mid life crisis ?

[sun-star]

Every time I take that test I get more left-wing

Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56

It must be because every other question is about trusting big business...

[Hasty Ent]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think as I've got older I've understood better how, as Bill Hicks said, we're "getting ****ed each and every day" by an increasingly remote group of corporate oligarchs. As such, I have less trust in systems of regulation as they always seem to get hijacked by the vested interests.

There is an element of "this is the way things are" and it's much easier just to get on with your life. However, what did it for me was not the rampant and still-unchecked march of Thatcherism across the land, but the total apathy of the very people who were getting ground into the dirt. All this mindless patriotism, the constant state of war, the shameless manipulation of the media, combined with the brontosauran apathy and short-termism of the dorito-chugging masses, coached and cajoled into a torpid state of passive consumerism by a lifetime of celebrity reality gardening makeover shows, is increasingly Orwellian in its scale.

Seems like England has embraced everything that makes me despair of the United States. Well said! though it saddens me beyond words....

Here's a survey that made me weep: Fewer Than Half of American Adults Now Read Literature

I was chatting with a friend about how I absolutely did not believe it. Bookstores continue to sprout and they seem to be filled with readers. They're not the independently owned, idiosyncratic bookstores of my childhood, alas, but still they do sell books. Public libraries are still used, and publishers continue to publish.

My friend informed me that for every individual I see in a bookstore, there are 100 hanging out in the mall. That for every person using their library card, there are 200 sitting slack-jawed in front of a television. Is it just laziness? Easier to get our information and entertainment pre-digested? And does this laziness then lead to the apathy that has become so apparent?

I don't know. I don't go to malls, so I don't know if my friend's flip response has any bearing on the truth. I rarely watch television, and most of my friends stay away from it as well. And I really am sick and tired of the argument that blames the decline of civilisation on television. So what's happened? Why are people reading less? Why does the United States have such lower voter turnouts? What is the source of this apathy? My father would have said it's soft-living and too much prosperity. I don't have an answer. While I admire your continued belief that socialism is not yet dead, Gaffer, I personally have despaired of anything ever getting any better. We will just continue to slide into this Orwellian nightmare as long as the majority are satisfied with the status quo.

[Insidious Rex]

Nothing sort of post nuclear holicost type radical alteration of reality will really change that. And frankly I think its human nature to be content in your little sphere when all your wants and needs are satisfied by hand to mouth consumerism. Were humans any different really? The only difference now is we dont have to work the land to survive. Big Corporations do that for us.

[Draken]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

the brontosauran apathy and short-termism of the dorito-chugging masses.

It's not very PC I know but I think you'll find the term "chav" is a convenient short-hand!

[Snowdog]

Now what I still dont understand is those silly people who are lower or middle class and who still vote conservative directly against their best interest.

I never really considered less government intrusion in my life and pocketbook against my best interest.

Having been at one time far into socialism, then far into libertarianism, I have found a happy medium. Unfortunatly there is so little difference between the dems and reps in the U.S. that I have to look at each campaign on the individual merits.

Of course, a blow to free voting took place this year when the "blanket Primary" that was the norm in Washington state since the 1930's was struck down in the courts, so now I have to "declare" my party affiliation to get that party's ballot.

Anyway, I see this place is filled with socialists... (sarcastic) yay.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

Anyway, I see this place is filled with socialists... (sarcastic) yay.

Not everyone is socialist here. I can't stand socialism. it's the quickest way to innovative stagnation and the elimination of self responsbility. Everyone expects the government to solve all the problems and give out handouts. I want small government, less laws, less taxes and more self responsibilty and determination.

[Grey_Wolf]

I sometimes think that this love of Socialism (in fact sometimes I despair of it) in Sweden would disappear if the Americans hadn't intervened in Europe and had let the Soviets steamroll through it to the Atlantic coast leaving people to groan under the Communist yoke.

But during that time the Americans would never had done it because of burgeoning fear that communism would be spread all over the world.

[Sminty_Smeagol]

From having no real knowledge on the topic and just from some sort of little conclusions and guesses I've made based on such limited knowledge and understanding on the matter; it seems the democratic view is a sort of socialist one, and JD's is a more republican one, whatever the opposite of socialist would be......
Assuming from your post socialism is where the government totally cares for the people? High taxes?
If everyone just got all their extra, hard earned money taxed away, and living pretty comfortably was possible without work, since the government would just tax other people and supply you with whatever anyway... then I agree that we would become stagnant. Nobody would bother doing the hard jobs and the economy of the whole nation would decline. And the innovation, the technology, the medical advances.... People wouldn't have a motivation for doing jobs and making money since the alternative would be almost as good.

[The Gaffer]

So what would happen then?

To my mind, the key concept behind socialism is collectivism, i.e. we're all in this together, as opposed to capitalism, where it's all about the individual, and "de'il tak the hindmost".

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So what would happen then?

To my mind, the key concept behind socialism is collectivism, i.e. we're all in this together, as opposed to capitalism, where it's all about the individual, and "de'il tak the hindmost".

What would happen then? People would become lazy - they would rely on others to do the hard work. It isn't a matter of all of us being in this together - it;s a matter of personal responsibilty for one's life. If I want an HDTV screen - I can work for it. I don't want someone telling me that I can't have it - or that if I get it - I have to pay a higher tax rate because I have more money than someone else. Most people who make money have worked hard for their money. Without capitalism there is no incentive to start a business or to work. Why should I put my life on the line when I will have to give all my money away to everyone who did not take the risk.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

To my mind, the key concept behind socialism is collectivism, i.e. we're all in this together, as opposed to capitalism, where it's all about the individual, and "de'il tak the hindmost".

exactly! sure, human nature is 'survival of the fittest', but is it wrong to try to mitigate it a bit for those who will never be among 'the fittest', no matter how hard they try?

i'd like to see a kind of free-market system with a socialist safety net for the truely needy... unfortunately, capitalism is slowly taking the 'free' out of the world's markets

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

exactly! sure, human nature is 'survival of the fittest', but is it wrong to try to mitigate it a bit for those who will never be among 'the fittest', no matter how hard they try?

i'd like to see a kind of free-market system with a socialist safety net for the truely needy... unfortunately, capitalism is slowly taking the 'free' out of the world's markets

There is the social safety net - it's known as medicare, social security, welfare, etc. All you people who want socialism, give up your computer, your tv, give up your tech gadgets.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

There is the social safety net - it's known as medicare, social security, welfare, etc. All you people who want socialism, give up your computer, your tv, give up your tech gadgets.

exactly, some of the better changes implemented when americans saw the result of uncontrolled capitalism in the 20s... the answer is always a balance

the problem these days, is that the laws which promote the consolidation of capital (licensing, copyrights, trade protection) defeat the very thing that a free market is about... and focus shifts from innovation to wealth accumulation and preservation

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

exactly, some of the better changes implemented when americans saw the result of uncontrolled capitalism in the 20s... the answer is always a balance
[/b]

Yeah - you say balance - my problem is we are becoming too socialist. I'm very glad that i don't live in Europe. Very glad I don't live in Sweden with 50% tax and 25% sales tax. Why even work - it all goes to the government.

There shouldn't be unfettered social programs that just let people sit at home and not work either - which is what a lot of people think welfare should allow.

[b]
the problem these days, is that the laws which promote the consolidation of capital (licensing, copyrights, trade protection) defeat the very thing that a free market is about... and focus shifts from innovation to wealth accumulation and preservation

No it doesn't - copyright and licensing and so forth does not turn it from innovation to wealth accumulation. The thing is - why should I bust my ass - spend millions of dollars to invent something and then when I release it - anyone can then copy it and I get nothing for my effort. It's to protect the innovator and allow them to make the money they deserve off of it. Without copyrights, and trade protection - people would stop innovating and releasing new discoveries.

[Draken]

I think the reason that socialism seems to have lost its way - and the reasons that those on the right seem so permanently angry about the odd penny of tax - is that socialism has already achieved many of its goals. No Conservative politician who hopes to be elected dare propose to dismantle the National Health Service, for instance. Nobody dare suggest a return to workhouses, or to take away free secondary education.

Where socialism failed was the idea that an economy could be centrally planned. We know that won't work because it has been tried and has failed. What perhaps is less evident is that the unfettered free market has as many inherent dangers as unfettered state control. Companies innovate and worry about quality and price and levels of service not because they are driven by altruism, but because they must compete. This is all well and good until the competitive element disappears - and as businesses overall tend to buy up and merge with each other rather than fragment, the competitive element is constantly in danger of being eroded.

Absolute capitalism would be as dim a juggernaut as monolithic state control ever was.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No it doesn't - copyright and licensing and so forth does not turn it from innovation to wealth accumulation. The thing is - why should I bust my ass - spend millions of dollars to invent something and then when I release it - anyone can then copy it and I get nothing for my effort. It's to protect the innovator and allow them to make the money they deserve off of it. Without copyrights, and trade protection - people would stop innovating and releasing new discoveries.

innovation existed long before copyrights did... while i agree that a small amount of protection for inventors and investors is a necessary evil (though this too is worth testing in my eyes... you play the game according to the rules, and i don't think people would stop just because it became harder to make a profit... in fact, it might even stimulate faster and more revolutionary innovations... there has never been a truely 'free-market' society since ancient times... so we don't know what is possible)... should drug companies be able to extend a monopoly on a product by simply changing the delivery method from pill to capsule? or modifying the structure of a chemical compound in such a small way that it has no effect on results, but allows a new copyright... should farmers be paid to destroy food, while others who could use the income are forced out due to low prices?

as i've said before, the US is arguably the best system to date... but i do not believe it is the best system achievable by mankind

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Draken

Where socialism failed was the idea that an economy could be centrally planned.
...
Absolute capitalism would be as dim a juggernaut as monolithic state control ever was.

Wise words.

However, we are seeing a drift to the right into areas that government hasn't caught up with yet, particularly in globalisation and also intellectual property.

Clearly, in some respects intellectual property needs to be enforced, but to transplant it as a direct template for governing an area like genetic research is naive and damaging to us all.

Let me tell you, I run a company and I don't want fair competition. I want to nail my competitors and I will do it in the best legal way I can. The likes of Monsanto think the same, they just have a turnover which is bigger than some countries, and a seat at the table which decides policy on such matters. They are also accountable to no-one but their shareholders, who are mostly investment funds run by other corporations.

Accountability is the key issue here: do we want to live in a world where we exercise accountability through our wealth or through our democratic rights?

[Insidious Rex]

*raises pitch fork in agreeance*

[The Gaffer]

* grabs burning torch *

mid-life crisis? wot mid-life crisis?

To the palace gates!

[Lady Ravyn]

hah! that test is cool, gaffer! (i think you posted about it first, right? lol) i got a -1.88 and a .15 it was amusing