NationStates

Mediterreania wrote:

New Nicksyllvania wrote:
Because Democracy doesn't work and we certainly shouldn't institute it into business. What's next, the military? Oh wait.

Democracy doesn't work...anarchy does!

An undemocratic anarchy? wut

Concordeia wrote:What really gets my goat is the fact that most companies are run in an authoritarian, hierarchical fashion. The people on top get ridiculous incomes while the people on the bottom get little more than minimum wage even though they usually work the hardest, and the people at or near the bottom have little if any say in the runnings of the company. If we value democracy in our government, why don't we value it in business as well?

*Spits out morning cup of tea*

My pardon, since when did governments become "democratic"? I wouldn't label flawed (parliamentary)aristocracies, autocracies and theocracies "democratic".

New Nicksyllvania wrote:

Mediterreania wrote:
Democracy doesn't work...anarchy does!

Indeed, it leads to Feudalism. Which is what I want.

It kinda died out, for a reason. And history goes on...

Of course, you wouldn't want feudalism back unless your the aristocrat.

Georgism wrote:

The Laborcratic Union wrote:The people in the car factory could very well work in some other, more productive place.

I assume that if they could and they felt it was better for them, they'd be there already.

No, they wouldn't, since there would be no room for them in there. Corporations can only have x number of inviduals working in a single place. And even if they could afford to have more, they wouldn't.

New Nicksyllvania wrote:

Jakaragua wrote:An undemocratic anarchy? wut

democratic anarchy wut

21st Century Feudalism. wutthefuck

The Laborcratic Union wrote:No, they wouldn't, since there would be no room for them in there. Corporations can only have x number of inviduals working in a single place. And even if they could afford to have more, they wouldn't.

So you weren't actually being entirely honest?

Volnotova wrote:

Concordeia wrote:What really gets my goat is the fact that most companies are run in an authoritarian, hierarchical fashion. The people on top get ridiculous incomes while the people on the bottom get little more than minimum wage even though they usually work the hardest, and the people at or near the bottom have little if any say in the runnings of the company. If we value democracy in our government, why don't we value it in business as well?

*Spits out morning cup of tea*

My pardon, since when did governments become "democratic"? I wouldn't label flawed (parliamentary)aristocracies, autocracies and theocracies "democratic".

Are the United States and most European nations not atleast representative democracies?

Georgism wrote:

Volnotova wrote:Better at what? At economic growth? Social equality? Decreasing poverty? Higher Standard of living?

In general.

There is no "better in general" if you don't have a goal to achieve in the first place.

What are you trying to achieve? Once we know that we can look into what system is better at achieving it, if you however do not clearly state your goals there is no point in replying because then nothing is asked in the first place.

Georgism wrote:

The Laborcratic Union wrote:No, they wouldn't, since there would be no room for them in there. Corporations can only have x number of inviduals working in a single place. And even if they could afford to have more, they wouldn't.

So you weren't actually being entirely honest?

Huh?

Uh, i think i sort of lost the track here.

Concordeia wrote:

Volnotova wrote:
*Spits out morning cup of tea*

My pardon, since when did governments become "democratic"? I wouldn't label flawed (parliamentary)aristocracies, autocracies and theocracies "democratic".

Are the United States and most European nations not atleast representative democracies?

Representative? Democratic?

It often fails at being representative and it isn't, never has been and never will be democratic as there still is a ruling class(wheter it is an ellected or unellected ruling class it doesn't matter, it is still aristocracy) making the laws, policy and et cetera.

Democracy is anarchy, anything else is simply aristocracy, autocracy or theocracy.

New Nicksyllvania wrote:

Jakaragua wrote:21st Century Feudalism. wutthefuck

Somalia, Afghanistan, etc etc

I'm surprised you can call that "working", Nick. How about broke as hell? Both functionally and financially?

Georgism wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:So because no one can have everything they want, everyone must have very little?

It's the only sensible position. I mean, I'm sure that it's just because you're American that you're capitalist. You'd think differently if you had lived in a socialist nation before.

...

Lol, Sibirsky is a naturalised American, if he's to be believed he spent his early life in the USSR. So, lol

Where're the other options, like freed markets?

Jakaragua wrote:

New Nicksyllvania wrote:
Indeed, it leads to Feudalism. Which is what I want.

It kinda died out, for a reason. And history goes on...

Of course, you wouldn't want feudalism back unless your the lord/landowner.

Anarchy is the least stable form of government it falls apart in an instant. as soon as two people ,make an agreement anarchy ends

Conserative Morality wrote:State Capitalism.

All Capitalism is state capitalism - capitalism depends on the state to enforce property rights.

Sociobiology wrote:

Jakaragua wrote:It kinda died out, for a reason. And history goes on...

Of course, you wouldn't want feudalism back unless your the lord/landowner.

Anarchy is the least stable form of government it falls apart in an instant. as soon as two people ,make an agreement anarchy ends

Is see the concept of "Code of Honour" is allien to you?

By creating an organisation you do not end anarchy, you end anarchy by forcing others to be subject to it or face lethal force.

Daistallia 2104 wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:State Capitalism.

All Capitalism is state capitalism - capitalism depends on the state to enforce property rights.

Another individual that is allien to the concept of Codes of Honour...

I know you could probably guess this from my flag but I'm going to have to stick with my main man Adam Smith Capitalism is definatly the way to go on economic systems cause not only does it provide the most margin of profit it also always those at the bottom to work their way to the top if they put forth the effort of course. Its just a good motivational system to get the most out of workers it allows one to be on their own withouth the govt. trying to call shots for them. its just an all around great system.

Depends on the economic state of the...state. As my father put it:

Let's say there are two countries, Rich and Poor. Each country has 10 people.

Poor has 5 biscuits to share. Capitalism wouldn't work, obviously; those without biscuits would fight the ones who did. Hence, they would need to share equally to prevent disorder - socialism.

Rich has 20 biscuits to share. Socialism would work fine, but human nature would result in some bartering/trading, such that some people get more biscuits for certain concessions. However, everybody would presumably have at least one biscuit, so capitalism would be preferable.

New Nicksyllvania wrote:

Volnotova wrote:
Is see the concept of "Code of Honour" is allien to you?

By creating an organisation you do not end anarchy, you end anarchy by forcing others to be subject to it or face lethal force.

A code of honour is a social contract and hence an agreement.

Yet it does not end anarchy, I am wondering to what or whom you replied, because it cannot be what I said.

San Whoopee wrote:Depends on the economic state of the...state. As my father put it:

Let's say there are two countries, Rich and Poor. Each country has 10 people.

Poor has 5 biscuits to share. Capitalism wouldn't work, obviously; those without biscuits would fight the ones who did. Hence, they would need to share equally to prevent disorder - socialism.

Rich has 20 biscuits to share. Socialism would work fine, but human nature would result in some bartering/trading, such that some people get more biscuits for certain concessions. However, everybody would presumably have at least one biscuit, so capitalism would be preferable.

It would be nice if the rich gave the poor some of their surplus biscuits.

San Whoopee wrote:Depends on the economic state of the...state. As my father put it:

Let's say there are two countries, Rich and Poor. Each country has 10 people.

Poor has 5 biscuits to share. Capitalism wouldn't work, obviously; those without biscuits would fight the ones who did. Hence, they would need to share equally to prevent disorder - socialism.

Rich has 20 biscuits to share. Socialism would work fine, but human nature would result in some bartering/trading, such that some people get more biscuits for certain concessions. However, everybody would presumably have at least one biscuit, so capitalism would be preferable.

thats not true because the smart guy in Rich would horde the biscuits that hes gotten in the return of trades for services or what not giving him an overaly large surplus of biscuits to which he would now be able to sell for an extreme profit or maybe even give them out on credit terms

New Nicksyllvania wrote:

Daistallia 2104 wrote:
All Capitalism is state capitalism - capitalism depends on the state to enforce property rights.

Private armies are better then the tyrannical state monopolies on force

There's no evidence for that, historically mercinaries are less obedient and more prone to war crimes, this was stated a while back in another topic, forget who they cited but it was a historical figure, someone will back me up :\

Also, a state monopoly on force helps to protect and enforce private property, human and intellectual rights. That's only a tyranny if you're a rival tyrant in the waiting.

This is a great question.

The benefits and consequences of Capitalism and Socialism are clear, making hard to choose between one or the other. Essentially, when deciding, you have to choose what means more to you.

In my view, Capitalism is essential to instill values of hardwork, family, teamwork, uniting with your peers, and guiding to know who you are. However, there are things that do go wrong, and people do become corrupt. As you can see, the problem here in America, is that all of our jobs are going oversees because people are greedy. We Americans, fight for Capitalism, and essentially Capitalism is what is taking our jobs away.

Socialism has good points. There are many things that everyone has to contribute to in order for things to work, and essentially, when everyone works together, everyone can benefit. In this case, Socialism works.

It is possible, to be Capitalist and have National Healthcare. It is possible, to be Capitalist and have Retirement.

Mixed Economy. For me, have a nation where you can start a business or work for one freely. You can choose what to do with your life. You can have an opportunity to be prosperous. However, show some Christian Faith and Values, and help out through programs like retirement and healthcare. Remember, everyone does good, then the whole nations does good. I nation is only as good as its poorest citizen. Everyone matters.

BTW, I am a passionate Republican, I believe in Low Taxes, I believe in Freedom and Prosperity, I believe in economic opportunities, but I am a Christian and I can make sacrifices to help my brothers and sisters in Christ as long as they will help me and help themselves.

I think Socialism is SLIGHTLY better than capitalism. I could explain why...but I just remembered that this forum is dominated by Americans (great people, but they all seem to HATE anything left of centre right).