Mixed Systems

[Michael]

I think it goes without saying that every western country contains a huge mixture of capitalist elements and socialist elements.

I don't want to have a debate about which one is better, rather I'm curous about which elements of our society you think might have 'too much capitalism' and which elements of our society might have 'too much socialism" - and/or vice versa.

[Daktoria]

Why are extremes a bad thing? If a society was consistently constructed around one or the other, it would automatically qualify as extreme, but I don't see why consistency is wrong.

Regardless, laissez-faire systems have never existed since the establishment of the state, and collectivist systems can never exist in conjunction with the state. Every system around is automatically a mix between the two as long as bureaucrats and governments are motivated by economic utility.

[Donkey]

Why are extremes a bad thing? If a society was consistently constructed around one or the other, it would automatically qualify as extreme, but I don't see why consistency is wrong.
Because such consistent systems consistently fuck up and fall apart.

[The Drunk Guy]

Because such consistent systems consistently fuck up and fall apart.
He's saying you can't really say that since there has never really been a consistent system to base that opinion on.

And I also agree that collectivism is impossible in our capitalist world and anarchy is impossible with the demand for structure and definite rules of justice and fairness.

[Daktoria]

Because such consistent systems consistently fuck up and fall apart.

Well if inconsistent practitioners are part of it, then it really isn't a consistent system, is it (the point being that it isn't the ideology that's the problem, but rather the people involved who are)?:shrug:

[Donkey]

Well if inconsistent practitioners are part of it, then it really isn't a consistent system, is it (the point being that it isn't the ideology that's the problem, but rather the people involved who are)?:shrug:
If an ideology can't hack the human animal, than it is an imperfect ideology.

[Michael]

If an ideology can't hack the human animal, than it is an imperfect ideology.

:thumbsup:

[Daktoria]

Says the imperfect animal. :party:

[Donkey]

Says the imperfect animal. :party:
Sure but what's your point? Perfect is pretty meaningless when applied to humanity unless you come up with an objective standard by which to measure the individual.

At any rate human behaviour at least somewhat predictable and understandable on the macro level, and any ideology that fails to wrangle humanity isn't good enough.*



*Tall order, I know. I'm not saying that there is any ideology that can hope to do this, but then, I'm not much one for ideologies anymore.

[Daktoria]

That doesn't make sense. If imperfect people are always going to make the system imperfect, then a perfect system is impossible.

The point of perfection is to have a model to set as a goal. Maybe we can't achieve it, but it provides a benchmark for measuring our progress.

I think all principles and goals bear some semblance of this though including even the most fundamental ones of survival and security. At some level, we have to imagine what we want beyond sheer existence in order to give existence value unless we're going to concede to randomness or material determinism taking charge of the entire world (which begs the question, "Why bother caring about human action?).

[Lasher]

I think it goes without saying that every western country contains a huge mixture of capitalist elements and socialist elements.

I don't want to have a debate about which one is better, rather I'm curous about which elements of our society you think might have 'too much capitalism' and which elements of our society might have 'too much socialism" - and/or vice versa.
Define what you mean by "elements of our society," please.

[Lasher]

Why are extremes a bad thing? If a society was consistently constructed around one or the other, it would automatically qualify as extreme, but I don't see why consistency is wrong.

Regardless, laissez-faire systems have never existed since the establishment of the state, and collectivist systems can never exist in conjunction with the state. Every system around is automatically a mix between the two as long as bureaucrats and governments are motivated by economic utility.
Please reword that in plain English, please.

[Lasher]

Because such consistent systems consistently fuck up and fall apart.
Specific example, please.

[Lasher]

Well if inconsistent practitioners are part of it, then it really isn't a consistent system, is it (the point being that it isn't the ideology that's the problem, but rather the people involved who are)?:shrug:
Oka-a-a-a-ay!

[Lasher]

Sure but what's your point? Perfect is pretty meaningless when applied to humanity unless you come up with an objective standard by which to measure the individual.

At any rate human behaviour at least somewhat predictable and understandable on the macro level, and any ideology that fails to wrangle humanity isn't good enough.*



*Tall order, I know. I'm not saying that there is any ideology that can hope to do this, but then, I'm not much one for ideologies anymore.
Huh??

[Lasher]

That doesn't make sense. If imperfect people are always going to make the system imperfect, then a perfect system is impossible.

The point of perfection is to have a model to set as a goal. Maybe we can't achieve it, but it provides a benchmark for measuring our progress.

I think all principles and goals bear some semblance of this though including even the most fundamental ones of survival and security. At some level, we have to imagine what we want beyond sheer existence in order to give existence value unless we're going to concede to randomness or material determinism taking charge of the entire world (which begs the question, "Why bother caring about human action?).
Yeah - what she said!

[Donkey]

Huh??
If your staggering intellect is letting you down, perhaps you can rely on your ravishing good looks.

[Lasher]

If your staggering intellect is letting you down, perhaps you can rely on your ravishing good looks.
You are indeed correct, Dunkey, Lash has always been able to rely on that. My gosh, He's handsome!!

[Michael]

Oka-a-a-a-ay!

Huh??

These one-word posts may be considered to be SPAM as they do nothing except waste bandwidth and may be deleted as such.

[Lasher]

These one-word posts may be considered to be SPAM as they do nothing except waste bandwidth and may be deleted as such.
Okay, Lash did not know that.