Is the Democratic Party going into a long hibernation?

The most obvious concerns momentum. Momentum in the presidential race may shift from day to day, but momentum in the battle to become America's dominant party seems to be largely in the Republicans' direction. Forty years ago, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by two to one. Today they outnumber them by just a few percentage points. Forty years ago the Democrats had a lock on Congress. This November the Republicans have a good chance of retaining control of both the House and the Senate. Forty years ago the Democrats set the political agenda. Today the Republicans are a much more fertile source of ideas on everything from foreign policy to school reform.
----------------------------------------------
A second contrast lies in organisation. The Republican Party seems to be organised like a blue-chip corporation: directed from the top and tightly disciplined. The Democratic Party is much more of an “adhocracy”: a collection of groupuscules that have come together for the single purpose of winning this election.
-------------------------------------------------
To this end, the Republicans have reinvented the traditional political party for the age of suburban sprawl. The party boasts an elaborate hierarchy of activists—state chairmen, county chairmen, precinct captains, local volunteers—who all have a pre-assigned role in a plan laid down in the Bush-Cheney headquarters in Arlington, Virginia.
------------------------------------------------
the Democrats—ironically, given their opposition to outsourcing—have handed over most of the grunt work of registering and mobilising voters to independent groups such as MoveOn.org and America Coming Together.
--------------------------------------------------
the Republicans are now much more interested than the Democrats in building up their party.
----------------------------------------------
But his son (GWB) threw all the prestige of his post-September 11th presidency behind campaigning for congressional Republicans in 2002. He has worked closely with other party-builders on Capitol Hill, particularly Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay in the House and Bill Frist in the Senate.
-------------------------------------
Meanwhile, the Democrats' party organisation is fraying. For decades the labour unions have provided both shoe leather and organisational glue for the Democrats. But the proportion of the workforce belonging to unions has shrunk from 30% in 1950 to 13% today. Trial lawyers have replaced trade unionists as the party's main paymasters, but they are too few in number (and too busy) to hold the party together in the same way. Women and black groups are also too focused on their own interests. The party was losing ground to single-issue pressure groups even before the 527s came along.
-------------------------------------
Because the election is largely a referendum on Mr Bush, he can claim, if he wins, a clear mandate for his policies—particularly cutting taxes at home and smiting terrorists abroad. If Mr Kerry wins, the only mandate he will have will be for not being George Bush.
---------------------------------------
Mr Kerry will have to deal not just with the same struggles (for instance, between health-care reformers and deficit hawks) but also with a new civil war between the party's rabid Michael Moore faction and its more sensible Tony Blair wing.
----------------------------------------
The second reason why the Republicans have more to gain from a victory in November is that they think they can use a second Bush term to turn themselves into America's de facto ruling party….But the Republicans have put emasculating the Democrats at the very heart of their second-term agenda. They plan to reduce its footsoldiers by contracting out hundreds of thousands of federal jobs, to reduce its income through tort reform (which may slim down the lawyers' wallets) and right-to-work laws (which will allow workers to opt out of union dues). And they plan to boost the number of people who own shares—and hence a stake in the success of the capitalist system—by beginning to privatise Social Security.
----------------------------------------------------
The Republican aim is to do to the Democrats what Mr Blair has so successfully done to the Tories in Britain: marginalise them so completely that they degenerate into a parody of a political party. No wonder the Democrats are fighting so hard this year. And no wonder they hate the party-builder in the White House with such a furious passion.
---------------------------------
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3286037


I think the last paragraph said a lot about the anti-democratic tendencies of the GOP. In Texas they reorganized districts so it would be harder to elect democrats, and now they are trying their best to starve the Democratic Party from money and influence. The GOP has reinvented itself that is a certainty, it has brought into the fold special interests that liberal America used to ostracize, and the GOP has brought a counter-enlightenment attitude to the US. The US seems to be regressing from its more liberal ideals into the Bismarkian ideals of blood, iron, patriotism, unity, and paternalism. This started with Reagan who saved the GOP from the Nixon era incompetence, and with the luck of inflation, Iran, and Carters arguable lack of assertiveness, he won in 1980. Now that the GOP has been gaining in power and influence over the last 20 years, making a concerted effort to show the Democratic party (the party of Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Wilson) as the weak, if not even anti-American party. Sadly this ignorance has pervaded to at least half of the American public. America is hardly a democracy, and with a republican controlled America, the gains that were given to the US over the 40 years of Democratic rule will most certainly be eroded, from high living standards, to tolerance. Have fun.

America is hardly a democracy, and with a republican controlled America, the gains that were given to the US over the 40 years of Democratic rule will most certainly be eroded, from high living standards, to tolerance. Have fun.
I couldn't agree more, with the merging of business interests and government to the detriment of the people, as evidenced by energy companies actually writing our energy policy, the eroding of civil rights, the conglomeration and control of mass media, the line between the executive branch and the military industry dissolving, the US is moving toward a kind of neo-fascism.

Help us Obi-John, you're our only hope!

Is the Democratic Party going into a long hibernation?

Yes, possibly. It's not inevitable. First thing to do: sack McAuliffe and the party leadership. Second thing to do is to accept reality take the proper role of leftists: opposition on behalf of the people. It will be best for the country, of the most available options, if Kerry takes the White House, but on the heels of McAuliffe, the old Democratic leadership--Lieberman, Daschle, &c.--ought to consider retirement.

The shot heard 'round the world? 1993, when Sam Nunn cleared his throat.

http://disassemblance.com/041013-political-ads-are-stupid-part-2.png

and now imagine the USA with only Reps left... :eek: :bugeye:

Re: "More candidates means more thought"

From the Washington State Voter's Guide for the November 2, 2004 State General Election:

John Parker ... and Teresa Guttierez ... are workers, anti-war activists and organizers in peoples' movements. Guttierez, a lesbian activist, and Parker are running on the Workers World Party Ticket.

They work towards building a society which puts people's needs first, not profits. They support a $15/hour minimum wage, jobs, childcare, hosuing, education and healthcare for all, and the right of all working people, including immigrants to unionize.

That boldfaced part is an ambitious social agenda, but does not require much thought either to perceive or express, or to understand the serious shortfalls of.

I mean, I'm for a communitarian perspective, sure, but just because the Dems and GOP spend trillions of dollars they can't account for doesn't mean we ought to swing the pendulum of visionary irresponsibility to the opposite extreme. A $15/hr minimum wage would merely make a loaf of bread cost $9.00. The phrase would become, "That and seven-fifty will get you a cup of coffee." (Really, go back and track the phrase: a nickel, two bits, a buck, a buck-fifty, two bucks ... it keeps surfacing from time to time, and is a telling indicator of the state of America.)

You can't insert so roughly a Socialist policy into a Capitalist scheme without considerable posturing, massaging, and lubricant.

Or the Constitution ticket:

Michael Anthony Peroutka will:
• Stop the undeclared ars which are daily costing American lives and billions of tax dollars;
• Stop reckless spending, including foreign aid, and take care of America's domestic needs;
• End debt financing of the Federal government;
• Get rid of the Federal income tax, and restore a tariff based revenue system;
• Immediately terminate international trade agreements such as NAFTA, WTO, the proposed CAFTA and FTAA, and stop sending high paying American jobs to foreign countries;
• Uphold God-ordained marriage and defend America's moral and family values;
• Protect the right to life of all unborn innocent children;
• Get the Federal Government out of the Education business and allow parents to control the education of their own children;
• Uphold Second Amendment rights; and
• Restore a debt free, interest free monetary system.

I'm not sure where to start with that.

In either case, the candidates would pretend to reap the benefits of America while terminating the practices that bear such fruit.

If one intends such an overhaul of America, one must propose such an overhaul of America.

You can't jack the minimum wage like that. Things fall apart, largely because of the amount of thought that has gone into this precarious social arrangement. You can't cut away the foreign trade agreements, or end debt financing of government without threatening the very basis of our economic privilege.

And that's all fine, if that's what you want to accomplish, but it requires the proposition of the larger agenda. We cannot pretend a trip to the grocery store will be the same experience in both worlds.

More candidates does not necessarily mean more thought. Doesn't preclude it, but doesn't require it, either.

America raising the minimum wage, I think its wise because eventually most Americans are going to be working at subsistence jobs anyways, jobs that quite hard to outsource. You know those factories like McDonalds, Burger King, Sears, Target, etc. America is a nation that the world should look to as a guide of what a nation who lives beyond her means looks like. America will get wealthier in fact it has just look:

GDP PPP:
2000: 9,963,000,000,000
2001: 10,082,000,000,000
2002: 10,400,000,000,000
2003: 10,990,000,000,000
2004: 11,330,690,000,000
2005: 11,817,909,000,000
2006: 12,231,535,000,000

GDP PPP per capita:
2003: 37,505
2004: 38,315
2005: 39,598
2006: 40,610

Isn’t it marvelous? Look at how RICH the US is! Oh the superficiality of it all, most Americans are not reaping the rewards of a growing economy, most Americans are getting poorer, more Americans are being left behind with no healthcare coverage, but most importantly the wealth of America is being concentrated back into the hands of the few. Those figures I just showed you is growth of the few over the many. That is the American reality; the Bush administration has seemingly co-opted the American people like the sheeple they usually are when it comes to taxes. I hear even here on sci, “I won’t vote Kerry he is going to raise our taxes!”, too bad your taxes as a result of Bush so generously keeping them so low will cause the US economy to default, and possibly collapse due unsustainable debt accumulation, and should another Great Depression, a New Deal is all but impossible. Keynes would spin with mad anger at the way the money is being spent during a war. You raise taxes in a war to avoid the inflationary tendencies of budget deficits, but you’re a republican does that matter anymore? The new Republican Party what a jewel and the new republican even sadder. But the Democrats aren’t fairing much better now are they? How can the Democrats lose? When Americans are getting poorer, and when illegal war has deprived the US of its foundation of power, respect. How can Americans consciously vote for the GOP? Not even Bush, the GOP now has transformed itself into a jingoistic, proto-fascist, corporatist entity that has masterfully sucked the American people on board with the completely saddest form of politics “values”. A Republican dominated America is not one Americans are going to like.

Is the Democratic Party dying?
Smells like it.

As for minimum wage junkies: Why does the fact that you exist automatically entitle you to live off those to whom you aren't related?

If you can't provide for yourself and your own family, or they you, why must your existence burden others and our families?

This is where that questionable sense of being more special, more deserving than anyone else -- because that's the automatic right granted by the Universe to inepts -- kicks in, right?

"I exist!"

"Yes," the Universe replied.

"But that fact does not induce in me a sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane

No one has to work for another person/entity. Everyone has the opportunity to work for themselves.

Working for yourself, according to your own abilities, appears to be less desireable to most of you than shaking down an employer for much more $$$ than you can prove you're worth to the Marketplace.

And that is us producers' problem, exactly how?

Why does the fact that you exist automatically entitle you to live off those to whom you aren't related?

Certain aspects of that are inherent in a cooperative society. Welcome to it.

So then society should give up on all its members? If so then I am certain you wouldn't be around Mr.G writing, or reading. Yes we as individuals are entitled to things, because we are human beings and no human being is innately superior to another. So before you bash society for being itself, remember that you are nothing more then a consequence of its existence, too bad it has failed you.

The Democrats have abandoned their original leftist agenda and the Republicans have abandoned their original rightis agenda, because politics is (at least) a two-dimensional spectrum and both parties have accomplished so much of their agendas that they are approaching their ideal of statism, which is at the top of a two-dimensional political chart. Democrats are calling for censhorship and Republicans are calling for larger deficits. There is very little to differentiate them any more, and every year the difference diminishes. We used to be able to say that the Democrats wanted to take away our money while the Republicans wanted to take away our rights, but both sides have succeeded so famously that there's nothing left to do except for both of them to scavenge up what little money and what few rights are left and leave us in a totalitarian state.

The direction we want to move on the political graph is not left or right, but down. Toward libertarianism. Give us back our rights and our money. Make the government as small as practical. Do away with government patronage: subsidies to tobacco farmers and lavish contracts to corporations.

Then do away with corporations entirely. They are nothing but the descendants of the old aristocracy: all the power of a small nation with no accountability. There is little need for corporations in the post-industrial era, because starting a business no longer requires prodigious amounts of capital that are out of reach of individuals and partnerships. The only reason corporations exist is that government invented them, and governments (of both the left and the right) have delightedly supported them because they give so many campaign contributions to both parties.

Certain aspects of that are inherent in a [i]cooperative society.

"Cooperative," as in "voluntarily contributive", or "cooperative," as in "...or we'll legislatively brake your knee caps"?

The fact you're insisting that I should -- must -- involuntarily participate in your "cooperative" fantasies tells me all I need to know about them.

Not going to happen.

undie-sided;
So then society should give up on all its members? If so then I am certain you wouldn't be around Mr.G writing, or reading.
Be certain all you like. A great many people are certain, at exactly the same instant they are certainly wrong.

Feel the burn.

Yes we as individuals are entitled to things,...
Exactly how? Do tell.

...no human being is innately superior to another.
So, you're presuming to lecture me, why?

So before you bash society for being itself,...
Just your branch of it.

,...remember that you are nothing more then a consequence of its existence, too bad it has failed you.
This is the same extant society of which you are nothing more than exactly the same kind of consequence?

Ask for a tuition refund. You've been taken.

"Cooperative," as in "voluntarily contributive", or "cooperative," as in "...or we'll legislatively brake your knee caps"?

The fact you're insisting that I should -- must -- involuntarily participate in your "cooperative" fantasies tells me all I need to know about them.

Not going to happen.

Did it ever occur to you that any civilized society is a cooperative society?

On November 2, 2004, I will leave this house--built in, by, and as a part of a cooperative society--and travel down the road--built in, by, and as part of a cooperative society--in order to go to a school (built in, by, and as part of a cooperative society) in order to vote (as a matter of participation in a cooperative society) for various candidates (who advertise skill working within a cooperative society) and also for or against various laws (rules of a cooperative society).

I didn't build the road or the school, but I'm entitled to use them. I didn't build the house, but it's where I live.

And I live in a cooperative society. How about you?

Be certain all you like. A great many people are certain, at exactly the same instant they are certainly wrong.

Like you because you must understand the basic underpinning of every society in history is language, and literacy. Without a society neither would be relevant, and thus we wouldn’t be talking. Society creates institutions not the individual so you wouldn’t be married, you wouldn’t have a car because three is no obligation in production, may I go on? So please spew your uncivilized nonsense elsewhere. Feel the burn.

Exactly how? Do tell.

Within the context of a modern liberal democratic society every individual has the right to read, the right to vote, the right to property. Of course we can go your way Mr.G and regress into the pre-revolutionary era in France where the poor were not entitled to anything, or Russia were the poor were property. Maybe you could live with the consequences:

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/core/pics/0001/img0014.jpg

Chop Chop, I dare you to radicalize the poor. Like poor Louis.

So, you're presuming to lecture me, why?

I am not lecturing you, should I have such a tone that is in your infertile imagination.

Just your branch of it.

That branch would be what?

This is the same extant society of which you are nothing more than exactly the same kind of consequence?

No, society hasn’t failed all of us. Also I am not a product of your society either so there is no compare. Were smarter here, factually smarter.

Ask for a tuition refund. You've been taken.

Or alternatively society could ask for compensation for a failed abortion ;).

And I live in a cooperative society. How about you?
Sure, I do.

I'm not about to live in a commie society.

How about you?

undie-sided;
So please spew your uncivilized nonsense elsewhere. Feel the burn.
Yawn.
Within the context of a modern liberal democratic society every individual has the right to read, the right to vote, the right to property. Of course we can go your way Mr.G and regress into the pre-revolutionary era in France where the poor were not entitled to anything, or Russia were the poor were property. Maybe you could live with the consequences
Your particular context is more space cadet than liberal democratic.
Also I am not a product of your society either so there is no compare. Were smarter here, factually smarter.
Correct spelling and proper punctuation aside: You're correct. You're not a product of my society. You're just a product of yours.

Sure, I do.

Then why object to a cooperative society when you live in one?

I'm not about to live in a commie society.

You don't seem willing to live in any civilized society.

How about you?

If you have to ask, it merely reinforces the already-acknowledged fact that you're not paying attention.

:rolleyes:

Then why object to a cooperative society when you live in one?
I don't object to living in a cooperative society. I object to living in your version of a cooperative society. I prefer free choice, not your choice.
You don't seem willing to live in any civilized society.
Seem, nothing. You're not offering one to my liking. It's within my power to contribute to the definition of another, more desireable society in which I would prefer to live.

I'm not you. The Universe permits that I don't have to be anything like you.

Pay attention.

I don't object to living in a cooperative society. I object to living in your version of a cooperative society. I prefer free choice, not your choice.

Fine with me. You're welcome to a society without houses, roads, schools, or the right to vote. However, you ain't gonna find that in America. Not even in Utah.

I don't object to living in a cooperative society. I object to living in your version of a cooperative society. I prefer free choice, not your choice.

Since you do not show even a functional understanding of what "my version of a cooperative society is", your objection is merely a celebration of your own ignorance.

Additionally, why lie when trying to make a point? After all, a cooperative society with free choice (e.g. a vote) is one you reject.

I'm not you. The Universe permits that I don't have to be anything like you.

You have yet to establish the relevance of that point.

Pay attention.

To what? Your delusions and paranoia? Okay, but I'll say it now: a psychiatric professional would be a better choice for you to turn to. That persecution complex of yours renders whatever you're trying to say incommunicable.

Society creates institutions not the individual so you wouldn’t be married, you wouldn’t have a car because three is no obligation in production, may I go on? So please spew your uncivilized nonsense elsewhere. Feel the burn.

"Society" creates nothing. Individuals create everything. Society merely provides the framework within which they operate. Your house, your road, your car. All were built and invented by individuals, not "societies". Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb, Henry Ford brought the automobile to the masses through his innovations in mass production, Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. Everything ever created by Man has it's origin in the mind of an individual. The purpose of government is to secure the rights of individuals, not the greater glory of the theoretical construct known as society.

Madanthonywayne--

Think all the way back to prehistory. Fire. The wheel. No individual recognition of such concepts mattered until there was another to share it with.

By what means do we measure the origin within the individual? DaVinci, alone in the world, would not have conceived what he did; he would have been too busy chasing squirrels and birds for food.

Microsoft Windows required a society:
• An individual to invent the disk operating system as an end result of participation in a collective
• An individual to steal, con, or otherwise obtain the disk operating system within a larger collective and also steal the graphical user interface
• An individual to conceive of that graphical user interface as an end result of participation in a collective
• An individual to design the contract that would forever alter business models
• &c., &c., &c.

In those several points we also have several associations, connections, collectives, and so forth:
• Individual (whose name escapes me) invents specific disk operating system, the end result of participation in a (computer/software/technical) collective
• Individual (name unknown) to invent GUI for collective (Xerox PARC, computer/software/technical)
• Individual (Bill Gates) to obtain both system and GUI within larger (computer/software/technical, societal) collective
• Individual (name unknown) to design contract with (IBM) collective that would alter business models

Bill Gates did not invent Windows any more than Mondrian invented painting or abstract art.

On the one hand is the "tree falls" issue: if a tree falls and nobody's there to care, does it matter? Or in a macrocosmic sense: If humanity disappeared tomorrow, who cares? Obviously you or I, but if humanity disappeared tomorrow, we would no longer care. With nobody left to give a damn, what would be the significance?

Key to that point is the underlying fact that an individual is merely an individual without some sense of association to or with something.

Societies create consenting members; societies create great institutions; societies create the means to resist and alter nature. Certes, there are individuals behind it all, but Einstein was just another meal on the move without society.

Henry Ford could not have brought the automobile to the masses without the masses in the first place, nor without the terms of society by which people participated. Alexander Graham Bell ... why would he invent the telephone if there was nobody else to call? And I don't mean on that day, but rather, in general. Without a society, without a neighbor to take part in the arrangement, without a voice on the other end of the telephone, Bell would never know what he'd invented, and probably never would have gotten around to it in the first place.

Who's your favorite novelist? Go ask that person, or any writer, if what they create is entirely internally-generated. Any who say "Yes" are egomaniacal to say the least, though few would be consciously lying despite the fact that absolutely none of them should say so.

In the rhetorical sense, what do you do? Distribute goods, provide service, undertake communication ... you may be an individual and you might even be the best at what you do, but you wouldn't be doing it if not for society.

Neither Bill Gates nor Henry Ford nor Alexander Graham Bell would have accomplished anything were it not for the contributions of and obligations to society they enjoyed and endured.

Mr. G-

It's about time someone voiced how tied down people are in this stifling society. I mean, successful people don't owe the inept anything and the successful people deserve absolute free choice, not this restrictive state so many have found ourselves in.

We should talk more about this, but it should probably be on the phone because using this kind of freeflowing media provided by cooperative business is really sickening. But speaking of which, we probably should just write to each other. These accursed telephone companies keep providing me with the convenient ability to converse with most anyone worldwide. But as long as we're at it, letters are probably a bad idea too. That ol' Federal postal system is pretty quick, but that's against principle. Once you establish that version of cooperative society that you would be content with, we could meet there. But in the meantime, how about we each make a compass and a thermometer and we'll each attempt to independently discover the equator and then you can travel due west and I'll travel due east and we'll meet up at some point.

I apologize for the complications, but I have only two problems with what you have said in this thread so far. The larger of the two is that you have openly criticized others beliefs and opinions, and also blatantly mocked people on trivial matters and yet you have not really explained this society in which you would be happy. I am interested to hear how it would work, so as much detail as possible would be appreciated. One such detail relates to the other problem I have. How will your society get along without some form of minimum wage? Will there not be situations in which children that are of age for college lack parental support to see themselves through college? Wouldn't you say they're a bit too inept for a job the same caliber as yours? It seems as though a minimum wage job might be the answer.

Also, minimum wage, although doing nothing to help at a more advanced level, helps to provide a bit of equality. With minimum wage, there won't be some well paid people running around while minority races or genders are given the shaft. So far, it sounds as though you would prefer much less government intervention than we currently have, as you have already denounced what we have now as a communist state. So, please explain how your plan will work without a trip into anarchy

Yawn.

Feel stupid? I would too; it must be a habit for you.

Your particular context is more space cadet than liberal democratic.

Actually no its not, the basis of liberal democracies is that there should be a market based economy but the population should have the means to achieve within that system. In order to do that every individual is entitled to certain things. A liberal democratic society does not grant everyone a job, no of course not. But it does grant everyone with the basic means to get somewhere in life. For the good of the system and the individual.

You're correct. You're not a product of my society. You're just a product of yours.

Look at the difference…your society is crumbling at the seems. No wonder why you hate those same institutions that made you what you are, because they have obviously failed you. Don’t pretend as if you aren’t an intellectual failure. I am being conservative now, you are an unmitigated failure. The resources expended on your survival, and nurture could have been MUCH better used for another person in your society who could have brought something much better then a schizoid like yourself. You are a by-product of a society that has failed you.

"Society" creates nothing. Individuals create everything.

Within the framework of a society genius. Individuals on their own would not create anything, let me use your argument to the extreme. If a child is born and left to its own devices would it even survive? No, because family is that child’s society. Now use that analogy for an individual in a situation where there is no society. It would be a “state of nature” and there would be no social, economic development because we would all be killing each other in a primordial state of being. So no, please don’t speak of such ignorance to me.

Society merely provides the framework within which they operate. Your house, your road, your car.

My house, my future car, my road are all products of society. Who makes the brick and mortar? Who makes the steel? Who makes the rubber? Can I go on? Surely it’s not the individual, no it’s the society. The society through its economic co-operation (which is the basis of society) creates these things for me. Do you honestly believe that my house was singularly made by an individual? That’s not only ignorance of simple economics, it’s a sad comment on the modern Bush voter like yourself, and your intrepid wife.

All were built and invented by individuals, not "societies". Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb, Henry Ford brought the automobile to the masses through his innovations in mass production, Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone.

Do you think they would have done all that if society didn’t give them higher education? God how stupid can one person be?

Everything ever created by Man has it's origin in the mind of an individual. The purpose of government is to secure the rights of individuals, not the greater glory of the theoretical construct known as society

The individual does create things, but it would be impossible for the individual to do so without society. Cause and effect genius learn it.

StrayDogStrut;
I apologize for the complications, but I have only two problems with what you have said in this thread so far. The larger of the two is that you have openly criticized others beliefs and opinions,...
Am I possibly only the first one you've noticed doing that here? Oh,my.
...and also blatantly mocked people on trivial matters...
It's that beget thingy.
...and yet you have not really explained this society in which you would be happy.
I've offered that I'm not constrained to live under just this local herd's version of society.

I'm happy to repeatedly remind the local herd that it's not a Universal Herd. It's just another pedestrian local herd.

How will your society get along without some form of minimum wage?
People are paid what they're actually worth. The Market sets the standards, not individual delusions of granduer.
Will there not be situations in which children that are of age for college lack parental support to see themselves through college? Wouldn't you say they're a bit too inept for a job the same caliber as yours? It seems as though a minimum wage job might be the answer.
Why are your family's failings my family's burden?

What has your family ever done for mine? Hell, your's can't even adequately provide for itself. And that automatically obligates mine?

You folks are too funny.

Neither Bill Gates nor Henry Ford nor Alexander Graham Bell would have accomplished anything were it not for the contributions of and obligations to society they enjoyed and endured.

Well said, or to put it another way:

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
Sir Isaac Newton

Notice the difference here: while acknowledging the contributions made by those who came before him, Newton was acknowledging them as individuals (great men, giants) not some faceless "society".

By working together and by building upon the work of others, each individual can accomplish vastly more than he could living on some island all by himself. Specialization is, after all, the primary benefit of civilization. This does not change the fact that the act of creation, the act of thought, is done only by the individual. Societies that value the individual prosper by unleashing the creative powers of each citizen. While societies that hold conformity to the societal norms as the highest goal (communism, fascism, all varieties of statism) stagnate. When you speak of society as though it were some kind of organic being, it implies that each human being is no more than a worker bee, a drone. I prefer to view society as an agreement, a social contract. I won't mess with you, you don't mess with me, and maybe we'll even help each other out now and again.

PS It's funny you brought up Bill Gates. He immediately came to mind for me as well, but wasn't included in my list since he didn't actually create QDOS.

Notice the difference here: while acknowledging the contributions made by those who came before him, Newton was acknowledging them as individuals (great men, giants) not some faceless "society".

Newton stood on the shoulders of giants, still. But without society, there would have been nothing to see. Really, those giants would have been busy chasing deer and squirrels and fishing and picking berries, and huddling in caves and so forth. At some point, we must account for society.

This does not change the fact that the act of creation, the act of thought, is done only by the individual.

If a tree falls?

At some point, we must account for society.
At some point, we must flip the finger at the irrational notion that we all are obligated to do everything for the functionally inept because they are the true foundation of society.

Certain societal ideas deserve a well-earned discount.

Yes, yes, we know. You're happy to reap society's benefits as long as society is convenient to you.

Because it's all about you, isn't it? All that ever was, all that is, and all that ever will be. All for you.

Now that we've cleared that up, please go and get yourself a point.

Why do you persist in making my existance all about you?

Why must I conform to your preferences for personally-significant, naturally occuring reality?

Because the Universe considers you more special than me, your fellows here, and any given rock?

Up the dosage.

Lashing out works for you, eh?

That's serious advice, G.

On your planet elsewhere, maybe.

I'll give a nod to Madanthonywayne, despite his prevailing sense of denial.
?
What, exactly, am I in denial about?

Human beings are social creatures. Societal arrangements are part of what we do.
Look around in nature. There are animals that work in groups, and have specific hierarchies among them.

I'm not denying that man is a social animal. It's simply a matter of emphasis. An individual is not the equivalent of a single cell in a larger organism. A human is not the same as a worker bee or an ant. The seat of human consciousness rests in the mind of the individual. Of course it's best for everyone if individuals work together, but only if they do so freely and to the mutual benefit of all. When government presumes to act "for the people" rather than to preserve individual rights, bad things happen.

Think of a simple scenario: there's not enough food to go around. Two opposing possible solutions:

(1) Lower the population--e.g. war for resources--until demand does not exceed supply.
(2) Increase the food resources. Find a way to feed people. We have the raw materials. We have the technology. What humanity lacks at present is the will.

Guess which of the above solutions is the conservative, and which is the liberal solution.

I think we disagree on which is the conservative solution. Liberals typically operate with the presumtion of a zero sum game. Their solution would be to take the food from the rich so that all could starve equally in the short term, and attempt to lower population through birth control and abortion in the long term. A good example of this thinking would be the pessimistic writings of Paul Erlich who predicted that massive worldwide starvation would occur by, I think, the eighties (I think his book was "The population Bomb"). This, of course, didn't happen due to innovations in food production. You see, that's the conservative solution: Innovation, freedom, capitalism. Notice that there is no starvation, no famine in capitalist nations. These evils are almost always caused by a corrupt government.

Nobody I know likes their job. That's rather sad. I take that back. The musicians I know like their jobs when they get to play music. The artists I know, in general, enjoy their jobs when they get to do their art. But few of them do it in order to empower their participation in society. They have day jobs. But if happiness is a lowly fruit of life

That is sad. I enjoy my job, and I'm not a musician. Frankly, I've enjoyed just about every job I've ever had. Even back when I worked at 7-11 while in college, although the pay sucked. You spend most of your life working, so you might as well enjoy it.

What, exactly, am I in denial about?

Whoops. I meant to get back to you on that one.

Sentience, self awareness, intellect. All qualities of the individual.

Your insistence on the consideration of the individual overlooks the relative impotence of the individual compared to the demands of nature. However, as you note:

I'm not denying that man is a social animal. It's simply a matter of emphasis

Indeed.

A human is not the same as a worker bee or an ant

Nor are we all that different.

The seat of human consciousness rests in the mind of the individual.

And?

If a tree falls? The sum of that consciousness is nothing compared to nature until it is assessed within the context of a social arrangement.

The seat of human consciousness does well to simply function, and becomes irrelevant as an intellectual consideration if we place too much emphasis on the individual.

Of course it's best for everyone if individuals work together, but only if they do so freely and to the mutual benefit of all. When government presumes to act "for the people" rather than to preserve individual rights, bad things happen.

Then the Constitution of the United States is bad? An arguable assertion, and one that I tend to disagree with.

If you could fill me in, please, on a certain detail: How, without deference to socialization, does the individual come to have or understand "rights"?

Rights don't exist without socialization.

I think we disagree on which is the conservative solution.

Show me, please, then, that conservatism does not at present assert that might is right. The lowering of the population? I was trying to find a kind way to phrase it. Especially in this age when the conservative minority feels so threatened that it must demand the protection of political correctness. (This, of course, is a larger point than our particular discussion.)

Liberals typically operate with the presumtion of a zero sum game.

If you say so ....

Their solution would be to take the food from the rich so that all could starve equally in the short term

(Having accommodated a nicotine fit, I'm calmer, and retract the outburst that went here merely because it's unnecessary. Conservatism in the voice you just gave it, sounds afraid of everything. Starve? You mentioned a zero-sum game. We'll get back to that.)

and attempt to lower population through birth control and abortion in the long term

You're so busy worrying about your rights you haven't stopped to think about responsibilities? How about this one: Don't have more kids than you can feed!

A good example of this thinking would be the pessimistic writings of Paul Erlich who predicted that massive worldwide starvation would occur by, I think, the eighties (I think his book was "The population Bomb"). This, of course, didn't happen due to innovations in food production

Not by food production alone. There are a number of factors, including the more socialistic aspects of these allegedly-capitalist societies.

You see, that's the conservative solution: Innovation, freedom, capitalism. Notice that there is no starvation, no famine in capitalist nations.

Let's get our definitions straight:

zero-sum:
• "Of or relating to a situation in which a gain is offset by an equal loss". (Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=zero-sum))
• "A zero-sum game is a game in which total winnings and total losings sum to zero for each possible outcome". (About.com (http://economics.about.com/od/economicsglossary/g/zerosum.htm))

Consider, for a moment, a wild theoretical proposition:

• Acknowledging at the outset that the comparative-organizational system of currency is formulaic, theoretic, and largely abstract (e.g. nobody can tell you the true value of a dollar at any moment), why not simply reset the formula and give everybody on the planet a certain amount of money in addition to what they already have?

Well, most commonly, the first fit you'll hear is about how markets would destabilize, prices would go up, &c.

In a more realistic context, however, we might consider a seemingly-simple question:

• What happens to a capitalistic society if there are no poor people?

A capitalistic society in which there are no poor people will compensate and create poor people. A poverty class--that is, a class deprived of certain acknowledged necessities--is necessary to the perpetuity of a capitalist scheme. That there is a Maoist insurrection in Nepal is not entirely isolated from "capitalism" inasmuch as there's not enough poor people in the United States to make up for the difference, and we need cheap labor somewhere in the world.

My luxury in the United States of America depends on the maintenance of a large poverty class within the arrangement.

It would seem the zero-sum is closer to the conservative solution. There is no famine and less hunger in capitalist nations because that human condition is pushed elsewhere. Poverty doesn't disappear in capitalism. It can't.

These evils are almost always caused by a corrupt government

Corrupt governments are composed of corrupt individuals. The problem isn't in socialization itself, but in the individuals socializing.

That is sad. I enjoy my job, and I'm not a musician. Frankly, I've enjoyed just about every job I've ever had. Even back when I worked at 7-11 while in college, although the pay sucked.

Regardless of bank balance or adjusted gross income, you are rich indeed.

You spend most of your life working, so you might as well enjoy it.

I, for instance, tried very hard to enjoy going to work every day and breaking federal law for money. I recognize that not everybody faces such challenges, but it was symptomatic of the capitalist nature of a capitalist institution (insurance industry). Nor was I able to maintain a positive attitude. The laws in question weren't a big deal, but rather to be harassed daily for a certain lack of job quality, while that certain lack of job quality was what was demanded. Seemed cyclical and not worth the frustration.

People's ability to enjoy their work is not strictly an individual thing. They must work with others in order to do their work, and sometimes that's just downright troublesome, depending on the individuals involved.

If a tree falls? The sum of that consciousness is nothing compared to nature until it is as sessed within the context of a social arrangement.
If these trees keep falling, there aren't going to be any left! :) More to the point, human consciousness goes up against nature all the time. The mind of man has enabled him to fly, to walk on the moon, to unleash the power of the atom, and to vastly increase the life expectency of humans. Human consciousness gives us the ablitity to progress at a rate far beyond that of nature which progresses by random chance. It will probably not be too long before we begin consciously controlling our own evolution. (At first to eliminate congenital diseases)

Then the Constitution of the United States is bad? An arguable assertion, and one that I tend to disagree with.
That simply does not follow from what I said. The purpose of the US constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT and secure the inalienable rights of man.

If you could fill me in, please, on a certain detail: How, without deference to socialization, does the individual come to have or understand "rights"?
Rights don't exist without socialization.

Untrue. Rights are inherent in the nature of man (inalienable). Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness (or property, as in the original Locke). Anyone. Be they a child, a savage, or even mentally retarded will have an innate understanding of these rights. Self preservation is an instinct(The right to life). So is the desire for freedom. American negros, though enslaved for generations, still dreamed of freedom and many died trying to achieve it. The pursuit of happyness (or property)? Take a piece of candy from a baby, he knows you've done something wrong. Now it may be true that, without education, one would not be able to vocalize these ideas coherently. But it doesn't change the fact that they exist. The purpose of government is to secure the inherent rights of man.


Show me, please, then, that conservatism does not at present assert that might is right.
I've always been more fond of the "might for right" or "right makes might" versions. Conservatives are not afraid to use force to protect US interests as they see them. I don't see this as "might makes right". Prior to 9/11 I was all for pretty much ignoring the middle east. But once they attacked us, it became clear we had to go over there and try to straighten things out. I could go into a lengthy justification for the Iraq war, but that's been debated to death on this forum and would likely just send you into another nicotine fit. Suffice to say, I believe the war was justified and not just because of our might.

Conservatism in the voice you just gave it, sounds afraid of everything. Starve?
The scenario you outlined was that there wasn't enough food. Also, liberal solutions, IMHO, often exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate. For example: There's not enought affordable housing. The liberal solution? Impose price controls. The net effect? Less incentive for builders to invest in housing, therefore, even less housing is available then before. So, if liberals were in charge of solving the problem of insufficient food, we'd probably all starve.

You're so busy worrying about your rights you haven't stopped to think about responsibilities? How about this one: Don't have more kids than you can feed!
Sounds good to me. Sounds like my conservatism is rubbing off on you.


Consider, for a moment, a wild theoretical proposition:

• [i]Acknowledging at the outset that the comparative-organizational system of currency is formulaic, theoretic, and largely abstract (e.g. nobody can tell you the true value of a dollar at any moment), why not simply reset the formula and give everybody on the planet a certain amount of money in addition to what they already have?

Well, most commonly, the first fit you'll hear is about how markets would destabilize, prices would go up, &c.

You don't think they would? It's called hyperinflation and it happens whenever a government starts printing money willy nilly. It results in chaos with everyones savings reduced to peanuts.

A capitalistic society in which there are no poor people will compensate and create poor people.

What?! That's absurd. Of course there will always be people who are relatively poor when compared to the very rich. But other than that, I don't agree. Look at capitalist South Korea and communist North Korea. Did the relative wealth of the south create the povery of the north? Of course not. It is the inevitable result of a communist government. Capitalism increases the living standards for all concerned. Of course, some do better than others, and this offends many liberals.

Poverty doesn't disappear in capitalism. It can't.
Disappear? Perhaps not. But it decreases more under capitalism than any other system.

Corrupt governments are composed of corrupt individuals. The problem isn't in socialization itself, but in the individuals socializing.
Power corrupts. To limit government corruption, limit government power.


I, for instance, tried very hard to enjoy going to work every day and breaking federal law for money.
Probably my least favorite job was my six months as a government bureaucrat, an environmental scientist charged with enforcing our nations enviromental laws, no less. The culture of sloth and political backbiting was quite annoying. Still, it convinced me to go back to school for my OD degree, so it all worked out for the best.

The mind of man has enabled him to fly, to walk on the moon, to unleash the power of the atom, and to vastly increase the life expectency of humans. Human consciousness gives us the ablitity to progress at a rate far beyond that of nature which progresses by random chance. It will probably not be too long before we begin consciously controlling our own evolution.

And while individuals have lent and will lend their labors and minds to such endeavors, not a single one of them has been or will be resolved purely by the individual.

That simply does not follow from what I said.

If you say so.

The purpose of the US constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT and secure the inalienable rights of man.

That's a bit different from what you said before. Limitation is certainly in the nature of the Constitution, but its purpose is fairly clearly spelled out.

• When government presumes to act "for the people" rather than to preserve individual rights, bad things happen.
• We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our government was founded for the people.

Of course, the flip side is that the United States government does not presume to act for the people, but is rather endowed to act for them.

Read through the Constitution. It's a curious, fascinating document.

Untrue. Rights are inherent in the nature of man (inalienable).

Or so says the Declaration of Independence.

I was looking more at the practical, though. To consider your take on it:

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness (or property, as in the original Locke). Anyone. Be they a child, a savage, or even mentally retarded will have an innate understanding of these rights.

One has an innate understanding of f@cking, but it doesn't mean people recognize when they're procreating.

An innate relationship? Yes. An innate understanding? No.

Self preservation is an instinct(The right to life).

Self-preservation is an instinct that even rabbits show. But rabbits have not intellectualized the idea of "rabbit rights", a "Bill of Rights", or even the right to self-preservation.

American negros, though enslaved for generations, still dreamed of freedom and many died trying to achieve it.

(chortle!)

"Freedom" is a refinement of mere preference. One prefers to not have their actions dictated by things outside their control. We can't necessarily do much about the rain, but once human individuals were associating in social groupings, they found they could do something about each other.

The pursuit of happyness (or property)? Take a piece of candy from a baby, he knows you've done something wrong.

Property is robbery.

So the other day, I wandered back to the bathroom and discovered how true it is that you can't take your eye off a child. In the time it took me to piss and wash my hands, my daughter managed to slip the restraining belt in her high chair, climb out of the chair, and go through a gate cutting her off from the kitchen. When I took the ten-inch kitchen knife from her, you'd have thought it was the end of the world. But then again, I can get the same reaction by taking candy away, or the bottle of milk that she chooses to dump all over the floor. The baby presumes that something is not according to its desire just like taking it away from the teat. I must disagree with the simplicity of your examples.

Now it may be true that, without education, one would not be able to vocalize these ideas coherently.

Without education in general, even if one were capable of vocalizing these ideas coherently, it wouldn't matter.

Of course, one wonders what the natural cutoff point for rights is. Why don't rabbits have rights? Because they have not been able to invent the assertion of rights for themselves.

But it doesn't change the fact that they exist

The fact that rights exist is symptomatic of society. Without a social arrangement, those rights don't exist. Period.

The purpose of government is to secure the inherent rights of man

In theory, yes, and to a degree, yes. But take "property".

Property is robbery. What does this mean, especially in terms of the individual versus society?

By establishing property, one individual is secured and another is deprived. Respecting "property" limits the rights of the individual.

However, individuals have come together in societies and agreed that the empowerment to own is greater than the loss of liberty in being deprived.

It's a simple balance. Or else property is not an inherent right of human beings. Flip a coin.

've always been more fond of the "might for right" or "right makes might" versions. Conservatives are not afraid to use force to protect US interests as they see them. I don't see this as "might makes right".

If we presume that conservatives only use force at appropriate times, you might have a point.

But that's an impossible presumption.

What changed in Iraq, for instance? Was Saddam Hussein a bastard? Sure. Might is right, therefore take him down? Well, twenty years ago, might is right meant propping him up. The only thing that has changed is the perception of U.S. interests. Follow the history of the U.S. in Iran and Iraq; the last fifty or so years, especially, have demonstrated the arbitrary nature of "might is right".

Prior to 9/11 I was all for pretty much ignoring the middle east. But once they attacked us, it became clear we had to go over there and try to straighten things out.

Okay ... so ... attack everything but the threat? Must be right, since we have the might.

I could go into a lengthy justification for the Iraq war, but that's been debated to death on this forum and would likely just send you into another nicotine fit.

It's a nexus of the need for nicotine combined with the severe and disgusting lack of argumentative integrity.

Everybody "starves". The Middle East is "they". Nice, paranoid generalizations, eh?

The scenario you outlined was that there wasn't enough food.

Indeed. And take a look at the world today. There's folks starving in one part of the world while tons--hundreds of thousands of tons--of grain go wasted in the east half of my state. We aren't an anomaly.

The key is why there isn't enough food.

Also, liberal solutions, IMHO, often exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate

Kind of like conservatives. It's a human tendency.

For example: There's not enought affordable housing. The liberal solution? Impose price controls. The net effect? Less incentive for builders to invest in housing, therefore, even less housing is available then before.

Note the word, "affordable". It's your choice, not mine.

So, if liberals were in charge of solving the problem of insufficient food, we'd probably all starve.

Hmm ... affordable?

Sounds good to me. Sounds like my conservatism is rubbing off on you.

As long as it's other people, right?

Your arrogance only hamstrings your argumentative capacity.

You're happy to agree with an abstract lashing out at other people, but unwilling to consider your own responsibilities in relation to your rights?

You don't think they would? It's called hyperinflation and it happens whenever a government starts printing money willy nilly. It results in chaos with everyones savings reduced to peanuts.

That's because the currency has a lower value in relation to what it represents. However, acknowledging that currency is formulaic, theoretic, and largely abstract . . . .

What?! That's absurd.

Ahh ... I see. :rolleyes:

Of course there will always be people who are relatively poor when compared to the very rich. But other than that, I don't agree.

Hey, "relatively poor" is fine with me. However, that's part of the problem. If you have a million dollars and Joe has one dollar, and tomorrow you both wake up and I've given everybody in the world an additional $100,000, sure, Joe is still "relatively poor", but that poverty will become something much more than relative when a loaf of bread hyperinflates to cost $100 and the taxable value of his house skyrockets.

Look at capitalist South Korea and communist North Korea. Did the relative wealth of the south create the povery of the north? Of course not. It is the inevitable result of a communist government.

Read some history. And also remember that you would have a point if the Koreas existed in a vacuum. However, North Korea's general unwillingness to participate in the rest of society--the necessary individualism of its leader, for instance--has more to do with its present state.

Capitalism increases the living standards for all concerned.

Ah, yes. From hungry in the desert to hungry in the concrete jungle. :rolleyes:

At least there's street lights. And warm grates in the sidewalk.

Of course, some do better than others, and this offends many liberals.

Yes, like the thought of anyone other than the individual self being happy pisses off conservatives.

Perhaps you'd best learn something about what you hate, Madanthonywayne.

Disappear? Perhaps not. But it decreases more under capitalism than any other system.

A ridiculous assertion since the lack of a poverty class would mean the end of capitalism.

Power corrupts. To limit government corruption, limit government power.

You know, excusing people from their responsibilities is usually something that is criticized by conservatives. How is it that conservatives would withhold sympathy from the average individual but demand that sympathy for themselves?

Such is the hypocrisy of conservatism.

Probably my least favorite job was my six months as a government bureaucrat, an environmental scientist charged with enforcing our nations enviromental laws, no less. The culture of sloth and political backbiting was quite annoying. Still, it convinced me to go back to school for my OD degree, so it all worked out for the best.

Good for you.

It's good to see an individualist creating new knowledge in the world for himself without the assistance or cooperation of anyone else.

By the way ....

What happens to a capitalistic society if there are no poor people?

The fact that rights exist is symptomatic of society. Without a social arrangement, those rights don't exist. Period.
Clearly, we simply do not agree on the definition of rights. I would guess that you believe in things such as a right to healthcare, or housing. or food. "Rights", if you call them that, that clearly can not exist outside of the context of a society since these "rights" require that someone else provide them. I believe one has a right only to that which one can provide for oneself. The right, basically, to be left alone. The right to not have one's life, liberty, or property taken without one's consent. I'm not saying we should let the poor starve, but one shouldn't confuse charity with rights.

By establishing property, one individual is secured and another is deprived. Respecting "property" limits the rights of the individual

NO. The other person is deprived of nothing but that which he never had, never earned, and never created.

What happens to a capitalistic society if there are no poor people?

You've already answered this question. You said:
A capitalistic society in which there are no poor people will compensate and create poor people. A poverty class--that is, a class deprived of certain acknowledged necessities--is necessary to the perpetuity of a capitalist scheme

Clearly you believe the capitalist system requires someone to do the scut work. I suppose this would be your conception of the capitalist ideal:

The boys learn about the Bokanovsky and Podsnap Processes that allow the Hatchery to produce thousands of nearly identical human embryos. During the gestation period the embryos travel in bottles along a conveyor belt through a factorylike building, and are conditioned to belong to one of five castes: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Epsilon. The Alpha embryos are destined to become the leaders and thinkers of the World State. Each of the succeeding castes is conditioned to be slightly less physically and intellectually impressive. The Epsilons, stunted and stupefied by oxygen deprivation and chemical treatments, are destined to perform menial labor

We are far from the place where we'll have to invent poor people to feed the engine of capitalism. By the time we get to that place, we'll just use machines to do the scut work (which we already do, to a large extent. I read once that an average American would require 50 servants to maintain the same living standard he enjoys now were he transported to the time of ancient Rome)

Clearly, we simply do not agree on the definition of rights

So it seems.

NO. The other person is deprived of nothing but that which he never had, never earned, and never created.

And who did that person receive that property from? Property depends on a history of ownership that is entirely arbitrary.

You've already answered this question

Okay ....


A capitalistic society in which there are no poor people will compensate and create poor people. A poverty class--that is, a class deprived of certain acknowledged necessities--is necessary to the perpetuity of a capitalist scheme. That there is a Maoist insurrection in Nepal is not entirely isolated from "capitalism" inasmuch as there's not enough poor people in the United States to make up for the difference, and we need cheap labor somewhere in the world.

So, you obviously remember this paragraph, since you quoted part of it. Do you remember how you responded to it the first time?


What?! That's absurd. Of course there will always be people who are relatively poor when compared to the very rich. But other than that, I don't agree. Look at capitalist South Korea and communist North Korea. Did the relative wealth of the south create the povery of the north? Of course not. It is the inevitable result of a communist government. Capitalism increases the living standards for all concerned. Of course, some do better than others, and this offends many liberals.

So ...?

Clearly you believe the capitalist system requires someone to do the scut work.

Believe? I didn't realize there was any belief about it. Are you telling me that someone to do the scut work isn't a necessity in a capitalist society? I mean, what's the "belief" aspect of it? How can a pyramid have no bottom?

I suppose this would be your conception of the capitalist ideal:

Huxley has many insights into the failings of capitalistic society, and humans in general, but I always found that part to be melodramatic, something for mood and kick.

We are far from the place where we'll have to invent poor people to feed the engine of capitalism

At that scale, sure. But cheap labor abroad certainly helps. By maintaining a poverty class elsewhere, capitalists can afford luxury.

The failing of Socialism, for instance, is that nobody knows yet how to deliver it. As Oscar Wilde (http://wilde.thefreelibrary.com/Soul-of-Man-under-Socialism) asserted:

Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand 'under the shelter of the wall,' as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions. The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism - are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man's intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible.

"The Soul of Man Under Socialism (http://wilde.thefreelibrary.com/Soul-of-Man-under-Socialism)"
_____________________

Notes:
Wilde, Oscar. "The Soul of Man Under Socialism". TheFreeLibrary.com. (1887) See http://wilde.thefreelibrary.com/Soul-of-Man-under-Socialism

.
"Cooperative," as in "voluntarily contributive", or "cooperative," as in "...or we'll legislatively brake your knee caps"? how about co-operative, as in we're all in this together?

The fact you're insisting that I should -- must -- involuntarily participate in your "cooperative" fantasies tells me all I need to know about them.are you a libertarian? why your insistance on 'the individual', non-co-operative mode?

Not going to happen.already did, look around you, we are bound together,

do you like quotes? how about, "no man is an island", or ,"We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately." or, "one for all, all for one"?

human life is teamwork, football is the best example; planning, practice, trust, teamwork, discipline, yelling, emotions, hard work, sweat, skills, running, talents, crying, winning, losing, life is a contact sport

we are social animals, if you didn't notice it, maybe you were not trained to observe some aspects of this world; but you are not alone, you need others, be they workers, gov officials, hawkers, your caddy, etc...

http://www.worldofquotes.com/topic/Unity/1/