(Writing this I'm currently in Japan where trying to use any form of payment that's not cash (notes/coins) is next to impossible outside the largest shops in the large cities.)
I had the opposite experience. In fact, I found that my Pasmo card was accepted at surprisingly many shops, almost making it a de facto form of currency all on its own. I was warned prior to my trip that Japan is a very cash-loving society and to bring enough cash to cover the whole trip. However, I ended up able to use my credit card at an overwhelming majority of venues and had plenty of cash to change back after I got home.
P.S. If you're there for work and you're planning to submit receipts for reimbursement, I have a protip for you. "Ryoshusho" is a non-itemized check, popular among Westerners, that allows you to enjoy your share of plum wine without worrying about paying out of your own pocket.
I agree with you in the sense that I also think it's better, if only due to financial concerns. However, I still question whether it is best.
I prefer to reason about things in a vacuum, independent of "how it's done around here" and other such practical considerations. When I find a person I want to spend the rest of my life with, what should I do? Well, clearly, I should spend the rest of my life with them. Should I throw a huge party for all my friends and family? Should I provide them with all the food and booze they could possibly want? I mean, while all that sounds fun, I can't for the life of me figure out what the fuck they have to do with me wanting to spend the rest of my life with someone. Beyond "that's how it's done around here", of course.
However, I go one step further. Should I get married? After all, being married is as tangential to a lifelong partnership as is throwing a huge party. Sure, "that's how it's done around here", but I can't identify any rational basis for why that ought to be how it's done. Some people waste a ton of money on an elaborate wedding. Others waste a ton of time on courthouse weddings and divorce proceedings. I can't understand why someone would (of their own volition) endure such complexities.
For example, my wedding was both large (> 600 people attended our reception) and cheap (< $3000). How is that possible? We're Mormon
Yea, you're Mormon, that's why. Sure. It has nothing to do with the fact that there was no open bar. I've been a guest at many weddings, and it sounds like yours sucked. I mean, breakfast?! Who gets married in the AM?!
I'm joking. But seriously, what you describe has as much in common with a "wedding" as simply going to the courthouse to sign some papers and then hitting up the White Castle drive-thru. To many people, a wedding by definition includes a celebratory wedding feast, complete with flowing alcohol and elaborate (read: expensive) edible creations. While in theory this could be accomplished with homemade foods and homemade garments and a soundtrack provided by the whistling wind, in practice many people would find that to be a cheap immitation of the real thing and would be unsatified associating the quality of their relationship with the quality of such a farce.
That being said, social practices like the celebratory wedding feast serve to impede social mobility by ensuring the next generation always starts with a significant financial handicap.
Yes, how horrible that some people keep their word, even when faced with the inconvenience of dealing with a miserable soul in a failed marriage.
There was a time when we valued people who would keep their word, even in the face of painful death. Now we criticize those who would value their integrity over mere convenience.
This is why people complain about the death of honor, particularly in the secular world.
My wife and I spent less than $2K on our wedding and reception. Yes, we had an actual reception, with good food, a dance floor, and a DJ for about 100 guests. Ordering the gown over the internet instead of going to a ripoff bridal boutique helps a lot. So does actually comparison shopping, instead of just seeing something and buying it immediately.
So, assuming everything was gratis except the food, that leaves $20/head. Your criteria for "good food" is clearly not what most people think of. That wouldn't even pay for hors d'oeuvres at most weddings, let alone actual food, let alone "good food". However, congratulations on not having family that will pressure you into a monumental waste of money.
Now I feel bad because it went from +5 to +1. I'm not trying to shit on anyone's parade, but I honestly didn't even suspect it could be an attempt at humor. If others find it funny, then funny it is.
So, 0 to 60 miles in 3.2 seconds... a range of 275 miles... So, it has less than 15 seconds of autonomy.
No, 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.2 seconds. Then, cruising at that 60 mile per hour for 4.583 hours (not 15 seconds) will take you 275 miles, at which point the battery dies. Reading fail.
Indeed, note that bit about me working in defense:P
The only place we disagree is how things get invented, and your crazy belief that you only become wealthy by exploiting others. Sure, the rare guy who rips off a bunch of investors makes front page news, but that is the exception, not the rule.
When I said exploit, I didn't mean to imply any negative connotation. As humans, we exploit resources, we make full use of and derive benefit from them. And indeed, my back-of-a-napkin calculation shows that it is not possible to become a billionaire by one's own labors (by working full time for 30 years). You'll note that any billionaire has leveraged the labor of others to amass their fortune. As far as I know, nobody has ever made a billion dollars by doing their own thing without others working for them. I'm very much interested in evidence to the contrary.
Most folks, like it or not, act in their own self interest, and make sacrifices and take risks because they crave money, or power, or fame. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. Sure, lots of people SAY they will work "for the greater good" - and a few actually will - but the majority of humans are going to say "What's in it for me" and you cannot legislate that our of existence. There is no system on earth yet devised that changes this.
Indeed, that's the crux of the problem: the reality that people are, generally speaking, greedy. Free market capitalism tends to function much better in that context than does socialism. However, if the labor participation rate keeps dropping (and that's a big if), even if only "few actually will" work "for the greater good", in a future where there is only enough work for "few", this won't be an issue.
Just about all the really important, society changing inventions did not come out of funded academic research. Why? See previous paragraph. Small examples - the EPA funded research for 20 years and spent billions on how to best clean up after an oil spill. A $100,000 X Prize solved this problem in three months. NASA became a jobs program that couldn't build a reliable transport vehicle... So many examples like this.
Valid examples. However, look at the recipients of this year's Nobel prizes. In Physics, they're academics. In Chemistry, they're academics. In Physiology or medicine, they're academics. The people that won these prizes have been working tirelessly in academia, receiving paltry sums as compensation (though admittedly, the prizes themselves are worth some money). None of them are on their way to being billionaires, and if it wasn't for the prize purse, it's unlikely that any of them would even be millionaires. This demonstrates that at least some of our best and brightest are still willing to do great work without the promise of vast riches to entice them.
Large organizations - be they corporate or government operate in a reverse. The bigger they get, the more ineffective they are, and the less they produce. This is why 90% of the new jobs come from small business, along with 90% of the innovation and 90% of the growth. Big government is the most inefficient system of ALL -- and both Socialism and Communism completely deny this reality.
I agree that it does indeed appear that large organizations seem to succumb to a sort of inverted economy of scale, but I'm not convinced that this necessarily must be the case. Perhaps we're just organizing things wrongly. Or perhaps you're right and it's an inherent limitation of large organizations. While it is tempting to simply assume that to be the case, I prefer to withhold judgement on things I'm not sure about.
I suspect you work in a large organization. Get out. Goto work in a smaller one. I also suspect that you are one of those awesome people who truly dreams of a better world, and wants it to
However, Judaism and Christianity have a huge mitigating factor, and it's that they've undergone a lot of liberal transformations that allows them to do these sort of 'mental gymnastics'. And it makes a difference among its believers. So you might have had that abortion clinic bombing 20 years ago by some crazy Christian, but suicide bombing aren't exactly a huge problem among Christians and Jews. You have a Reformed Judaism. There is no Reformed Islam. We don't have a problem with Jewish/Christian apostates getting killed, performing honor killing, suicide bombings, or advocating that people who draw Moses or Jesus in a disrespectful fashion being prosecuted or killed.
You know, we also don't have a problem with Muslim apostates getting killed, performing honor killing, suicide bombings, or advocating that people who draw Mohammed in a disrespectful fashion being prosecuted or killed. These acts you describe are in reality not significantly more common than the "abortion clinic bombing 20 years ago by some crazy Christian". You dismiss Christian terrorism as some fringe issue, when in reality the last abortion clinic bombing in the US was in 2012. You talk about barbaric acts committed by Muslims but don't realize that an overwhelming majority of Islamic societies don't see such atrocities, at all. Your perception of Islam is shaped by video footage of masked Hamas militants firing automatic rifles in the crowded streets of Gaza, or women being beaten for being raped in Saudi Arabia. It is not shaped by (lack of) video footage of boring, stable, and modern Islamic states such as Bosnia, Turkey, or Indonesia. The Muslim world is a very large place, and the barbaric practices you describe are practiced only in a small part of it. You let that influence your perception of all Muslims, but for some reason you don't let "some crazy Christian" influence your perception of all Christians. If mental gymnastics was an Olympic event, the finals would be dominated by Westerners, and I say that as a Westerner myself.
When Muslim suicide bombers tell you that they really believe they are going to die and get their virgins, you don't believe them. It doesn't matter how many kill themselves voluntarily spouting this dogma, you still aren't convinced they really believe it. I don't know what else they can do more than killing themselves to prove to you that they actually believe this.
And when Muslim people tell you that they really just want food, shelter, clothing, safety, and the ability to raise and educate their children, you don't believe them. It doesn't matter how many live their entire lives seeking nothing more than these things, you still aren't convinced that they really believe it. I don't know what else they can do more than living their entire lives according to these desires to prove to you that they actually believe this.
So perhaps Islam after a few centuries might go through these changes as well, and be no different than your local Mormons. But I personally don't think we have 200 years. Who is to say that in 30 years a nuclear bomb might be something you can create with a 3d printer?
Indeed, let's not forget that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. In some sense, it's more reasonable to compare today's Islam to Christianity circa 1400. You know, back when Christians had 3 competing popes, were pursuing genocide against the Jews in Krakow and expelling them elsewhere, burned Jan Hus to death for heresy and killing his followers, and still did a bit of crusading from time to time. Some perspective helps.
Also, I'm not sure how a futuristic 3d printer is going to turn ABS plastic into enriched uranium.
I believe that removing the incentive to gain wealth - or punishing it - would tend to eliminate innovation.
Then how do you explain virtually all of science? Most researchers work in academia, where salaries are paltry. In my experience, the people truly innovating are motivated by innovation itself, not money. The people motivated by money go into finance, business, and law. They don't go into science or the arts.
A lot of people are willing to sacrifice a lot of things, work very hard for low pay, etc. in order to become wealthy.
A lot of people are ignorant of reality. Nobody becomes wealthy by working very hard for low pay. Or even for high pay. The only way to become wealthy in this society is by exploiting the labor of others. By controlling a business for which other people work. To become a billionaire after 30 years of full time work, one would need to earn $16,666/hr. Not even the world's foremost rocket surgeons make that much.
If you eliminate that motivation, you end up with a bunch of formal research departments who eventually focus on preserving their own existence rather than innovating.
My belief is that many people overestimate the importance of financial motivation in this avenue of life. Many (if not all) people are indeed motivated by money. However, that's not to say that they're not also motivated by other factors. Some are most motivated by power over others. Some are most motivated by prestige. Some are most motivated by sensual pleasure. Take me as an example. I only come to work because they pay me. If I woke up in some kind of socialist utopia tomorrow, I wouldn't go to work. However, I wouldn't stop writing code; I'd just stop writing code that doesn't interest me. I still love coding, and I'd have no issues being motivated to continue developing software. Of course, I have many colleagues who don't really love coding. They're in this industry not because they fell in love with coding when they were kids, but because they saw it as a lucrative career. Those people, I doubt they'd continue coding in this hypothetical socialist utopia. Maybe they'd choose to live lives of sloth, getting grafted to their couches. Or maybe they have other passions that they could pursue. Maybe they'd be off painting or kayaking or praying or tinkering. But considering how labor participation rates keep dropping, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that we don't need people like that working. People that work just enough to keep getting paid. There's more than enough people that are passionate about their work and don't need financial motivation. Obviously that doesn't hold true for all jobs, particularly anything involving menial labor. Nobody feels passionate about working on an assembly line or cashiering. However, these are the very jobs that are being eliminated the fastest by automation technology. Perhaps not today, but in the near future, I can see only creative jobs being staffed by actual people. The very same jobs that lend themselves to intrinsic motivation.
But that's only half of my support of socialism. The half that explains why I am of the opinion that the problems that in the past would have made socialism difficult (if not impossible) to implement are not (or soon will no longer be) an issue. Why we could try socialism (and expect better results). The other half focuses on why we should try it. As labor participation continues to dwindle, and as fewer workers are required to meet the needs of society, fewer people will be able to earn a livable income. This is already becoming a bit of an issue with the jobless recovery. Whether you believe that the cause for the jobless recovery is increased automation (as I do) or structural changes in the labor market (as others do), the fact of the matter is that fewer and fewer people are working. This necessarily creates greater inequity in wealth distrubution which in turn generates social unrest. Today, we can s
For the most part, I agree with what you've written. However, I'd take minor issue with:
What so many folks in America have been led to believe is:
There's an endless supply of other people's money (evil corporations, the rich, the 1%, whatever) - that can, and will be redistributed by a benevolent government to everyone else.
Trouble is, the supply isn't endless... Raise taxes on the super rich? They move to another country. Raise taxes on evil corporations? They pass those taxes on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Those benevolent re distributors? The use the money - that they did not earn themselves - to pay for lavish lifestyles and to buy votes so they can continue those lavish lifestyles.
I have been led to believe that there is a very, very, very large supply of other people's money that ought to be redistributed by whatever means necessary to everyone else.
The supply isn't endless, but it doesn't need to be. Raising taxes on the super rich could result in the rich moving to other countries. Emmigration controls and frozen bank accounts could limit the impact of that, however. Raising taxes on corporations isn't likely to accomplish much (and really, this distracts from the problem). Greater transparency and strict accountability could serve to limit corruption in government and ensure that tax revenues are not co-opted for personal benefit.
I understand that these suggestions aren't "politically realistic". However, they are logically feasible. Perhaps I would even go as far as to agree that socialism itself requires a lot of unrealistic policies in order to work out favorably. I guess I make more of a distinction between what is realistic and what is possible.
Communism is just another name for Kings and Serfs with a propaganda arm telling the serfs how great they have it...
I would argue that claims of communism are a great way for dictators to appease the masses with populist rhetoric, much like claims of democracy. However, we don't point at "democratic" places like Thailand as examples of the failure of democracy, because we understand that claims of democracy are not the same thing as actual democracy. I would prefer if we could make such a distinction between claims of communism and actual communism. If we go down that road, it quickly becomes obvious that what we've been calling "communism" is really little more than dictatorship with a populist veneer. It may not be possible to implement actual communism due to the realities of human nature, and it's tempting to assume that to be the case, but we can't say that with any degree of certainty. Certainly some calm and honest discourse on how we would like our society organized can't hurt.
I'd take advice from a parent fro 10,000 years ago.vs. a "respected researcher in Child Development". That respected researcher probably has book smarts beyond reproach and no common sense. Me? I'm a firm believer in common sense, despite everyone trying so hard to kill it these days.
An opinion opposite (but equally valid as) mine. Personally, I have an irrational dislike of "common sense" and prefer to reason about things on my own from first principles (or as close as I can practically come to that). So many things in life are "common sense" yet have no rational basis. Many people call me eccentric for this reason.
They are also mainly populated by people with facial hair. But is that relevant? No. But Islam is.
See, this is specifically the type of idiocy that I'm trying to highlight. "But Islam is." What a strong argument.
Just read the Koran once. Denying that the Koran sanctions things like Jihad and death for apostates is like denying the Bible supports the resurrection of Jesus. It's not just a few obscure verses.
Your argument is, and I don't use this word lightly, stupid. The Christian Bible supports the resurrection of Jesus as well as the genocide of competing sects. It's also not just a few obscure verses. You conveniently focus on the socially acceptable parts, ignoring the parts that you find distasteful, while at the same time failing to recognize that Muslims are just as capable as Christians when it comes to these sorts of mental gymnastics. Yes, the Muslim Koran sanctions genocide, much like the Christian Bible does. Moderate people ignore these parts whether they're Muslim or Christian.
On another note, you are one click away from googling about many females who have joined ISIS.
As though that fucking makes a difference. There's secular individuals joining the jihad for various reasons (money, power, the usual), but you seem to dismiss that quite handily. Why should I give a fuck if some women join? Or are you now saying that Islamic State is female-dominated?
And don't forget that the men of ISIS were raised by mothers who raised them on a religion that teaches subjection of women (The Koran explicitly sanctions wife-beating.)
And the Christian Bible explicitly sanctions lots of reprehensible shit, but I don't see you getting all riled up about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said.
(Writing this I'm currently in Japan where trying to use any form of payment that's not cash (notes/coins) is next to impossible outside the largest shops in the large cities.)
I had the opposite experience. In fact, I found that my Pasmo card was accepted at surprisingly many shops, almost making it a de facto form of currency all on its own. I was warned prior to my trip that Japan is a very cash-loving society and to bring enough cash to cover the whole trip. However, I ended up able to use my credit card at an overwhelming majority of venues and had plenty of cash to change back after I got home.
P.S. If you're there for work and you're planning to submit receipts for reimbursement, I have a protip for you. "Ryoshusho" is a non-itemized check, popular among Westerners, that allows you to enjoy your share of plum wine without worrying about paying out of your own pocket.
I agree with you in the sense that I also think it's better, if only due to financial concerns. However, I still question whether it is best.
I prefer to reason about things in a vacuum, independent of "how it's done around here" and other such practical considerations. When I find a person I want to spend the rest of my life with, what should I do? Well, clearly, I should spend the rest of my life with them. Should I throw a huge party for all my friends and family? Should I provide them with all the food and booze they could possibly want? I mean, while all that sounds fun, I can't for the life of me figure out what the fuck they have to do with me wanting to spend the rest of my life with someone. Beyond "that's how it's done around here", of course.
However, I go one step further. Should I get married? After all, being married is as tangential to a lifelong partnership as is throwing a huge party. Sure, "that's how it's done around here", but I can't identify any rational basis for why that ought to be how it's done. Some people waste a ton of money on an elaborate wedding. Others waste a ton of time on courthouse weddings and divorce proceedings. I can't understand why someone would (of their own volition) endure such complexities.
Christianity didn't even handle marriage until after the fall of the Roman Empire. Before that, marriage was tied to the state.
But, but, but... the sanctity! Your rhetoric is dangerous because... um... gays!
For example, my wedding was both large (> 600 people attended our reception) and cheap (< $3000). How is that possible? We're Mormon
Yea, you're Mormon, that's why. Sure. It has nothing to do with the fact that there was no open bar. I've been a guest at many weddings, and it sounds like yours sucked. I mean, breakfast?! Who gets married in the AM?!
I'm joking. But seriously, what you describe has as much in common with a "wedding" as simply going to the courthouse to sign some papers and then hitting up the White Castle drive-thru. To many people, a wedding by definition includes a celebratory wedding feast, complete with flowing alcohol and elaborate (read: expensive) edible creations. While in theory this could be accomplished with homemade foods and homemade garments and a soundtrack provided by the whistling wind, in practice many people would find that to be a cheap immitation of the real thing and would be unsatified associating the quality of their relationship with the quality of such a farce.
That being said, social practices like the celebratory wedding feast serve to impede social mobility by ensuring the next generation always starts with a significant financial handicap.
don't live together before the marriage
Curious. Why not?
Yes, how horrible that some people keep their word, even when faced with the inconvenience of dealing with a miserable soul in a failed marriage.
There was a time when we valued people who would keep their word, even in the face of painful death. Now we criticize those who would value their integrity over mere convenience.
This is why people complain about the death of honor, particularly in the secular world.
Disclaimer: unmarried atheist.
My wife and I spent less than $2K on our wedding and reception. Yes, we had an actual reception, with good food, a dance floor, and a DJ for about 100 guests. Ordering the gown over the internet instead of going to a ripoff bridal boutique helps a lot. So does actually comparison shopping, instead of just seeing something and buying it immediately.
So, assuming everything was gratis except the food, that leaves $20/head. Your criteria for "good food" is clearly not what most people think of. That wouldn't even pay for hors d'oeuvres at most weddings, let alone actual food, let alone "good food". However, congratulations on not having family that will pressure you into a monumental waste of money.
Mod parent up. Correct use of language is refreshing.
Now that made me giggle.
In SI, that's 8.382 m/s^2 average acceleration for 3.2 s starting at 0 m/s.
Now I feel bad because it went from +5 to +1. I'm not trying to shit on anyone's parade, but I honestly didn't even suspect it could be an attempt at humor. If others find it funny, then funny it is.
I still don't get it. A deliberately stupid misreading of the summary is supposed to be funny because it's stupid?
So, 0 to 60 miles in 3.2 seconds... a range of 275 miles... So, it has less than 15 seconds of autonomy.
No, 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.2 seconds. Then, cruising at that 60 mile per hour for 4.583 hours (not 15 seconds) will take you 275 miles, at which point the battery dies. Reading fail.
So you're saying that prior to 1937 (or at the very least prior to 1906), the influence of cannabis didn't have this effect?
Mod parent up --- Awesome!!
Reminds me of the Coy module and proves once again that Perl is the most bestest language ever.
I still list Tcl/Tk on my resume. At a recent interview, this was pointed out, and both I and the interviewer had a good laugh about it.
Oh :(
You have way too much time on your hands LOL.
Indeed, note that bit about me working in defense :P
The only place we disagree is how things get invented, and your crazy belief that you only become wealthy by exploiting others. Sure, the rare guy who rips off a bunch of investors makes front page news, but that is the exception, not the rule.
When I said exploit, I didn't mean to imply any negative connotation. As humans, we exploit resources, we make full use of and derive benefit from them. And indeed, my back-of-a-napkin calculation shows that it is not possible to become a billionaire by one's own labors (by working full time for 30 years). You'll note that any billionaire has leveraged the labor of others to amass their fortune. As far as I know, nobody has ever made a billion dollars by doing their own thing without others working for them. I'm very much interested in evidence to the contrary.
Most folks, like it or not, act in their own self interest, and make sacrifices and take risks because they crave money, or power, or fame. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. Sure, lots of people SAY they will work "for the greater good" - and a few actually will - but the majority of humans are going to say "What's in it for me" and you cannot legislate that our of existence. There is no system on earth yet devised that changes this.
Indeed, that's the crux of the problem: the reality that people are, generally speaking, greedy. Free market capitalism tends to function much better in that context than does socialism. However, if the labor participation rate keeps dropping (and that's a big if), even if only "few actually will" work "for the greater good", in a future where there is only enough work for "few", this won't be an issue.
Just about all the really important, society changing inventions did not come out of funded academic research. Why? See previous paragraph. Small examples - the EPA funded research for 20 years and spent billions on how to best clean up after an oil spill. A $100,000 X Prize solved this problem in three months. NASA became a jobs program that couldn't build a reliable transport vehicle... So many examples like this.
Valid examples. However, look at the recipients of this year's Nobel prizes. In Physics, they're academics. In Chemistry, they're academics. In Physiology or medicine, they're academics. The people that won these prizes have been working tirelessly in academia, receiving paltry sums as compensation (though admittedly, the prizes themselves are worth some money). None of them are on their way to being billionaires, and if it wasn't for the prize purse, it's unlikely that any of them would even be millionaires. This demonstrates that at least some of our best and brightest are still willing to do great work without the promise of vast riches to entice them.
Large organizations - be they corporate or government operate in a reverse. The bigger they get, the more ineffective they are, and the less they produce. This is why 90% of the new jobs come from small business, along with 90% of the innovation and 90% of the growth. Big government is the most inefficient system of ALL -- and both Socialism and Communism completely deny this reality.
I agree that it does indeed appear that large organizations seem to succumb to a sort of inverted economy of scale, but I'm not convinced that this necessarily must be the case. Perhaps we're just organizing things wrongly. Or perhaps you're right and it's an inherent limitation of large organizations. While it is tempting to simply assume that to be the case, I prefer to withhold judgement on things I'm not sure about.
I suspect you work in a large organization. Get out. Goto work in a smaller one. I also suspect that you are one of those awesome people who truly dreams of a better world, and wants it to
More than anything else, Robocop showed excellent faux commercials.
Terry Pratchett? Really? I've been using that joke for years and years. Didn't know it was from Mr. Discworld himself.
However, Judaism and Christianity have a huge mitigating factor, and it's that they've undergone a lot of liberal transformations that allows them to do these sort of 'mental gymnastics'. And it makes a difference among its believers. So you might have had that abortion clinic bombing 20 years ago by some crazy Christian, but suicide bombing aren't exactly a huge problem among Christians and Jews. You have a Reformed Judaism. There is no Reformed Islam. We don't have a problem with Jewish/Christian apostates getting killed, performing honor killing, suicide bombings, or advocating that people who draw Moses or Jesus in a disrespectful fashion being prosecuted or killed.
You know, we also don't have a problem with Muslim apostates getting killed, performing honor killing, suicide bombings, or advocating that people who draw Mohammed in a disrespectful fashion being prosecuted or killed. These acts you describe are in reality not significantly more common than the "abortion clinic bombing 20 years ago by some crazy Christian". You dismiss Christian terrorism as some fringe issue, when in reality the last abortion clinic bombing in the US was in 2012. You talk about barbaric acts committed by Muslims but don't realize that an overwhelming majority of Islamic societies don't see such atrocities, at all. Your perception of Islam is shaped by video footage of masked Hamas militants firing automatic rifles in the crowded streets of Gaza, or women being beaten for being raped in Saudi Arabia. It is not shaped by (lack of) video footage of boring, stable, and modern Islamic states such as Bosnia, Turkey, or Indonesia. The Muslim world is a very large place, and the barbaric practices you describe are practiced only in a small part of it. You let that influence your perception of all Muslims, but for some reason you don't let "some crazy Christian" influence your perception of all Christians. If mental gymnastics was an Olympic event, the finals would be dominated by Westerners, and I say that as a Westerner myself.
When Muslim suicide bombers tell you that they really believe they are going to die and get their virgins, you don't believe them. It doesn't matter how many kill themselves voluntarily spouting this dogma, you still aren't convinced they really believe it. I don't know what else they can do more than killing themselves to prove to you that they actually believe this.
And when Muslim people tell you that they really just want food, shelter, clothing, safety, and the ability to raise and educate their children, you don't believe them. It doesn't matter how many live their entire lives seeking nothing more than these things, you still aren't convinced that they really believe it. I don't know what else they can do more than living their entire lives according to these desires to prove to you that they actually believe this.
So perhaps Islam after a few centuries might go through these changes as well, and be no different than your local Mormons. But I personally don't think we have 200 years. Who is to say that in 30 years a nuclear bomb might be something you can create with a 3d printer?
Indeed, let's not forget that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. In some sense, it's more reasonable to compare today's Islam to Christianity circa 1400. You know, back when Christians had 3 competing popes, were pursuing genocide against the Jews in Krakow and expelling them elsewhere, burned Jan Hus to death for heresy and killing his followers, and still did a bit of crusading from time to time. Some perspective helps.
Also, I'm not sure how a futuristic 3d printer is going to turn ABS plastic into enriched uranium.
I believe that removing the incentive to gain wealth - or punishing it - would tend to eliminate innovation.
Then how do you explain virtually all of science? Most researchers work in academia, where salaries are paltry. In my experience, the people truly innovating are motivated by innovation itself, not money. The people motivated by money go into finance, business, and law. They don't go into science or the arts.
A lot of people are willing to sacrifice a lot of things, work very hard for low pay, etc. in order to become wealthy.
A lot of people are ignorant of reality. Nobody becomes wealthy by working very hard for low pay. Or even for high pay. The only way to become wealthy in this society is by exploiting the labor of others. By controlling a business for which other people work. To become a billionaire after 30 years of full time work, one would need to earn $16,666/hr. Not even the world's foremost rocket surgeons make that much.
If you eliminate that motivation, you end up with a bunch of formal research departments who eventually focus on preserving their own existence rather than innovating.
My belief is that many people overestimate the importance of financial motivation in this avenue of life. Many (if not all) people are indeed motivated by money. However, that's not to say that they're not also motivated by other factors. Some are most motivated by power over others. Some are most motivated by prestige. Some are most motivated by sensual pleasure. Take me as an example. I only come to work because they pay me. If I woke up in some kind of socialist utopia tomorrow, I wouldn't go to work. However, I wouldn't stop writing code; I'd just stop writing code that doesn't interest me. I still love coding, and I'd have no issues being motivated to continue developing software. Of course, I have many colleagues who don't really love coding. They're in this industry not because they fell in love with coding when they were kids, but because they saw it as a lucrative career. Those people, I doubt they'd continue coding in this hypothetical socialist utopia. Maybe they'd choose to live lives of sloth, getting grafted to their couches. Or maybe they have other passions that they could pursue. Maybe they'd be off painting or kayaking or praying or tinkering. But considering how labor participation rates keep dropping, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that we don't need people like that working. People that work just enough to keep getting paid. There's more than enough people that are passionate about their work and don't need financial motivation. Obviously that doesn't hold true for all jobs, particularly anything involving menial labor. Nobody feels passionate about working on an assembly line or cashiering. However, these are the very jobs that are being eliminated the fastest by automation technology. Perhaps not today, but in the near future, I can see only creative jobs being staffed by actual people. The very same jobs that lend themselves to intrinsic motivation.
But that's only half of my support of socialism. The half that explains why I am of the opinion that the problems that in the past would have made socialism difficult (if not impossible) to implement are not (or soon will no longer be) an issue. Why we could try socialism (and expect better results). The other half focuses on why we should try it. As labor participation continues to dwindle, and as fewer workers are required to meet the needs of society, fewer people will be able to earn a livable income. This is already becoming a bit of an issue with the jobless recovery. Whether you believe that the cause for the jobless recovery is increased automation (as I do) or structural changes in the labor market (as others do), the fact of the matter is that fewer and fewer people are working. This necessarily creates greater inequity in wealth distrubution which in turn generates social unrest. Today, we can s
*whoosh*
What so many folks in America have been led to believe is:
There's an endless supply of other people's money (evil corporations, the rich, the 1%, whatever) - that can, and will be redistributed by a benevolent government to everyone else.
Trouble is, the supply isn't endless... Raise taxes on the super rich? They move to another country. Raise taxes on evil corporations? They pass those taxes on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Those benevolent re distributors? The use the money - that they did not earn themselves - to pay for lavish lifestyles and to buy votes so they can continue those lavish lifestyles.
I have been led to believe that there is a very, very, very large supply of other people's money that ought to be redistributed by whatever means necessary to everyone else.
The supply isn't endless, but it doesn't need to be. Raising taxes on the super rich could result in the rich moving to other countries. Emmigration controls and frozen bank accounts could limit the impact of that, however. Raising taxes on corporations isn't likely to accomplish much (and really, this distracts from the problem). Greater transparency and strict accountability could serve to limit corruption in government and ensure that tax revenues are not co-opted for personal benefit.
I understand that these suggestions aren't "politically realistic". However, they are logically feasible. Perhaps I would even go as far as to agree that socialism itself requires a lot of unrealistic policies in order to work out favorably. I guess I make more of a distinction between what is realistic and what is possible.
Communism is just another name for Kings and Serfs with a propaganda arm telling the serfs how great they have it...
I would argue that claims of communism are a great way for dictators to appease the masses with populist rhetoric, much like claims of democracy. However, we don't point at "democratic" places like Thailand as examples of the failure of democracy, because we understand that claims of democracy are not the same thing as actual democracy. I would prefer if we could make such a distinction between claims of communism and actual communism. If we go down that road, it quickly becomes obvious that what we've been calling "communism" is really little more than dictatorship with a populist veneer. It may not be possible to implement actual communism due to the realities of human nature, and it's tempting to assume that to be the case, but we can't say that with any degree of certainty. Certainly some calm and honest discourse on how we would like our society organized can't hurt.
I'd take advice from a parent fro 10,000 years ago .vs. a "respected researcher in Child Development". That respected researcher probably has book smarts beyond reproach and no common sense. Me? I'm a firm believer in common sense, despite everyone trying so hard to kill it these days.
An opinion opposite (but equally valid as) mine. Personally, I have an irrational dislike of "common sense" and prefer to reason about things on my own from first principles (or as close as I can practically come to that). So many things in life are "common sense" yet have no rational basis. Many people call me eccentric for this reason.
They are also mainly populated by people with facial hair. But is that relevant? No. But Islam is.
See, this is specifically the type of idiocy that I'm trying to highlight. "But Islam is." What a strong argument.
Just read the Koran once. Denying that the Koran sanctions things like Jihad and death for apostates is like denying the Bible supports the resurrection of Jesus. It's not just a few obscure verses.
Your argument is, and I don't use this word lightly, stupid. The Christian Bible supports the resurrection of Jesus as well as the genocide of competing sects. It's also not just a few obscure verses. You conveniently focus on the socially acceptable parts, ignoring the parts that you find distasteful, while at the same time failing to recognize that Muslims are just as capable as Christians when it comes to these sorts of mental gymnastics. Yes, the Muslim Koran sanctions genocide, much like the Christian Bible does. Moderate people ignore these parts whether they're Muslim or Christian.
On another note, you are one click away from googling about many females who have joined ISIS.
As though that fucking makes a difference. There's secular individuals joining the jihad for various reasons (money, power, the usual), but you seem to dismiss that quite handily. Why should I give a fuck if some women join? Or are you now saying that Islamic State is female-dominated?
And don't forget that the men of ISIS were raised by mothers who raised them on a religion that teaches subjection of women (The Koran explicitly sanctions wife-beating.)
And the Christian Bible explicitly sanctions lots of reprehensible shit, but I don't see you getting all riled up about that.