Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Forced into switching to Linux

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Forced into switching to Linux
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

And this is before taking into account the number of people that would quit their jobs, or at least work less (further increasing the size of the unproductive lower segment).

Exactly. Over time, social programs are a downward spiral that cause a large number of people to do the least amount of work for the most personal gain. Since the gain is at other people's expense, it eventually crumbles.

The only thing the government should do is provide fundamental services in areas where it is more practical or efficient than the private sector. Most social programs ought to be paid for by non-profit organizations funded by volunteer money.

From a practical, real world perspective, capitalism has its problems, but socialism is far, far worse. At least with capitalism, if you want to cheat the system you actually have to build up a monopoly and have some business skills. With socialism all you have to do is sit at home and say you cannot work, and the government just gives you everything you need.

Capitalism with some social programs is a good mix, but unfortunately once the gravy train starts passing by eventually everybody starts jumping on board.

Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
avatar

Your simplified example is faulty, because the assumptions are wrong (I also oppose it on an ethical plane, but that's a different point).

The assumptions are deliberately simple. I also stated that by modifying income-dependent tax rates, it is possible to have the resulting incomes roughly match the current situation. And this calculation can be made for any given society, provided a social security system is possible at all. The difference, then, lies in the edge cases; most importantly, the transition between welfare receivers and the working population. In most social security systems, if you have a small income (less than welfare level), payments you receive from the state are reduced so that you end up with the same amount you would have if you didn't have an income - so for example, suppose the welfare level would be $1000 / month, and I'd be offered a job that paid 500; my choices would then be between working for 1000 dollars, or not working for the same 1000 dollars. If, however, you give everyone the basic 1000 dollars, and tax the rest, I'd still see some revenue from the work - not the full 500 dollars, but maybe 250.

From a practical, real world perspective, capitalism has its problems, but socialism is far, far worse. At least with capitalism, if you want to cheat the system you actually have to build up a monopoly and have some business skills. With socialism all you have to do is sit at home and say you cannot work, and the government just gives you everything you need.

That's not socialism. Socialism and government are mutually exclusive. If you don't agree, substitute 'socialism' for 'anarchy' - but then other incorrect associations are going to pop up, so there's kind of an impasse there: everytime someone comes up with a nice catchy word for a society where people voluntarily cooperate, someone else takes the word, institutionalizes it, and then uses it as an ideological excuse for yet another oppressive, greed-driven system. And saying that capitalism has 'its problems' is kind of an understatement.

---
Me make music: Triofobie
---
"We need Tobias and his awesome trombone, too." - Johan Halmén

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

You can argue about the semantics, but the meaning of my post is clear. :P

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

With socialism all you have to do is sit at home and say you cannot work, and the government just gives you everything you need.

That's not socialism.

Karl Marx said:

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

If you're allowed to state what your abilities are, naturally every little hangnail or bit of tiredness will "reduce your ability", and if Mr. Rich has a 40 inch TV then you need one too.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Jonatan Hedborg
Member #4,886
July 2004
avatar

Socialism is based on some weird principle that people would act for the benefit of the collective. This is obviously not the case, nor will it ever be. People are by their very nature selfish. We can be "altruistic" when it will probably benefit us later. Initially this was controlled by reputation, but then it evolved trade and by extension - money. It's a way to detect and limit cheating in a collective, reducing the risk we take when we trust someone (or rather, removing the risk and trust issue altogether).

Giving people this resource (trust) without any cheat-detection will fail.

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

People are by their very nature selfish.

Long ago, in a society, where being retarded was a norm, a retard said: "All people are by their very nature retards and this will never change."
Every retard seemed to agree. ;D :P

Jonatan Hedborg
Member #4,886
July 2004
avatar

Do you have any examples of truly altruistic societies? ??? I sure don't know of any, past or present.

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

Well, "truly altruistic society" is probably too general a term, as is your statement about "nature". So no, I don't know any "truly altruistic society".
Humans will never be angels. But, do you know any "truly selfish society"? They will probably not be pure wolves either.
I think it's just no use to talk using these generalisations or making any oversimplifying general statements about human nature. My point was that you're never able to see human nature in a "pure" form, because humans always seem to live in societies, which obviously influence the way they "are".
But exactly this fact, that we have lived in "societies" or groups for ages, which is quite proven, does at least show that we are quite social after all.

However, it seems to be a different thing with conflicts between groups. But, whatever. Just don't generalise things as you see them, please, especially as the last 250 years or so of industrialisation/society as we know it are quite short compared... you know.

As to your explanation of money:

money. It's a way to detect and limit cheating in a collective, reducing the risk we take when we trust someone

Ever heard about credits? I have heard, they are even connected with a financial crisis...
But ...yes, I see: There's still too much trust involved! We need more money instead! :o

Jonatan Hedborg
Member #4,886
July 2004
avatar

I'm not saying everyone is 100% selfish. Just that no functioning person is truly altruistic.

Polybios said:

Ever heard about credits? I have heard, they are even connected with a financial crisis...
But ...yes, I see: There's still too much trust involved! We need more money instead

Obviously you are trying very hard to misunderstand me.

First there were "favors" (spare food, tools, living space). Individuals who did not return favors ("cheats"), did not get further favors. This behavior exists in both humans and animals.

Then people realized that they could swap spare "favors" for favors they need, thus limiting the risk and trust required. This is a form of cheat protection. Then money was invented, mostly as a convenience - money being a form of "delayed favor" (which also had several other benefits - ease of transport being the main one).

I wasn't placing any value on the concept of money, nor do I say we need more or less of it. Just that it's a logical step for societies. I DO think it's a pretty neat concept, but that's besides the point.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

I'm not saying everyone is 100% selfish. Just that no functioning person is truly altruistic.

The problem is that while most people are good in that they wouldn't rip off their friends and family, they have no problems taking advantage of a government endorsed social program because in their opinion somebody outside their social circle is paying for it.

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

in their opinion somebody outside their social circle is paying for it.

I think it's related to the problem of "everyone else does it". I am extremely bothered by the "everyone else does it" mentality in the people who surround me >:(

Everything from smoking and drug use to ripping off the government, businesses and, as you put it, people outside of their social circle.

My buddy told me that when he was in South Korea things were totally different. People respected other people. The stories he told seemed so bizarre, like losing a wallet and someone hunting you down and returning it to you with the cash still in it :o

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Derezo said:

My buddy told me that when he was in South Korea things were totally different

There are definitely cultural differences among different countries, but I wouldn't make a sweeping generalization based on one person's story.

I know many people here who would return a wallet with cash, and I also know people who wouldn't. But a person who might return a wallet may not mention anything when a cashier accidentally forgets to scan some item they are purchasing. (Yet, they might wait in line for an hour at a service desk to complain if they were overcharged by a penny...)

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

First there were "favors"

I think we have to imagine communities exchanging their spare-things first and then trading, not single individuals. I think your concept of trust->money is not convincing.

You can also turn it the other way round easily: As money became so crucial, trust declined, because everyone thinks everyone else is just after his money. Seems perfectly logical to me and in accordance with everyday experience. ;)

And then, there's credits (credit = "believe") and everything. This is, in a way, against your assumptions.

But yes, money is a very neat invention, we certainly agree on that. :)

Yodhe23
Member #8,726
June 2007

Every system of governance seems to lead to tyranny. The solution seems to be to educate people to "reject" simplistic and non-factual/linguistic notions such as "isness", the fallacy of aristotelian logic.
Primed to the E.
Mystics throughout human history have suggested that the fact we are all collectively the universe operating, sometimes called gOd/VALIS, and that we are not excusively these material forms (though I hesitate to even contemplate existance without the synergistic interplay of all of the components operating simulatenously).
I am the Walrus.
When we begin to appreciate these things maybe we will seem to begin to understand the proposition, "there is nothing wrong with the world, we are just having a strange conversation", and dialectics will flourish as an artform.
Then rather than obsessing about the tickets, and representations of wealth and resources, maybe we will be able to unlock its' fuller potential to make stuff happen, and spread happiness and greater liberation from the material condition, that we share and all experience.
At least that is what my brain seems to tell me.

www.justanotherturn.com

Michael Faerber
Member #4,800
July 2004
avatar

Derezo said:

My buddy told me that when he was in South Korea things were totally different. People respected other people. The stories he told seemed so bizarre, like losing a wallet and someone hunting you down and returning it to you with the cash still in it :o

That's actually what happened to me some weeks ago in Germany: I lost my wallet while riding my bicycle, and after I arrived at my flat, only after about five minutes, somebody was at the door and gave me my wallet. However, it might be interesting to notice that I lost my wallet about 10 cycling minutes away from my flat, so this guy took 10 minutes to come to give me my wallet. :D

I know many people here who would return a wallet with cash, and I also know people who wouldn't. But a person who might return a wallet may not mention anything when a cashier accidentally forgets to scan some item they are purchasing. (Yet, they might wait in line for an hour at a service desk to complain if they were overcharged by a penny...)

Ah, so if I understand your point correctly (considering your previous posts as well), you see this as an argument that people are "less strict" when exploiting something like a company or the government, than when it comes to exploit a single person.
I'd agree with you on that point, however, I think this largely depends on the behaviour that you observe in others: For example, if you see that everybody else steals stuff at the supermarket, you might have less scruples to steal something yourself. If it is generally accepted by your society to exploit the state, there is a high chance exactly this will happen. (Think Greece!)

So what can one do about it? As a single person, probably not very much.
So I guess most countries will have to stick to their established systems, unless public attitude changes. One shouldn't think that because a system works well in one country, it has to be applicable to another country. (Example: Health care in Europe vs. health care in the US.) That needs a lot of preparation, if it can be successful at all.

--
"The basic of informatics is Microsoft Office." - An informatics teacher in our school
"Do you know Linux?" "Linux? Isn't that something for visually impaired people?"

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

a person who might return a wallet may not mention anything when a cashier accidentally forgets to scan some item they are purchasing

I'm guilty of taking advantage of mistakes made by others, both government, corporate and individual alike. Face to face with a cashier I'll point it out, but I've had extra items shipped to my doorstep, multiple credits to my card when only one charge was made, and other small things. However, I've also been screwed over by corporations, so that makes me feel less guilt about it.

I do know it's frowned upon by most, but perspective boils down to the attitude of the people who surround you. Given that I do believe in a sort of Karmic force operating through the universe, it would make sense for me to report such mistakes, but the people who surround me would find it so bizarre.

Quote:

I wouldn't make a sweeping generalization based on one person's story.

Of course; there is still crime in South Korea. ;D

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

Samuel Henderson
Member #3,757
August 2003
avatar

Derezo said:

My buddy told me that when he was in South Korea things were totally different. People respected other people. The stories he told seemed so bizarre, like losing a wallet and someone hunting you down and returning it to you with the cash still in it

Last summer my wife and I were going for a walk and we found someone's wallet with $50 in it. We used the address on the driver's license to return it, cash and all. It all depends on who finds the lost item...

=================================================
Paul whoknows: Why is this thread still open?
Onewing: Because it is a pthread: a thread for me to pee on.

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Alright, perhaps my negative assumptions about people finding wallets are unfounded.

It's a good thing.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

Elias
Member #358
May 2000

Someone paid 140€ to my bank account, apparently writing the wrong account number when paying something (it said "EVO water filters" in the reference field). I didn't react to it since I assumed he'd notice the mistake and have the bank re-transfer it. But now it fell out of the 3 months of logs my online banking keeps and I have a hard time even looking it up but still feel bad about having those 140€... :/

--
"Either help out or stop whining" - Evert

axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001

Apparently, the way most of the so-called 'primitive' societies organize themselves resembles socialism à la Marx (minus the class ideology); many of them don't even have a real concept of personal property. Cooperative societies are the norm, not the exception.

I don't want to go back to live my life as a tribe member in Amazon. Primitive economies don't scale.

Quote:

So let me get this straight; your argument is: there hasn't been a successful large-scale attempt at socialism in recent history ergo socialism doesn't work ergo the status quo is the only possible option

No, my argument is:

  • there hasn't been a successful large-scale attempt at socialism

  • socialism doesn't work

  • capitalism has its problems too

  • let's improve capitalism to work for everyone


    Quote:

    Software used to be open source long before people invented the very concept of closed-source software.

    But not all software was open source. There was also commercial software.


    Quote:

    What makes you think people would stop writing software just because nobody pays them?

    Would you spend 10 hours of your day working hard for free?


    Quote:

    Do you seriously believe that the only way for mankind to survive is to sell each other things, despite the fact that for over 90% of our species' existence, we have done just fine without doing so?

    Markets exist for at least 5,000 years. The ancient Sumerians had trade with neighboring nations. Mankind's huge progress came largely from trade.


    Quote:

    Do you really believe that even though the concept of software itself is probably less than a century old, and the first computers of any practical use at all were built less than 70 years ago, closed-source software is a requirement for keeping us all fed?

    Being able to be compensated for your work in order to be fed is a requirement for everything, not just software.


    Quote:

    Hey, even the concept of employment is just about three centuries old, less than 1% of the history of homo sapiens sapiens.

    Wrong. Slaves were employees too. They worked for their owners.


    Quote:

    If all software were FOSS, I'd still have a job. I build custom software; clients pay for it not because we're cheaper than shrink-wrap, but because no shrink-wrap solutions exist that meet the clients' needs. We use FOSS tools and building blocks, not because they're cheaper, but because they're better suited for the task (and occasionally, they are not, and we use closed-source components instead, but this is rare). People pay me for bringing the software they need into existence, not for allowing them to copy my ideas.

    Ok then. Can you send me your list of clients and your software sources? I can believe I can do better than you, and my company would need a few good projects right now.


    Trezker said:

    Here in Sweden

    Sweden has sociodemocracy, not socialism.


    The maths part is fine. Instead of paying a base income to only those who need it (and discouraging any efforts of picking up a low-income job), give everyone the guaranteed base income, and raise income taxes to compensate.

    Your lack of knowledge of economics is amazing, to say the least. Money represents labor, you know? it's not something that you print it. Money represents the value of products and services available for consumption. Giving everyone a base income will soon turn money into worthless paper. The value that has been created worldwide comes from work. Without working, there is no value. If people get a base income as you suggest, they will stop producing, and then there would be no value in anything, in the long run.


    and the government just gives you everything you need.

    Actually, the government gives you almost nothing. In the USSR, people had to share their homes with 10 other families, eat meat once in 6 months, use water and electricity a few hours a day, etc. The poorness of those people is still visible, if you visit ex-soviet countries.

J-Gamer
Member #12,491
January 2011
avatar

axilmar said:

Actually, the government gives you almost nothing. In the USSR, people had to share their homes with 10 other families, eat meat once in 6 months, use water and electricity a few hours a day, etc. The poorness of those people is still visible, if you visit ex-soviet countries.

The USSR wasn't a truly socialist nation, it was a dictatorial state covered by socialism.

" There are plenty of wonderful ideas in The Bible, but God isn't one of them." - Derezo
"If your body was a business, thought would be like micro-management and emotions would be like macro-management. If you primarily live your life with emotions, then you are prone to error on the details. If you over-think things all the time you tend to lose scope of priorities." - Mark Oates

axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001

J-Gamer said:

The USSR wasn't a truly socialist nation, it was a dictatorial state covered by socialism.

But it started as one. And then some people thought they were more important than others, and the revolution went the way of the dodo (bird).

Same thing happened in Cuba and North Korea.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Under capitalism, man exploits man.
Under communism, it's exactly the opposite.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

J-Gamer
Member #12,491
January 2011
avatar

But socialism wasn't the cause of the poverty, a dictatorship was. This means the resources weren't divided properly like in real socialism.

You do have a point that there hasn't been a single large-scale socialistic society yet, due to the selfish nature of man.

" There are plenty of wonderful ideas in The Bible, but God isn't one of them." - Derezo
"If your body was a business, thought would be like micro-management and emotions would be like macro-management. If you primarily live your life with emotions, then you are prone to error on the details. If you over-think things all the time you tend to lose scope of priorities." - Mark Oates

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

axilmar said:

Markets exist for at least 5,000 years. The ancient Sumerians had trade with neighboring nations. Mankind's huge progress came largely from trade.

Imagine a world where basic discoveries like fire and cutting tools required an ongoing payment plan and could only be used in ways authorized by the original discoverer... :-X

People make advancements because it betters their lives. You don't need to pay somebody to do that. The betterment is reward enough.

axilmar said:

Your lack of knowledge of economics is amazing, to say the least.

/me gets antsy in anticipation of Bob's appearance. ;D



Go to: