Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#ActualCornstalks

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:53 PM



I read the usual BS arguments that group A of people is better than Group B of people because A's C is way better than B's C.

So in other words, no, you didn't read it. Good to know. Now I can go on ignoring you.


To be fair, it is pretty easy to interpret that post in that manner. I am sympathetic to points JTippets raises - farmers are an important part of society, and I can understand a little bitterness at the ignorance and general apathy of consumers regarding their food source - but the message I initially got from JTippets' post was essentially, "farmer citizens are best citizens because they provide food to all the city-dwelling moochers who don't give back their fair share. Communism is bad for farmers and free market capitalism is good for farmers, so we should just do free market capitalism. Also the democrats are dirty communists!"

And my first thought was, "right, and who cares whether or not what works for small rural communities where everyone knows and helps each other is actually a good idea for large urbanized cities where few people know and help each other directly as would happen in those communities?"

I hope you understand that my summarization is hyperbole.

Re-reading it, I guess I can see how one might have seen it like that. I read it more as "On a very small scale, socialistic practices might work well, because they can't afford to allow laziness to creep in. Taken to a massive scale, however, laziness is likely to creep in and spread like a cancer, and then it's only a matter of time for bigger problems to develop than the socialist state originally set out to solve. Laziness isn't something you just wish away, and we don't have an altruistic way of not allowing laziness to creep in either, despite the (hopefully) altruistic desires of a social state. The people who play one of the most critical roles in a socialist society also happen to be one of the most overlooked/underappreciated: the agricultural industry. (Now I'm speaking as if I were JTippets in this next sentence, but know they're my words, not necessarily his) I'm just realizing how much this might impact me, and knowing that I share the same feelings that others I know in this industry have, I can tell you right now it won't work; laziness will ruin the system, and pretending like laziness won't be a problem isn't going to go well; but we can't (or at least don't know how to) solve the laziness problem, and realistically speaking, it's only a matter of time that the workers/providers revolt against the lazy, and now how great of a solution is the socialist state? Or laziness is beaten out of the system through economic collapse or force, neither of which are desirable either."

Edit: I should say there are degrees of socialism. There are socialist ideas that I think are just fine, and others I don't, and others I have no clue/opinion on. But I can say that, given our current "big" politicians, I don't have enough faith in them to pull anything off, socialist or not.

But I'm out of this thread, I actually hate economics/politics. I don't even know why I jumped in :)

#1Cornstalks

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:47 PM



I read the usual BS arguments that group A of people is better than Group B of people because A's C is way better than B's C.

So in other words, no, you didn't read it. Good to know. Now I can go on ignoring you.


To be fair, it is pretty easy to interpret that post in that manner. I am sympathetic to points JTippets raises - farmers are an important part of society, and I can understand a little bitterness at the ignorance and general apathy of consumers regarding their food source - but the message I initially got from JTippets' post was essentially, "farmer citizens are best citizens because they provide food to all the city-dwelling moochers who don't give back their fair share. Communism is bad for farmers and free market capitalism is good for farmers, so we should just do free market capitalism. Also the democrats are dirty communists!"

And my first thought was, "right, and who cares whether or not what works for small rural communities where everyone knows and helps each other is actually a good idea for large urbanized cities where few people know and help each other directly as would happen in those communities?"

I hope you understand that my summarization is hyperbole.

Re-reading it, I guess I can see how one might have seen it like that. I read it more as "On a very small scale, socialistic practices might work well, because they can't afford to allow laziness to creep in. Taken to a massive scale, however, laziness is likely to creep in and spread like a cancer, and then it's only a matter of time for bigger problems to develop than the socialist state originally set out to solve. Laziness isn't something you just wish away, and we don't have an altruistic way of not allowing laziness to creep in either, despite the (hopefully) altruistic desires of a social state. The people who play one of the most critical roles in a socialist society also happen to be one of the most overlooked/underappreciated: the agricultural industry. (Now I'm speaking as if I were JTippets in this next sentence, but know they're my words, not necessarily his) I'm just realizing how much this might impact me, and knowing that I share the same feelings that others I know in this industry have, I can tell you right now it won't work; laziness will ruin the system, and pretending like laziness won't be a problem isn't going to go well; but we can't (or at least don't know how to) solve the laziness problem, and realistically speaking, it's only a matter of time that the workers/providers revolt against the lazy, and now how great of a solution is the socialist state? Or laziness is beaten out of the system through economic collapse or force, neither of which are desirable either."

PARTNERS