Guide to creating a socialist utopia

Absolutely true.

It would also help if the Middle Class empowered itself instead of believing that everyone that says "I love you" means it. We've let big business and government into our panties and now we're screwed.

 

Of course it requires force.

When "the people" own the means of production, who decides to allocate a scarce resource? How do you decide that the scarce vaccine during an epidemic goes to city A but not city B? When the people in city B riot in protest and march on the government, what are you going to do? What are you going to do when the people don't want to follow the "peoples" decisions?

Vaccines, food, oil, doctors, lumber, etc, how are you going to allocate these things and what are you going to do when people object?

And exactly who makes these decisions? Are you going to have daily national elections on every national issue? And city elections for every city issue? Preposterous. A select group of people will appointed to a committee to make these decisions - and now you have a ruling class subject to bribery and misuse of power. So much for utopia, hello USSR.

 

Mind you, I don't blame big business but government. Any completely free capitalism has it's inherent evils such as monopoly and fraud and most people and history understand this but to be free to grow and prosper, thereby providing means for everyone to prosper, the limitations on business need to be as minimal as possible yet reign in those inherent evils. A legitimate duty of government is to protect the individual from those things that an individual cannot protect themselves from. There is a time and place for healthy regulation, both healthy for business and the individual but it is a balance. Right now the current situation has been created by both business and government exuberance during an equity bubble created by both along with the mass psychological hysteria of the people and our own social creations and lack of restraint. People want to blame capitalism but that is too narrow a view to fix anything.

The countries that fared the best during this bubble crash were those societies that did not believe in living on credit and were more judicious with money. Even our parents or grandparents generations were more like that due to the lessons taught during past downturns. Our next generation will be forced to come to terms with the same thing our parents or grandparents learned and that will be good for the nation but not necessarily a nation that is still trying to force us to live on credit and is living on credit itself.

Our generation has come to expect largess that may not be natural or even reasonable. It shows in our society from top (CEO's) to bottom (flippers living on speculation or during the dot net bubble, speculating in the stock market). Do I blame CEO's? Why should I when we have all participated in creating this situation.

The real problem I have seen during the last 15 years is government not stopping banks and business getting "too big to fail" threatening the entire economy. We do need the Tea Party types and anyone else willing to tackle the status quo in government. The entrenched political parties are both using propaganda to de-legitimize any change to the status quo but we can make a change by voting out the entrenched Democrats and Republicans and getting in those that promise to actually change things in Washington, unlike Obama's empty rhetoric during the 2004 campaign.

 

I need more clarification, here. Are you saying that supreme rulers are a bad idea (even if those supreme rulers follow capitalist principles), or are you saying that a supreme ruler is okay as long as it isn't human? What alternatives do we have to humans?

 

It is funny that capitalists have as much faith in the equality of that system to self-regulate as socialists have in the ability of government to self-regulate. Both are based of a rather naive assumption of man's basic nature.

Both create onerous and monstrous societies where the unexceptional people fall to the bottom and are crushed.

This is why I am a tribalist. The only way to maintain freedom and autonomy is by being "small".

Agreed. The problems are infinitely larger than we imagine.

But these same businesses that we "trust" to provide us with...with...well, not jobs because those go overseas...um cheap goods? No, that's not cheap anymore, either. Anyway, these same businesses employ highly trained marketing and advertising professionals that have taken coursework in behavioral sciences and neurobiology so that they can finely tune the message of "needs". The government, in turn, backs them up on this.

(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s allegedly blow up the twin towers and we're told to go out and shop.

Because participating and originating are two levels of experiences. In criminal law the triggerman gets the top charge.

I absolutely agree with this. The problem is that everyone I hear say this doesn't mean "now" they mean "next time". The same people who say what you've just said won't vote a Gary Johnson they'll vote Romney allegedly because of the Supreme Court. There will always be a chance a judge could die. It's the axe above the voting public's head. Oooooooh, but what if the other guy can pick a SCOTUS justice???? OH, the humanity!

 

I am a capitalist and believe in it's ability to make the right choices in regards to what the public wants, what sells, and innovation, which drives business. I am not naive enough to think there should be no regulation due to capitalism's inherent evils. Some argue that the courts would determine wrong doing but by then, it is much too late. Government of the people has a responsibility to the people.

 

Capitalism is ruthlessly efficient. You cannot have monetary capitalism without there being a level of ruthlessness. This is in direct opposition with my spiritual life and beliefs. While I admire the Capitalist Beast's ability to grow, succeed, and survive at all costs I find it destructive and antithetical to the type of deep, spiritual, and compassionate world that I wish to exist in.

I am torn because I want the right to personal autonomy and therefore I would not impose my beliefs on another, but they certainly have imposed their corporatist, monopolistic aggression on small businesses through short-term price dropping and effectively killed the dreams and autonomy of another.

Capitalism ultimately becomes a tyranny in and of itself as long as there is government. Without government the free market would be "free" and useful. With government there is the temptation and actualization of collusion and eventually monopolistic tyranny, plated and served by their friends in government.

So, I have fallen back onto restraining capitalism much in the same way that I am restrained and then attempting to liberate ourselves from those who would keep producing laws, people like the Obamas and Romneys of this world.

 

Y'all "individualists" do realize that you are essentially forcing non-individualist, non-capitalists to live by YOUR ideology, right?

 

I am sorry you don't think of yourself as an individual or believe in individual rights. I guess that is what happens to lemmings when confronted with freedom of individual choice.

 

I think that's the problem, though (or at least part of the problem). Corporations allowed actual people to enter into contracts and benefit thereby without actually taking responsibility for those contracts. This made corporations (or more accurately the people profiting through corporations) to become so powerful that crony capitalism became inevitable.

I think it's more a matter of corporations becoming too big for their britches. The size of the government is necessarily indexed to the size of the economy and the economic entities in it.

Usually? Maybe. Sometimes, certainly. Sometimes, regulation is also needed in order to prevent crony capitalism -- do you see a way of preventing it without regulation?

 

Nothing prohibits you from changing the channel....leaving for environs more suitable to your individual weaknesses.

 

Read my previous posts where I say regulation is necessary.

 

Couldn't socialists make the same argument? Nothing prevents capitalists from leaving for more exploitable environments where people have fewer contractual demands and virtually no leverage. Like, say, China. Happens all the time, doesn't it?

 

You'll have to kill me first.

 

"America" was founded on individualism....individual rights, liberty and the economic freedom to succeed or fail on one's own merits...

Why should America's founding principles be ditched for a few weak minded crybabies...
who can't or won't accept the fact nobody owes them anything simply because they managed to fall out of a vagina?

 

Or just wait for you to die?

Death's inevitability does kind of make murder pointless, doesn't it? Even a righteous execution, where a person deserves to die, is pointless since everybody will die.

Sorry. Tangent.

 

I do think of myself as an individual with individual rights. I just don't think that requires a completely isolated, self-serving existence.

Now, care to address my actual point?

 

I don't want to leave. I want to make my home better.

 

Get an education, excell at a trade, find your niche....make more money...build your own "personal" utopia.....just leave me the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of your plans, stay the (*)(*)(*)(*) off my lawn, and keep your grubby (*)(*)(*)(*)ing paws out of my wallet.

 

Except, if they're rich, to have their property claims backed up by military force. Right?

 

The Constitution *was designed* to protect individual life, rights, liberty and private property equally...

that unethical D.C. politicians are not held accountable for their ease and willingness to be influenced by special interests and the "evil" rich...
is a problem we complacent sheep have allowed....

and are *finally* attempting to correct (Tea Parties)...but big government progressive collectivists have done everything possible to marginalize, belittle and squash the "movement"

Have you ever asked your self why?

 

The Tea Party was quickly infused with a generous helping of neoconservatives, thus making it easy for progressive collectivists to marginalize, belittle and squash the "movement".

If the Tea Party were a real "party" they would have put forth their own candidate, but they will instead vote for another anti-American, unpatriotic, globalist corporatist in Romney. Therefore, they are just the radical wing of the Republican Party and controlled by their big money overlords.

Meh.

 

The problem is that your making your home better requires my undesired participation as you and others attempt to save me from myself. My desired type of existence allows you to do your thing and leave me to mine.

 

The Tea Parties have done themselves a great service by remaining losely organized... gauzy and undefinable....
the instant progressive leftists perceived Sarah Palin a national "spokesman", they unrelentingly savaged her and her family...including her Downs Syndrome Child. 100% Alinsky.

Leftists would love nothing more than a defined target.

Additionally, the Progressive Leftist movement incrementally "coopted" the Democrat Party.... almost completely taking over...
why is the Tea Party movement disallowed from doing the same....
Specifically, why is it always said the "GOP coopted the Tea Parties", when in fact, it may be the other way around....the Tea Parties exploiting GOP money to stealthily gain the reigns...just as Progressive Leftists did with the Democrat Party?

 

Because the reality is that the Tea Parties are not exploiting GOP money. When you hear their "spokespeople" talk these days it is pure Neocon. They are not showing me anything different than the Republican Party, if they had balls they would have supported Ron Paul in large numbers instead of leaving it to the 18-25 generation to push for Paul. Unlike Tea Party types, its impossible for that demographic to bring him delegates because independents aren't registered Republicans.

When the Tea Party types do anything besides back up Neocon positions and hand the election to a dick like Romney maybe I'll care about their unorganized, guazy, indefinable asses. Until that time I'll just apply the old: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck adage and call them Radical Republicans.