalism' meant to decribe an ideology not very unsimilar to classical liberalism today. New Liberalism came later, where socialism fused with liberalism, forwarded by individuals such as John Stuart Mill. Nonetheless, you say that capitalism may not by defenition include a liberal stand point. However, right now you are conversing with someone who has about the same views of social stances as you, even if our economical standpoints are different. Does this mean that I (Wejer) am not a capitalist by your definition? Because obviously I am trying to combine free market economics with a liberal view on social policies.
 * Socialism - Indeed, there isn't a requirement for socialist reform to be involunatary, however unless it is an anarcho-syndicalist society (from what I have heard from you, you don't define yourself as an anarchist, right?), this action is almost always handled by the state apparatus. Simply, if you don't pay your taxes, you are getting thrown in jail. Not only are they denying a certain freedom of property, they are also excercising social cohersion by the violence monopoly (which is exclusive to the state).
 * Equality (economics) - Sorry for being a bit vague here. What I was hinting at specifically was wealth redistribution. A free marketeer like me would for example advocate that everyone pay the same income tax percentage (%). However, socialists like you would probably prefer that everyone had the same income (in units), so they would put a different tax percentage (%) according to how high your income was (or prohobit high income altogether). Both you and I claim that these separate systems are fair and just, although on different grounds. Classical liberals claim it is necessary with income differences in order to promote progress in the form of labour and invention. Some right-wing libertarians would claim that the individual has the right to his whole income, and that taxes in all cases is a kind of theft (see Natural law). Socialists in general claim this is a matter of principal, that every human being is equal, and thus ultimately deserve the same wage, regardless of his/her contribution to society. Does that defenition make more sense to you?
 * Communism - When you say you are a communist, does that mean that you simply believe in the communist utopia? The communist utopia I am referring to is the one defined by Marx as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". By that definition, even communist dictatorships is communist, because they have the same "dream". Such states may claim that there is still burgeoise in their ranks, and this is why they have yet to achive the utopia as described by Marx.
 * Fair trade - Are you desputing that Fair Trade is 1) the result of red-neck-economics or 2) the result of individuals in a free market? If it is 1), I agree with you, if 2) I am not. Regardless what its aims are however, I think the Fair Trade organization should have free reign, regardless of its positive or negative effect on any form of "capitalism".
 * Protectionism - I would lean towards that protectionism is indeed a nationalistic idea, however the tools they use to influence the market clearly has a touch of the planned economy. Free marketeers like me despise such mercantilism, because we have an international perspective (much like yourself).
 * Competition - Two competing companies can both make a profit without overthrowing the rule of the other, either by failing to provide superior competition or failing to buying up one another. There are a lot of empirical evidence of this fact, although what springs to mind is the competition between Microsoft's X-box, Sony's playstation and Nintendo (although Nintendo is definately the pioneer in this area, with its Wii-technology). They have succeeded with dividing up the market between them, but cannot overthrow the rule of each other (one spokesman of Microsoft actually claimed that it is "positive thing" that the companies (Sony and Nintendo) are competing with Microsoft. However, it is unclear if this is the general view in the Microsoft corporation, and I also cannot remember the source where I found it.) It is true that all companies strive to get a complete monopoly, although I disagree that a monopoly cannot be broken by anything but state intervention. However, this would undoubtly require larger-than-average amount of starting capital. Nonetheless, if rich and shrewd, a "challenger" with a big purse may overthrow a monopoly and recreate the free market (although sometimes, those purses may not be so big at all, both examples is possible according to empirical studies)
 * I think a Competition Commission could be useful in tackling the company cartels that dilute the free market. However, I am more reluctant to allow them the power to keep the companies from using their private property to buy each other. This is ultimately a matter of freedom, to allow each individual to spend their money in any way they see fit. EDIT: I changed my mind. The only infringement on private property when it comes to preventing two companies to fusion is a handful of people. The rest of the population is still able to use their money to buy shares as they please. If these kind of actions would result in a monopoly-free market, that would indeed be positive. (8:33, 30 Januari 2009)

And yes, I am getting closer to understand your POV. I hope you are getting closer to understand my POV as well. Mutual respect and understanding is the key, even if we disagree with each other on certain points. Civility is high on my list. Wejer   18:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Respones

 * "Ah... No. You are confusing the style of leadership with the policies they enforce. Socialism is about the equality of people. Socialism is not about the way it has been implemented. "

<> When you say that "Socialism is about the equality of people." I assume that YOU assume socialism=wealth redistribution=class equality. In that case, I can only point out that in the pursuit of your "equality" you have to make sure you don't fall behind in progress. For example, is it better if two employees both get 3000 dollars/month, or is it better if one employee gets 3500 dollars/month while the other gets 3100 dollars/month? The whole idea about free market economics is that productivity increases all the time, even if this leads to some class differences. In the case of left-wing systems, they tend to be static at best, if not degrading. So even if one abolishes the differences between the classes, (technological) progress is inhibited. This is ultimately a big flaw in socialism, being not able to fight its by nature static economy.


 * - Well money is a capitalist idea, so naturally it better fits the capitalist way of working. Your idea is however flawed because the money distributed in both cases isn't the same. If the question was "is it better if two employees both get 3000 dollars/month, or is it better if one employee gets 2500 dollars/month while the other gets 3500 dollars/month" then the answer is the first. Left wing systems can be a source of great progress. If you think that Russia was a left wing country under Stalin - my view is that had a 1 man upper class and was hence not socialist - then it is clear the left-wing policies radically revolutionised the state of Russia - the 5 Year Plans were clearly effective. That said the human cost was obviously dire. That's not a related point though IMHO.


 * "Capitalism has nothing to do with up-down and down-up. That is the liberal and conservative factor. Capitalism is merely an idea of assignment of wealth. The enforcement is not related to the capitalist/socialist idea. "

<> Actually, enforcement is vital. Involuntarily wealth redistribution is called theft, and is carried out by thieves. Voluntary wealth redistribution is called gifts or charity, and is carried out by family and philantropists. If you deny voluntary wealth redistribution, you are also denying private property. At best (but unlikely), this money would fall to the community. At the worst (and far more likely), this money would be given to the state. In both cases, control of private earnings is denied in favour of the collective or state. This is why socialism (even anarcho-syndicalism) always has a top-down element, while this is not the case in free market economics (and red necks speak for themselves, obviously). In anarcho-syndicalism, this top-down rule would be carried out by the majority-vote, which would have a higher hierarchial standing than the voice of a single individual. The majority always beats the minority in that case. Free marketeers does not need that kind of top-down approach to economy, excluding the basic security provided by the Night watchman state.


 * The community is the state, so that's merely you using language to create a point generated by the emotive response of many to the term state. The 'basic state' is a flawed concept. To what extent should health care be privatised. Clearly you can't ask a dying person whether they have a credit card as they lie there, but this invokes the idea of a health care system, one of the largest parts of the state system.


 * "Again this is not exclusively a socialist policy. Mahatma Gandhi is the closest real-world political leader representing my political beliefs. No-one can claim he was a dictator. He created a peaceful overthrow of a domineering British military presence."

<> Even if pacifists like The Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela and also Mahatma Mohandas Ghandi were left-wing, that doesn't mean the pacifism is exclusively a leftist policy. I am myself not very much in favour of social oppression, and I am not left-wing. In these individuals struggle for freedom they almost exclusively pronounced their liberal social stances, and not their views on a planned economy. That is why they managed to preserve their hero status to the rest of the world, without being branded as socialists. Oh, and I have not claimed Gandhi to be a dictator (although he did have some odd statements about Hitler, saying that "he [Hitler] isn't as bad [as some point him out to be]").


 * Indeed. I didn't say it was exclusively leftist. My argument was that it wasn't exclusively a rightist policy, which is the common perception given that common reaction of many to left wing government is Stalin and Soviet Russia (wrong as I've said above).


 * "Easy. Capitalist countries wish to defend their interests, at whatever costs. Protectionism is the method they use - making it harder for countries from the outside to sell products (of equal value and quality - often better!) to them."

<> Capitalism=Red-necks-economics in this case? Then I can agree with you. I still think we could be allies in this issue in order to abolish this form of mercantilism.


 * Not familar with the term redneck economics, but I'll agree to abolish it!


 * "Bill Gates is perhaps less obvious - many people call him a philanthropist but if you look at the money donated compared to how much he gets. Indeed people like him ONLY donate to charity because it creates a good public image, which in turn benefits their sales and hence, they probably gain more than they donate."

<> If the goal is to provide large amounts of money to the needy, I think it is tolerable that this money comes from one of the richest directors in the world. Ultimately, it does not matter if he does his charity work to promote the microsoft corporation, it is still positive progress in terms of money generated towards an altruistic goal.


 * The definition of altruism is 'selfless concern for the welfare of others'. Clearly it's not a selfless concern if he's benefitting from it. My more major point, is that these people profit of other's misfortune. Charity exists in this case because people are guilty that they have undermined a group of people. So they give a tiny proportion back and say 'we did it selflessly, isn't that brilliant'. It's horribly hypocritical.


 * "I disagree with the existence of charities. They are largely a waste of resources."

<> Well, since you disagree of personal property in the first place, it is no wonder why you think that. However, empirical evidence often point to the opposite of your claim. The bureaucracies of the state apparatus is much more inefficient than individuals handling their own money. This includes voluntary charity, which are free organizations and not influenced by a top-down bureaucracy.


 * There has always been more pressure on the state to report the exact inflow and expenditure of it's system, so naturally there is greater empirical evidence. I'm not convinced this is the actual condition of the system though.

<> You claim that individuals cannot handle their private property responsibly. Then why would a collective or bureaucracybe different? They are both groups of individuals, and thus suffer the same character flaws as lone individuals.


 * If every member of the group has a say, then the system is responsible to the group. If an individual has an item, they are only personally responsible.


 * "Competition only exists because of the Competition Commissions."

<> Competition is the logical result of the free market when corporations strive for monopoly. In its wake comes invention in the form of technological progress, which in turn leads to higher productivity and better standard of living. The planned economy seeks to eliminate privately owned business, which pretty much puts an end to competition. In itself, competition is timeless, and have existed even before man.

<> The job of the Competition Commissions is not of producing competion, but of upholding competition. This means that competition is the normal (and desired) state of things; all monopolies ultimately get broken because of competitional pressure, the Commisions just speed it up a bit.


 * Wrong. If you need a commission, it is clear that the natural state is not to have competition. You don't see an anti-commission do you, preventing the alternative. The commission doesn't speed it up, it allows it to continue to exist. You think that competition is natural perhaps because it occurs it nature. However, humans are perfect example of the monopoly. No amount of uprising from chimpanzees can prevent the destruction of the rain forest.


 * "For example, the car, when invented, was a luxury for the very rich. However, despite the demand being the same, and the supply of the materials used to make them, the price of a car has vastly decreased (in comparison to the average income of a typical person). This should be the same for the solar panels."

<> Indeed, solar plants would benefit from research. However, the same goes for nuclear plants. They could both get more productive. However, with equal money put into research on both, it is my belief that nucelar with keep the lead, at least until we run out of uranium (which is of course inevitable, but still a long time away.)


 * You aren't talking about the same issue. I'm not talking about research. I'm talking about mass production. We don't need any research, the technology is there.

My 2 cents. Wejer   19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, gentlebeing. Wejer? A unified Germany was a good idea Hitler had (Showing national unity in time of adverse crisis) ...however he took it too far because of some loose grey cells. . I think that might've been what Gandhi was referring to.--Eternalseed 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, Ganghi's stance vs Hitler was nothing extreme, he was just trying to show off a moderate and objective POV. Although it is regrettable that he didn't have acces to all the facts about Hitler at the time. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is presumptuous to claim we have 'all the facts' now. You judge with what you know. That's how decisions are made. Also, I'm not avoiding you, just trying to ensure I present a cohesive argument that represents my views. It's getting quite long and I wanted to make a suitable reply. King Runite1 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * King Runite1, in the future, please do avoid 'bulleting' your answers into already existant posts. It makes the post clutterish and harder to read. I really don't want to get confused and miss out on some of your arguments.
 * I will take a look at this tomorrow. About the avoidance part, I was expressing myself so bluntly because you didn't reply to the message I sent to you the 31st January. That way I was hoping to gain your attention in case I had lost it. No hard feelings I hope? [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 22:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion continues

 * "Well money is a capitalist idea, so naturally it better fits the capitalist way of working. Your idea is however flawed because the money distributed in both cases isn't the same. If the question was "is it better if two employees both get 3000 dollars/month, or is it better if one employee gets 2500 dollars/month while the other gets 3500 dollars/month" then the answer is the first."

I get the hunch you just skipped half of my response in that statement. Oh well. Put it like this:

Let us imagine a society where every effort towards progress is rewarded. Now, imagine a factory, which has a lot of factory workers, along with a supervisor. Every worker is payed the same amount of cash monthly (3000 dollars). Now, let us assume that one of the worker's discovers a way to improve the efficiency of the factory's assembly line. Delighted, he goes to tell his boss. His boss also gets delighted about this, and gives the worker a pay rise, to 3400 dollars monthly. In this case, the worker gets rewarded for his efforts. His co-workers also notice this, and also try to strive for excellence. As a result of increased productivity, a year later the salaries of all the workers at the factory increase by 100 dollars monthly. In time, the streamlined production method is adopted around the globe, benefitting internationally.

Thus we can conclude that the worker in this anecdote helped others by helping himself. His strive for personal gain benefitted the factory as a whole, which means that his co-workers could also profit from this lone individual's rational egoism. Now let's take a look at another society:

Imagine the same setting, the factory, supervisor, and workers. However, this time the factory is owned by the state, and all the salaries are by law static and 'equal'. Now, the same worker discovers the same fault in the factory's assembly line. This time however, he chooses not to report to the boss. Why?


 * If he tells the boss, this would mean he had to fill in a complicated report, which takes a lot of time.
 * If he finished the report, he couldn't hope for a rewarding pay-raise, because by law, everyone in the factory has the same salary.
 * If he decided against telling the boss, some other, 'selfless' person would 'surely' find the fault, and report it to the boss. And he wouldn't have to lift a finger himself.
 * Thus, he decides against telling the boss.

This is an example of workers not getting rewarded enough for their efforts. In a socialist society, it is pointless to strive for excellence, because you are not getting fully rewarded for your efforts. Thus, (technological) progress grounds to a halt, and the economy becomes, in a sense, static.


 * "Left wing systems can be a source of great progress. If you think that Russia was a left wing country under Stalin - my view is that had a 1 man upper class and was hence not socialist - then it is clear the left-wing policies radically revolutionised the state of Russia - the 5 Year Plans were clearly effective. That said the human cost was obviously dire. That's not a related point though IMHO."

I will reserve my answer to this statement in a seperate post.


 * "The community is the state..."

Alas, no. Community rules are voluntary to follow. Only the state can define law, which is compulsory to follow. By serving the 'needs' of the state, the individuals of a community may suffer. Warfare is an example of this, another is protectionism.


 * "The 'basic state' is a flawed concept."

I am not familiar with the term 'basic state'. Perhaps you should rephrase this so that I can understand you.


 * "To what extent should health care be privatised. Clearly you can't ask a dying person whether they have a credit card as they lie there, but this invokes the idea of a health care system, one of the largest parts of the state system."

I think it shall be in the right of the individual to decide if they want to be cared by a crappy hospital or by a professional one. If the individual cannot decide for himself (because he is dying), his family will probably help him make that desiscion. I presume that it lies in the family's interest that each member is taken well cared of.

Besides, the health care system is not "one of the largest parts of the state system". It is usually in the area of 10%. If people weren't forced to pay so much tax to uphold such an ineffecient system, they would probably be able to actually afford their hospital bills. Eureka!


 * "Indeed. I didn't say [pacifism] was exclusively leftist. My argument was that it wasn't exclusively a rightist policy, which is the common perception given that common reaction of many to left wing government is Stalin and Soviet Russia (wrong as I've said above)."

I am glad that you like pacifism, however I think the common perception of the left includes a strain of social freedoms, which as you correctly state, is not exclusive to leftists.


 * "Not familar with the term redneck economics, but I'll agree to abolish it!"

Lovely!


 * "The definition of altruism is 'selfless concern for the welfare of others'. Clearly it's not a selfless concern if he's benefitting from it."

Yet, one can benefit the group by helping oneself. This is especially true when it comes to altruism in animals, when animals act in accordance to their selfish genes.


 * "My more major point, is that these people profit of other's misfortune."

Are you still talking about Bill Gates here? Microsoft gave us Windows and X-Box, among other things. And I believe that somewhere in my archive I have a link to the yearly report about the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. You should check it out, it's annual budget is close to 15,000 million dollars! (with no small thanks to Warren Buffet)

Oh sorry, I forgot you are disgusted by charities. Don't read the report.


 * " Charity exists in this case because people are guilty that they have undermined a group of people. So they give a tiny proportion back and say 'we did it selflessly, isn't that brilliant'. It's horribly hypocritical."

Well, at least charities are a lot better alternative than the socialist method, which involves theft ('tax') in the name of the greater good. Voluntary cooperation always beats forced labour in terms of productivity.


 * "I disagree with the existence of charities. They are largely a waste of resources ... There has always been more pressure on the state to report the exact inflow and expenditure of it's system, so naturally there is greater empirical evidence. I'm not convinced this is the actual condition of the system though."

One cannot approve of charities if one does not approve of the right to private property. I am not really surprised, to tell the truth.

Oh, and I think it is well within reason that the government gets the most attention. They have the bigger treasure cave, after all.


 * "Wrong. If you need a commission, it is clear that the natural state is not to have competition. You don't see an anti-commission do you, preventing the alternative. The commission doesn't speed it up, it allows it to continue to exist."

Funny, I don't recall saying that a competition commission is 'needed'. However, I did say that "all monopolies ultimately get broken because of competitional pressure" - This is true under the condition that the state does not try to meddle with regulation (which is the case of planned economy reforms, among others).

I guess it is in the nature of radical socialists to deny the existance of competition. How could they go on otherwise?


 * "You think that competition is natural perhaps because it occurs it nature. However, humans are perfect example of the monopoly. No amount of uprising from chimpanzees can prevent the destruction of the rain forest."

If I understand you correctly, you do not seem to share my view that humanity is a part of nature. However, all living organisms share the trait of rational egoism, otherwise they would not exist. Natural selection would have long sorted the unfavourable genes away. Same thing happens in market economics, when unproductive or biased companies meet their end. Then more 'adaptable' companies take their place, and thus keeps up with the situational perfection.

Should we accept the view that humanity does not abide to the laws of nature, then we would also have to assume man is never rationally egoistic. Through both experience AND reason, we can declare that man is indeed selfish, because if he wasn't, he wouldn't exist (all according to Darwin). This in turn makes it actually quite plausible (if not outright certain) that man is indeed a part of nature.

Oh, and perhaps you should stick with human endeavours when making punch-lines. Chimpanzees won't help you.


 * "You aren't talking about the same issue. I'm not talking about research. I'm talking about mass production. We don't need any research, the technology is there."

Indeed, mass production is positive, as long as quality is reasonably maintained. Solar plants is no exception, however neither is nuclear plants, so I think we can both agree to that all energy sources could benefit from such manufacturing productivity. However, my belief is that nuclear power will still keep the race. Besides, if we run out of uranium, that is probably for the best anyway. As the uranium price rises, so does the price of nuclear material for fission bombs. This in turn would put both dictatorships and terrorist organizations in a much less intimidating position. And when that time comes, we can peacefully transfer to any renewable energy source of our choice, whichever is most productive. It is really quite a wonderful solution.

Now I feel much better :) Wejer    18:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Do not bullet your answers into my post like last time, if you please. Wejer   18:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.2. Remember to give a suitable reply to my other post. I hope this won't take you six days as last time, though. Wejer   18:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

With responses to: RE: Response
Firstly I'd like to address the P.S.2. point. I read this when I have time. In addition, me posting on your talk page alerts you, but you posting on your talk page doesn't alert me. I do my best to remember though. Hopefully copying the whole lot below makes it easier to read for you - I have no preference, so will do my best to accomodate :). The response you responded to is indented, though I've left this out where your reply provides sufficient context. Bulleted points are your responses to mine. Plain text is my new words. You can probably hive the rest off to an archive now, to shrink your page.

Let's begin!


 * If he tells the boss, this would mean he had to fill in a complicated report, which takes a lot of time.
 * If he finished the report, he couldn't hope for a rewarding pay-raise, because by law, everyone in the factory has the same salary.
 * If he decided against telling the boss, some other, 'selfless' person would 'surely' find the fault, and report it to the boss. And he wouldn't have to lift a finger himself.
 * Thus, he decides against telling the boss.

The first point is irrelevant. The length of the report needn't differ in a planned economy. The second point is a nice idea. However, some part of me hopes that he would realize that when he tells the boss, everyone would benefit and so it is in his interest. The third point depresses me. You are probably right, that the human tendency towards apathy is such that it assumes that 'someone else' will fix it. I'd like to make the point that I don't do this, naturally however, I am inhibited by personal bias. This is probably the main reason the system fails. Yet, as I don't believe that capitalism is perfect, it's not a show stopper.

You then make the point about the full reward. If the system is implemented, the reward you get is the full reward. Suppose for a moment that the invention was patented by the employee. He leaves the company and earns millions. This might be construed to be the full reward. But the faithful hard working employee in your system doesn't get that. So lets not use language which assumes that there are two lines to be followed - the world is many shades of gray (grey), your argument has a logical fallacy!


 * Alas, no. Community rules are voluntary to follow. Only the state can define law, which is compulsory to follow. By serving the 'needs' of the state, the individuals of a community may suffer.

Ok, I think I can accept this.


 * "The 'basic state' is a flawed concept."


 * I am not familiar with the term 'basic state'. Perhaps you should rephrase this so that I can understand you.

Sorry, I should probably have used the term limited government


 * I think it shall be in the right of the individual to decide if they want to be cared by a crappy hospital or by a professional one. If the individual cannot decide for himself (because he is dying), his family will probably help him make that desiscion. I presume that it lies in the family's interest that each member is taken well cared of. Besides, the health care system is not "one of the largest parts of the state system". It is usually in the area of 10%. If people weren't forced to pay so much tax to uphold such an ineffecient system, they would probably be able to actually afford their hospital bills. Eureka!

Naturally everyone would pick the good one providing they could justify the expense. I'm not sure on your location. I'm from the UK. 18% of the UK budget is spent on the health service. Including care homes and the such like, it's ~ 40%. As regards your comments on the inefficency's the US has one of the most limited governments in the world, but people still struggle to pay for hospital bills.. I'm not convinced by this argument.


 * "Not familar with the term redneck economics, but I'll agree to abolish it!"

Lovely!
 * As I state below however (which I wrote first!), your continued use of the term is prohibitive to the discussion.


 * "The definition of altruism is 'selfless concern for the welfare of others'. Clearly it's not a selfless concern if he's benefitting from it."

Yet, one can benefit the group by helping oneself. This is especially true when it comes to altruism in animals, when animals act in accordance to their selfish genes.


 * Here we are, reverting to animal instincts. My self belief is that people can outgrow the sum of their DNA. Clearly you believe otherwise. My point however, was that it was incorrect to state that it was altruism, so shouldn't be viewed as such.


 * "My more major point, is that these people profit of other's misfortune."

I think disgusted is a bit strong. I'm merely disappointed that they have to exist. Naturally I will look at the report, if you only read what you agree with, you learn far less. I make it a point to read newspapers not aimed at my political bias, in order to understand others and myself better. As for the X-Box - I'm not totally sure, but they are profiting from the minimal wages allowed in LEDC's and those with minimal labour laws:. I've no doubt the same practices govern the Windows OS.
 * Are you still talking about Bill Gates here? Microsoft gave us Windows and X-Box, among other things. And I believe that somewhere in my archive I have a link to the yearly report about the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. You should check it out, it's annual budget is close to 15,000 million dollars! (with no small thanks to Warren Buffet) Oh sorry, I forgot you are disgusted by charities. Don't read the report.

Well, at least charities are a lot better alternative than the socialist method, which involves theft ('tax') in the name of the greater good. Voluntary cooperation always beats forced labour in terms of productivity.


 * Let's rename it 'individual contribution to support the community'. Sounds far better doesn't it. Let's not try to move the argument to language please. Again my opinion differs on the truth of the second statement.

Suprise is not the aim. Fair point, but it still remains the case that their is insufficient evidence to correctly prove it either way.
 * One cannot approve of charities if one does not approve of the right to private property. I am not really surprised, to tell the truth.
 * Oh, and I think it is well within reason that the government gets the most attention. They have the bigger treasure cave, after all.


 * "Wrong. If you need a commission, it is clear that the natural state is not to have competition. You don't see an anti-commission do you, preventing the alternative. The commission doesn't speed it up, it allows it to continue to exist."


 * Funny, I don't recall saying that a competition commission is 'needed'. However, I did say that "all monopolies ultimately get broken because of competitional pressure" - This is true under the condition that the state does not try to meddle with regulation (which is the case of planned economy reforms, among others).

Nor did I state that you did. It was the logical conclusion of my earlier point about the natural creation of a monopoly. I disagree with your later statement as can be shown below.

I have no comment to make here. You seem to be making a comment which doesn't further your own point, but is merely an ad hominem attack.
 * I guess it is in the nature of radical socialists to deny the existance of competition. How could they go on otherwise?


 * If I understand you correctly, you do not seem to share my view that humanity is a part of nature. However, all living organisms share the trait of rational egoism, otherwise they would not exist. Natural selection would have long sorted the unfavourable genes away. Same thing happens in market economics, when unproductive or biased companies meet their end. Then more 'adaptable' companies take their place, and thus keeps up with the situational perfection.

I'm in agreement with Darwin. Moreover, that we are a natural force, shows that the natural state is the creation of a monopoly. You are actually wrong with the idea that natural selection would remove a gene if it is useless. If it serves neither positive nor negatively to the species it would remain in some and not in others, depending on other mutations and cross-breeding. The transfer from the animal kingdom seeks to prove my point about humans not having advanced past the sum of their DNA. Which is disappointing personally.


 * Should we accept the view that humanity does not abide to the laws of nature, then we would also have to assume man is never rationally egoistic. Through both experience AND reason, we can declare that man is indeed selfish, because if he wasn't, he wouldn't exist (all according to Darwin). This in turn makes it actually quite plausible (if not outright certain) that man is indeed a part of nature.

I don't as stated, so I shall move on.


 * Oh, and perhaps you should stick with human endeavours when making punch-lines. Chimpanzees won't help you.

I was being serious, you are remaining on the line of the ad hominem as a line of defence perhaps?


 * "You aren't talking about the same issue. I'm not talking about research. I'm talking about mass production. We don't need any research, the technology is there."


 * Indeed, mass production is positive, as long as quality is reasonably maintained. Solar plants is no exception, however neither is nuclear plants, so I think we can both agree to that all energy sources could benefit from such manufacturing productivity. However, my belief is that nuclear power will still keep the race. Besides, if we run out of uranium, that is probably for the best anyway. As the uranium price rises, so does the price of nuclear material for fission bombs. This in turn would put both dictatorships and terrorist organizations in a much less intimidating position. And when that time comes, we can peacefully transfer to any renewable energy source of our choice, whichever is most productive. It is really quite a wonderful solution.

I don't think (to my knowledge) that I disagreed about using Nuclear power. It's certainly the best of the non-renewables.


 * Capitalism - I have to point out that historically, the word 'liberalism' meant to decribe an ideology not very unsimilar to classical liberalism today. New Liberalism came later, where socialism fused with liberalism, forwarded by individuals such as John Stuart Mill. Nonetheless, you say that capitalism may not by defenition include a liberal stand point. However, right now you are conversing with someone who has about the same views of social stances as you, even if our economical standpoints are different. Does this mean that I (Wejer) am not a capitalist by your definition? Because obviously I am trying to combine free market economics with a liberal view on social policies.

I think similar views of social stances might be more accurate. Unless, on the graph we were either identical in every question with a social nature, it is obvious we will differ. In addition, your methods may differ in order to achieve the aims - I think you probably have very similar views, but the methods to achieve them may be different. You are a capitalist though!


 * Socialism - Indeed, there isn't a requirement for socialist reform to be involunatary, however unless it is an anarcho-syndicalist society (from what I have heard from you, you don't define yourself as an anarchist, right?), this action is almost always handled by the state apparatus. Simply, if you don't pay your taxes, you are getting thrown in jail. Not only are they denying a certain freedom of property, they are also excercising social cohersion by the violence monopoly (which is exclusive to the state).

No I think Anarchist isn't a good definition of my beliefs. Not sure what other questions this point generates, so I'll move on.


 * Equality (economics) - Sorry for being a bit vague here. What I was hinting at specifically was wealth redistribution. A free marketeer like me would for example advocate that everyone pay the same income tax percentage (%). However, socialists like you would probably prefer that everyone had the same income (in units), so they would put a different tax percentage (%) according to how high your income was (or prohobit high income altogether). Both you and I claim that these separate systems are fair and just, although on different grounds. Classical liberals claim it is necessary with income differences in order to promote progress in the form of labour and invention. Some right-wing libertarians would claim that the individual has the right to his whole income, and that taxes in all cases is a kind of theft (see Natural law). Socialists in general claim this is a matter of principal, that every human being is equal, and thus ultimately deserve the same wage, regardless of his/her contribution to society. Does that defenition make more sense to you?

Yes and I think you've identified my position clearly here. Abolishing income would be a nice final ending, although the concept of choice necessitates some system similar to currency in a very limited form.


 * Communism - When you say you are a communist, does that mean that you simply believe in the communist utopia? The communist utopia I am referring to is the one defined by Marx as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". By that definition, even communist dictatorships is communist, because they have the same "dream". Such states may claim that there is still burgeoise in their ranks, and this is why they have yet to achive the utopia as described by Marx.

Yes, the communist utopia is the goal. I disagree on your view about the dictatorships, because in my view they have merely reduced the size of the upper class to their people (or in their view preferably just them). At the end of the day, all dictatorships are essentially the same - with the community often adopting communist-ic principles in order to survive while the dictator and cronies controls 95% of the country's output.


 * Fair trade - Are you desputing that Fair Trade is 1) the result of red-neck-economics or 2) the result of individuals in a free market? If it is 1), I agree with you, if 2) I am not. Regardless what its aims are however, I think the Fair Trade organization should have free reign, regardless of its positive or negative effect on any form of "capitalism".

To be honest, I've yet to find a good definition of 'red-neck economics'. Judging from the Wikipedia article it would seem to be a derogatory term for an ethnic group implying they are stupid. So I shall try to avoid that term. I think it's the result of the poor economic system which makes socially minded people driven to bypass it to create a fairer (my definition not yours, according to the equality in economics point you made above) system.


 * Protectionism - I would lean towards that protectionism is indeed a nationalistic idea, however the tools they use to influence the market clearly has a touch of the planned economy. Free marketeers like me despise such mercantilism, because we have an international perspective (much like yourself).

Ok I think we can agree and move on here.


 * Competition - Two competing companies can both make a profit without overthrowing the rule of the other, either by failing to provide superior competition or failing to buying up one another. There are a lot of empirical evidence of this fact, although what springs to mind is the competition between Microsoft's X-box, Sony's playstation and Nintendo (although Nintendo is definately the pioneer in this area, with its Wii-technology). They have succeeded with dividing up the market between them, but cannot overthrow the rule of each other (one spokesman of Microsoft actually claimed that it is "positive thing" that the companies (Sony and Nintendo) are competing with Microsoft. However, it is unclear if this is the general view in the Microsoft corporation, and I also cannot remember the source where I found it.) It is true that all companies strive to get a complete monopoly, although I disagree that a monopoly cannot be broken by anything but state intervention. However, this would undoubtly require larger-than-average amount of starting capital. Nonetheless, if rich and shrewd, a "challenger" with a big purse may overthrow a monopoly and recreate the free market (although sometimes, those purses may not be so big at all, both examples is possible according to empirical studies)

Hmm, a far more common Microsoft policy is: Embrace, extend and extinguish - link to the appropriate Wikipedia page. Other examples are the Halloween Documents concerning Open Source software.

The main problem is that if a monopoly is obtained in a key industry, then the company is able to subvert both government and by extension the general public (in turn removing potential challengers).


 * I think a Competition Commission could be useful in tackling the company cartels that dilute the free market. However, I am more reluctant to allow them the power to keep the companies from using their private property to buy each other. This is ultimately a matter of freedom, to allow each individual to spend their money in any way they see fit. EDIT: I changed my mind. The only infringement on private property when it comes to preventing two companies to fusion is a handful of people. The rest of the population is still able to use their money to buy shares as they please. If these kind of actions would result in a monopoly-free market, that would indeed be positive. (8:33, 30 Januari 2009)

Sorry can you try to restate this, I'm not sure what your current view is after the edit.

King Runite1

PS: I've made the decision to archive our discussion in a seperate page - see User_talk:Wejer/King Runite1 for all of the rest of it. Hopefully this will help other people who want to discuss your views and other issues. King Runite1 23:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the future, please do not archive my talk pages unless I decide so. I am going to restore some of the previous posts in order to allow the reader some perspective. But your good intentions are noted. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't resist...
Alright, I know I am not finished with the project yet, but I just had this urge. Ahhh...


 * “You are probably right, that the human tendency towards apathy is such that it assumes that 'someone else' will fix it. (…) This is probably the main reason the system fails. Yet, I don't believe that capitalism is perfect.”

It seems like we have found some common ground here. Neither do I believe that capitalism can solve every problem perfectly in the way that was intended. However, I have come to realise that in most situations, even when the market fails, the government would not be able to do a better job. By analysing each and every situation, I have slowly but surely come to the many conclusions I have today.


 * “Suppose for a moment that the invention was patented by the employee... “

In my system there would be no intellectual property, so that kind of makes the rest of the issue pointless. Next time, read my user page more carefully.


 * “Ok, I think I can accept this [that the state and community are not the same].”

As a logical result of this, one cannot say that any state property is the property of the community. The state may sometimes offer services for “free”, but that is only because they have a specific objective in mind. The most common objective is to remain in power, and this is true of both democratic representatives and dictators. Thus, to claim that the state is responsible to the people is false, as long as it do not break any of its own laws - Which is not very often the case, because it lies within the power of the state to make up its own laws.


 * "The 'limited government' is a flawed concept."

The Wikipedia article that you gave me a link was mostly centered on the American constitution – a document with some points that I agree on and others that I reject. Perhaps the word you were looking for were night watchman state?


 * “As regards your comments on the inefficiency’s the US has one of the most limited governments in the world, but people still struggle to pay for hospital bills...”'

There are problems with the American system, but these do not have much relation with health care in general. For one thing, it is incredibly easy to sue a doctor in a court of law, and win. As a consequence of this, many hospitals have to spend huge sums of money to protect against these setbacks. As a result, service, quality and price suffer. A bureaucracy would not be able to do much better in this situation, only worse, because the law abides to everyone. Second, there is a quite a good psychological reason why some people cannot pay their hospital bills. It is because they refused to pay their insurance. Why? They were thinking “I am probably not going to get hurt” or “this won’t happen to me” or “I will be fine, I have never been to hospital my entire life!.” When they actually have an unforeseen accident, they start complaining that they have to pay their hospital bills. To put it another way, they want to eat the cookie and keep the cookie at the same time. It is in a sense ironic, yet also sad, that some individuals cannot take responsibility for how they live their lives.


 * “My belief is that people can outgrow the sum of their DNA. Clearly you believe otherwise.”

Well, I am a determinist after all. Why not?


 * “My point however, was that it was incorrect to state that it was altruism, so shouldn't be viewed as such.”

Indeed, you know your definitions. You would probably make a good scientist.


 * “I'm in agreement with Darwin.”

Jolly!


 * “Moreover, that we are a natural force shows that the natural state is the creation of a monopoly.”

Hang on; I think you are contradicting yourself now. Quote:”You think that competition is natural perhaps because it occurs it nature.” Either you stick with the previous or the latter.


 * “You are actually wrong with the idea that natural selection would remove a gene if it is useless.”

Actually, that was not what I stated in the first place. If a gene is unfavourable, it is not because it is useless, but because it is harmful. Harmful genes that hurt the survival of the individual often, but not always, get sorted out in the end. The end result, however, is often a species that is well fit and adapted for survival in its environment. And mankind is indeed well suited for most environments on Earth.


 * “The transfer from the animal kingdom seeks to prove my point about humans not having advanced past the sum of their DNA.”

Not another contradiction! Quote: “My belief is that people can outgrow the sum of their DNA.” Please, review your position and make up your mind.


 * “Naturally I will look at the report”

Read me!


 * “...if you only read what you agree with, you learn far less.”'

Then I guess you are happy than I invited you here in the first place.


 * “I make it a point to read newspapers not aimed at my political bias, in order to understand others and myself better.”'

So do I. But the problem is that they don’t serve to reduce my urge for a minimal state, quite the opposite. If I want to review my position, I like talking to centrists. That is one of the reasons I have taken a fancy to people like Rendova and Eternalseed.


 * “As for the X-Box - I'm not totally sure, but they are profiting from the minimal wages allowed in LEDC's and those with minimal labour laws: [2]. I've no doubt the same practices govern the Windows OS.”

I see nothing wrong about that, to be honest. Both sides will profit from an exchange, otherwise there would be no exchange in the first place. If the labourers get fed up with their wages, they would quit the exchange, and either go on strike or get another job. As human beings, they have the freedom to choose another path.


 * “Let's rename it 'individual contribution to support the community'.”

Translation: ‘confiscated private property in the name of the greater good’. Regardless of the words used, it is just an excuse to deny the economic freedom of the individual.


 * “Again my opinion differs on the truth of the second statement [Voluntary cooperation always beats forced labour in terms of productivity.]”

That is horrible! I would never wish anyone to be sent to commit forced labour. The Nazis had their concentration camps, the Soviets had their Gulag. The only thing they did was to generate weapons of war and death to the labourers. I cannot for the life of me agree with you on this point.


 * “Surprise is not the aim.”

What kind of cryptic response is this? If you think I am wrong in stating that you want to confiscate our belongings and create a gigantic state monopoly, then say so.


 * “Fair point, but it still remains the case that there is insufficient evidence to correctly prove it either way.”

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence. For example, planned economies are well known for having an extensive bureaucracy. Not many of them fared well in the end.


 * “I have no comment to make here. You seem to be making a comment which doesn't further your own point, but is merely an ad hominem attack.”

Actually, you may refuse to get hurt should you want to. Despite your claims, my comment does further my point in a sense. If socialists were to recognise that the market provides competition, they would have little to defend themselves against capitalists. That is, unless they want to live with contradicting themselves (which perhaps they do? I wouldn't know, I am not a socialist).


 * “I was being serious [about the chimpanzees]”

So am I, and I agree with you. The chimpanzees wouldn’t have the skill nor brain capacity to fend off a human invasion. I am mocking your likeness because I think it is silly and does not further your point.


 * ''“I don't think (to my knowledge) that I disagreed about using Nuclear power. It's certainly the best of the non-renewables.”

You don’t? I am pleasantly surprised. Then let’s make Nuclear power our choice of energy!


 * “Your methods may differ in order to achieve the aims, [although] I think you probably have very similar views, but the methods to achieve them may be different.“

This is news to me. Care to clarify?


 * “You are a capitalist though!”

Yet you also say that “The capitalist philosophy is not, by default, liberal.” You recognize my liberal views, yet you seem to choose to disregard them out of habit. Either that or you are yet again contradicting yourself, for the third time in this post.


 * “Not sure what other questions this point [about Socialism] generates…”

Problem is that your definition of Socialism is flawed. Defining the word as something like ‘any action taken with the aim towards my version of utopia’ is hardly adequate, and far from universal. It more closely resembles the moral system adopted by many religions, where any action in according to the ‘wishes’ of the God is by definition ‘virtue’, and where disobedience is called ‘sin’. No, if we want continue to discuss this we will have to avoid a definition of socialism as ‘the root of all good’ and a definition of capitalism as ‘the root of all evil’. It is not constructive to the discussion, for both parts, in any way. Therefore, I am suggesting some new, objective definitions that we can use from now on. These are: See? Things start getting clearer when definitions get steadfast and objective.
 * Socialism – Government intervention in the economy, both good and bad
 * Capitalism – Refraining from Government intervention in the economy, i.e. economic freedom.


 * “Abolishing income would be a nice final ending…”

In your case, it would be the logical step towards your communist state. In my case, it would be close to the worst case scenario and not very nice ending at all. Confiscating other people’s private belongings is not part of my agenda.


 * “Yes, the communist utopia is the goal.“

Yet that does not make dictators communists? Or perhaps no true communists?


 * “I disagree on your view about the [“communist”] dictatorships (…) At the end of the day; all dictatorships are essentially the same…”

I think we can agree on that adopting largely authoritive social policies is bad for any individuals in a community. However, if we assume that ‘communist’ regimes are no different from ‘regular’ dictatorships, then we cannot explain why so many of the ‘communist’ regimes, like Zimbabwe and North Korea, are fairing so poorly economically. In the past, Chinese Deng Xiaoping readopted some limited market principles in order to save his country from the disaster that Mao started with the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. This didn’t happen in Soviet Russia until 1989, where the leftist system finally collapsed from complete inefficiency. From my knowledge, this kind of government mismanagement has few comparisons in history, and is a big reason I put little fate in the communist utopia described by Karl Marx.


 * “…with the community often adopting communistic principles in order to survive...”

It is clear that you do not know your history. Some of the worst hunger catastrophes in history have their roots in leftist policies applied to agriculture. Some of these have had victims in the tens of millions. Reading suggestions:
 * the 1921 Famine in Russia,
 * the Holodomor,
 * the Great Leap Forward famine.


 * “To be honest, I've yet to find a good definition of 'red-neck economics'. Judging from the Wikipedia article [3] it would seem to be a derogatory term for an ethnic group implying they are stupid. So I shall try to avoid that term.”

Funny how you never cease to misunderstand me, yet I should have taken that into account when making up terms of my own. When I was talking about ‘red-neck-economics’ (a term from which I know from now on will scrap), I was referring to an economic policy not uncommonly adopted by conservative rightists, Keynesians and saltwater schools of economics. I get the feeling these are groups you are trying to associate me with, a job which you do poorly. Instead, I associate myself with many of the principles of laissez-faire economics suggested by classical liberals, objectivists and the freshwater school of economics.


 * “I think it's the result of the poor economic system which makes socially minded people driven to bypass it to create a fairer (my definition not yours, according to the equality in economics point you made above) system.”

Yes, you have told me that you think of Fair Trade as some kind of ‘hidden movement’. Yet I do not object to it; individuals do what they want with their money, because unlike a socialist system, they will have their own private property, and with it: economic freedom.


 * “Ok I think we can agree [on Protectionism] and move on here.”

Indeed, leftist tools can be used in nationalistic goals. In low amounts, it takes the form of protectionism. In high amounts, it takes the form of the command economy (notably Stalin’s Soviet Russia).


 * “The main problem is that if a monopoly is obtained in a key industry, then the company is able to subvert both government and by extension the general public (in turn removing potential challengers).”

It is funny how you seem to have an aversion to private monopolies, yet you fully embrace the public monopoly. In reality, there is little difference between the two. I disallow monopolies in my own system, because both kinds are very unproductive and horribly inefficient.


 * “Sorry can you try to restate this [section about Competition Commissions]. I'm not sure what your current view is after the edit.”

I will happily comply. In markets with an oligopoly, a competition commission can prevent further competition dilution by keeping cartels at bay. They can also disallow the companies to buy each other’s shares in large amounts, thus disallowing a further deepening of the oligopoly. Now, I am aware that the second statement is in reality an infringement of economic freedom. Yet I also believe that this will be quite a minor offense. The rewards are great however, since we promote a freer market economy while eliminating its weaknesses. It is the near perfect solution to the problem.


 * I wrote this document in MicroSoft Word, and it was almost 7 pages long! This discussion is really getting elaborate. Enjoy! [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 07:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I shall respond
EDIT: Double indentation is my response.
 * “Suppose for a moment that the invention was patented by the employee... “

In my system there would be no intellectual property, so that kind of makes the rest of the issue pointless. Next time, read my user page more carefully.
 * Sorry, I shall re-read your comments and make a later post on this
 * “Ok, I think I can accept this [that the state and community are not the same].”

As a logical result of this, one cannot say that any state property is the property of the community. The state may sometimes offer services for “free”, but that is only because they have a specific objective in mind. The most common objective is to remain in power, and this is true of both democratic representatives and dictators. Thus, to claim that the state is responsible to the people is false, as long as it do not break any of its own laws - Which is not very often the case, because it lies within the power of the state to make up its own laws.


 * Hmm an interesting argument. A democratic state is responsible to the people it serves, via the voting system. This is of course somewhat weakened by the lack of the 'vote of no confidence' at anything but party level (do the US have votes of no confidence?). As far as laws go you are correct. The voting is of course why governments work on five-year plans in a four year government (with the promise that it'll be great so long as they stay in power...).


 * "The 'limited government' is a flawed concept."

The Wikipedia article that you gave me a link was mostly centered on the American constitution – a document with some points that I agree on and others that I reject. Perhaps the word you were looking for were night watchman state?


 * “As regards your comments on the inefficiency’s the US has one of the most limited governments in the world, but people still struggle to pay for hospital bills...”'

There are problems with the American system, but these do not have much relation with health care in general. For one thing, it is incredibly easy to sue a doctor in a court of law, and win. As a consequence of this, many hospitals have to spend huge sums of money to protect against these setbacks. As a result, service, quality and price suffer. A bureaucracy would not be able to do much better in this situation, only worse, because the law abides to everyone. Second, there is a quite a good psychological reason why some people cannot pay their hospital bills. It is because they refused to pay their insurance. Why? They were thinking “I am probably not going to get hurt” or “this won’t happen to me” or “I will be fine, I have never been to hospital my entire life!.” When they actually have an unforeseen accident, they start complaining that they have to pay their hospital bills. To put it another way, they want to eat the cookie and keep the cookie at the same time. It is in a sense ironic, yet also sad, that some individuals cannot take responsibility for how they live their lives.
 * Personally I don't have enough data to refute that idea, but I would personally be hesitant before stereotyping the entire group. I also think that the 'blame culture' you have adopted is quite absurd and hardly a result of bureaucracy. In fact it seems to me to be an offshoot of your capitalist society, the idea that everything, every slip, trip and fall is worth something.


 * “My belief is that people can outgrow the sum of their DNA. Clearly you believe otherwise.”

Well, I am a determinist after all. Why not?


 * I'm not entirely sure where determinism comes into this. I think I can probably classify myself as a determinist, albeit one that has problems with the big bang theory - i.e. it merely postpones the requirement for creation - where did the energy from which the big bang existed come from in the first place. This doesn't mean that humans are limited by their DNA...


 * “My point however, was that it was incorrect to state that it was altruism, so shouldn't be viewed as such.”

Indeed, you know your definitions. You would probably make a good scientist.
 * I'm studying Computer Science, so thanks!


 * “Moreover, that we are a natural force shows that the natural state is the creation of a monopoly.”

Hang on; I think you are contradicting yourself now. Quote:”You think that competition is natural perhaps because it occurs it nature.” Either you stick with the previous or the latter.
 * No, no contradiction is present. The competition commission is a body required to continue the existence of competition.


 * What we see in nature is the gradual dominance of individual species as a monopoly emerges. The survival instinct drives the creation of new DNA to overcome a competitor. Eventually, through random mutation, a DNA sequence emerges that is sufficiently superior to the other species. This 'super' species is then capable of overwhelming it's competitor species (predator and prey alike), to dominate. Obviously, at this point evolution ceases to be important.


 * In businesses we merely see a rapidly evolving 'species' whose DNA (it's product line, methods of working,etc) change depending on the success of the particular system. Effectively it's a single DNA structure that adapts not when it dies but when a single section is seen to be weaker. On futher analysis, this seems to be a very apt metaphor.


 * “You are actually wrong with the idea that natural selection would remove a gene if it is useless.”

Actually, that was not what I stated in the first place. If a gene is unfavourable, it is not because it is useless, but because it is harmful. Harmful genes that hurt the survival of the individual often, but not always, get sorted out in the end. The end result, however, is often a species that is well fit and adapted for survival in its environment. And mankind is indeed well suited for most environments on Earth.


 * Hmm I misunderstood the term unfavourable, my mistake.


 * “The transfer from the animal kingdom seeks to prove my point about humans not having advanced past the sum of their DNA.”

Not another contradiction! Quote: “My belief is that people can outgrow the sum of their DNA.” Please, review your position and make up your mind.


 * No, not a contradiction. I believe that we are sufficiently evolved to 'outgrow the sum of our DNA'. That does not mean that we are doing so. In this instance it is clear that we are not.


 * “Naturally I will look at the report”

Read me!


 * This will take a little time to respond to, so I shall not post an immediate response. Thanks for posting the link though.


 * “...if you only read what you agree with, you learn far less.”'

Then I guess you are happy than I invited you here in the first place.
 * Yes I am. It is nice to meet another netizen who is willing to debate rationally.


 * “As for the X-Box - I'm not totally sure, but they are profiting from the minimal wages allowed in LEDC's and those with minimal labour laws: [2]. I've no doubt the same practices govern the Windows OS.”

I see nothing wrong about that, to be honest. Both sides will profit from an exchange, otherwise there would be no exchange in the first place. If the labourers get fed up with their wages, they would quit the exchange, and either go on strike or get another job. As human beings, they have the freedom to choose another path.
 * Obviously. But often strikes don't take place because workers can't afford to loose the pay, pension related to continous employment etc. If your family lives on your income, you have to accept the dismally low pay, whatever the conditions, as the alternative is not surviving.


 * “Let's rename it 'individual contribution to support the community'.”

Translation: ‘confiscated private property in the name of the greater good’. Regardless of the words used, it is just an excuse to deny the economic freedom of the individual.
 * My point was that the emotive impact shouldn't distract us from the rational concepts. Economic freedom is less important than group survival in my book.


 * “Again my opinion differs on the truth of the second statement [Voluntary cooperation always beats forced labour in terms of productivity.]”

That is horrible! I would never wish anyone to be sent to commit forced labour. The Nazis had their concentration camps, the Soviets had their Gulag. The only thing they did was to generate weapons of war and death to the labourers. I cannot for the life of me agree with you on this point.
 * Another emotive response. The question was not which is the most humane. The question was on the productivity. In this instance, the Nazi's and Soviets were able to vastly out produce their enemies. Much of Russian economic prowess today is the result of the 'Five Year Plans'. I certainly don't condone the deaths of the workers, but it can't be denied that the projects were successful on a productivity basis.


 * “Surprise is not the aim.”

What kind of cryptic response is this? If you think I am wrong in stating that you want to confiscate our belongings and create a gigantic state monopoly, then say so.
 * This was merely in response to 'One cannot approve of charities if one does not approve of the right to private property. I am not really surprised, to tell the truth.'. It was my sole point on that paragraph, apart from which I had no comment to make. Perhaps I should have been a little less terse.


 * “Fair point, but it still remains the case that there is insufficient evidence to correctly prove it either way.”

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence. For example, planned economies are well known for having an extensive bureaucracy. Not many of them fared well in the end.
 * I don't question the governmental evidence, but that of the accounts of charities.


 * “I have no comment to make here. You seem to be making a comment which doesn't further your own point, but is merely an ad hominem attack.”

Actually, you may refuse to get hurt should you want to. Despite your claims, my comment does further my point in a sense. If socialists were to recognise that the market provides competition, they would have little to defend themselves against capitalists. That is, unless they want to live with contradicting themselves (which perhaps they do? I wouldn't know, I am not a socialist).
 * I suppose I didn't exactly assume good faith, but I wrote this after reading the below.


 * “I was being serious [about the chimpanzees]”

So am I, and I agree with you. The chimpanzees wouldn’t have the skill nor brain capacity to fend off a human invasion. I am mocking your likeness because I think it is silly and does not further your point.
 * Sorry, but 'perhaps you should stick with human endeavours when making punch-lines' gave me in my view sufficient evidence that you weren't assuming good faith. My original point on the chimpanzee's was both relevant to that particular ecological problem and a retaliatory point - based in nature, which as a determinist you can agree is a logically equivalent place, about the idea of overthrowing a monopoly. It does further my point because it shows in a simplistic manner that the idea of overthrowing a sufficiently powerful monopoly is imposible.


 * ''“I don't think (to my knowledge) that I disagreed about using Nuclear power. It's certainly the best of the non-renewables.”

You don’t? I am pleasantly surprised. Then let’s make Nuclear power our choice of energy!
 * Note carefully the clarification, but okay, let's leave this one.


 * “Your methods may differ in order to achieve the aims, [although] I think you probably have very similar views, but the methods to achieve them may be different.“

This is news to me. Care to clarify?
 * I was referring to your similar answers to many on a number of issues and you overall standings on the liberal front. So in the social issues you are the same, but the methods (the left/right divide) you are different. It wasn't really a major point.


 * “You are a capitalist though!”

Yet you also say that “The capitalist philosophy is not, by default, liberal.” You recognize my liberal views, yet you seem to choose to disregard them out of habit. Either that or you are yet again contradicting yourself, for the third time in this post.
 * Indeed. I must apologise for this somewhat errant statement. I can't on a re-read identify how it relates. So I apologise for the confusion... This whole paragraph could probably use a re-write.


 * “Not sure what other questions this point [about Socialism] generates…”

Problem is that your definition of Socialism is flawed. Defining the word as something like ‘any action taken with the aim towards my version of utopia’ is hardly adequate, and far from universal. It more closely resembles the moral system adopted by many religions, where any action in according to the ‘wishes’ of the God is by definition ‘virtue’, and where disobedience is called ‘sin’. No, if we want continue to discuss this we will have to avoid a definition of socialism as ‘the root of all good’ and a definition of capitalism as ‘the root of all evil’. It is not constructive to the discussion, for both parts, in any way. Therefore, I am suggesting some new, objective definitions that we can use from now on. These are: See? Things start getting clearer when definitions get steadfast and objective.
 * Socialism – Government intervention in the economy, both good and bad
 * Capitalism – Refraining from Government intervention in the economy, i.e. economic freedom.
 * Hmm, you appear to be generating controversy where there is none. You ask whether my aim is for the communist utopia, defined by the definition. I agree that that definition is the goal and then you say I'm aiming for a utopia??!? I'm aiming for the system where the produce of society is distributed 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', as I believe this is the best system. Whatever you want to call the organisation that delivers this wealth, be it the state, the government, the community or whatever (the discussion somewhat above is ongoing on that point) is more of a language issue personally.


 * “Abolishing income would be a nice final ending…”

In your case, it would be the logical step towards your communist state. In my case, it would be close to the worst case scenario and not very nice ending at all. Confiscating other people’s private belongings is not part of my agenda.
 * Income and private belonging's are not the same thing. A state (I'm not going to use the word 'communist' until we clear this up - see above) need not necessarily remove the personal belongings - everyone will need their own toothbrush for a start!(This last bit is a light hearted comment as an example).


 * “Yes, the communist utopia is the goal.“

Yet that does not make dictators communists? Or perhaps no true communists?
 * They employed communist ideals in order to gain power certainly, whether they use them in power... I'm not sure about Cuba - my history in that country isn't good enough, but Russia, certainly not.


 * “I disagree on your view about the [“communist”] dictatorships (…) At the end of the day; all dictatorships are essentially the same…”

I think we can agree on that adopting largely authoritive social policies is bad for any individuals in a community. However, if we assume that ‘communist’ regimes are no different from ‘regular’ dictatorships, then we cannot explain why so many of the ‘communist’ regimes, like Zimbabwe and North Korea, are fairing so poorly economically. In the past, Chinese Deng Xiaoping readopted some limited market principles in order to save his country from the disaster that Mao started with the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. This didn’t happen in Soviet Russia until 1989, where the leftist system finally collapsed from complete inefficiency. From my knowledge, this kind of government mismanagement has few comparisons in history, and is a big reason I put little fate in the communist utopia described by Karl Marx.
 * Zimbabwe is suffering from Protectionism in the form of US/UN injuctions as is North Korea. Lack of resources is an issue here. In addition, I certainly don't think Zimbabwe is a communist state at the moment. My comment on the above makes a good response to this as well.


 * “…with the community often adopting communistic principles in order to survive...”

It is clear that you do not know your history. Some of the worst hunger catastrophes in history have their roots in leftist policies applied to agriculture. Some of these have had victims in the tens of millions. Reading suggestions:
 * the 1921 Famine in Russia,
 * the Holodomor,
 * the Great Leap Forward famine.
 * Quite simply, I've studied history to age 16. We didn't cover these disasters. You've handed me a series of articles, which require secondary articles to fully understand. I'll have to take some time reading these - in order to determine for myself the reasons behind it.


 * “To be honest, I've yet to find a good definition of 'red-neck economics'. Judging from the Wikipedia article [3] it would seem to be a derogatory term for an ethnic group implying they are stupid. So I shall try to avoid that term.”

Funny how you never cease to misunderstand me, yet I should have taken that into account when making up terms of my own. When I was talking about ‘red-neck-economics’ (a term from which I know from now on will scrap), I was referring to an economic policy not uncommonly adopted by conservative rightists, Keynesians and saltwater schools of economics. I get the feeling these are groups you are trying to associate me with, a job which you do poorly. Instead, I associate myself with many of the principles of laissez-faire economics suggested by classical liberals, objectivists and the freshwater school of economics.
 * Perhaps the misunderstanding is based on our different upbringings. Again you bring up another set of articles which I shall do my best to read through by this weekend perhaps? This gives you more time on your project :).


 * “The main problem is that if a monopoly is obtained in a key industry, then the company is able to subvert both government and by extension the general public (in turn removing potential challengers).”

It is funny how you seem to have an aversion to private monopolies, yet you fully embrace the public monopoly. In reality, there is little difference between the two. I disallow monopolies in my own system, because both kinds are very unproductive and horribly inefficient.
 * One is interested in a profit for it's own sakes, the other the collective benefit of the society. The public monopoly is owned by everyone.


 * “Sorry can you try to restate this [section about Competition Commissions]. I'm not sure what your current view is after the edit.”

I will happily comply. In markets with an oligopoly, a competition commission can prevent further competition dilution by keeping cartels at bay. They can also disallow the companies to buy each other’s shares in large amounts, thus disallowing a further deepening of the oligopoly. Now, I am aware that the second statement is in reality an infringement of economic freedom. Yet I also believe that this will be quite a minor offense. The rewards are great however, since we promote a freer market economy while eliminating its weaknesses. It is the near perfect solution to the problem.
 * Right okay - I had to look up olgiopoly and I think I've got the general idea. I can certainly see where you are aiming for with this solution - this is a neat work around if you can stand the breach in moral code. If you think that a monopoly is the end product of a natural system however and that we are bound deterministically to that natural system, surely this would result in the competition comission being involved in every market. This would result in the passing of considerable control to the comission (and hence the state). These points in various forms are all being contested above, so I think that we are beginning to collapse in on a number of key issues.


 * You're right. This is an elaborate discussion - I personally use Notepad - Word 07 keeps losing the spacing :|. I apologise for archiving your talk page and in retrospect I had to check the odd point. Regarding your note on my talk page, I've had you added (Wejer) for a few rounds now. That said I'm not sure which timezone you're in and my game time is erratic. But if we can, that might speed things up a bit :). I certainly don't have a problem diverting attention from any PModly business! As for tensions, I apologise for perhaps not assuming good faith regarding the chimpanzee issue, but I assure you I always look forward to your responses.
 * Don't rush a reply, I still have the economics and famine pages to read up on. I shall also make a sub-page with my test results (will redo the test). This might help you understand me more :)
 * Final point. I had a thought earlier on the issue of charities, which I shall post tommorow when I can fully process it. King Runite1 12:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

... and I shall counter

 * “Hmm an interesting argument. A democratic state is responsible to the people it serves, via the voting system. This is of course somewhat weakened by the lack of the 'vote of no confidence' at anything but party level.”

The problem with modern day representative democracies is that the lone person’s influence over their ‘democratic’ representatives still seems to stop at one vote every four years, as you yourself put it. What if a country’s parliament passed a law that the people would loath to see implemented? Then they should have the right to stop it! It is one reason I am in favor of direct democracies, which would give the people to right to ‘double-check’ any proposition made by their country’s parliament. Of course, this sort of system would require a certain amount of maturity. However, I think this can be achieved with the right education system.


 * “Does the US have votes of no confidence?”

No idea, but I reason that if both their Senate and Congress ‘hated’ the current President, I think he would probably accept defeat and step down. My hunch is that this is not compulsory behavior, however.


 * “As far as laws go you are correct. The voting is of course why governments work on five-year plans in a four year government (with the promise that it'll be great so long as they stay in power...).”

I think this is in the nature of man, and hard to avoid in its entirety. However, we can always do our best to combat the negative side effects, by giving more influence to the individual.


 * “Personally I don't have enough data to refute that idea, but I would personally be hesitant before stereotyping the entire group.”

I can see why that may be a problem. My point was that every scenario involving “poor people that cannot pay their bills” many times has a perfectly logical explanation, and that this explanation has their roots in their own choice of behavior. Thus, for them to blame a system in that case would be quite irresponsible in my opinion.

I am aware that there are exceptions to this type of behavior, but I think they are in a clear minority in comparison with the above category.


 * “I think that 'blame culture' is quite absurd and hardly a result of bureaucracy.”

That was my point too: sometimes the efficiency or lack there-off cannot be directly found in the economic system. A country’s legal system is also important in that case. In the US, the way to get someone convicted for a ‘crime’ is to convince the jury to believe your story, which is vastly different from many other democratic countries, which lack a jury entirely. As long as the jury believes your ‘story’, you can effectively sue a doctor or physician in the million dollar range for seemingly petty mistakes. We can thus conclude that the lack of great success in the American system is not about its handling of money, but of the weaknesses of that country’s own judicial system.


 * “I'm not entirely sure where determinism comes into this. I think I can probably classify myself as a determinist, albeit one that has problems with the big bang theory - i.e. it merely postpones the requirement for creation - where did the energy from which the big bang existed come from in the first place. This doesn't mean that humans are limited by their DNA... “

I am sorry, determinist is not quite the word. Perhaps I should classify myself as that of a materialist, although the two ideas of determinism (that there is only one future) and materialism (that there is no spirit, only matter) usually hang together. However, an even better classification of me would be of a compatibilist, which is someone who combines the ideas of Free will with the one-future-scenario of determinism. As a consequence of this, I would state that the human body cannot discover or accomplish more than is provided by its own senses. However, I am not stating that man is blind, far from it. I mean that we just have to accept that we cannot know everything, and cannot discover every knock and turn in the universe. We just have to live with the fact that some questions we will never find an answer too, and this is because we are but mere human.

Do you like talking metaphysics by the way? It is a part of philosophy after all. I could go on for ages… however; I realize that may be going off-topic a bit.


 * “What we see in nature is the gradual dominance of individual species as a monopoly emerges.”

Pardon me, but I think you have to learn to see the difference between the ‘path’ and the ‘goal’. In my thinking, happiness is the ultimate goal in life for any species. This could be accomplished by money, and money in turn can be acquired by creating a monopoly. ‘Money’ and ‘monopoly’ are in this case sub-goals in the pursuit of happiness.

Now, my own ‘goal’ with my capitalistic system is to produce the greatest productivity, so that we can in some way turn all of our surplus time into quality time, and thus happiness. However, the only way we can continue this productivity increase is to keep away from all monopolies, whatever they are owned by the state or privately.

To the question: how do you break monopolies? State monopolies are the most obvious threat, however with enough political will these can be privatized and reintroduced to the competing market forces. When it comes to private monopolies, we can conclude that they are very few in numbers. With the abolishment of copyright laws and intellectual property, most of them will probably fall as their patents get ripped up and the market forces tear the unproductive monopoly company apart.

The goal for capitalism is quite simple: make sure to avoid each of the companies from reaching their 'goal', which is complete domination over the market. If we can accomplish this, much progresss will be achieved to the benefit of all.


 * '''“Eventually, through random mutation, a DNA sequence emerges that is sufficiently superior to the other species. This 'super' species is then capable of overwhelming its competitor species (predator and prey alike), to dominate. Obviously, at this point evolution ceases to be important.

In businesses we merely see a rapidly evolving 'species' whose DNA (its product line, methods of working, etc) change depending on the success of the particular system. Effectively it's a single DNA structure that adapts not when it dies but when a single section is seen to be weaker. On further analysis, this seems to be a very apt metaphor”'''

In my mind, there are no ‘superior’ genes, or species for that matter. Perfection is a moving target, and it all depends on the situation. Whoever survives is the species best adapted to its environment. That man turned out to dominate the world today was in the end just a coincidence.


 * “I believe that we are sufficiently evolved to 'outgrow the sum of our DNA'. That does not mean that we are [always] doing so. “

So sometimes we do outgrow our DNA, but sometimes we don’t? How do you explain that?


 * “It is nice to meet another netizen who is willing to debate rationally.”

I am honored that you have such high thoughts of me, despite being your opponent in many issues.


 * “Obviously. But often strikes [in poorer countries] don't take place because workers can't afford to lose the pay, pension related to continuous employment etc. If your family lives on your income, you have to accept the dismally low pay, whatever the conditions, as the alternative is not surviving.”

If this is the case, then the problem is the lack of free market forces. If a ‘couple of workers’ had ‘dismally low pay’ (as you put it), a potential ‘challenger-company’ could, in a free market, offer these ‘couple of workers’ a ‘not so dismally low pay’(in comparison with the first company). The end result would obviously be higher pay for the workers. Actually, it may not be so bad for the ‘challenger-company’ to raise the worker-wages, because the company would itself profit from ‘bribing’ workers over from one place to the other.

As a reaction to this ‘bribing’ by the ‘challenger-company’, the ‘first company’ (Microsoft?) could ‘counter-bribe’ the ‘couple of workers’, giving even more pay, so that they don’t leave to work for the ‘challenger-company’. This cycle continues as long as both companies profit from ‘bribing’ the workers with more pay. Naturally, this curve stable out after some time. The end result is positive however: the workers get better paid, and two different companies live side-by-side in peaceful competition. The results of a free market, in short:


 * With competition comes invention,
 * with invention comes progress,
 * with progress comes prosperity,
 * with prosperity comes more quality time, and
 * with more quality time comes happiness.


 * “My point was that the emotive impact shouldn't distract us from the rational concepts.” 

I guess that could be a good point. Although I refuse to being solely responsible for any such off-topic strays...


 * “The question was not which is the most humane. The question was on the productivity.”

Thanks for the clarification.


 * “In this instance, the Nazi's and Soviets were able to vastly out produce their enemies.”

Short-term, yes, long-term, no - Human capital is also important in economy. Kill the population and the economy grounds to a halt.


 * “Much of Russian economic prowess today is the result of the 'Five Year Plans'.”

Initially, the five year plans were termed a ‘great success’. In about ten years, Russia’s heavy industry had grown by almost 300%. Problem was that this was only one area they excelled in. All the resources of the Russian command economy were more or less totally devoted to the heavy industry. This included coal, steel and oil: pretty much the resources needed for weapons of war. The rest of the areas suffered terribly: the Russian government even put up most of the needed grain for its population on export, leading to the Holodomor famine 1932-1933 that I linked earlier.

Is this progress? Is this productivity? For me, it is not. Any authorative economy cannot survive in the long-term, because all authority wants is power, and it wants it 'Now!'. For Hitler, this cost him the war. For communist Russia, it lead to its final collapse in 1989. Only after being reintroduced to limited market principles have Russia recovered somewhat from their economic disaster.


 * “I don't question the governmental evidence, but that of the accounts of charities “

It seems like we are lacking in empirical evidence. Maybe you shall try and dig up something, somewhere on the web? I don’t know where to look myself to be honest. We will probably get nowhere on this point unless we can definitely prove it either way.


 * “[The chimpanzee allegory] does further my point because it shows in a simplistic manner that the idea of overthrowing a sufficiently powerful monopoly is impossible.”

Now I hear you, and I agree to some extent. Let government get too big, and it is quite impossible to bring it down to Earth, because of the entrenched nature of an overly large bureaucracy.

Although that was perhaps not what you were hinting at?


 * “I was referring to your similar answers to many on a number of issues and you overall standings on the liberal front. So in the social issues you are the same, but the methods (the left/right divide) you are different. It wasn't really a major point.”

I would like to clarify this. You and I don’t have the same goal for a society. However, since we both are liberal on social issues, we would probably not accomplish this by some kind of ‘enlightened despotism’ or similar. No, we would use our free speech to influence others! On this point I do think we have quite a lot in common.


 * “Hmm, you appear to be generating controversy where there is none. You ask whether my aim is for the communist utopia, defined by the definition. I agree that that definition is the goal and then you say I'm aiming for a utopia??!?“

Maybe it is for the best to avoid the word ‘utopia’ altogether, so that we can avoid any petty fighting over language. However, I thought you believed in the ‘communist dream’, but perhaps I am mistaken?


 * “I'm aiming for the system where the produce of society is distributed 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', as I believe this is the best system.”

If we assume that Karl Marx's saying is true, then we would probably have to assume that man does not learn from his mistakes, nor learn from new experiences. ‘Ability’ is not static; it changes as we pick up new ideas through experience. ‘Needs’ in the same sense can arouse through our own carelessness, and thus sometimes have their roots in our own lack of caution. Thus, I don’t think you shall put too much faith in that statement, even if you want to continue being a leftist.


 * “Income and private belongings are not the same thing. A state (I'm not going to use the word 'communist' until we clear this up - see above) need not necessarily remove the personal belongings - everyone will need their own toothbrush for a start!(This last bit is a light hearted comment as an example).“

By my definitions, what you propose would be quite impossible. By taxing someone off n % of their income, you have in a sense denied that individual’s right to their full wage. This tax money thus in practice becomes state property. If private property and income was abolished, this would probably result in two scenarios:


 * 1) Everything becomes property of the state, i.e. a handful of rulers with a big concentration of wealth.
 * 2) No-one and everyone has the right over anything and everything.

The first scenario is probably not very good, as quite the many ‘communist’ regimes have shown. The second scenario has had few tests yet, although one ‘social experiment’ has been carried out in Denmark, in Freetown Christiana.

'''“They employed communist ideals in order to gain power certainly, whether they use them in power... [I am not so sure] (…) [Russia certainly did not].”'''

That is a serious accusation against authorative leftist regimes. Personally, I would disagree, but that is probably because we have different definitions of ‘communism’.


 * “Zimbabwe is suffering from Protectionism in the form of US/UN injunctions as is North Korea.“

If that is true, then they should stop that immediately!


 * “In addition, I certainly don't think Zimbabwe is a communist state at the moment.”

…because if it was, there would be general prosperity and happiness, which is clearly not the case. Right?


 * “Quite simply, I've studied history to age 16. We didn't cover [those] disasters.”

We did not cover them disasters in my school either, at least not to any deep. Most of what I have learnt about them I have been forced to find on my own. Sad but true.


 * “You've handed me a series of articles, which require secondary articles to fully understand. I'll have to take some time reading these - in order to determine for myself the reasons behind it. “

Good, I will be awaiting your response then.


 * “Perhaps the misunderstanding is based on our different upbringings.”

Partially yes, although most of the time, conflict has its roots in misunderstandings, and misunderstandings have its roots in separate language definitions. Basically, if we all understand each other perfectly, we can still disagree with each other in a civil manner.


 * “Again you bring up another set of articles which I shall do my best to read through by this weekend perhaps? This gives you more time on your project :). “

You don’t have to read the entire of each article, just enough to understand the basic building blocks behind respective theories. About the project: I must admit that I stupidly misplaced some of my important material on another computer and I would loathe having to browse for it again on the net. For now, the project is postponed, although I will make sure I get it finished.


 * “[The private monopoly] is interested in a profit for its own sakes, the [public monopoly is interested in] the collective benefit of the society. “

Close. The ‘reason’ why someone would want a public monopoly is to the ‘collective benefit of the society’. However, that does not automatically mean that it turns out the way you anticipated - you may have all the ‘reasons’ in the world, and still fail in achieving your goal.


 * '''“The public monopoly is owned by everyone.”

This is what the state would like you to believe. If this is true or not depends on individual definitions.


 * “I can certainly see where you are aiming for with this solution - this is a neat work around if you can stand the breach in moral code.” 

I don’t see a breach anywhere to be honest. I generally try to work towards good consequence, and not by following axioms or personal ‘duties’.


 * “If you think that a monopoly is the end product of a natural system however and that we are bound deterministically to that natural system...”

I do not have the same definition for ‘end product’ and ‘goal’. The ‘goal’ for a company may be to achieve complete market domination. If that company succeeds in its ‘goal’ is another different thing entirely.


 * “…surely this would result in the competition commission being involved in every market!”

Not really. They should only be employed when the gains are greater than the losses. This is not very often however, so they should only be granted just enough power to deal with those incoming emergencies that cause the free market to dilute.


 * “Final point: I had a thought earlier on the issue of charities, which I shall post tomorrow when I can fully process it.”

Good, I will be waiting.

By the way, you said:


 * "The 'limited government' is a flawed concept." 

I answered:

''“The Wikipedia article that you gave me a link was mostly centered on the American constitution – a document with some points that I agree on and others that I reject. Perhaps the word you were looking for were night watchman state?”''

Would you like to comment on this?

Eagerly awaiting your response, <font color="White">Wejer   17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Query
You wished once to have me tell you in-game something. I am on 6pm-10pm EST. When are you on? --Eternalseed 19:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aww that was nothing really. Still, it would be nice to chat with you. Add me and send a message, and then I will add you too. We don't really have talk about politics, we could just hang around. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 20:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive
Hey Wejer, I think you may want to archive this as your first talk page. It's gotten really, really big. I suggest you resolve the current conversations, or just archive all of the already resolved ones, and then continue those that are still active. Just a thought :) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rendova, good thinking about the archives. I will do that tomorrow, or at least in the near future. Good night. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The archive turned out very well. Thanks for the tip! If you have any other concerns, feel free to express them. <font color="White">Wejer   08:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

UotM
I don't know you at all, but respect your right to express your opinions. However, I think that your comment has the effect of an OPPOSE vote, which you know is not allowed. Please consider your comment in this regard. Thank you for your attention to this. --Hatchenator 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for telling me this. I will update my comment on the UotM page. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review of this. I want to be be perfectly clear though, I respect your opinion and your expressing concerns, initially, at the UotM was valid.  It is just when you stated that you could not support one candidate, that I thought you may have reached the point of opposition.  Of course, this is just my opinion and that is why I wanted you to review your comments thinking about it from that perspective.  I am certainly capable of being wrong or simply out to lunch.  But I do appreciate your review of your comments.  I understand your intentions and respect your clarification.  Again, thank you very much for your reflection.  --Hatchenator 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your concern is noted. However, I must be honest to myself. Should I stoop to self-censorship, this would include removing the link I posted, and that would be like lying to myself. I think it is in the spirit of this wiki to watch both the positive and the negative sides of a stance. As long as one keeps a civil tongue, I think this should hardly be any problem.
 * I am not going to go into any kind of opposition should the community choose to go against my stance. I will respect their desiscion, even if I would have to respectfully disagree with it. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Political/philosopical discussions
I've enjoyed the discussion here. With your permission, I will bring attention to the page through the off topic sticky. Dtm142 22:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, thank you. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 06:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been busy the past few days, so I didn't have a chance to update the sticky. I've finished, sorry for the delay. Dtm142 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll make you smarter!
What is the name of our closest star?

How old is the earth?

Is y=mx+b the standard form for a linear equation?

What does the French word montre mean?

Blackhole252


 * Off the top of my head, I know that Sirius is the closest star to earth, and that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. The other two, I have no idea about :). 09:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol Rendova, the closet star to the Earth is the Sun! ;) However, the second closest star to the Earth is Alpha Centuri, 4.2 light years away... which is the same as 39.735.360.000.000.000 meters (Speed of Light*60 seconds*60 minutes*24 hours*365 days*4.2 years). Oooh, I feel like I am getting smarter. Thanks Blackhole! [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 13:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * * facepalm* I've failed. :P 15:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. As Winston Churchill said: "Succes is not final, failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts." [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 15:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I just found out the closest star besides the sun is actually Proxima Centauri, at 4.2 light years, closely followed by Rigil Kentaurus (or Alpha Centauri) at 4.3 light years. Hail, wikipedia! 19:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, two separate articles (Alpha Centauri and Proxima Centauri) both claim to be right, yet they are contradicting each other. Although my guess is that you are right... This all very interesting. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 19:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)


 * I used ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars ) for this. But hey, isn't wikipedia contradicting itself like dividing by 0? o.O 19:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, I didnt know the whole Star System was called alpha centauri. Nice list btw. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * $$y=mx+b$$ is not the standard form of a line, it is the slope-y intercept form. The standard form is $$ Ax + By = C $$ where A, B, and C are integers with no common factors and A is non negative.  This equation works for vertical, horizontal, and oblique lines whereas the slope intercept form is meaningless for vertical lines.  However, $$y=mx+b$$ is the correct equation for a polynomial function of degree one written in standard form. Dtm142 01:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can neither confirm nor deny that statement. You are too smart for me Dtm... [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 06:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

New project on its way!
Hello everyone,

I have long since decided that my own government is handling their finances to 'less-than-maximum' effect. So, I have decided to help them out, and create my own version of the national 2009 budget! This will be a little project of mine, and I will probably not indulge myself in any long debates during that time (but certainly afterwards!). I am hopeful that this project will bring insight to the inner working mechanics of the government. That way, we can come up with ways to change it for the better. It is these small steps that allow us to change the world.

Regards, <font color="White">Wejer   20:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * EDIT:Seems like that project was more elaborate than I first thought... I'll let it lay for some time. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling:
What is your opinion on both Gitmo shutting down and the Obama stimulus plan? 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:
Generally, I am not very fond of any type of fiscal budget policies employed keyneysians and the like. IIRC, that 'stimulus plan' Obama is trying to introduce is somewhere in the range of ~700.000 million dollars. Where are he supposed to get that money from? Naturally, the taxpayers will have to cough it up, and the US moves even deeper into national debt.

I have to admit though that not all the parts of the package are bad. The income taxes he plans to lower for the middle-income americans is much needed, and will help a great deal. What I am most against is him trying to nationalize the banks and buy up their shares. If I were in his situation, I would not cover up for anyone else's mistakes, because that is exactly what happened to the big banks: they screwed up their finances. He is simply throwing good money after bad in trying to nationalize them banks, and the bank directors reap all the benefits, naturally.

To prevent another financial disaster we must make sure that any kind of bank oligopoly are freely exposed to the free market forces. If we manage to have tens of thousands different, smaller banks, then if a couple of them collapse, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Right now, if the 'big ones' screw it, the population as a whole suffers. The vicious circle of financial collapses will thus go on until we do something about it. The first step is to say no to the stimulus package.

Not all is lost however. The president is doing well in shutting down that hell-hole known as Gitmo. I hope those poor people will have a fair and honest trial, and be paid compensation for the suffering they have endured at the hands of George W. Bush. <font color="White">Wejer   20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ADD-ON: I somehow had the hunch I did not have the whole picture of this financial crisis, and I was right. The root of the problem seems to be the Community reinvestment act, started as early as 1977 by former President Jimmy Carter and later added-on by former President Bill Clinton. The law makes it possible for the state to force banks into allowing high-risk mortage loans (subprime loans). Coincidently, this was exactly why the banks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (among others) had to shut down, because they in turn could not force their customers to repay their loans in turn (they were low-income citizens after all). And when several big banks go down in an oligopoly-setting, you have yourself a finacial crisis.
 * However, regardless of the blame, the solution should remain the same: say no to the planned economy, by saying no to the stimulus package! [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 11:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake and a Question
Hiya Wejer. I just wanted to point out that you spelled "decision" incorrectly in the small paragraph just under Welcome to my userpage at the top of your userpage.

Also, I have a question. I am clueless about politics, sadly, and I want to know: What exactly is politics, and what is the purpose of politics, if any? How is it important? What should I know about politics? Awkward questions, I know, but if you could answer them I would be pleased. :)

15:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate that you in good faith point out any potential errors of mine, even about such trivial things such as spelling mistakes.

In order to clarify my view points I have added extra links to wikipedia-articles about philosophy and politics. Generally, you should study philosophy before you study politics, because your personal philosophy is supposed to be your guide when making descions about any societal organization.

However, if you are simply curious where you stand in the political spectrum I recommend this test. It is not flawless, so you may have to do it a couple of times to get an objective result. However, it helps you to get a clearer picture and will make you start thinking critically; a key ingridient in personal development. (The site is also a good hub of general, political information, so even if you don't want to take the test I still recommend a visit)

Yours, <font color="White">Wejer    15:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, much appreciated. I will take a look at them. 16:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Polls
ATTENTION!!! you can win a free 50k in the poll in my userpage!!! Check it out! This will end at April 4, 2009!!! Hurry!!! 00:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, no spam on my talk page. 16:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)