Capitalism vs Socialism

[CaptainCrazy]

freedom of speech, like any other freedom is not, has never been, and never will be absolute in practice. they are all limited by each other and the laws that govern us.

So it's the ever lasting illusion of freedom that's there too keep people in check while the top fellows take what they want?

I guess we all know that some people have privilages. Wether it be because of money or political power, it's sad really.

I still don't like it though. The freedom of speech rights should give me the freedom to speak my mind. I'm allowed to have my opinions and I believe in being allowed to express those as well.

 

[Unbidden]

Freedom of speech should be taken with a pinch of salt, like using freedom of speech to incite hatred is obviously not right. by the way I don't think there is an actual law in the UK that protects the freedom of speech not like the US anyway.

 

[hammer104]

Perhaps if there were 'perfect humans' then a socialist society could be possible but pandora had to go and open that box now theres always going to be greed and corruption etc.
In theory: Socialism>Capitalism
In reality Capitalsim>Socialism

 

[Mike.]

Agreed kinda like this site if you think about it.

You are free to voice your opinion but it is moderating to make sure you are not abusive or what not.

exactly like that,

however the boundaries between them are never black and white, and there will always be a debate of hw far can you go. by the way wikileaks isnt justified by freedom of speech/imformation. just becuase its there does nt mean it needs to be known. This is why I intensely dislike everything about it. Of course we all would like to know more, but there are somethings that shouldnt be known

---------- Post added at 05:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 AM ----------

So it's the ever lasting illusion of freedom that's there too keep people in check while the top fellows take what they want?

I guess we all know that some people have privilages. Wether it be because of money or political power, it's sad really.

I still don't like it though. The freedom of speech rights should give me the freedom to speak my mind. I'm allowed to have my opinions and I believe in being allowed to express those as well.

no because in practice absolute freedom does not work

absolute freedom = anarchy

i totally understand where you are coming from though

 

[CaptainCrazy]

Freedom of speech should be taken with a pinch of salt, like using freedom of speech to incite hatred is obviously not right. by the way I don't think there is an actual law in the UK that protects the freedom of speech not like the US anyway.

But there I don't really agree though.
Why shouldn't you be allowed to tell someone about your opinion if it's not a "friendly" one?

Sure I don't want it to be allowed to physically express your hatred through violence and such but with words... That'd be the only way then wouldn't it.

I am no racist but I can't really understand how such a thing can be "forbidden" really. If one, say, doesn't like white people, shouldn't he be allowed to say that without being fined (or whatever happens in different countries) it really makes no sense to me. It's like if we're not allowed to say anything that might hurt anyone (read discriminate) we are forced to be nice or nautral towards everything.

An easy example is the thing about those two football comentators being fired because of their words about a female linesman.
How pathetic is that? I don't agree with them but what the ****, they can't even say anything negative about it?

 

[ChippyLowe]

I'd like a mix. I'm working class and my family has had to fight for the very little we've got, we'd have quite literally nothing if it wasn't for welfare and the government helping us by. But I have aspirations of earning more than my family does now, my ambition is much higher than my family and I wouldn't want to work my guts out to give my hard earned money to someone who hasn't worked as hard so we were all equal, but some people do need the help though, we need to come down tougher on the people who get dole, I actually do believe that we should bring some form of "the means test" back from the 30s.

NHS needs to stay, American healthcare prices are outrageous, even with insurance schemes and such if it were to be implemented over here it'd be too much.

My history teacher always talks about the welfare state and how great it was and I agree with him, it helped everyone through and sometimes people do need that.

 

[Mike.]

But there I don't really agree though.
Why shouldn't you be allowed to tell someone about your opinion if it's not a "friendly" one?

Sure I don't want it to be allowed to physically express your hatred through violence and such but with words... That'd be the only way then wouldn't it.

I am no racist but I can't really understand how such a thing can be "forbidden" really. If one, say, doesn't like white people, shouldn't he be allowed to say that without being fined (or whatever happens in different countries) it really makes no sense to me. It's like if we're not allowed to say anything that might hurt anyone (read discriminate) we are forced to be nice or nautral towards everything.

An easy example is the thing about those two football comentators being fired because of their words about a female linesman.
How pathetic is that? I don't agree with them but what the ****, they can't even say anything negative about it?

this is where boundaries collide. what about her rights? the right not to be degraded or discriminated against because of her gender?

Lol we have moved way off base from the original point of the topic now though

 

[LGFIRE]

The Egypt and Libya facts are correct, but thats only what the country gets, which is kept by the president, and the people are poor and have no way of living decent lives since everything got so expensive. the Fact is that the minimum wage is 200 EGP (20 GBP) and most people do not pay that, and people have to live by tips

 

[CaptainCrazy]

exactly like that,

however the boundaries between them are never black and white, and there will always be a debate of hw far can you go. by the way wikileaks isnt justified by freedom of speech/imformation. just becuase its there does nt mean it needs to be known. This is why I intensely dislike everything about it. Of course we all would like to know more, but there are somethings that shouldnt be known

And what exactly do you think should not be known by the public? :/

 

[rbg]

I would like to apologise to Joel for my rant earlier this evening.

Joel posed a legitimate question and did not deserve to be insulted for his personal views. I have taken my chill pill now.

 

[Mike.]

And what exactly do you think should not be known by the public? :/

a perfect example is the detailed list of Key pieces of UK infrastructure that was leaked. it was effectively a perfect list for anyone wanting to inflict maximum damage to the UK. Why does that need to be made public? it doesnt not do any good, it only can do harm because the information is now readily available to the wrong hands. information isnt good or bad. how it is handled defines it

 

[Joel`]

And what exactly do you think should not be known by the public? :/

Lets release the nuclear launch codes to the public!

 

[Raphael.]

this is where boundaries collide. what about her rights? the right not to be degraded or discriminated against because of her gender?

Lol we have moved way off base from the original point of the topic now though

Yeah but thats okay no?
It's how a discussion evolves no?

But yeah agree with the top bit.....
People have different opinion on what the boundary is per se and in this world the people with the power decide what it is.

 

[Mike.]

I would like to apologise to Joel for my rant earlier this evening.

Joel posed a legitimate question and did not deserve to be insulted for his personal views. I have taken my chill pill now.

at least you were good enough to apologise. You'd be suprised how few people actually do that

 

[Zidave]

And what exactly do you think should not be known by the public? :/

The 1 thing I can think of is anything that endangers the public like anti-terrorism I suppose.
Peoples lives should not be put at risk for that.

 

[GodCubed]

Dammit Joel, you had to post a really interesting topic when I'm too tired to type...

I'm a socialist. However I can recognise that there are far too many flaws for whatever reason (human flaws, whatever) that pure communism cannot be the answer. I do enjoy going to America and wearing a bright red hammer and sickle hat, though.

Ooh wait a sec.

Looking at every country that has ever tried leaning more towards socialist policy than capitalism policy they have always been far less successful

Sweden? Also, China is fundamentally socialist and is one of the great economic powerhouses of the world.

 

[Joel`]

Dammit Joel, you had to post a really interesting topic when I'm too tired to type...

I'm a socialist. However I can recognise that there are far too many flaws for whatever reason (human flaws, whatever) that pure communism cannot be the answer. I do enjoy going to America and wearing a bright red hammer and sickle hat, though.

Go get some coffee and go type away!

 

[Blakefish80]

We are all only human, Humans are flawed as a species. Every system we have adopted throughout history is open to corruption and abuse. None of em float my boat.

 

[GodCubed]

I know that capitalism is the way forward for all of us, hugely flawed though it is. However, there is a way for socialism to prosper. Unfortunately, that method requires a dictator. Appointing (and I use that word EXTREMELY loosely) a dictator combats all inefficiencies associated with socialism, such as your aforementioned lack of allocative efficiency.

So, it's a tossup: freedom, or inequality. Choose your poison, gentlemen.

 

[Joel`]

I know that capitalism is the way forward for all of us, hugely flawed though it is. However, there is a way for socialism to prosper. Unfortunately, that method requires a dictator. Appointing (and I use that word EXTREMELY loosely) a dictator combats all inefficiencies associated with socialism, such as your aforementioned lack of allocative efficiency.

But then there's still a huge gulf in inequality. Equality is always an impossible ideal because there's always going to be one guy at the top richer than the rest. And also, free market allocation > planned economy.