Is all socialism bad?

[kthx]

I was going to mention crassos, fu epi (and kthx)!

I had to study up on my history per Summa's signature.

[kthx]

Well I am sorta guessing that is partly due to the fact that in Europe they developed towns that had numerous shops that people had to watch and the fashion at the time was to be pale because the lords and ladies were never outside which proved they had lots of money. I mean obviously that doesn't explain everything but I could imagine a more advanced country getting paler who didn't have to send the entire village out to collect water all day or hunt animals or plant crops. You notice the closer a country is to being a third world country the darker their skin is in general.

But that doesn't explain Irish people (which a majority of aren't Irish like you think of IE gingers) who were for the most part really poor potato farmers. But thats my best guess PO

[Da1andonly]

I was going to mention crassos, fu epi (and kthx)!

[PaulOakenfold]

Actually, that's a good question. What was the evolutionary reason for people developing lower melanoma and having whiter pigmentation as humans set up shop further and further North? Yeah, I got the whole 'sun isn't as strong year round' part, but why did people actually become fairer?

[genocidal]

Sun made black man black. God man black man white.

[kthx]

I mean also when you think about it, it isn't really that difficult to see where nature took over where nurture couldn't. Black people became black because of where they lives, their bodies adapted to the environment so much that they even passed down that gene to the next generation to give them a higher chance of success. The same could really be said of things like intelligence, behavior, and a ton of other traits that I don't believe are only a result of the way they are raised.

[kthx]

I mean that sounds all good and well Summa but honestly that idea doesn't take into account the fact that there are people born and with the same level of training and education (or less in some cases) become much better. Einstein wasn't produced by his parents, Einstein was born with a ceiling higher than 99% of the population, the same could be said of Socrates, Plato, Galileo, Tesla and all of the other people who were a hundred years or more ahead of their times. I mean even if you take the philosophy of everyone character starts out with 10 points to distribute you eventually have to admit that some people end up getting a really rare roll and start out with 25. Those examples alone sort of disprove the thought process that all people are born with the same ability as the next.

About the animals I didn't actually mean animals were comparable to humans I was just using that to setup the example of there being exceptional breeds in this world.

[Soup du Jour]

I am often surprised at the stances some people take on these forums with regard to what I know about their character.

I agree with kthx on the notion that nature AND nurture play roles and that there are simply "better" people for every task. I also agree that society needs to be able to differentiate these people and allow them to take their own paths.

[Summa]

Yeah but lets also just face it, nobody teaches dogs to be loyal pets, nobody teaches cats to be prissy stuck up animals. I mean besides from very basic and primal survival and communication instincts you can look at nearly any domesticated animal in the world and see that a certain trait has been bred into their genetic code to a certain extent. I say if you take a baby away at birth from a mom who a crackhead and replace that baby with one who comes from multiple generations of success and wealth that the baby who should have been wealthy will still end up better. The nurture over nature argument only works up until you reach the "nurturing ceiling" of the canvas you are working with. Some kids are just naturally bron or bred with a higher ceiling.

Yeah but the difference is that you're comparing entire species of animals, which amongst it will probably have counter-examples, to portions of another species (humans). I would also go so far as to say (one area where I am not so liberal) that comparing non-rational beings to rational beings is like comparing apples to oranges. What makes humans so great is that they can feel the primal impulse of an animal, to survive and strive, and choose to go against it through suicide.

As far as your other argument, my outlook on people is a bit more positive than yours. It's a more eastern outlook in that all humans are in balance and have the same overall ceiling. To put it more in gamer terms, it is like designing your starting character in an rpg we all have base 10 stats and you are given a fixed amount of points to add into other categories. Some choose to dump it all into stealth, others evenly distribute. That is what you are born with, then you go through life training and leveling up the areas that are most pleasing to you through training (that is the social milieu part). However, people very often add their stats and devote their time to what most would call useless attributes or someone may never specialize in anything and simply just be mediocre at everything their entire life. It tends to be the people who gamble and put all of their shit into one thing that get lucky and make it huge, but that is a huge risk cuz if it fails then they have nothing to fall back on. However, our society currently is more conducive to excessive specialization than say "the renaissance man". Idk, I suppose that is just a difference in outlook on human nature.

[kthx]

Yeah but lets also just face it, nobody teaches dogs to be loyal pets, nobody teaches cats to be prissy stuck up animals. I mean besides from very basic and primal survival and communication instincts you can look at nearly any domesticated animal in the world and see that a certain trait has been bred into their genetic code to a certain extent. I say if you take a baby away at birth from a mom who a crackhead and replace that baby with one who comes from multiple generations of success and wealth that the baby who should have been wealthy will still end up better. The nurture over nature argument only works up until you reach the "nurturing ceiling" of the canvas you are working with. Some kids are just naturally bron or bred with a higher ceiling.

[Summa]

I just want to add that if you took 50 kids, gave them all the exact same food, instructions, rules, benefits, etc all the way until they were 21 it still doesn't take out the fact that some people are just better. I mean social and financial capital aside somewhere in those 50 peoples genetics is where the true answer to why it isn't possible to even have equality of opportunity. The idea that we can regulate everyone to have a great life is ridiculous, and on top of that the world needs janitors and fry cooks just as much as it needs CEO's and Bankers.

I think more is predetermined at birth than most people are willing to admit, take those same 50 kids and have them all raised in houses with abusive alcoholic parents and watch as 40 of them crash and burn with their parents and continue the cycle while 10 of them decide to not make other people and their own kids deal with what they had to deal with. I know my dad's father was an abusive drunk and he decided to never drink, my friends dad and mom were terrible alcoholics and it just made him better for having to go through it.

I don't have the proper means to disprove you firmly, but much of what I have read is in strict disagreement with you. Fringe cases such as disabilities and freakish athletic gifts (LeBron style) aside, much of who we become is determined by our domestic and social milieu. Take for example the number of homosexuals in generations prior to the current. Do you think a genetic mutation just popped up in 50 years? Or was it that prior to the 1960s the concept of having a choice in terms of your sexuality simply didn't exist in people's minds. As a more practical and real example, the only good thing that I will attribute to my dad is the fact that he instilled in me that principle that if you want to do something, do it 100% or don't do it at all. That wasn't primal in me or anything, that was cultured into me.

However, I would say that you are right to a degree. People are born with natural dispositions and aptitudes toward certain things, but it is society that helps them embrace or turn away from those dispositions.

[kthx]

I just want to add that if you took 50 kids, gave them all the exact same food, instructions, rules, benefits, etc all the way until they were 21 it still doesn't take out the fact that some people are just better. I mean social and financial capital aside somewhere in those 50 peoples genetics is where the true answer to why it isn't possible to even have equality of opportunity. The idea that we can regulate everyone to have a great life is ridiculous, and on top of that the world needs janitors and fry cooks just as much as it needs CEO's and Bankers.

I think more is predetermined at birth than most people are willing to admit, take those same 50 kids and have them all raised in houses with abusive alcoholic parents and watch as 40 of them crash and burn with their parents and continue the cycle while 10 of them decide to not make other people and their own kids deal with what they had to deal with. I know my dad's father was an abusive drunk and he decided to never drink, my friends dad and mom were terrible alcoholics and it just made him better for having to go through it.

[Summa]

I don’t think that Socialism, as a system, works any better or worse than Democracy. The ‘system’ isn’t the problem, the problem is humans and humans are common to all political systems. ‘Haves’ and ‘Have nots’, who decided where this line sits?

My opinion is that humans are the problem. Humans, not systems, are greedy and vain. Humans, not systems, make stupid sweeping generalizations about countries or religions (proving that no country or religion has a monopoly on assholes).
eph

I am actually writing a huge paper on Equality of Opportunity in law right now, hence why I actually posted in this thread. And this actually addresses one of the largest problems in a political system based on Eq of opp: generational problems/inheritance.

The premise of equality of opportunity is to start everyone at as close as you can get to the same point, provide them the same means up until a point, then let them branch down their individual paths and such. In such a manner, some will aspire to greatness and others will be couch potatoes and contribute nothing (a choice that I believe all Americans respect and would like to have available to them if they see fit). However, one of the greatest issues is that this works great for generation 1 (G1), but not for the subsequent generations. Because humans are greedy bastards and they will accumulate wealth or fame or contacts and the like, and what are they going to want to do with that? They are going to want to give all of that advantage to their kids to help carry on their name. So if we state that G1 has perfect equality of opp and person 1 becomes massively wealthy in G1 and wants to pass it on to his kid in G2; we have to take drastic means to correct for P1G2's advantages simply from inheritance. And even if we do correct for the raw money and property imbalances in that society, is there even a way (that isn't ridiculous) to correct for social imbalances? Person 2 ins G1's dad is a janitor, P1G1 is the CEO of Boeing; P1G2's social capital is inherently greater than P2G2's, and there is no legal manner in which you can do anything about that.

Anyway, that's the current problem being addressed in a paper I am writing for Philosophy of Law; if any of you care to comment.

[Summa]

oh, and this is some pretty weak-ass fuel if you're trying to start an ideological fire. i'm having trouble connecting the dots here.

I didn't even read the article...it's about firemen? I just answered the question in the title.

[Summa]

Isn't affirmative action a socialistic approach trying to force equality?

Yes, it turned out that way. In the phrasing of the law when it was made, it was stated as a means to correct the current working class' lack of opportunity as youths; thus bridging the disparity of opportunity to have education/jobs/etc between minorities based on laws and practices that were ruled as unjust and unconstitutional. Which, when you read the intention of the law, sounds completely fine to me for the current generation's problems. What needed to follow it up, were changes to infrastructure to make it so that the cycle didn't repeat. Those did not materialize for a long time (if they even have today).

In practice, it was used simply to meet statistical requirements and create equal outcomes. Hardly anything changed immediately in terms of infrastructure that would help minorities and women have the same means of education, wealth, safety, living conditions, social capital, etc as the white male. Instead, affirmative action was simply used as a means to correct outcomes and is in that way a socialist program (since it doesn't deal with the issue of basic rights and liberties...unless you believe equality of outcome is a basic right).

But then again, America is a welfare state, and with that does come some programs that are socialist in nature; but are done under that auspices of providing basic rights and goods to all.