pangloss:
"What mechanisms would you put in place to realise those goals, keeping in mind that no matter what, the financiers will look for loopholes and lobby as hard as they possibly can to keep the party going?" Make a conscious effort to close loopholes. That's not specific because it varies from law to law in regards to this. Also, set a cap on expenditures for corporate lobbying (possibly no corporate lobbying). Those sound like good precautions to keep in mind when figuring out which regulations would work best. Another thing, buzzword is starting to sound like a buzzword.

Because man is greedy Socialism will/can never work! The other thing to keep in mind is, in the whole of things it not what is good for mankind it what mankind does to give honor, glory and worship to God.

@ SuperFlyNoob:

If God designed man, why did he design him to be greedy?

Common mis-understanding... man is greedy because of his sin nature which comes from his disobedience.

wow, i didn't know one can get from a socialism debate into a theodicy one so quickly!

@ SuperFlyDaddio: "man is greedy because of his sin nature which comes from his disobedience"

But God is claimed to be omniscient. Therefore he knew man would disobey. He designed a man he knew would disobey. Either man's disobedience is part of God's design, or God is either an imperfect designer, or not omniscient.

Back to topic: "Because man is greedy Socialism will/can never work!" I have a couple things about this. First, I'd say I'm more prideful and power-hungry than greedy. My personal take is that people seek power first (money is the easiest way to gain it), and they become truly greedy after they are guaranteed to stay powerful. Next, this idea was discussed previously. Basically, you're right on a large scale, like the Soviet Union, but in a small community, where people can more easily know and care for each other, it has potential. In regards to a state, which I view as rather important, the people are too unknown from each other for socialism to be effective, based on that idea.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=147187 please join im sad and socialism is screwed - unfortunately we're all a cheeky bit too greedy. What u gonna do

Use the "ADVERTISE YOUR LIVE GAMES" thread for that, please.

Yes, God knew man would disobey, of course. But whay you are missing is God created man with athe ability to choose. Know man would choose to dis-obey He also provided a way redemption to bring man back to perfection.

understand that people are also largely motivated by their environment. We ALL grew up in a society that prioritizes taking as much as you can get, getting ahead over others at all costs, and hoarding wealth for personal pleasure. It can be easy to mistake socialization for human nature and people have done this throughout history. Small things can change people's attitudes in big ways.

Also cut it with the god talk. Doesn't exist, doesn't matter.

"We ALL grew up in a society that prioritizes taking as much as you can get, getting ahead over others at all costs, and hoarding wealth for personal pleasure"

Which society are you thinking of? It's not one I recognise.

"Also cut it with the god talk. Doesn't exist, doesn't matter." Or, at least, keep it on a different thread from one that's about economic systems, not theology.
Octavious:
Maybe America? That seems like a stretch, but then there's the "Small things can change people's attitudes in big ways.", so maybe it's subtle. I've definitely been taught that honesty (which goes against the "at all costs" thing) and giving to those in need (which goes against the "hoarding wealth" thing) are extremely important.

"Which society are you thinking of? It's not one I recognise."

"I've definitely been taught that honesty (which goes against the "at all costs" thing) and giving to those in need (which goes against the "hoarding wealth" thing) are extremely important. "

Certainly you may have individually had these values taught to you, but look at the people and values we as a society put on a pedestal. Empty celebrity, wasteful opulence, pulling's one self up by your bootstraps, and if you fail it's your fault and no one else's.

"First, I'd say I'm more prideful and power-hungry than greedy." (TrPrado)
I agree this is a better way to say it, but the essential point is the same. The natural human instinct is toward preservation (even aggrandizement) of self and only secondarily sympathy or altruism for others. Federalist 51, anyone? (Oh wait, Madison talked about angels. The Chairman has ruled line of thinking out of order with his "Also cut it with the god talk. Doesn't exist, doesn't matter.")

"Basically, you're right on a large scale, like the Soviet Union, but in a small community, where people can more easily know and care for each other, it has potential." (TrPrado)
Even here, motives are important. The biggest problem with socialism is its compulsory nature. But it has to be compulsory because voluntary socialism would be ripe for a free rider problem on a massive scale. (I'm not denying that there are some truly altruistic people who elevate their sympathetic attitudes above their self-advancing ones, but I think it's highly dubious to suggest that this is a natural state of affairs for any more than a small minority of people). In the small community, you can get compulsion without law through effective social pressure. Altruistic behavior becomes compatible with self-aggrandizing motives: reputation is highly important, and the expression of sympathy toward others can enhance one's reputation, thereby enhancing one's own station within the community -- if the community values such things, at least, and if a person is primarily concerned with maintaining his social standing (several important if's there). In the larger state, social pressure is much less likely to be compelling, and that's where the usual need for legal pressure comes in. In both cases, there's plenty of compulsion, and the socialist outcome, if it occurs, is less a matter of selflessness than enforced conformity.

^I might also note that, even in a small community, a member (or members) who possesses independent means would be much less susceptible to social pressure, so that, absent personal altruism, some form of legal pressure would still be necessary in order to see that member (or those members) participating.

Well Chairman/Octavious, cutting the God talk doesn’t make any sense. As God is the Creator of all, including economic matters. The way man thinks is fully dependent on his up-bringing. What do you think the world be like without rules and guidelines? Where do you think rules and guidelines came from? Do you really think man (who according to you prioritizes ‘me’ would ever put someone else ahead of their own needs and wants? I don’t think so. So as God established rules and guidelines, everything from morals to coveting, He is and should be considered in all matters of discussion. I know this thinking, admitting we have God to be accountable too is not popular, but Truth is Truth. Man fully left to himself without the intervening Grace of God would be total debauchery!

On topic… Biblical truth is… if you don’t work…you don’t eat. The world of ‘handouts’ is killing us all! People are wanting more and more because they ‘deserve’ it. Really? Why do they deserve anything? expecilly if they don’t work for it. Why should I give to support the unwilling? If you want to eat… learn to fish! (so to speak).

When a person is given and given and given stuff (i.e. welfare) there whole person starts to change. They become more and more dependent on handout. Lots of studies on this. We need to stop feeding this way of thinking.

"organized compassion"

wtf is polluting my screen. Lefties really like to pat themselves on the back. And why does compassion need to be organized anyway?

somebodies. a bit CRABBY today. huh? love it

SuperFlyDaddio:
"if you don’t work…you don’t eat" Or, looking at modern socio-economic classes, you can put in minimal work and eat plenty (the super-wealthy), while you could perform back-breaking labor for a living but not be able to afford that much food (those in poverty). Social mobility isn't realistic the things are currently because the excessively wealthy keep taking more and more money from the poor. "Why do they deserve anything?" Because they're human beings, and it's the governments job to protect its people, regardless of how wealthy they are. "Why should I give to support the unwilling?" Most of the people on welfare actually have jobs, probably the best ones they can get. They're not unwilling. "When a person is given and given and given stuff (i.e. welfare) there whole person starts to change. They become more and more dependent on handout." That's right, they can eat. If you don't like welfare, do something about it that gets people off the welfare list. Give them a steady job with a living wage, and they are likely to leave welfare behind.
crabapple:
"Lefties really like to pat themselves on the back." The same can be said of everyone on the political spectrum. I'm not a socialist, but I'm not on the right wing. I'm a centrist because we form political opinions based on logic and realism. I know I'm patting the back of myself and my fellow centrists, but wouldn't you do the same for people who share your opinion? Wouldn't you hold the opinion you have formed over the conflicting opinions?

No one said 'compassion NEEDS to be organized'... what was said is people seem to feel the need to organize compassion. Again, from a biblical view, compassion is an individual responsibility and should not be taken lightly.

@superflydaddio

6/10 troll, almost believable until you got into handouts.

@ SuperFlyDaddio: Oh where is this world of full employment that the Lord hath promised us, in your view?

What about people upon whom the Lord has chosen to inflict a serious disability? Must they also learn to fish or die?

There will always be social classes, and you are making my point regarding personal responsibility. Some of the most giving people I know are among the least wealthy, but, don’t know any wealthy people!

It’s not that the wealthy are taking from the poor, it more like the wealthy continue to gain wealth as it multiplies. A good wealthy person will compensate the worker fairly-no doubt. But, we all know as stated in the beginning of this string of notes, it’s an ‘all about me.com’ mentality/world. The Bible is clear a worker should be paid fairly which requires personal responsibility. The key word is ‘worker’. The Bible also tells business owners to not take everything, but leave some for the poor (based on a farm economic system & paraphrased of course) which could be equated to supporting relief programs, soup kitchens etc. A personal responsibility not a government responsibility. I believe what has happened is people started getting farther and farther away from God and His statutes which started driving governments to fill the need.

Being a human being only means I deserve a chance, it does not mean I deserve part of your paycheck. I deserve to be treated with respect because I was created in Gods image, but it does not mean I deserve to anything, or to have the governments feed me and pay my bills. Roosevelt started a huge slipper-slope we will never recover from. Yes, the governments job is to provide protection for the people from enemies, foreign and domestic

Darwinism, survival of the fittest.

@ Jamiet99uk... need to sign off for now. read above and I will add more later.

I have no issue believing in this. With world population surpassing 7 billion, you will too....sooner or later.

The bible has literally zero sway or say in anything to do with this topic. For those earlier commenting on how they grew up being taught compassion and giving are good, take a good hard look at SuperFlyDaddio's posts because they are EXACTLY how New century evangelists are co-opting religious ideals to spout a Fuck You, Got Mine mentality.

If you actually are interested in debating the social value of the bible Daddio, make a new thread and I'll slap you upside with the New testament faster than you can say Abraham. Jesus was a socialist.