You've got to be kidding me! Chello, please read a bit more history before you go to any lenghts to praise the 3rd Reich. I don't have time to write in great lenght, but the short answer to your question is that their economic system was basically based upon the stealing the wealth of others....first the German Jews, then the countries they invaded...their so-called great technology was greated by their top scientists, while at the same time they were distroying their intellectual class and ruining their education system..(interesting to note that at the same time, not only did the Brittish develop radar, they also developed the first computer, used successfully to decipher German codes)....the bottom line was that the German economy was NOT so successful, they only were able to reduce unemployment because they put so many to work in the military or in the industries supporting it...it was a police state based upon the oppression the weak and murder of innocents!
yeahh i had a feeling i was gonna get burned on that one...heheh, but a good blister to remind me of what i said....
Man socialism would never work, not in a million years. Capitalism or a form of capitalism is the best way to go. It's not the most fair way of things but life isnt fair. People don't want to be equal. Why be equal when you could be rich. Humans are greedy by nature... it would be nice if we could all be equal but u have to be real about it. Plus capitalism promotes competetion and growth. The only thing i dislike about capitalism, is the amount of pollution caused. No one person owns the earth and atmosphere, so why let some people destroy our ozone. While there are other flaws of capitalism, it provides competetion which then provides growth and advancements.
You have it mostly right DaZEED, only you shouldn't count out socialism. We need a form of capitalism but not what we have now, and we also need a form of socialism but not like communism. Either we have to force businessmen (or anyone with more money than they need) to do responsible things with it or we don't allow the people who have more money than they need to make any decisions. The problem isn't that some people have more than others, the problem is that they don't all deserve it and the system allows them to keep the resources that could be doing so much more in the hands of others. Maybe we could allow people to prosper if they're truly superior, just not allow them to have vastly dispraportionate amounts of money. Say a one million dollars a year limit or something. That way they can have their status symbols and the lower classes can move up, but no one has to lose their rights (except the right to have enough money to feed any particular third world country).
imagine we were all millionaires, all had the resources, and were all responsible enough to make that mean something, something worthwhile... all ecco millionaires, all with the right mindset to make the right differences, the best changes, .... its not the money that counts, its what you do with it, and whats done to get it, and whats done for others to get it too, and what they do with it too.... we are after (and before) all, one. so don't put a dick (or a cunt) behind the money! hey. this thread, at least the concepts discussed within, transient/temporary/contemporary as they may be... are somewhat undiying and everlasting, even if only to serve as a reminder of how close we all came.
If you stamp out corruption then you stamp out a part of our humanity. Socialist and Communist governments are founded on the best intentions and ideals, but it is because of the fact that we are still human and imperfect that we need a governement that is flexible that will let us make decisions for ourselves. Keep in mind that if we were perfect humans, we would not need a governement. btw, i did not read all that you posted... i just pick out this flaw in your reasoning.
you saying we shouldnt stamp parts out of "our humanity"? fret not over leaving behind that which no longer serves us well.
I will obviously agree with you that many concepts are fine in the abstract but make for terrible policy. Communism and Socialism are two of them. As for your bolded comments, they're incorrect. Ideally, government is around to curb the inate nature of humans as a whole as it pertains to actions we deem as unacceptable. e.g. Some countries still get away with unsafe working conditions and child labor practices that are flat out unacceptable. If the government were to serve simply as a guide or counselor, the bad stuff would never get stamped out. That's why we entrust the government to make fair decisions not just for us, but others around us. By your comments, I'm assuming you lean liberal. So while I understand your position that less is often better, you're misrepresenting exactly what the government does and should be doing.
much of governments efforts tend to follow the trend of causing that which they try to prevent (drug laws for a familiar example)... great example of this is Tibbet... what an idilic peacefull harmonious nation with rich culture, civilisation, nurturance, philosophy and freedom. I have been reading "Taoism: Way of the mystic" by J.C. Cooper, and it inspires in myself at least a sence of a better way than the meddling (incompetent, negligent or intentional) impetus of interfearing government... if the people that largely comprise the society are sufficiently versed in a natural philosophy a harmony is found between even the extremes of lessez faire and marxism, and even the extremes of fascism and anarchism... granted of course that any furer/faroe/presidente also be so well versed in such philosophy as to enact and conduct a perfect instinctual instant action devoid of any ireconciliable error. i put forward the hypothesis that: the unacceptable behaviour of humans (individually and societally) is a result of toxins. i have found no simpler truth so easily expressed and with so much to be gained from it in it's simplicity. though of course, it's only a suggested hypothesis.
I meant that attempts to stamp out corruption from humans seem futile, almost as futile as stamping out our libido. Propose a reasonable way to kill off societal corruption and I'll be your first follower . Btw, does "lassiez faire" mean will of the people? i forgot...
hate to tell you but you ARE paying for peopls heathcare, medicine, homes, or anything else. Socialism forces it's idea of what is right down the throats. . . . . . .Kinda like anti MJ propaganda. . . . . .Then there are laws if you use it which carry stiff penalties for a non-violent crime. _________________ I'm starting a Movement, a Militia a BrotherHood. Join me . . . . .and we shall be set free from our bondage.
step one. don't follow. step two. rid yourself of these things, the rest will follow. there, complete, robust, and even paradoxical. like all commandments should be. laissez faire means internet searches can tell you what things mean. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ct=result&cd=1&q=define:laissez+faire&spell=1 thnx for asking though, i coulda used this clarity some time ago.