Marxists Thread

[Jenos Ridan]

The simple fact is, I'm a pessimistic and pragmatic person. Replacing the free market with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat doesn't appeal to me. That, and history has shown us what happens when you try; the USSR and Maoist China

History has not shown you what happens in a Socialist society. What that particular part of history has shown you is what happens when Communism takes hold in a place where it is a very, very bad idea to do so.

Communism IS a bad thing. That is why I'm not a marxist, 'cause I want NOTHING to do with it! Socialism, though not near as radical, helps the poor not at the expense of the rich, but the middle class.

You can go live in the nice little town of Conformity. I'll take my chances in the real world.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Communism wont result in grey conformaty? Everyone may have equal chances, but everyone will not be the same. Some people are better at some things than other people. Why would people all become the same? Are they just going to drop their traditional cultures because they all want to be exactly identical? (incedently, Capitalism is doing a great job of destroying traditional cultures)

Your arguments so far have been good, but im surprised that you would make such an unfounded generalization.

What is to stop the state from imposing it? True, My statement was generalized, but when ever I try to visuallize a communal, highly industrial, metropolitan society, all I see is grey uniformity. An Orwellian Nightmare! I'll say it again, the system isn't perfect but at least it is a system that works.

[Jenos Ridan]

The simple fact is, I'm a pessimistic and pragmatic person. Replacing the free market with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat doesn't appeal to me. That, and history has shown us what happens when you try; the USSR and Maoist China

History has not shown you what happens in a Socialist society. What that particular part of history has shown you is what happens when Communism takes hold in a place where it is a very, very bad idea to do so.

Communism IS a bad thing. That is why I'm not a marxist, 'cause I want NOTHING to do with it! Socialism, though not near as radical, helps the poor not at the expense of the rich, but the middle class.

You can go live in the nice little town of Conformity. I'll take my chances in the real world.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Communism wont result in grey conformaty? Everyone may have equal chances, but everyone will not be the same. Some people are better at some things than other people. Why would people all become the same? Are they just going to drop their traditional cultures because they all want to be exactly identical? (incedently, Capitalism is doing a great job of destroying traditional cultures)

Your arguments so far have been good, but im surprised that you would make such an unfounded generalization.

What is to stop the state from imposing it? True, My statement was generalized, but when ever I try to visuallize a communal, highly industrial, metropolitan society, all I see is grey uniformity. An Orwellian Nightmare! I'll say it again, the system isn't perfect but at least it is a system that works.

Firstly, yes, I am quoting myself.
Also, the Communist Manifesto demands that the state (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) controls EVERYTHING: transport, communications, manufacturing, education, etc. Why wouldn't it be that the state would want certain traditions to go away in order to better regulate the lives and well-being of the people? On the other hand, capitalism doesn't intentionally target cultures and begin the break them down. In fact, most cultures are flexible and will adapt to the new environment.

[KomradeKloininov]

In fact, most cultures are flexible and will adapt to the new environment.

Yeah, especially when you attack them with your massive army or force them to assimilate into your culture.

[luns101]

ohhh yes cause i would be ever so popular in this greed filled world if i was to approuch my local parliment member with my views and opinions

i would prefer no governement what so ever

and you seem to think being an active member of society as pretty dificult, especially when everyone is helping each other

I'm not really addressing the point you're making with others, but rather noticing a pattern here...your constant defining of either the world or the capitalist world as "greedy". This is one of the problems I have with communists or marxists. When people act on behalf of their own "self-interest" that is not the same as "selfishness", which is what you seem to be accusing capitalists of.

Is that what you are trying to convey, if not...let us know.

[spurgistan]

The simple fact is, I'm a pessimistic and pragmatic person. Replacing the free market with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat doesn't appeal to me. That, and history has shown us what happens when you try; the USSR and Maoist China

History has not shown you what happens in a Socialist society. What that particular part of history has shown you is what happens when Communism takes hold in a place where it is a very, very bad idea to do so.

Communism IS a bad thing. That is why I'm not a marxist, 'cause I want NOTHING to do with it! Socialism, though not near as radical, helps the poor not at the expense of the rich, but the middle class.

You can go live in the nice little town of Conformity. I'll take my chances in the real world.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Communism wont result in grey conformaty? Everyone may have equal chances, but everyone will not be the same. Some people are better at some things than other people. Why would people all become the same? Are they just going to drop their traditional cultures because they all want to be exactly identical? (incedently, Capitalism is doing a great job of destroying traditional cultures)

Your arguments so far have been good, but im surprised that you would make such an unfounded generalization.

What is to stop the state from imposing it? True, My statement was generalized, but when ever I try to visuallize a communal, highly industrial, metropolitan society, all I see is grey uniformity. An Orwellian Nightmare! I'll say it again, the system isn't perfect but at least it is a system that works.

Well, but in Marxist communism, there IS no state, so it'd be kinda hard for it to enforce cultural blandening, yes? Sure, it comes to mind when one thinks of the USSR, but an actual Marxist state, no. BTW, Orwell was a socialist, and an outspoken anti-capitalist. Thanks for bringing him up!

[luns101]

BTW, Orwell was a socialist, and an outspoken anti-capitalist. Thanks for bringing him up!

No problem. It's true that he was anti-capitalist. I guess the point I was trying to make through my Animal Farm reference is that even he was practical in his criticism of both sides. He saw how communism could degrade into totalitarianism. You could say Orwell was a product of his time because he lived through the national socialism of Germany & the rise of Stalinist Russia.

[Jenos Ridan]

The simple fact is, I'm a pessimistic and pragmatic person. Replacing the free market with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat doesn't appeal to me. That, and history has shown us what happens when you try; the USSR and Maoist China

History has not shown you what happens in a Socialist society. What that particular part of history has shown you is what happens when Communism takes hold in a place where it is a very, very bad idea to do so.

Communism IS a bad thing. That is why I'm not a marxist, 'cause I want NOTHING to do with it! Socialism, though not near as radical, helps the poor not at the expense of the rich, but the middle class.

You can go live in the nice little town of Conformity. I'll take my chances in the real world.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Communism wont result in grey conformaty? Everyone may have equal chances, but everyone will not be the same. Some people are better at some things than other people. Why would people all become the same? Are they just going to drop their traditional cultures because they all want to be exactly identical? (incedently, Capitalism is doing a great job of destroying traditional cultures)

Your arguments so far have been good, but im surprised that you would make such an unfounded generalization.

What is to stop the state from imposing it? True, My statement was generalized, but when ever I try to visuallize a communal, highly industrial, metropolitan society, all I see is grey uniformity. An Orwellian Nightmare! I'll say it again, the system isn't perfect but at least it is a system that works.

Well, but in Marxist communism, there IS no state, so it'd be kinda hard for it to enforce cultural blandening, yes? Sure, it comes to mind when one thinks of the USSR, but an actual Marxist state, no. BTW, Orwell was a socialist, and an outspoken anti-capitalist. Thanks for bringing him up!

I can see a 'no-state- system working in small, agrarian communities without harm. But in an industrial metropolitan culture, forget it! In such an environment, the state will NEVER go away; you'l always have a buerocracy to keep up on everyone's activities and politicans to vote on changes. That is the problem, isn't it? That every time one tries to make a marxist utopia in a large country, it has a freakishly high rate of failure.

[Anarchy Ninja]

I'm not really addressing the point you're making with others, but rather noticing a pattern here...your constant defining of either the world or the capitalist world as "greedy". This is one of the problems I have with communists or marxists. When people act on behalf of their own "self-interest" that is not the same as "selfishness", which is what you seem to be accusing capitalists of.

Is that what you are trying to convey, if not...let us know.

you cant deny that there are many who care so little about everyone else and are only concered for themselves, not so long ago (at least in australia) people actually looked out for each other im just saying that this is becoming less and less frequent. I no that its not everyone and im thankful its not but it is getting to be more and more. I have personally experienced how little people care for others (although this is not strictly greed it carries the same principle of looking out for numero uno ) when my friend and i where getting the shit kicked out of us and several people just looked or drove by. to say that this didnt go for many more things is somewhat nieve in my opinion.

[luns101]

you cant deny that there are many who care so little about everyone else and are only concered for themselves, not so long ago (at least in australia) people actually looked out for each other im just saying that this is becoming less and less frequent. I no that its not everyone and im thankful its not but it is getting to be more and more. I have personally experienced how little people care for others (although this is not strictly greed it carries the same principle of looking out for numero uno ) when my friend and i where getting the shit kicked out of us and several people just looked or drove by. to say that this didnt go for many more things is somewhat nieve in my opinion.

Nobody can deny that there seems like so little compassion in this world. Capitalism provides a system of specialization and competition. Although the company does not personally care for you, they will cater to you in order to obtain your business. If they don't at least cater to you in a polite manner you will simply take your business elsewhere.

Employees are civil towards customers because it is in their "self-interest" to do so and earn your approval. I'm not saying they're going to hold your hand and come over for Thanksgiving dinner, but it does force their hand to treat you properly and respectfully.

Sorry about your incident being attacked. I was attacked by a crazy neighbor about 4 years ago in San Diego. The guy gave me no choice but to kick his butt. Other neighbors just stood by and watched and wouldn't back me up. When the police arrived I told them he started the whole thing but my neighbors refused to back me up. Their apathy was very frustrating so I know a little bit of how you feel.

[Jenos Ridan]

In fact, most cultures are flexible and will adapt to the new environment.

Yeah, especially when you attack them with your massive army or force them to assimilate into your culture.

OR, they could choose to be capitalist. Yes, it is a choice.

An Exmaple: A poor, rural agrarian village had a population boom and so modern farm equipment is needed to prepare the soil faster and in greater quatities. Pesticides/Herbacides, along with fertilizers, keep the fields healthy. Better seeds, breed in more developed nations, also help. Irrigation and so on and so forth. SOMEBODY(s) has to acquire this, and this somebody(s) is, well, going to get rich (at least, if and when the investment pays off). And as a result, more of his poorer neighbors get jobs, housing and most importantly, are fed! He/She/They pays them, they buy products at the bazaar etc. etc.
And due to the governments taxes, they get a better school or a new hospital. At the least, the roads are improved so the trucks can move any surplus they wish to sell faster, allowing even more money to be earned.

The free market can provide, but it requires initiative on part of the individual, both the entrepenuar and the consumer.

[Jenos Ridan]

you cant deny that there are many who care so little about everyone else and are only concered for themselves, not so long ago (at least in australia) people actually looked out for each other im just saying that this is becoming less and less frequent. I no that its not everyone and im thankful its not but it is getting to be more and more. I have personally experienced how little people care for others (although this is not strictly greed it carries the same principle of looking out for numero uno ) when my friend and i where getting the shit kicked out of us and several people just looked or drove by. to say that this didnt go for many more things is somewhat nieve in my opinion.

Nobody can deny that there seems like so little compassion in this world. Capitalism provides a system of specialization and competition. Although the company does not personally care for you, they will cater to you in order to obtain your business. If they don't at least cater to you in a polite manner you will simply take your business elsewhere.

Employees are civil towards customers because it is in their "self-interest" to do so and earn your approval. I'm not saying they're going to hold your hand and come over for Thanksgiving dinner, but it does force their hand to treat you properly and respectfully.

Sorry about your incident being attacked. I was attacked by a crazy neighbor about 4 years ago in San Diego. The guy gave me no choice but to kick his butt. Other neighbors just stood by and watched and wouldn't back me up. When the police arrived I told them he started the whole thing but my neighbors refused to back me up. Their apathy was very frustrating so I know a little bit of how you feel.

Nailed it squarely on the nose, my friend.

[b.k. barunt]

I can remember back a few more years than most of you, and the change from when i was a kid (i was born in 1951) to now is freaking Orwellian. When i was a kid, almost everyone on the block knew each other and interacted in some way. Now, it's bedroom communities, and you might know the people on either side of you. I witnessed a big change in the aftermath of Katrina down here. People in the neighborhoods actually met each other and became friends. Suddenly it was as if this oppressive cloud that had been secluding us from each other had been lifted. But now that all the yuppies who evacuated are back, things are returning to shit. These modern day yuppies have insulated themselves to make everything so safe and predictable, and they are so fearful of lawsuits that they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. The closest friends that i've made in life were friends that i shared hardships with - so what kind of world are we leaving for our kids if we sterilize it?

[Neutrino]

In fact, most cultures are flexible and will adapt to the new environment.

Yeah, especially when you attack them with your massive army or force them to assimilate into your culture.

OR, they could choose to be capitalist. Yes, it is a choice.

An Exmaple: A poor, rural agrarian village had a population boom and so modern farm equipment is needed to prepare the soil faster and in greater quatities. Pesticides/Herbacides, along with fertilizers, keep the fields healthy. Better seeds, breed in more developed nations, also help. Irrigation and so on and so forth. SOMEBODY(s) has to acquire this, and this somebody(s) is, well, going to get rich (at least, if and when the investment pays off). And as a result, more of his poorer neighbors get jobs, housing and most importantly, are fed! He/She/They pays them, they buy products at the bazaar etc. etc.
And due to the governments taxes, they get a better school or a new hospital. At the least, the roads are improved so the trucks can move any surplus they wish to sell faster, allowing even more money to be earned.

The free market can provide, but it requires initiative on part of the individual, both the entrepenuar and the consumer.

But how is SOMEBODY going to aquire this very expensive equipment, if their village is as poor as you say? The equipment would be hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, and no poor subsistance farmer has anywhere near the money to pay for that. If someone from elseware came in, then they would already have to be rich, and unlikely to just donate all this expensive equipment to the villagers. What is more likely is that the newcomer will by up all the poor farmers land and set up his own superfarm, making cashcrops. The the village has a population boom and no land left.

Rich man richer, poor farmers poorer.

[Anarchy Ninja]

Nobody can deny that there seems like so little compassion in this world. Capitalism provides a system of specialization and competition. Although the company does not personally care for you, they will cater to you in order to obtain your business. If they don't at least cater to you in a polite manner you will simply take your business elsewhere.

Employees are civil towards customers because it is in their "self-interest" to do so and earn your approval. I'm not saying they're going to hold your hand and come over for Thanksgiving dinner, but it does force their hand to treat you properly and respectfully.

Sorry about your incident being attacked. I was attacked by a crazy neighbor about 4 years ago in San Diego. The guy gave me no choice but to kick his butt. Other neighbors just stood by and watched and wouldn't back me up. When the police arrived I told them he started the whole thing but my neighbors refused to back me up. Their apathy was very frustrating so I know a little bit of how you feel.

they will cater for you if it only helps them if they wernt getting twice as much out of it it is unlickely you would be treated with more compasion then a bug on the sidewalk, to me that is the essence of greed

[Jenos Ridan]

In fact, most cultures are flexible and will adapt to the new environment.

Yeah, especially when you attack them with your massive army or force them to assimilate into your culture.

OR, they could choose to be capitalist. Yes, it is a choice.

An Exmaple: A poor, rural agrarian village had a population boom and so modern farm equipment is needed to prepare the soil faster and in greater quatities. Pesticides/Herbacides, along with fertilizers, keep the fields healthy. Better seeds, breed in more developed nations, also help. Irrigation and so on and so forth. SOMEBODY(s) has to acquire this, and this somebody(s) is, well, going to get rich (at least, if and when the investment pays off). And as a result, more of his poorer neighbors get jobs, housing and most importantly, are fed! He/She/They pays them, they buy products at the bazaar etc. etc.
And due to the governments taxes, they get a better school or a new hospital. At the least, the roads are improved so the trucks can move any surplus they wish to sell faster, allowing even more money to be earned.

The free market can provide, but it requires initiative on part of the individual, both the entrepenuar and the consumer.

But how is SOMEBODY going to aquire this very expensive equipment, if their village is as poor as you say? The equipment would be hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, and no poor subsistance farmer has anywhere near the money to pay for that. If someone from elseware came in, then they would already have to be rich, and unlikely to just donate all this expensive equipment to the villagers. What is more likely is that the newcomer will by up all the poor farmers land and set up his own superfarm, making cashcrops. The the village has a population boom and no land left.

Rich man richer, poor farmers poorer.

The idea was that the employee becomes a consumer. And of course, the rich man can always get taxed by the government, which improves the roads, brings in power and water, schools and hospitals, etc. In fact, the government could always use the tax money to pay the locals to do the work. Public works have historically been one of the fewer things the state can do in times of economic crisis sort of nationalizing everything.

A historical point on a poor man becoming rich; Andrew Carnegie. Born poor, worked hard, got rich and then gave most of his wealth to charity.

Now, most entrepenuars are not all that philanthropic, but a successful business means jobs, jobs mean personnal income for the employee. Income is taxable, taxes go back to the community via schools and public works (which employs people), income-after-taxes buys necessities (along with paying bills) and luxury goods, and (here I go again) so on and so and so on...........

[Anarchy Ninja]

funny in mentioning what the government spend taxes on you conviently forgot the most common thing, the millitary. one large capitalist country comes to mind when it comes to over expenditure on the millitary *cough* america *uncough*

[Neutrino]

The idea was that the employee becomes a consumer. And of course, the rich man can always get taxed by the government, which improves the roads, brings in power and water, schools and hospitals, etc. In fact, the government could always use the tax money to pay the locals to do the work. Public works have historically been one of the fewer things the state can do in times of economic crisis sort of nationalizing everything.

A historical point on a poor man becoming rich; Andrew Carnegie. Born poor, worked hard, got rich and then gave most of his wealth to charity.

Now, most entrepenuars are not all that philanthropic, but a successful business means jobs, jobs mean personnal income for the employee. Income is taxable, taxes go back to the community via schools and public works (which employs people), income-after-taxes buys necessities (along with paying bills) and luxury goods, and (here I go again) so on and so and so on...........

I assume that you mean that the rich man would hire all of the displaced villagers to work his equipment. Why should he? These poor villagers should have no knowledge whatsoever of the usage of large farming machinery. It would be cheeper for the rich man to bring in professionals rather than spend years getting the villagers up to speed. Even if the rich man decided to pay for the villagers to get the proper qualifications, because of the large amount of automation in modern equipment, there would only be jobs for a few of the villagers. No matter what the rich man does, the majority of the villagers are screwed.

[Jenos Ridan]

funny in mentioning what the government spend taxes on you conviently forgot the most common thing, the millitary. one large capitalist country comes to mind when it comes to over expenditure on the millitary *cough* america *uncough*

And somehow you think America spents too much? When you consider that if it weren't for the US, the UN won't exist. Doubt me? Check the percentage of UN funding the US pays and number of 'peace-keepers' we send to places like Somalia, Bosnia, etc. for the UN. And you forget, defence contractors employ highly-skill technical employee, which goes back into the cycle of supply-and-demand/investment-and-return just like I've described often on this thread.

I'm not implying that Austrialia isn't doing enough, or that any of the allied nations are cutting corners. It is just what the positions are.

[Jenos Ridan]

The idea was that the employee becomes a consumer. And of course, the rich man can always get taxed by the government, which improves the roads, brings in power and water, schools and hospitals, etc. In fact, the government could always use the tax money to pay the locals to do the work. Public works have historically been one of the fewer things the state can do in times of economic crisis sort of nationalizing everything.

A historical point on a poor man becoming rich; Andrew Carnegie. Born poor, worked hard, got rich and then gave most of his wealth to charity.

Now, most entrepenuars are not all that philanthropic, but a successful business means jobs, jobs mean personnal income for the employee. Income is taxable, taxes go back to the community via schools and public works (which employs people), income-after-taxes buys necessities (along with paying bills) and luxury goods, and (here I go again) so on and so and so on...........

I assume that you mean that the rich man would hire all of the displaced villagers to work his equipment. Why should he? These poor villagers should have no knowledge whatsoever of the usage of large farming machinery. It would be cheeper for the rich man to bring in professionals rather than spend years getting the villagers up to speed. Even if the rich man decided to pay for the villagers to get the proper qualifications, because of the large amount of automation in modern equipment, there would only be jobs for a few of the villagers. No matter what the rich man does, the majority of the villagers are screwed.

I'm hopeing you read the part about public works projects. You know, that little bit about roads and schools and other nice stuff? And how the state taxes the rich man to pay the VILLAGERS to build it all? Perhaps by paying them to improve the local infrastructure, they are then able to either buy new land, rent it or maybe they learn a simple trade and open a shop. Free market economics is a cascade-effect, it may be slow, but it rewards hard work, initiative and cunning. If you lived in a marxist utopia, would there be the same reward system? And what is to keep the state from existing in a large, industrial, densely populated nation? I've asked this repeatedly and nobody has come up with a point yet.

[Anarchy Ninja]

And somehow you think America spents too much? When you consider that if it weren't for the US, the UN won't exist. Doubt me? Check the percentage of UN funding the US pays and number of 'peace-keepers' we send to places like Somalia, Bosnia, etc. for the UN. And you forget, defence contractors employ highly-skill technical employee, which goes back into the cycle of supply-and-demand/investment-and-return just like I've described often on this thread.

I'm not implying that Austrialia isn't doing enough, or that any of the allied nations are cutting corners. It is just what the positions are.

Yes i do think America spends far far too much on its military when more important things should take precedent. And yes you are somewhat historically acurate in terms of US playing a large role in the UN as at the end of WW1 it was one of the president at the times goal to set up an international treaty to stop future wars (Woodrow i think, im not sure). however i dont think America is really part of this, it doesnt listen to the other members i seem to recall everyone saying DONT INVADE, yet they did for WMD's, which incidentally didnt exsist so they really went over there for the resources and you can say it was to dispose sadamm. Yes he was an evil bastard who should not have been ruling but i don't think that was the correct time or way of dealing with it and now the country is far far more screwed up then before and the reaon? it ultimitly boils down to the greed of your governing party

[Jenos Ridan]

And somehow you think America spents too much? When you consider that if it weren't for the US, the UN won't exist. Doubt me? Check the percentage of UN funding the US pays and number of 'peace-keepers' we send to places like Somalia, Bosnia, etc. for the UN. And you forget, defence contractors employ highly-skill technical employee, which goes back into the cycle of supply-and-demand/investment-and-return just like I've described often on this thread.

I'm not implying that Austrialia isn't doing enough, or that any of the allied nations are cutting corners. It is just what the positions are.

Yes i do think America spends far far too much on its military when more important things should take precedent. And yes you are somewhat historically acurate in terms of US playing a large role in the UN as at the end of WW1 it was one of the president at the times goal to set up an international treaty to stop future wars (Woodrow i think, im not sure). however i dont think America is really part of this, it doesnt listen to the other members i seem to recall everyone saying DONT INVADE, yet they did for WMD's, which incidentally didnt exsist so they really went over there for the resources and you can say it was to dispose sadamm. Yes he was an evil bastard who should not have been ruling but i don't think that was the correct time or way of dealing with it and now the country is far far more screwed up then before and the reaon? it ultimitly boils down to the greed of your governing party

Actually, Wilson TRIED to get us involved in something called the League of Nations (which did jack and shit to stop wars), but our senate knew we'd end up being the global policeman, which happens to be the case today. It was Truman who got us into this mess and unfortunately, no president has gotten us out!

True, we didn't find the WMDs. Getting rid of one of a handful of bad regimes is better than no change at all. BTW, when did YOU think the right time is? I thought it was back in '91, so for me Bush Jr. is just covering daddy's ass. The current leadership, yes, is influanced by the fuel lobby. Ain't right, but completly logical.

Personnally, I'd like to see the US leave the UN. Why are tax dollars being used to feed some world organization that is more corrupt than most third-world governments? Nobody wants us as the global police, but who else can fill the role and be able to function at home at all?

[foolish_yeti]

Personnally, I'd like to see the US leave the UN. Why are tax dollars being used to feed some world organization that is more corrupt than most third-world governments? Nobody wants us as the global police, but who else can fill the role and be able to function at home at all?

The US is in the UN so it can be used when they find it helpful and ignored (or vetoed) when they don't....plus it makes it look like they give a shit about the rest of the world to those who don't actually look into the UN. As for the UN being corrupt- I'd agree that it's horribly ineffective, predominantly because of the States tendancy to veto everything.

Are you saying you are forced to be the global police because of your involvement in the UN? I hope not- the UN for sure didn't force you into Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua....and on and on. It is true that the majority of the UN's funding comes from the States- but you also have to remember that the States spends more militarily than the next top 14 nations. That's your government's choice.

[Anarchist]

I think one of the points being failed to mention here is this:

You can give me several reasons why exploiting the world and eachother is good for society and the planet. I wont believe you. However in this God Money driven society how many of us are actually happy? Yes you have a big house, but you work 80 hour weeks. You have a beautiful wife, here comes the divorce. money doesnt provide enough happiness to make it worth the effort. Not forgetting all the other lives(and life) it destroys. Your boss might not need to work, flies around in helicopters, and fucks top dollar escorts. Do you? No you waste your life doing things you dont want to do.

Anyone who believes military helps in humanitarian aid is fooling themselves. A aircraft carrier might be able to bring food, and ultimately death and famine. However a (land barge?) can help reclaim land for irrigation and crops.

I really dont care what this new society is, aslong as i can pick fruit from the garden, walk on the beach, and not worry about paying somebody money for the right to live

[Neutrino]

Wait.

And somehow you think America spents too much? When you consider that if it weren't for the US, the UN won't exist. Doubt me? Check the percentage of UN funding the US pays and number of 'peace-keepers' we send to places like Somalia, Bosnia, etc. for the UN. And you forget, defence contractors employ highly-skill technical employee, which goes back into the cycle of supply-and-demand/investment-and-return just like I've described often on this thread.

There you are supporting the actions of the UN and American troops, but

Personnally, I'd like to see the US leave the UN. Why are tax dollars being used to feed some world organization that is more corrupt than most third-world governments? Nobody wants us as the global police, but who else can fill the role and be able to function at home at all?

there, you are denouncing it. Why?

Also:

I'm hopeing you read the part about public works projects. You know, that little bit about roads and schools and other nice stuff? And how the state taxes the rich man to pay the VILLAGERS to build it all? Perhaps by paying them to improve the local infrastructure, they are then able to either buy new land, rent it or maybe they learn a simple trade and open a shop. Free market economics is a cascade-effect, it may be slow, but it rewards hard work, initiative and cunning. If you lived in a marxist utopia, would there be the same reward system? And what is to keep the state from existing in a large, industrial, densely populated nation? I've asked this repeatedly and nobody has come up with a point yet.

But if the vilagers arnt working the land to get money to by food and the rich man is using his new land to grow cash crops rather than food (since Cash crops are more profitable), how exactly will they get money? If they were subsistence farmers, then they are royally screwed, since they would have no skills usefull to the rich man. Even if they somehow manage to get a job, it will very probably be poorly paid and since tey now have no local source of food, the price of food will skyrocket.
The village may have a great new road, but most of them will probably be starving. Not a good thing.

[Jenos Ridan]

Personnally, I'd like to see the US leave the UN. Why are tax dollars being used to feed some world organization that is more corrupt than most third-world governments? Nobody wants us as the global police, but who else can fill the role and be able to function at home at all?

The US is in the UN so it can be used when they find it helpful and ignored (or vetoed) when they don't....plus it makes it look like they give a shit about the rest of the world to those who don't actually look into the UN. As for the UN being corrupt- I'd agree that it's horribly ineffective, predominantly because of the States tendancy to veto everything.

Are you saying you are forced to be the global police because of your involvement in the UN? I hope not- the UN for sure didn't force you into Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua....and on and on. It is true that the majority of the UN's funding comes from the States- but you also have to remember that the States spends more militarily than the next top 14 nations. That's your government's choice.

No, we're forced into it because very few others step up to bat! It is not the UN's fail, but rather the fault of certain nations that shall remain nameless who never do more than send what amounts to hatemail to countries that violate international law (Britain and Austrialia are NOT on this list of do-nothings. They are a being help in the global war on terror).
And when some of those other top 14 have 5 million man armies, I'd like having the best gear R&D can develope and the Defense Industry can produce. Show me one incident were the UN, without calling on America's might, actually solved anything? Was it the Falklands? No. Bosnia? No. 1st Gulf War. Hell no! Korean War? If you say yes, then you need to wear a "I'm Stupid" sign. Somalia? Again, they called on us. The list goes on.