[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Mind if I take a stab at? I read the whole thing, but I'm going to do some piecemeal quoting in order to make sure I understand what you're trying to convey...

Very well thought out, and well pointed reply Fonce, and I thank you for the time and intrest as well as the respect for my views in your answer.

Fonceai said: I agree that as long as you try to promote individual prosperity (capitalism) you lessen communal prosperity (socialism) and vice versa. You've demonstrated that the two cannot co-exist. But do you think it possible for them to exist if perfectly balanced?

I think human nature prevents any perfect balance of about any given system, theory or series of actions and reactions. We are far to diverse individually to ever be a fully perfect system as a collective.

I think there is a reasonable balance, and I believe that the pivot point of balance must be in respect to the individual, since that is our highest point of comprehension to almost any situation, in universal acceptance.

For example....

Individualists can agree to draw the line at government intrusion at inherant rights. Collectivists cannot. HOWEVER, collectivists can benefit equally to individuals if the system that governs them is formed around individualism, since it allows both types of lifestyle to its extremes. Collectivism does NOT allow the individual to reach his full potential, while individualism does allow both collectives and individuals to fully form, in their own voluntary method.

To me, the perfect balance is a system that fully protects inherant rights, since it allows all people, individualist to collectivist to fully practice and prosper from their endeavors in life, hinged only on two things....rights and free will.

In other posts I showed how the capitalist system in the U.S. allowed a fully functioning, private, free-will oriented socialist system to operate and function on its own. The project was in New Harmony, Indiana, and it failed miserably on its own accord. (but, they had the freedom to do this to its full extent within the capitalist system, which shows that the two can operate under one national system.)

To me, it seems apparent that we have already had the perfect system, and allowed progressives and authoritarians to ruin it from the inside by unconstituional laws and "legal" right infringement by refusing to examine certain laws, precedent setting cases for their constitutionality. In other words, we allowed democracy to pervert our republic on the behest of a minute majority publicly, and overt majority acting as representatives beyond their limitations in law making power.

Fonceai said: The problem is implementing economic systems based on social responsibility. While you have a tough time forcing levels of responsibility on a person, you are doing just that when you force them to live in a certain economic system.

The true capitalist system, before its perversion by taxation and federal and state legal over-reach, allowed for all forms of experimentation by the people themselves, of free will. Within the United States you could literally have several areas within several states that were "voluntary collectives" operated as socialist entities, as long as it was entirely a free will collective.

Fonceai said: The conflict with economic systems is that capitalism is set up to favor entities that are individuals.

Socialism is set up to favor entities that are more than one person.

I disagree here. Socialism is based on theory, one in particular of human nature, that in practice has never been realized to its "proposed" extent. Capitalism is based on theory and human nature that is observable in every living thing on earth, and has been shown to work beyond its intended goals, which created new threats such as monopolism, corporatism, which are basicly ruling using economic force, as opposed to political force or actual individual acts of lethal physical force.

Capitalism allows for socialism, while socialism does not allow for capitalism.
One is clearly dependent on the "removal" of the other (socialism) while capitalism allows for free-will of the individual as well as voluntary based collectives.

Its been shown that without the support of the individuals that make up a collective, the collective is doomed to fail. It has also been shown that individuals often form voluntary collectives when beneficial, and tend to leave them once they become more burden than fruit. For this reason, state, national and even larger collectives (like the UN) are doomed to fail if they lose sight of the necessity, and importance of the individual. This is why I think capitalism is by far the best answer from what we have that has ever been shown to work, since it allows both the collective and individual to operate without undue infringement, and both can propser equally of free-will.

Fonceai said: I don't want to say it, but it appears that a capitalist economy is more detrimental to society as a whole because there are few successful individuals that fit the mould capitalism seeks.

I disagree here. The list of individual contributions to societal collectives is to immense to measure I think, and I also would bet that the technology we have today, we wouldn't have today if it weren't for the individual incentive to prosper from labor and education. Even the most successful societies today that remain "socialist" in large part are only successful to the point they are by robbing intellectual property, and patents for copy and illegal reproduction. (russia, china mainly).

What is the benefit for production and betterment without individual compensation for labor and effort?

Fonceai said: In relation to perception and, in particular, pride, I see the problem as being one where we pride ourselves on the hard-work capitalist traditional American values (at least in America) and we perceive anything else as weakness. Another way to say this, and one that is much broader, is that our pride in the smallest moral ethic is preventing us from accepting a system that will beneift a higher moral ethic.

Ouch... here I have to differ entirely.

I think our biggest fault is a failure to learn from history, in all nations, in all people. Technology has made learning easier than ever, overall, though with it has come new hurdles to access information of factual validity. With the ability we have to learn with the internet, from other nations and their peoples, we collectively should be working toward a basic understanding that we all value each other equally based on our common threads, as opposed to our multitudes of differences creating two sides where there should be one. The sooner all the worlds peoples rights are equalized, the sooner we can stabilize international labor wages, and check government and collectivist abuse, as well as individual abuse, the sooner we could focus governments on working for their people, as opposed to abusing their people with propaganda and war for national gain that is built on false pretense.

I think the biggest problem is that people don't connect the basic dots of what we all hold of equal value, which is our own life and our inherant abilities.
We alone, can make or break societies. The sooner all societies value life equally, the sooner wars will become an end to national lies.

Based on this, I think it is natural for rights to exist, and rights are that which are inherant, by birth. One of those is inherantly property, therefore I feel it necessity that property be a basic, neccessary right.

Socialism, does not allow for that, and every measure of it is built around "lessening" the value of that right.


I hope I have been equally respectful in my reply, and look forward to yours.