Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

If philosphy forum was a nation......

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» If philosphy forum was a nation......

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi all,
Imagine Philosophy forum was to became a nation and now it requires to have a set of charters and laws in order to be able to run correctly. Now what kind of law would you have? Would like to see PF to be ruled under an imperial system or a republic (hmm not sure how can it be since u need to be under a monarchy in order to become a republic! Apologies in advance to thus perfectionist Very Happy

)
Make up new laws, new political system and what ever u think that can really make this new NATION a super NATION!

@ltdaleadergt,

I would really like to see what happens if instead of having politican we have more economist Very Happy

@ltdaleadergt,

<daleader> wrote:

I would really like to see what happens if instead of having politican we have more economist

...left wing communism?

@ltdaleadergt,

Things wouldn't be like in the real world because the dominion of forums can simple be created by officials (new subfora I mean). There is no competition between fora.

@ltdaleadergt,

Well I would like to see Plato's (i believe) Utopia incorporated. Think about it!! A philosopher king who would rule over the nation with the military class underneath him and a workers class underneath that. If we incorporate a democracy, communism, or a republic. They all have faults, but I believe the Utopia is the one with the less faults....The others would come to an end to soon.

@ltdaleadergt,

You mean his "ideal state" from the Republic?

Not for me - I'd have to advocate complete demilitarization, something Plato was clearly opposed to.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

...left wing communism?

Most economists today follow the neoclassical school. Add the monetarists, new classicals, and Austrians on top of that, and we'd be vaguely libertarian.

Marxism and socialism are a joke in economics.

@ltdaleadergt,

Quote:

Not for me - I'd have to advocate complete demilitarization, something Plato was clearly opposed to.

You are absolutely correct, but considering the age that Plato lived in, he had no choice but to have a military. In fact, I think it is the case that even in today's world an influencial nation has no choice but to have a military.

However, to keep it my comments within the realm of the topic at hand: We probably wouldn't need a military, unless we were going to battle some other forum who thinks they should impose their beliefs upon us!

@ltdaleadergt,

Quote:

Marxism and socialism are a joke in economics.

You are right about Marx (as history has proven), but be careful to lump socialism in general with Marx. Communism in theory was a joke (in my opinion) and in practice it obviously failed.

But that does not mean that there are not good socialistic ideas, or that socialism is bad in and of itself.

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American

@ltdaleadergt,

Quote:

You are absolutely correct, but considering the age that Plato lived in, he had no choice but to have a military. In fact, I think it is the case that even in today's world an influencial nation has no choice but to have a military.

Sure, in Plato's time, demilitarization would have been extremely radical - originally radical to my knowledge. However, I do not think we can ever honestly say that a military is necessary. Reminds me of the scene from "The Meaning of Life". Sargent Major Marching Up and down the square used parts from another scene where some soldier is showing a sleepy group a film about why the military is so damn necessary. At the films in this soldier says something to the effect of 'that's why all nations need an army, and if that's not true, may God strike me down!' Sure enough, hand of God, lightning bolt, ect.

Seriously, though. The Tibetans were a nomadic, warlike horde; they were one of the most dominant military forces in the region, having even subdued China and exacted tribute. Even this "influential nation" managed to entirely demilitarize.

I think you do make a good point, though. Any nation which is militarily influential cannot demilitarize. Any nation whose influence is violent cannot demilitarize entirely.

Quote:

However, to keep it my comments within the realm of the topic at hand: We probably wouldn't need a military, unless we were going to battle some other forum who thinks they should impose their beliefs upon us!

Aha! More evidence to prove that no nation needs a military.

Quote:

You are right about Marx (as history has proven), but be careful to lump socialism in general with Marx. Communism in theory was a joke (in my opinion) and in practice it obviously failed.

Marx did not give much of an opinion about what sort of government a state should have. Therefore, his theory has never been tried, thus history cannot prove anything about how successful his theory can be, especially when every system of government used by communist nations has been a system clearly opposed to the ideas of Marx, namely, totalitarianism.

@ltdaleadergt,

Quote:

Marx did not give much of an opinion about what sort of government a state should have. Therefore, his theory has never been tried, thus history cannot prove anything about how successful his theory can be, especially when every system of government used by communist nations has been a system clearly opposed to the ideas of Marx, namely, totalitarianism.

Damn it, I knew that. I must have got wrapped up in the moment and spouted of without thinking.

Why are nations like the former USSR called communist? Were they founded of the ideals of Marx, or is that just a false belief? Because when I think about it, it seems that the 'proletariat' have no rule in any of the communist based nations.

@Didymos Thomas,

de Silentio wrote:

You are right about Marx (as history has proven), but be careful to lump socialism in general with Marx. Communism in theory was a joke (in my opinion) and in practice it obviously failed.

Communism in theory always has been a joke, ever since economic calculation has been disproven by Mises and Hayek.

Quote:

But that does not mean that there are not good socialistic ideas, or that socialism is bad in and of itself.

Yeah it does.

Quote:

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American

Economics is an apriori science, there cannot be a "rich empirical record to judge these issues scientifically."

The author of that article misrepresents many things. First of all, you cannot compare and contrast the economic successes of Scandinavian and other nations and claim that welfare and similar socialistic measures have made Scandinavian nations more advanced.

Scandinavian nations are more ethnically homogenous, which is one reason for their good "statistics." Also, they have relatively easy-going regulation (more-so than Anglo nations), which helps them look better. Their high unemployment rate is due to government intervention (welfare) and it is entirely voluntary. Their economies perform on a sub-par level due to high taxes and socialistic measures.

Lastly, this article does not prove that Hayek was wrong in anything. In nations with more taxation and more regulation, we have seen and we are seeing today a move towards greater government control at the expense of individual freedom and liberty.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Marx did not give much of an opinion about what sort of government a state should have. Therefore, his theory has never been tried, thus history cannot prove anything about how successful his theory can be, especially when every system of government used by communist nations has been a system clearly opposed to the ideas of Marx, namely, totalitarianism.

Marx never was a totalitarian, but his economic theories have been disproven by Mises and Hayek. Marx's vision of a pool of goods being shared by the community is nothing less than ridiculous and shows a profound ignorance of supply and demand.

Also, Marx's labor theory of value goes against what all economists accept now-a-days, as LTV has been thoroughly destroyed as an economic theory (prices are determined by supply and demand, not by amount of labor needed to procure the given commodity). Since LTV is at the basis of Marxism, a blow to LTV is a serious blow to every Marxian.

Marx's hate of entrepreneurs, which was also based on LTV, is just as unfound. Entrepreneurs do not steal value away from workers, they agree to a voluntary exchange where they agree to pay individuals (workers) for the services those workers can provide. Entrepreneurs are the driving force of an economy, fulfilling the needs of the people by opening businesses and raising aggregate demand by employing workers.

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

Why are nations like the former USSR called communist? Were they founded of the ideals of Marx, or is that just a false belief? Because when I think about it, it seems that the 'proletariat' have no rule in any of the communist based nations.

USSR and similar nations were actually socialist. In Marxist-Leninist ideology, underdeveloped non-capitalistic nations need to first go through a socialist phase before reaching communism.

That still doesn't mean that Marx is right, as the labor theory of value has been disproven and Marx has been shown to be wrong about how he viewed businesses and wealth distribution.

@ltdaleadergt,

Quote:

Damn it, I knew that. I must have got wrapped up in the moment and spouted of without thinking.

Why are nations like the former USSR called communist? Were they founded of the ideals of Marx, or is that just a false belief? Because when I think about it, it seems that the 'proletariat' have no rule in any of the communist based nations.

It's like calling Iran a Muslim state.

Quote:

Marx never was a totalitarian, but his economic theories have been disproven by Mises and Hayek. Marx's vision of a pool of goods being shared by the community is nothing less than ridiculous and shows a profound ignorance of supply and demand.

How can a couple of economist disprove philosophy? Sure, communism is absolutely absurd if we try to place it in a modern context - take a modern nation and use communist principles. Communism is a far flung ideal, no more open to refutation than laissez-faire capitalism.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

How can a couple of economist disprove philosophy? Sure, communism is absolutely absurd if we try to place it in a modern context - take a modern nation and use communist principles. Communism is a far flung ideal, no more open to refutation than laissez-faire capitalism.

Mises was also a philosopher.
Mises showed the impossibility of Marx's vision of society.
Economic calculation was shown to be inefficient by Hayek and Mises, and subsequently by the failures of socialist nations.
Communism is very open to refutation, as the principles that it is based upon are utterly ridiculous (LTV, wage slavery, economic calculation, etc.).

@krazy kaju,

And I take it Mises' arguments are absolute, no error, no room for question....

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

And I take it Mises' arguments are absolute, no error, no room for question....

You never attacked Mises's arguments.

@krazy kaju,

How could I attack his arguments if I have not read them? You provided a summary of what you think he has accomplished with his words, but that is not an argument to dissect.

I do not buy into Marx's arguments - and I've read some of them. But I do not think we had to wait a hundred years for Mises to publish before we could see the flaws, and thoroughly criticize communism as being another impossible political/economic scheme.

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

How could I attack his arguments if I have not read them? You provided a summary of what you think he has accomplished with his words, but that is not an argument to dissect.

Did you ever challenge me about communism's inefficiencies or ask me about what Mises wrote? No.

Quote:

I do not buy into Marx's arguments - and I've read some of them. But I do not think we had to wait a hundred years for Mises to publish before we could see the flaws, and thoroughly criticize communism as being another impossible political/economic scheme.

The fact of the matter is that Mises and Hayek were really the prime opponents of socialism and communism, without them the likes of Abba Lerner and Oskar Lange would've never even had moved out of the labor theory of value.

Mises was one of the first economists to dissect left wing economics and to show their economics fallacies. If I remember correctly, the debate over economic calculation was actually started by Mises.

@krazy kaju,

Quote:

Did you ever challenge me about communism's inefficiencies or ask me about what Mises wrote? No.

You seem to be the only person interested in me doing so.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that Mises and Hayek were really the prime opponents of socialism and communism, without them the likes of Abba Lerner and Oskar Lange would've never even had moved out of the labor theory of value.

Mises was one of the first economists to dissect left wing economics and to show their economics fallacies. If I remember correctly, the debate over economic calculation was actually started by Mises.

And one day someone will shatter the lofty notions of these schoolmen as well. What's your point? Mises was not necessary to see through the veil of communism - obviously, as I've not read his work.

Again - communism is an idealistic dream, just like laissez-faire capitalism.

I have nothing against Mises, in fact, I have a great deal of respect for his school of economic thought. Similarly, I respect Marx, just as I respect a number of other minds involved in political philosophy. They have all made erroneous claims. Just as they are all wrong, to some degree, they are all also right.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» If philosphy forum was a nation......

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

If philosphy forum was a nation......

Quick Links

My Account

able2know