Capitalism VS Socialism?

[PvtRyan]

You're over dramatizing offshoring. I believe the general consensus from economists is that offshoring has a beneficial effect on the economy of both parties. It really isn't the case you can just send your programming work to India and see it be done, people who used to program it now design it and provide advise. By your dramatization, we should see huge increases in unemployment. But we don't, our unemployment is at a historical low. And what do you mean by "the guy who is here is now poor and the guy over there is still poor", that's the whole point: he isn't and neither are you. He has a job that pays less than yours but that's better paying than he used to had. You're creating jobs.

 

[kirovman]

meritocratic technocracy is the ultimate solution for a (biological) human being.

i agree to some extent, only the disadvantages are that cronyism seems to thrive.

 

[ríomhaire]

I think that kirovman should be excluded from this debate. He is far too biased. He is, after all, a Soviet aircraft.

 

[jverne]

i agree to some extent, only the disadvantages are that cronyism seems to thrive.

sorry what?

if it is a meritocracy how would cronyism thrive??

 

[<RJMC>]

I am too bored to red all that so I will post my ideas

whit the recent stuff hapening in my country I become much more political that before
I think a method combining the best of both systems should be made

socialism have the cooperationg and that stuff,but at the cost of obedience and treating the goverment like a religion

capitalism is the one used by almost everyone so everyone know which is practically that it means that you are on your own

for example I agree whit stuff done here like privatizing national petroleum companyes,but dissagree whit the stuff that treath the tipical freedom like the doctrinationg in school and the retarded way the goverment behave,which is practically obey or die in a literal sense,you should see the way the goverment acts whit theyr propaganda and stuff in a laughable level,also the way they control stuff,practically everything that goes to the goverment turns into a propaganda agency,but off-course they allways come whit the "power to the people! the PEOPLE!!" to get following and impose theyr control,since practically the president rule everything,in newspapers they started to call him "great leader" and still use the word freedom and democracy when at the end is obvios that everything is planed
and stuff like faces of the che and castro and lening appears in everywhere geting a importance similiar to the national symbols which where changed too,and just look at the new motto "patria,socialismo o muerte" motherland(yeah right) socialism or death
and dont come whit the "but the point is that the people have control over everything" cuz since the goverment allways call theyself "the people" they will be one to rule,and if you disagree whit something of them BANG they go against,honestly you should see how they behave,in the congress when a pro-goverment person start saying how great this stuff of the goverment is, you see and hear more praise that a rock concert, but when someone disagree whit something everyone is silence whit a angry look

but offcourse solaris will come and say that since I have been living i na capilatist society of evil my mind is corromped by the evil of capitalism and the only way to save myself is by joining the red will to purify miself and join the cattle

and well the capitalism we all know which as I say is the everyone by his own but atleast you have freedom,but the true is that capitalism seen selfish if you think about it,thoug after you will be allways alone by yourself,you will work to fed you or your family,your friends wont unless they really care about you or live together,even in a comunist state cuz your family will allways come first, but stuff like private propiety are obvious to be a must,the goal of everyone is to have his own house to live isnt it?
is funny that in CNN I saw a poll that say that in latinamerica there is a increasing interest in socialism,but when asked if they would abandon private propiety a big percent denied, meaning that they dont have the points of socialism clarified or something

I think people should drops the color and flags and make something that benefits everyone,you may not make everyone 100% happy but atleast not everyone 100% unhappy
cuz sometimes is about more of the glamour of saying "I am comunist/capitalist/anarchist/powerfull etc" that in the real goal of make the country a better place

so to me they are just political moves and there isnt one above the other,and humanity have to improve first before saying which method is better


and dont try to explain me things solaris,your idols are at the main chair in my country so I know how the stuff are,dont go missionary on me since you only care to see red flags and dont give a crap about my country
but still you will do

 

[Flyingdebris]

I'm capitalist. I like for my forms of government to reward ingenuity, hard work, fresh ideas, and individuality.

Why settle for handouts?

 

[HunterSeeker]

So, you are participating in the system yet you actively proclaim it evil? Doublethink at it's finest.

I am sorry, but how can you not participate in the economic system of the place you live in? Just becouse I do not like it does not mean I cannot participate it.

So you say the socialist thar participates in a capitalist economic system to survive is a doublethinker. Is the worker that hates his job but still does it to survive also a doublethinker? After all he can hardly support the work conditions if he hates it.

 

[Tagaziel]

I am sorry, but how can you not participate in the economic system of the place you live in? Just becouse I do not like it does not mean I cannot participate it.

Then why won't you change your life in the slightest bit to reflect upon your beliefs. Don't buy from massive superstores. Channel a percentile of your funds to the local estabilishment helping the poor. Do something about it.

Or share the attitude towards such matters with Irish "revolutionaries" who speak about the glory of dying for the revolution after 20 years of living away from their country. As Bono said, "**** the revolution."

(Note to those who don't get the point: I'm drawing an analogy here between the attitudes not the matters)

So you say the socialist thar participates in a capitalist economic system to survive is a doublethinker. Is the worker that hates his job but still does it to survive also a doublethinker? After all he can hardly support the work conditions if he hates it.

He can quit the job and get another one. It happened here, people took up and left for other European countries, while we hired those from other countries to replace them. Everyone is better off.

 

[No Limit]

Speak for yourself. I don't buy shit, and if you like shit, then all the better for you. Just remember to wash your hands afterwards.

I was about to ask where do you shop then until I saw where you are from. I was born and raised in Poland too in a small town east of szczecin. So don't take this the wrong way but it's hard to have this discussion with you since you really don't know how it is here in the states. Unless you've lived here before, in which case my apologies. Here the corporate world has taken pretty much everything over. The only choices I have for my groceries are wal mart and a few other large stores that are just slightly less evil. I don't know how it is in poznan, never been there, but I'm sure like most of Poland a large chunk of your choices relate to local owned business, unlike it is here. But even with that you are going to sit here and tell me nothing you own was made in china? I still remember as a kid reading made in china on many of the products I owned, in Poland. So if you tell me you have nothing from China I will eighter congratulate you since you must be living under a rock or call you a flat out liar.

So, you are participating in the system yet you actively proclaim it evil? Doublethink at it's finest.

It boils down to choices. Under communism you don't have any other choice but to be controlled by the government, under the freemarket you don't have any other choice but to be controlled by corporations. I know how terribly hippy that statement is but it is true.

Considering that modern society has developed in the past 300-400 years (Enlightenment) you really need to redo your history lessons.

Society might have changed, but people basic human instincts haven't.

Now please, make some real argument like Ryan or just stop posting typical propaganda statements.

Yes, I'm a communist propagandaist because I don't buy in to the fact of how wonderful free market capitalism is. If you've been paying attention you will see I have the same reservations and disgust with pure socialism.

Care to cite any proper researcher?

The research? Simple math, 3 - 1 does not equal 4. The IT unemployment rate is now over 5%, higher than it has ever been. The jobs that are still here have wages dropping. Sorry about the source but they do cite the report they get these stats from:

He found that between 2001 and 2005 starting pay for master's degrees in computer science, computer engineering, and electrical engineering fell 6.6 per cent, 13.7 per cent, and 9.4 per cent respectively.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15177.htm

Here in Albuquerque we have lost call center after call center to offshore outsourcing.

So let me repeat when you have 3 jobs available and you ship 1 to India you are not left with 4 jobs here. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[15357]

I'm capitalist. I like for my forms of government to reward ingenuity, hard work, fresh ideas, and individuality.

Why settle for handouts?

Exactly.


"A communist is someone that is willing to surrender his penny to recieve someone else's dollar."

 

[No Limit]

:frown:

Exactly.


"A communist is someone that is willing to surrender his penny to recieve someone else's dollar."

Stupid black vs white argument, stop it.

 

[15357]

Ok....


Another argument against communism: "Did it ever not fall into a pile of shat and degrade into orwellian dystopias after a certain period?"

Another one: It is in the nature of humans to be greedy, and because communism suppresses that nature, wouldn't all communist states just become suppressive of humans?

Of course, capitalism has it's drawbacks, like the inability to plan too far ahead, but that can be easily rectified by minimum goverment intervention into the free market economy.

 

[HunterSeeker]

Ok....


Another argument against communism: "Did it ever not fall into a pile of shat and degrade into orwellian dystopias after a certain period?"

Another one: It is in the nature of humans to be greedy, and because communism suppresses that nature, wouldn't all communist states just become suppressive of humans?

Of course, capitalism has it's drawbacks, like the inability to plan too far ahead, but that can be easily rectified by minimum goverment intervention into the free market economy.

No capitalist has ever done anything moraly wrong in history ever, only communists. Thats why communists are evil.

 

[Solaris]

Mikael Grizzly[/URL]]Hasn't it occured to you that they may have a point?

It hasn't because they've obviously misunderstood a key idea. Everybody is equal is obviously true, nobody should have more rights than anybody else regardless of their race or beliefs, over time societies have accepted this. Socialists extend the idea to class, meaning everybody, as long as they contribute to the best of their ability to what the state asks of them, should get the same rewards (payment) as others who also do their best. Lenin summed this up as:

"From each according to ability, to each according to need".
We should ask of each person to do the best they can, and in return we will give them what they need for a happy life in which they can pursue their interests. If they are disabled, the state will provide perhaps a little more for them because they have more needs, the same for people with children ect. Under capitalism you get paid the same as someone else doing an identical job regardless of what you have to do with that money.

It's about being treated equally by the state regardless of class. Yes, some people will be in charge, but they would be elected and the national assembly that elected them could un-elect them at any time. Not all socialists believe that's how things should happen exactly, but we all believe in a undemocratic elected government of the people for the people.

It's not the fault of the system, but the fault of the people. Big difference.

Ever since capitalism came into existence such things have happened. The people at the bottom of the ladder, under capitalism have always lived lives of poverty, ignorance and squalor. There is obviously something wrong with a system that would allow this.

Capitalism encourages people to treat the workers as poorly as possible, because it means more profit. I hate to use the soviet union as an example, because it was not socialist it was a fraud; but as far as I am aware, no sweatshops ever existed there because the system would not allow it.

Welcome to the hippie's pipedream.

As we can all see, socialism can work if all citizens are socially engineered into puppets devoid of individualism and (God forbid) pursuit of self fullfillment.

Solaris do you listen to yourself? What about the "old version" of man, the non-socialist one? What solution do you propose?

I'm afraid I fail to see how I can refute your first two points. I disagree with them, but they are mere assertions and rhetoric.

What solution do I propose to those who refuse to help their common man, and faced with a choice between taking part in society, working a little in far better conditions than we work in today and would rather exploit fellow men. Lenin had such people shot, I would imprison those who would try and trick other people to work for them for their own profit rather than take part in the work of the state for the good of mankind.

I do understand the basic assumptions of socialism and call it pipe dream.

Evidence from the 19th and 20th centuries show that it's a theory that is very, very easily perverted and abused.

So, what method of control you propose to enforce socialism? One that will not degenerate and decay over time, turning into an oppressive regime?

What evidence? I, as well as many other people can explain how the soviet union degenerated into totalitarianism and not communism, but state capitalism. George Orwell wrote about it and Tony Benn wrote 'State Capitalism in Russia' perhaps you would like to read it.

How should socialism be enforced? The same way capitalism is enforced, if you don't take part in it, nobody pays you and you starve. There will be no unemployment because the state will always be willing to pay you to work somewhere because all industry will be nationalized.

Oh my, guess all those philosophers, scientists and researchers can be invalidated by the ingenius Solaris. Not.

Come on, have some intellectual integrity and provide some evidence for that. I could easily repeat what you've said changing my name for yours and we'd go round in circles. Please construct a proper argument.

Yes, because we all know China, which houses ~1.5 bln people is a perfect example of people participating in capitalism to feed their family and keep what shitty shelter they can afford.

A propos, the Butcher of Ukraine is a perfect role model for you.

China is state capitalist. The ad hominem does nothing for your argument.

Socialism will always be inferior to capitalism. Concentration of means of production and power in the hands of the state leads inevitably to corruption and degeneration of the state apparatus, regardless of how it names itself - a democracy, dictatorship or similiar.

Capitalism, with all it's flaws, gives the means to the people rather than the select few in the government. It encourages self fulfillment and creativity. Yes, it's fueled by greed, but in this context greed, for the lack of a better term, is good.

Socialism, on the contrary offers no incentive. As everyone is equal and gets equal pay, why should I bother getting proper education and developing my skills if I can sweep the streets for the remainder of my life and earn as much cash as an university professor?

Tell me, how do the peasant farmers and sweatshop laborers of the world get to experience self fulfillment and creativity?

From your question about the incentive to be a university professor, I can only speculate that you have no passion in an intellectual subject. I love physics and would happily do it even though I knew a street cleaner could get the same pay, if somebody is not doing what they want to do, they will not do it well. And most of the worlds doctors and scientists I imagine have a love of what they do and would continue to do it.

Also, you blame capitalism for "billions living in poverty", as if that's somehow advantageous to capitalism. The opposite is true, there's a lot to gain for capitalists by fighting poverty, bigger market = more consumers = more monies amirite? This is something you now see successfully being implemented in China and India.

No, you are wrong. If their were no poor people, who would make Nike trainers for $1 a day? The labor costs would rise and the profit margins would fall.

 

[No Limit]

But solaris, don't you think that people should be allowed to strive above others with hard work? I totally agree with you that people living in poverty should not be in that position when there are CEOs in this country that make millions upon millions of dollars. But what right do you have to stop people from creating their own business so that they could provide a great luxury life not only for themselves but for their family. Human nature is to better yourself at all times, when there isn't an opportunity to better yourself then what the hell is the point of doing anything? This is something I totally agree with Mikael on. Why study 10 years in school to be a doctor when you could smoke pot all day as a parking attendant and still earn the same money and benefits as the doctor?

 

[Solaris]

But solaris, don't you think that people should be allowed to strive above others with hard work? I totally agree with you that people living in poverty should not be in that position when there are CEOs in this country that make millions upon millions of dollars. But what right do you have to stop people from creating their own business so that they could provide a great luxury life not only for themselves but for their family. Human nature is to better yourself at all times, when there isn't an opportunity to better yourself then what the hell is the point of doing anything? This is something I totally agree with Mikael on. Why study 10 years in school to be a doctor when you could smoke pot all day as a parking attendant and still earn the same money and benefits as the doctor?

First, with a few exceptions, Marxist theory tells us that people can only get rich at the expense of others, I really think you'd enjoy reading an introduction to marxism, it's very interesting.

With regards to the doctor thing, I think the way to do it would that people training to be a doctor would get paid as a doctor from the start. So studying is part of their job. Jobs like parking attendant would probably be restricted to older people, we ask everybody contributes to the best of their ability and i believe 99% of people can train to do something specalised. Perhaps the more basic jobs would be done by the creation of a workers militia that everyone must join, who do jobs that nobody else wants to do. And people must serve in this militia for 2 years, or perhaps spend a day a month with the militia.

There are a lot of ideas people have over this, but it is not however a fundamental problem I believe.

 

[No Limit]

All your ideas sound awesome but I think you have to be realistic. You are asking for a total overhaul of how our world is structured. And once you do that you must admit there will be a lot of problems with getting everyone on board. Do you honestly think people would be happy with the government telling them what they will do for the rest of their lives?

The best option is a mixed economy taking in the individual freedom of captialism and parts of government regulation and care for the poor from socialism.

 

[kirovman]

sorry what?

if it is a meritocracy how would cronyism thrive??

Sorry, I misread meritocracy as crony capitalism.

I think that kirovman should be excluded from this debate. He is far too biased. He is, after all, a Soviet aircraft.

My bias toward Russian aerospace engineering and Stalinist principles does not exclude my ability as a master debater!

 

[repiV]

It hasn't because they've obviously misunderstood a key idea. Everybody is equal is obviously true, nobody should have more rights than anybody else regardless of their race or beliefs, over time societies have accepted this. Socialists extend the idea to class, meaning everybody, as long as they contribute to the best of their ability to what the state asks of them, should get the same rewards (payment) as others who also do their best. Lenin summed this up as:

Turning equality of earnings into some kind of discrimination issue is absurd. "Class" is little more than a crutch for the simple-minded to patronisingly label people and stick them in little boxes. You earn the money that you are willing to accept and the client is willing to pay for doing the job in hand - it has nothing to do with equality.
Notwithstanding the fact that many blue collar professions are now much more highly paid than most white-collar workers.
And successful people in business are shrewd, driven and tenacious - education has precious little to do with it. I've met very few people who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth who could cut it at the frontlines of the corporate world.
Also a seemingly forgotten fact is that having a job is only one of the many ways to make money in this world, and not generally the most effective.

"From each according to ability, to each according to need".
We should ask of each person to do the best they can, and in return we will give them what they need for a happy life in which they can pursue their interests. If they are disabled, the state will provide perhaps a little more for them because they have more needs, the same for people with children ect. Under capitalism you get paid the same as someone else doing an identical job regardless of what you have to do with that money.

If the best I can do is ten times better than the best someone else can do, I deserve ten times more money than them.
If you're not responsible enough to keep your financial commitments at a level that your income allows you to manage, that's your problem - not the state's, nor anybody else's. I'm not about to shed a tear for the secretary who had ten kids and has to receive handouts to care for them.
Notwithstanding the sheer practical impossibilities of the state being able to provide a comfortable living for all - the reality is that everyone would live in poverty, instead of a few. And there would be no escape. Ever.

It's about being treated equally by the state regardless of class. Yes, some people will be in charge, but they would be elected and the national assembly that elected them could un-elect them at any time. Not all socialists believe that's how things should happen exactly, but we all believe in a undemocratic elected government of the people for the people.

I don't want the state involved in my life at all - I'm more than capable of managing my own life, and any man that values their own dignity and worth as a man would feel the same way. **** living off someone else's hospitality.

Ever since capitalism came into existence such things have happened. The people at the bottom of the ladder, under capitalism have always lived lives of poverty, ignorance and squalor. There is obviously something wrong with a system that would allow this.

Not really. It's your responsibility to live long and prosper, the system merely allows you to do that - it is not responsible for you. If you're incapable of doing that (by being ignorant, for example), tough.

Capitalism encourages people to treat the workers as poorly as possible, because it means more profit.

No in the high-tech service economy, it doesn't. Talent is by far the most valuable resource a company has - companies succeed by recruiting and retaining the best people, and fail by not recognising the value of their staff or retaining good people. A company that treats its workers poorly is a company that is destined to fail.
Goldman Sachs are so successful precisely because they recognise the value of spotting and nurturing talent, and encouraging collaborative input from all staff. They prefer to recruit graduates straight out of university and employ them for life.

China is state capitalist. The ad hominem does nothing for your argument.

No, China is free market capitalist.

Tell me, how do the peasant farmers and sweatshop laborers of the world get to experience self fulfillment and creativity?

In a little more abundance than they would under communism.

From your question about the incentive to be a university professor, I can only speculate that you have no passion in an intellectual subject. I love physics and would happily do it even though I knew a street cleaner could get the same pay, if somebody is not doing what they want to do, they will not do it well. And most of the worlds doctors and scientists I imagine have a love of what they do and would continue to do it.

That's because you don't yet comprehend just how demanding a well-paid career is. You'd have to be bloody nuts to work long, stressful hours with such commitments and deadlines for the same money as something carefree and easy.

 

[The Monkey]

Solaris, how would a freee and independant media exist in a socialist world? Without that democracy is doomed.

 

[Mr Stabby]

First, with a few exceptions, Marxist theory tells us that people can only get rich at the expense of others, I really think you'd enjoy reading an introduction to marxism, it's very interesting.

There are numerous corporations that sponsor and subsidize education with the goal of getting trained employees which the company will benefit financially from and so does the employee and the university that taught them. Everyone wins. I suggest you try and understand economics from the free-market side.

With regards to the doctor thing, I think the way to do it would that people training to be a doctor would get paid as a doctor from the start. So studying is part of their job. Jobs like parking attendant would probably be restricted to older people, we ask everybody contributes to the best of their ability and i believe 99% of people can train to do something specalised. Perhaps the more basic jobs would be done by the creation of a workers militia that everyone must join, who do jobs that nobody else wants to do. And people must serve in this militia for 2 years, or perhaps spend a day a month with the militia.

Social control, if people refuse to partake in such an idiotic system, would you deal with them like comrade Lenin had the Kulaks hanged

There are a lot of ideas people have over this, but it is not however a fundamental problem I believe.

Is it not the basis of a Marxist economey

 

[HunterSeeker]

Solaris, how would a freee and independant media exist in a socialist world? Without that democracy is doomed.

I do not see this as a problem, possibly a person could ask for some time off to work on a project like a new newspaper or tv channel. If the new media in question has a certain amount of viewers in x time that media will become permament.

If the best I can do is ten times better than the best someone else can do, I deserve ten times more money than them.

Why? Do you need ten times more then that person?

 

[No Limit]

Social control, if people refuse to partake in such an idiotic system, would you deal with them like comrade Lenin had the Kulaks hanged

Solaris, how would a freee and independant media exist in a socialist world? Without that democracy is doomed.

Excellent points comrades. :thumbs:

Why? Do you need ten times more then that person?

So he can do what we all do with our money, buy more useless shit.

 

[HunterSeeker]

Social control, if people refuse to partake in such an idiotic system, would you deal with them like comrade Lenin had the Kulaks hanged

If I refuse to partake in a capitalistic system accoridng to its rules I will be thrown in jail.

 

[No Limit]

If I refuse to partake in a capitalistic system accoridng to its rules I will be thrown in jail.

Care to explain?

 

[HunterSeeker]

Care to explain?

Well, if I do not want to partake in a capitalist system I will have to steal to survive, or starve to death.

 

[kirovman]

Yes, if you refuse to pay for goods that you take, you will goto jail. Quite sensible imho.

 

[Mr Stabby]

If you do not wish to partake in trade then you will have to be self sufficient.

 

[Absinthe]

True, but there's no escaping that fate either when THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION ™ comes and is forced upon your greedy, fatcat, capitalist lifestyle.

 

[No Limit]

Well, if I do not want to partake in a capitalist system I will have to steal to survive, or starve to death.

Bullcrap. Move out to the mountains and fend for yourself. The Amish have been doing this for a very long time. This way you can really stick it to the man.

 

[HunterSeeker]

If you do not wish to partake in trade then you will have to be self sufficient.

I have high doubts that you could not do that in a socialist system, assuming its nonoppresive.

 

[Absinthe]

I have high doubts that you could not do that in a socialist system, assuming its nonoppresive.

Non-oppressive? Ignoring the hefty restrictions placed on your individual ability to strike out on your own, I think socialist systems are well ****in' good recipes for eventual government oppression. If that's not employed, it will simply grow back on itself and degenerate due to the population's abuse of the welfare state.

Such is what one can expect from a system that's based entirely on the expectation of sheer altruism from the masses, betraying a profound naivete in its understanding of human nature.

 

[Nemesis6]

What a well thought out contribution to this topic. Thanks again for your words of wisdom nemesis .

Stop being an asshole. I study Russian and if socialism was better, it would be dominant, and I would already be speaking Russian, hence the little. I guess socialism would help at least one of my ambitions; learning the language most associated with it.

 

[15357]

No capitalist has ever done anything moraly wrong in history ever, only communists. Thats why communists are evil.

EXACTLY!

Well, if I do not want to partake in a capitalist system I will have to steal to survive, or starve to death.

You said it yourself: Noncapitalistic systems are, indeed, theft.

 

[HunterSeeker]

You said it yourself: Noncapitalistic systems are, indeed, theft.

...What?


People here fail to understand that in history no system that has been tried has ever been successful in the first attempt, even democracy. The city state of athens was the the first democratic state and there you could vote for the execution of people you did not like.

 

[kirovman]

...What?


People here fail to understand that in history no system that has been tried has ever been successful in the first attempt, even democracy. The city state of athens was the the first democratic state and there you could vote for the execution of people you did not like.

Giving the public a referendum on things they are not likely to be able to make an informed decision about is foolhardy.

Indeed, Pure democracy is not a good thing.
Pure capitalism is not a good thing.
Pure socialism is not a good thing.
etc.

At the end of the day, you have to take a pragmatic view and think about what kind of system will work for you and it will undoubtedly be a mix that borrows aspects from a lot of different systems.
The most successful economies in the world do this.
America is not purely capitalist (although it does lean that way), it has socialist aspects like minimum wage and labour unions and health and safety laws that limit what companys can expose their employees to.

 

[Asknoone]

The city state of athens was the the first democratic state and there you could vote for the execution of people you did not like.

Sounds like a state worth living in!

 

[kirovman]

Besides, it seems a bit pointless comparing ancient Athens to societies of today.
I'm sure getting voted to be executed is better than being lynched by a mob or pillaged by barbarians which was common at the time. There was not much concept throughout the world at that time that execution was a wrongful thing, as they didn't have the benefit of enlightenments of recent developments such as liberalism etc.

And aren't juries in certain modern countries responsible for voting whether the convicted criminal will be executed?

 

[repiV]

Why? Do you need ten times more then that person?

How is that even remotely relevant?

 

[Mr Stabby]

I have high doubts that you could not do that in a socialist system, assuming its nonoppresive.

In a socialist state, trade is controlled, therefore all produce is controlled, so no you would not be able to live outside of the system