Pope says communists are closet Christians

originally posted by: NavyDoc
What does the state do to those who don't want to contribute at all but still get all of their needs met?

You mean like speculators and high level bankers?
They don't work, most don't provide any jobs, they just sit around and make money off their existing money. Money that has to come from somewhere. Then these guys aren't just getting their “needs met” they are sucking up enough money, in some cases, to cover the needs of entire countries worth of people.

originally posted by: Chiftel

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
So you also feel that the essential meaning of human nature is opportunism. Do you think humans are evil as well?

I've always thought that the problem with the right is that it projects what they know about themselves to what they assume everyone else of also being.

LOL. That's what I've always thought of the left. They don't want someone to have a gun because they can't imagine someone not shooting someone else in a fit of anger, for example.


Sorry. Human nature has been shown throughout history. If you haven't seen patterns of behavior that are pretty consistent over the millennia, you haven't been paying attention.

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: NavyDoc
What does the state do to those who don't want to contribute at all but still get all of their needs met?

You mean like speculators and high level bankers?
They don't work, most don't provide any jobs, they just sit around and make money off their existing money. Money that has to come from somewhere. Then these guys aren't just getting their “needs met” they are sucking up enough money, in some cases, to cover the needs of entire countries worth of people.

You failed to answer the question. What if everyone is having their needs met and must so in this classless society and a large enough percentage of the population decide they'd rather be riding on the wagon instead of pulling it? What then? It only works if everyone abandons self and works for the higher good. What if they don't?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
And that's what the utopians don't get. "True" communism is impossible--

If you want to argue that communism is impossible, you are free to do so. But to point to something that is in direct opposition to communist principles and say 'see this is communsim! It doesn't work!' That's a fallacy.

Nobody is completely equal or the same as another. Some are smarter, some are stronger, some are better looking. You can never have a "classless" society without imposing some awful restrictions on people and destroying individuality, free thought, and innovation. It's unfair that I can't dance ballet. Let's break Barishnikov's legs so that I'm an equal dancer to him. It's not just that pretty women don't want to have sex with you, so lets force the pretty women to have sex with ugly guys too because sexual attractiveness class distinction is against the communist ideal.

Equality doesn't undermine equality. In fact, I would venture to say individuality would shine through a great deal more with many people when they don't have to spend all their time just trying to get by. To say that equality means we would have to forcibly remove any talents an individual has is, again, a fallacy.

a reply to: NavyDoc
In other societies that's not allowed. If you didn't work you didn't eat, and in some instances it could get you banished. I'm not sure how it worked for the disabled. The elderly often were in positions of authority, and their wisdom and management was their “work”.

Go spend some time with a real American Indian tribe, and you'll get one heck of an eye opener. Let me tell you the time I spent with the Indians was some of the hardest work in my entire life, but I also had a great time. There was such a sense of community and fellowship that it was wonderful.

To claim that communism is impossible is tantamount to claiming the average, functional human family is impossible.

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Actually no. Quarters are divided up by rank. I had the official enterprise blueprints as a kid.

There were no “official blueprints”, I know this because I tried to search them up once for a project I was doing for a friends hobby shop. Most of the existing blueprints would not properly fit into the ship, and were guesses by various companies based on how a navy ship works.

Also in the show the quarters were all the same, most likely they only used one set and changed the props in the rooms.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
It makes sense--if everyone had a apartment on the ship, it would have been huge and there would have been no room for other stuff.

Starting with Next Generation this was the case, which is why whole families were on the ship. The majority of the saucer section was quarters for the crew, which is why they were constantly separating it in the first season of the show. As the show went on, they sort of moved away from that whole aspect of the story though.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Even in the "Communist ideals" in native tribes and monasteries, you still had hierarchies--you had the elders, you had the chief, you had the abbot. Because human beings are not insects and all have different skill levels, perceived needs, wants, talents, desires, intellect, "true" communism is not possible

Yes, you do have a hierarchy, but you earn that through your work. That does not mean that you have an economic advantage over others though. Communism does not mean that everyone is equal, it means that common goods are equally shared. If you work you eat, it doesn't matter if your the guy who runs the country or the one that cleans the floors. You both work, and you are both entitled to the basics of living.

There is more to advantage than money or economics.

"If you work you eat." And what happens if you don't work?

And what keeps the guy who runs the country to use his position to make a grand and luxurious life for himself just like the "banksters" you are going about? He may not have a big bank account or invest in stocks or have "wealth" but he certainly can set him up with a "people's" private jet and a "people's" vacation mansion on the Mediterranean and you are back to the stuff you claim is only the problem with capitalism=people suing position and influence to better themselves at the expense of others. You are fixated on money and stocks but there is more to class distinction and abuse than cash. The problem is the same and the people who abuse it are the same but the measuring stick is different.

As for Star Trek, you are incorrect. I owned those plans when I was a kid as well as the technical manual--this was in the early seventies so, you may not have been around then. They were cool and even in Next Generation, the Captain has a much bigger place, can use the holodeck whenever he wants, and a lot of rank hath it's privileges stuff in addition to a family estate and vinyard. He is of a higher class than those around him. People obey him and call him sir. People defer to him. It is A). neither a picture of ideal communism and B). an imaginary show so it has absolutely zero bearing on reality anyway so what's the point?

originally posted by: Chiftel

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
So you also feel that the essential meaning of human nature is opportunism. Do you think humans are evil as well?

I've always thought that the problem with the right is that it projects what they know about themselves to what they assume everyone else of also being.

I think that's a problem that EVERYONE has, and not just any one group in particular. That which we know about ourselves is going to be what we recognize first in anyone else.

originally posted by: Chiftel
To claim that communism is impossible is tantamount to claiming the average, functional human family is impossible.

LOL. The family unit is communistic? The children put in according to their ability and take to their needs? The children can outvote their parents as to bedtime? Meals eaten? The parents are not the authority? The five year old has the equal vote and say as the mom? Dad and the 13 year old are the exact same class and the exact same standing?

Family unit Communistic? Now you are getting silly. More like a benign (or not) oligarchy.

Yes, they put in according to their ability. They are made to take out the trash, for instance. Or to wash the dishes. But they take disproportionately much out.

I don't know where you picked up that being allowed to vote is defining, sine qua non trait of communism. Communism is not a political system. It is an economic system.

Yes, within the family they are economically in the same class as the parents. The family budget also goes towards their need, if not always their wants. Even though their contribution to said budget is relatively minute or non-existent.

Textbook communism.

Again, communism is an economic system. Not a political one.

Also, even if you have an issue with admitting the typical, normal parent-child relationship is a communist one, you can not deny that the relationship between the working spouse and the 'kept' spouse is.

a reply to: NavyDoc
Believe me there isn't an official set of them, and the multiple sets that exist don't agree with each other. I was building more detailed version of the old “cut away” model, and I had a hell of a time. I finally had to just fudge it.
Star Trek Blueprint Database

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: NavyDoc
In other societies that's not allowed. If you didn't work you didn't eat, and in some instances it could get you banished. I'm not sure how it worked for the disabled. The elderly often were in positions of authority, and their wisdom and management was their “work”.

Go spend some time with a real American Indian tribe, and you'll get one heck of an eye opener. Let me tell you the time I spent with the Indians was some of the hardest work in my entire life, but I also had a great time. There was such a sense of community and fellowship that it was wonderful.

So...under communism if you don't work, you don't eat but that what people say is wrong with capitalism. So the lazy and shiftless starve under the communist utopia too. Okay.

You have a hierarchy and those in charge can make themselves more comfortable by using their talent and position. Okay, sounds like what you complain about capitalism too.

You say capitalism is bad but then you admit that pretty much the same ills and abuses exist under Communism too, so it's a bit of a wash, no?

I'd say capitalism is the winner because, unlike communism, you can opt out. You can be a communist in a capitalist society. We had thousands of communes that operated under the same communist principles everybody says they want and nobody stopped them from having that life if they wanted. The failed, but that is communism for you.

The inverse is not true. In order to have a true communist society, everybody has to be with the program or else it fails. They must be purged from society. You said it yourself above--"Banished." What if there was no place to send class traitors and evil capitalists, comrade? Re-education camps I guess. We know how nice they are. If that does not work? Well, for the greater good, they need to be removed some other way...in a more...I think I'll call it a..."final solution"

a reply to: NavyDoc

There is no perfect system because there is no perfect society.

originally posted by: Chiftel
Yes, they put in according to their ability. They are made to take out the trash, for instance. Or to wash the dishes. But they take disproportionately much out.

I don't know where you picked up that being allowed to vote is defining, sine qua non trait of communism. Communism is not a political system. It is an economic system.

Yes, within the family they are economically in the same class as the parents. The family budget also goes towards their need, if not always their wants. Even though their contribution to said budget is relatively minute or non-existent.

Textbook communism.

Again, communism is an economic system. Not a political one.

Also, even if you have an issue with admitting the typical, normal parent-child relationship is a communist one, you can not deny that the relationship between the working spouse and the 'kept' spouse is.

LOL. Nope. Economically it is not communism. The parents are not the same class They are in different positions in the family structure and the parents may decide to gift them with an allowance if they do their chores or may decide not to gift them with an allowance before but either way, the kids have zero choice in the matter. If you suggest that the family unit is an example of communism then you would have to admit that communism is a paternalistic, dictatorial society, not one of equality and classlessness.

Communists don't vote? How then do equal comrades all of he same society decide to get things done? You can't have a communist society if a group of people call the shots for other people because that would not be a classless society?

Economics and politics are completely entwined. You can't have one without it influencing the other.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: NavyDoc

There is no perfect system because there is no perfect society.

Ah, tell that to the communist utopists.

At least we are getting somewhere. Yes, nothing is perfect and trying to eliminate ills with "just the right system" will never work because we cannot eliminate human nature, which is what I've been saying all along.

Sure no society is perfect, but the best society, the one that history has shown us consistently improving the life of the majority is that of economic freedom--free market capitalism.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: NavyDoc

There is no perfect system because there is no perfect society.

Ah, tell that to the communist utopists.

At least we are getting somewhere. Yes, nothing is perfect and trying to eliminate ills with "just the right system" will never work because we cannot eliminate human nature, which is what I've been saying all along.

Sure no society is perfect, but the best society, the one that history has shown us consistently improving the life of the majority is that of economic freedom--free market capitalism.

Heh. In my honest opinion, there will NEVER be a government, society, country, world, species, galactic organization, or universal governing body that will last forever. Never. Because there will never be any one of those which is truly perfect. It will do for the time being, but when times change, so will the demands. And when the demands change, you either change with it or you step down. Or it will break you.

Communism, in the end, is no more durable or stable than any other system. Just like capitalism, fascism, socialism, totalitarianism, democracy, theocracy, plutocracy, you name it - all things come to an end. There is no perfect system, and there is no perfect solution.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
So...under communism if you don't work, you don't eat but that what people say is wrong with capitalism. So the lazy and shiftless starve under the communist utopia too. Okay.

You make an assumption here that everyone not working is “shiftless and lazy”. Right now I can guarantee you that isn't the case. Even those working are losing their homes and can sometimes not afford to put food on the table. Meanwhile you have the ultra rich intentionally refusing to pay their workers a fair wage, and driving up the unemployment market to cause their existing workers to fear for losing their jobs.

Under capitalism there is nothing to force an employer to treat his employees fairly, and they are actually rewarded for unethical behavior. Obviously they cannot be trusted to wield that sort of power, and the government (the people) are going to have to put them under some sort of control.

a reply to: defcon5

Under capitalism there is nothing to force an employer to treat his employees fairly, and they are actually rewarded for unethical behavior. Obviously they cannot be trusted to wield that sort of power, and the government (the people) are going to have to put them under some sort of control.

Hehehehehe...there is the sad reality, friends. Right. There. Very few, once placed in such a position, can be trusted to wield that authority judiciously and appropriately. It's all too easy to get paranoid and place your own interests in front of everyone elses'. It's all too easy to get jumpy and terminate a possible threat before it terminates you. It's all too easy to get lost in the rabid dog fight dressed in preppy clothing that our society has become. As the Joker said, society is, in many instances, an illusion. All it takes to break the illusion, is breaking the order. Then you see who people really are. But if you look closely, you don't have to go that far. Just give them lots of money and a bunch of people to boss around. What's that saying? The true measure of a man can be seen by how he treats his inferiors. Ever since I read that, I've held by it. Because we are most truly ourselves when we believe we are untouchable. Like the Rockefellers.

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: NavyDoc
So...under communism if you don't work, you don't eat but that what people say is wrong with capitalism. So the lazy and shiftless starve under the communist utopia too. Okay.

You make an assumption here that everyone not working is “shiftless and lazy”. Right now I can guarantee you that isn't the case. Even those working are losing their homes and can sometimes not afford to put food on the table. Meanwhile you have the ultra rich intentionally refusing to pay their workers a fair wage, and driving up the unemployment market to cause their existing workers to fear for losing their jobs.

Under capitalism there is nothing to force an employer to treat his employees fairly, and they are actually rewarded for unethical behavior. Obviously they cannot be trusted to wield that sort of power, and the government (the people) are going to have to put them under some sort of control.

I didn't say that or made that assumption--your bias is showing again. The fact of the matter is, however, that there are many who are shiftless and lazy and under communism you said they would have to be coerced or banished if they don't contribute. How is that any more "humane?"

"Fair wages" are not paid? What makes a wage fair. Is it the value of the labor?

There is a lot under capitalism to encourage good treatment of workers. With competition and a demand for a stilled labor force, those who have skills in demand will get truly fair treatment (not leftist something for nothing "fairness") otherwise the skilled labor will go down the road and work for eh nicer employer. This, of course, puts the onus on the individual to do something rather than just hang out at the coffee shop and bitch about how the man is keeping him down.

So a business man can't be trusted but the GOVERNMENT can? Are you serious? That is funny. Really? The government is comprised with trustworthy individuals who would never, ever abuse their power but no businessman is honest. Gotcha. That premise is laughable given that most genocide in the 20th century was caused by government against their own people--many of which were "worker's paradise" when noble and trustworthy government was empowered to "protect" the people.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: defcon5

Under capitalism there is nothing to force an employer to treat his employees fairly, and they are actually rewarded for unethical behavior. Obviously they cannot be trusted to wield that sort of power, and the government (the people) are going to have to put them under some sort of control.

Hehehehehe...there is the sad reality, friends. Right. There. Very few, once placed in such a position, can be trusted to wield that authority judiciously and appropriately. It's all too easy to get paranoid and place your own interests in front of everyone elses'. It's all too easy to get jumpy and terminate a possible threat before it terminates you. It's all too easy to get lost in the rabid dog fight dressed in preppy clothing that our society has become. As the Joker said, society is, in many instances, an illusion. All it takes to break the illusion, is breaking the order. Then you see who people really are. But if you look closely, you don't have to go that far. Just give them lots of money and a bunch of people to boss around. What's that saying? The true measure of a man can be seen by how he treats his inferiors. Ever since I read that, I've held by it. Because we are most truly ourselves when we believe we are untouchable. Like the Rockefellers.

Like the Clintons and Obamas and Putin and Stalin and Mao. Thinking that business is untrustworthy but government is is a large amount of cognitive dissonance.