Do you think socialism would work in a society comprised strictly of highly intelligent individuals?
>>72107543
like yourself
>>72107543
>sim city
You just triggered me successfully anon
>>72107543
no
we need rich people they are gods among us
>>72107543
I think it would only work with an authoritarian government. It may be possible once we have fusion and replicators (ie post scarcity).
>>72107543
>Do you think socialism would work in a society comprised strictly of highly intelligent individuals?
Anything would work in that society
>>72107543
of a homogenous white population, yes. it *is* working, but we have liberals working hard to undo it
the japs are homogenous, but they lack empathy. they have a society that works, but they treat each other like dirt compared to how we norwegians treat each other
>>72107543
Intelligent people are able to comprehend that there would be a rich ruling elite with control of all the resources, so no.
>>72107638
Did it trigger you because the game is shit?
Or because the sim people in it are all pants on head retarded?
>>72107543
>strictly of highly intelligent individuals
Socialism works. But it works very poorly. Slavery works, folks. But there are better systems, like capitalism.
Socialism collapses when the people see a better alternative for themselves.
>>72107543
Intelligence has less to do with it than having a strong sense of family with members of your nation. For example it worked in Germany during the Volkisch movement, and it won't work in Germany now during the multiculti movement. There's no sense of identity, and therefore no unity.
I guess you could say intelligence has much to do with it, because it's dumb to wreck your nation by destroying it's homogeny.
Socialism only works in a society where everyone is productive.
In the Third Reich, socialism worked because everyone was required to do physical or mental labor that benefited society; in other words, they did not have:
- usurious Jews (or spiritual Jews, plenty of whites like that)
- lazy niggers wanting gibs me dats
Those two things alone ruin it.
The problem today is that there is an abundance of people who are no longer necessary, since many low-skill jobs have been mechanized in some way or another. It's one thing to have a lined-up rally of a bunch of physical laboring Germans at some Nuremberg rally in the 30's, it's entirely unfeasible today.
The world doesn't need half the people that are in it.
>>72107891
>Slavery works, folks. But there are better systems, like capitalism.
>he doesn't know that best is hybrid of slavery and capitalism
>>72107543
No, because intelligent people would constantly attempt to abuse the system to obtain maximum benefits for minimum efforts, such as by taking over the government and embezzling funds.
The only society where socialism can work is one where everyone is roughly around the retardation line, so that nobody can even think about doing such a thing.
>>72108077
>since many low-skill jobs have been outsourced to China some way or another.
Fixed for you.
according to my made-up definition of socialism: maybe
>>72107809
Both
Cities XL ftw
>>72107543
If everyone was smarter socialism would just collapse faster because smarter people would figure out how to milk the system faster.
>>72107543
No. Smart people tend to rationalize their mistakes even more than dumbasses.
In a extremely nationalist society where menial jobs are automated, yeah probably.
Now you think about how such society would even be possible to achieve.
>>72108077
Socialism cannot work because without profit and loss the central planner cannot calculate how to use resources efficiently.
READ YOUR FUCKING MISES YOU IGNORANT FUCKS, HE WROTE IT DOWN IN NINETEEN FUCKING TWENTY!
>>72108385
Also, I forgot. Fuck EA. Playing Sims 2 because it's the latest Sims without Origin.
>>72107543
Listen to me OP. ANYTHING and I mean ANYfuckingTHING works in a society where idiocy is automatic exile.
Maybe in a post-scarcity society.
No, socialism only works in very small units, like family or commune-sized. Once you get big enough that you don't know everyone else in your unit (and thus can't keep them accountable), forget it. Then you need private property and a distributed system (free markets).
>>72108435
EA killed the Sim City franchise. I wish it was still owned by Black Pearl. Fucking Maxis selling themselves to kikes. Look at Plants Vs. Zombies now when EA bought it from PopCap games. It went shit too
>>72108412
False.
>>72107543
Socialism would only work in a Utopian civilization, but such a civilization cannot exist as long as the human condition exists.
Socialism goes against Human nature.
>>72107543
Hmm.....
where have I heard that idea before ?
>>72107543
No, why would it? How do you overcome the presupposition of argumentation, the rconomic calculation problem and labour theory of value? How does having "smarter" people magically change this?
>>72108412
Here's using resources efficiently: your race = first class, enslave the other races.
Go fuck yourself, you human calculator. You're as soulless as any other economist, and your ideal world is one of everyone in a blue vest.
The world isn't fair, it never was meant to be, but you retards think "efficiency" matters.
Let's have a frank conversation about the economics of Ancient Rome, and then lets talk about your capitalist results of Detroit.
Fuck me you economists make me want to puke.
>>72108412
private property is not incompatible with socialism.
No man should want by no fault of his own, and no man should receive through no work of his own.
>>72108658
Yea, wow, you completely refuted hundreds of pages worth of economic literature that was proven to be true by literally every single experiment of socialism, faggot.
https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth
>>72107543
No.
Why ?
Because if they are highly intelligent they don't need socialism.
The whole concept of socialism is to take care of the inferiors by regulating every segment of his life while preventing the ables ones to do what they want (so to create wealth).
The joke part is that it's even worse for the weaks at the end of the day when all the wealth has been looted because the intelligent/willingful are just working enough to feed themself (since there is no better tomorrow allowed) while all the other die from hunger.
>>72107543
>Socialism
>intelligent individuals
That's an oxymoron of Biblical scale.
>>72108818
>No man should want by no fault of his own, and no man should receive through no work of his own.
Why?
>>72107543
>socialism
>would work
N O
>>72108804
>capitalist results of Detroit
kek. you have never read a single book or even an essay or a study on economics.
>>72107543
Not really intelligent, but you would need a society that puts huge emphasis on the betterment of the whole and where most people don't put personal goals ahead. Truth is people are not like that, and the world is not like star trek.
>>72107543
Highly intelligent individuals don't need tribes they are autonomous.
>>72108880
For the benefit of the people.
>>72107543
No, they will still disagree on too many issues.
>>72108862
Like "loving God"
>>72108697
Thank fucking god someone else understands economics.
>mfw most "right wing" National Socialists would be screaming "BERNIE SANDERS 2016" if we were living in a white society
>>72108077
>The problem today is that there is an abundance of people who are no longer necessary, since many low-skill jobs have been mechanized in some way or another.
This is a fallacy, there is not a fixed amount of work to be done in the world, and its not about spreading that work around amongst the population.
They said there wasn't enough work to do anymore due to automation back in the industrial revolution too. It was bullshit then as well.
>>72108658
stupid canadian fagot, what will you do when you taste the ruin of living in a chavezian nightmare?
ignore cancuks
bully cancuks
insult cancuks
>>72107543
No. Intelligent people would quickly begin to question why they're not getting paid according to their worth. Intelligent people are often notoriously narcissistic, if not prideful. Any amount of self-importance makes socialism not work
>>72109064
This is why Europe is obliterated
>>72107543
>man has kids, man decides that he wants his kids to have better lives
>socialism dies
>>72108077
What the Fuck
What fucking flag magic is this
>National Socialists
>Election
>>72109141
If everyone was intelligent, they wouldn't be worth very much.
>>72109121
>there is not a fixed amount of work to be done in the world
We could have people build card houses all day, but of what use would that be? Who would give their valuable work in exchange to watch a retard build a card house?
>>72108955
>for the benefit of the people
Which people, how do they benefit? By their very nature 'public' goods are not in demand
>>72108827
>>72109132
Butthurt wageslaves detected. What's wrong, can't handle the fact that the pieces of papers you gain from your labor are inherently worth nothing?
>>72109262
People dont worth shit, it is the value they produce the others that is worth something in the eye of the beholder. More intelligent people are simply able to find more creative ways to create value for others.
>>72109067
Yup.
>>72109324
There is no limit to demand.
>>72109332
worth more than a fagot cancuk
feel free to move to utopia: nk, venezuela, cuba. heaven is waitign
>>72109324
Can you rephrase that as I literally have no idea what point you are trying to make.
What I was saying was that there isn't a limit to the amount of work. If there is '100' work to be done, and it was split between 10 people doing on average '10' work each, just because a machine comes along and does '80' work now, it does not mean that 8 people no longer have any job prospects.
>>72109469
Nice strawman, wageslave. As expected of a paper worshiper.
>>72109262
>if everyone was intelligent, nobody would be worth much
Youre right! Because theres only one form of intelligence. Literally any smart person on earth knows exactly what all the other smatt people know, and only that much. Nothing else...
>>72109559
>le knowledge = intelligence meme
Loving this thread desu, all the single-digit-IQfags are in it.
>>72109636
>canada pretending to be smart
>coming off as arrogant faggots
Your entire country is made of shit-eating grins, arent they?
>>72109546
youll worship toilet paper when it becomes a myth in your cunt little faget
>>72109324
What is this flag?
>>72107891
It only collapses when the greedy cooperate cunts make it collapse, because they want more wealth rather than doing some good for the world
>>72109899
les echelles
>>72109899
Fishing colony full of Friggers (French Niggers)
>>72109985
Thanks - I was on mobile.
Highly intelligent, highly diligent, and highly ethical, then perhaps.
But just intelligent? No.
>>72109976
That's not greedy, what is greedy is when the social loafers expect to sponger off of those who do the work.
>>72107543
Unfortunately, no.
We need stupid people to clean toilets, make food, and to feel superior to. A society of highly intelligent individuals would end up thinking loads of things are 'below' them just like how they do now.
Not to mention that a lot of people with high IQs aren't good at socialisation, or empathy, and different kinds of stuff.
And I suppose it depends on what you're considering intelligent. IQ?
I have a high IQ (138) but I consider myself stupid because I'm genetically damaged: OCD, Tourettes, depression, autism, dropout, social anxiety.
>>72107780
>but we have liberals working hard to undo it
The liberal strikes again.
A mixed system would work, give everyone a state provided basic-wage instead of minimum wages.
So you get enough money to cover rent, food and utilities. But if you want anything more you'll need to work for it.
This gives a much larger incentive for the unemployed to work, as currently welfare actually pays out the same or even higher than minimum wage, and lets companies that are getting off the ground to pay a pittance.
>>72111319
>give everyone a state provided basic-wage
This doesn't work, has never worked, will never work, and hopefully will never happen. There are 1000 reasons why, too long to go into here on /pol/ but the basic premise is that you remove the incentive to work at both ends of the scale. Poor people won't work because they get money for free. Rich people won't work because their rewards are taken away.
>>72107543
What does intelligence have to do with socialism.
A spider's intelligence could be raised a thousand times and it's still gonna catch bugs.Just in a more efficient manner.
Man can't live like ants no matter how smart they are
>>72113370
Wow, that was an incredibly insightful comment. Are you an actual Turk?
I always hear people saying that socialism won't work because it "goes against human nature".
But what do you mean by that? Humans have been in existence for 250 000 years. For almost that entire time we lived in tribes where we were almost completely equal, had no private property, and everything was shared. People worked and did their part because their tribe expected them to and the social cost of not doing so was not an option.
So... there are many problems with socialism, and many great things about capitalism, but arguing that capitalism is somehow more in tune with human nature sounds like ignorant bullshit to me. Only someone with no understanding of our past could argue that.
>>72111288
>to feel superior to.
Yes that's very essential to society, typical British mentality.
>>72111319
>>72112770
And because I'm bored at work I'll explain why it's shit a bit more.
Everybody automatically gets, say, £10,000 a year to cover rent, food & utilities. Does literally everybody get it? Or just the people earning less than £10,000? If you were doing a job for £9,000 a year, you'd quickly quit that job and then do nothing all day and still get a pay rise. Then there's the person who works for £11,000 a year. They toil away day after day, to only look at their neighbour earning almost as much as they are by sitting on their arse all day. Anyone above the basic wage would also quit their job.
So now you've got more people than ever out of work because they are being paid to do nothing. To cover the shortfall, the rich pay more tax. They lose their incentive to work because their rewards are taken away. On top of that, they have less capital to put back into their business and pay to their staff.
Or does everybody get the basic £10,000 a year? How the fuck would that work? Everybody gets £10,000, no questions asked, paid for by their own taxes? Since some people don't pay tax, you'd need more than £10,000 to go into the pot from each person paying in order to get £10,000 out again to everyone.
And is it done per family, or per person?
What if they spend their money not on rent and food, but on gambling, drink and drugs? You gonna stop them?
And good luck taking away everyone's disability, veterans, retirees, child benefits etc. They'd never give that up in exchange for a basic wage.
>>72107543
Why would socialism even be needed in a society comprised of highly intelligent individuals?
Why would you need or want socialism in a society of intelligent individuals? The entire point of socialism is to provide for the poor and unintelligent.
Socialism in any form always results in an inefficient allocation of resources. No, it wouldn't work well.
>>72113370
Beautiful
>>72113588
I don't know.We are all a mix here in Black Sea Region
>>72107891
Not sure capitalism has actually worked, the system currently in place is socialism. Free market economies failed such as existed in the 19th Century.
>>72107543
a smart person isn't going to work hard when he gets the same shit as someone who sits on their ass
socialism only works in primitive tribes where you actually die if you don't work your fair share
>>72113612
Tribes were only ever really a maximum of 150 people in the past. Not tens of millions. When early humans lived like that, they really could see the benefit of their work to society.
Expecting 100million people to go to work for no reward is incredibly optimistic. It is human nature to spend time doing something with the premise that you'll get something back. With socialism, you get nothing back. Your work does not belong to you, it belongs to society. You will never see the fruits of your labour.
>>72113612
>For almost that entire time we lived in tribes where we were almost completely equal, had no private property, and everything was shared. People worked and did their part because their tribe expected them to and the social cost of not doing so was not an option.
The cost for that was constant intertribal warfare and technological stagnation. It wasn't until agriculture and more sophisticated forms of hierarchy developed that we got anywhere.
Humanity thrives on peaceful competition, and you need something to incentivize that.
>>72108077
nice flag man
No, because they would be highly intelligent individuals.
>>72107543
National Socialism.
Not just simply socialism would work in a functioning an flourishing society.
>>72113639
It actually is.
If you have 2 groups of people: one super advanced, one stone-age. They will both say they are around the same in terms of happiness until they know about one-another.
Then the stone-age will be less happy and the advanced one would be happier. We see this with poorer nations all the time.
>>72108105
Is that you Ivan?
>>72107543
Quebec is a socialist shit hole the proof : liberal party which is almost always in power is expert at gibmedats but is also corrupt to the core, there isn't a week that goes by without another corruption scandal and they don't even give a shit about it any more because they know that the majority are retards and will vote for them no matter what because of the no longer existing threat of the sovereigntists.
>>72113762
How exactly did they fail? The 19th century was a century of economic growth never seen before.
>>72114445
National is a code-word for white. Just say White Socialism.
>>72107780
The chinks have no souls
>>72107891
>like capitalism
>better systems
>>72113762
oh yeah, this is another thing that annoys me.
Fucking faggots going "hurr durr....socialism doesn't work, capitalism all the way, hurr durr"
when every modern country is actually a mixed system. There is not a single first world country that is socialist, and not one that is capitalist. We're all mixed. And honestly, the difference between a leftist country like France or Denmark and a more right leaning country like the US, is quite small.
>>72115232
They required government intervention and regulation to function properly. They failed as in starving and homeless, not providing for people i.e. Great Depression style and without the government (socialism) the system wouldn't function properly today.
Basically, capitalism, pure capitalism and free markets will always lead to catastrophe.
>>72116245
Do you think there weren't starving and homeless people before the 19th century?
Also, who's responsibility is it to "provide for people"?
>>72107543
No I don't think so. I consider myself intelligent and I studied engineering. I love my work and I work a lot, because my job is so much fun.
A friend of mine ( friend 1), who also studied engineering works less then 30 hours a week. The rest of the day he goes hiking and on cycling tours.
I don't judge him for that. His argument always was "I want to work as little as possible to have as much time as possible and the means to do what I like most".
Who can argue against that? He is living his dream.
Another friend of mine (friend 2) from highschool is a unemployed gamer. We were both nerds when we were teenagers. I don't think that I am smater then he, but I am very well off and he lives with his dad. His job is distributing newspapers 3 times a week at 4 am in the moring. The rest of the time he plays video games.
He is on social benefits of course.
3 Smart individuals with 3 different lives. Now, friend 1 could work a lot less if he wouldn't need to support friend 2. Friend 2 only lives like this because the social system of Germany allows it. Friend 1 wants kids now and is considering to work more. He doesn't need to though. He could live his dream if friend 2 didn't exists or if he would support himself.
Can't remember which group it was but they did a test with a MENSA-like group of individuals in the top 1% of IQ or higher, and almost every single one, when questioned on political preferences, sided towards free market libertarian capitalism. Then there are the numerous studies showing libertarians to be the most systemizing-logical thinkers over emotional/ethics based thinking.
So as far as the smarter society goes, libertarians will find the most capable individuals flocking to the top sectors of that country, and a libertarian society constituted of them would be somewhat more efficient at least. But in general, socialist societies require idiots, empty minds with big wallets that fund the welfare state and graze passively while they get bloated and enjoy their shitty free college education and high taxes.
>>72107543
Socialism doesn't work when there are jobs that nobody wants to do. Under capitalism, you have people who will work strictly for monetary comp and those jobs would be done, because people don't care what they do as long as they are appropriately compensated. Under socialism, the shit job doesn't get done, because nobody would be willing to do something they don't like below market wage. At least the job will not be well done. The jobs that people all want to do will have non competitive requirements, and in the end those jobs will end up being done less well than if you have a market based system.
The point is very simple. Under socialism, you need the system to self adjust. Under capitalism, the system is adjusted by market forces. So essentially socialism survives until the first crisis that the people in charge don't adjust properly.
>>72107780
>of a homogenous white population, yes
Why do you feel that way? Isn't the real separation not really our race but the discrepancies in intelligence?
I feel most comfortable with like-minded individuals irrespective of race.
>>72108690
>Socialism goes against Human nature.
Perhaps, but we're most vulnerable to our nature when we're not able to stand back and analyze it.
That is to say, what comes natural to us isn't necessarily optimal. And we have all kinds of cognitive shortcomings that cause us to make decisions against our own interests.
But we have a self-awareness that allows us to overcome aspects of our nature.
This is why I suggested a high-IQ society. I would argue that people with lower intelligence are less in control of their animal nature and act without framing their actions in larger contexts.
>>72111288
>We need stupid people to clean toilets
Not necessarily. A society that was sufficiently intelligent could probably automate those kinds of tasks in a few years. The technology exists, it's just not being used yet.
>make food
Also can be automated.
>and to feel superior to
Is this really how people feel? Yuck.
>Not to mention that a lot of people with high IQs aren't good at socialisation, or empathy, and different kinds of stuff.
Citation needed on that.
>>72112770
This will have to work eventually. We're headed toward an automated society. There will be fewer jobs available than there are people.
Uber ordered self-driving cars. What happens to the economy when no one owns a car, no one owns car insurance, the entire transportation industry is run by robots? A small number of entities (e.g. Uber) own all of the means and collect all of the profits, but at the same time, there's no truck driving jobs, there's no car insurance jobs, etc.
So that means we need to
a) cull a lot of people; basically people who aren't smart enough to compete for engineering jobs
b) or we give everyone who can't work a basic income.
c) let them starve
d) make automation illegal to artificially inflate the job market with unnecessary jobs
The system we currently have simply can't stand up to an increasingly automated world. That's a fact. We have to make some kind of adjustment. Basic income seems like one way to go about it.
>>72118386
OK - assuming you are right on the whole automation / running out of jobs point - Who is going to pay for basic income?
>>72118551
The tiny handful of people who still have jobs. Probably large entities e.g. Uber will have to prop up the rest of the country. The implications of this are disturbing.
In lieu of basic income, what would you do in such a scenario? Without gibs, people who aren't programmers, roboticists, doctors, etc., basically everyone without a high IQ, basically will starve.
>>72107543
No. The only system that doesn't work with regular people and would work with intelligent and rational individuals is anarchy. Classical socialism meanwhile will fail as long as there is but a single person willing to exploit the system.
>>72116470
What? You are the one telling everyone how great the period was, I am reminding you of the some odd 28 economic crises the United States had since its inception.
I don't know, the responsibility is for the market or economy to provide your basic needs. Supply and demand. Most people want to live, if an economic system fails to the point where it no longer provides food than it failed yes.
>>72113699
>Why would you need or want socialism in a society of intelligent individuals?
It's a hypothetical, a thought experiment.
>>72116470
People themselves first and foremost. However, most people are too stupid to successfully do that so we what's called a social safety net.
>>72118737
So you recognise that asking the few to pay for the majority is far from ideal.
The solution is in that there is no such thing as 'running out of jobs'. New jobs open up at a similar rate as jobs being lost to machines.
>>72113370
>A spider's intelligence could be raised a thousand times and it's still gonna catch bugs.Just in a more efficient manner.
Very few species of spiders are social creatures, though. You are correct, a solitary hunter being extremely intelligent would likely just make it a very efficient solitary hunter, but social animals don't operate in isolation, and thus can form complex societies.
Your analogy is bogus for that reason.
>Man can't live like ants no matter how smart they are
I would argue that we already do, when you examine our behavior abstractly. We could be looked at as highly advanced ants, and our societies reflect the complexities and nuances thereof.
>>72118845
>Why would you want socialism?
Perhaps it is the best at allocating resources to obtain a goal. If you wanted to allocate societies resources to build a space station etc, it would be more efficient because there would be no speculation or hoarding of material.
>>72107543
>>72108222
Cities XL & skylines are dog shit though. The last decent city building game was simcity 4.
>>72107780
Japanese watch out for eachother, I'm not sure what you mean.
Just look at how they handle a natural disaster vs like, katrina.
Also aren't the "conservatives" wanting to return to traditional values hypocritical? You want one pussy for each man, according to his needs. That's pussy socialism, not free market pussy. What's pussy worth on the free market? Can you afford kids, psst they aren't good investments and no roic.
>>72119073
>So you recognise that asking the few to pay for the majority is far from ideal.
For me the primary concern is that when Uber owns the entire transportation industry, they essentially become our rulers, and get to dictate transportation.
The few paying for the majority *is* far from ideal, but the irony is that it's a theoretical outcome to capitalism, and is really what necessitates the eventuality of income redistribution. Increasingly limited resources from lower classes getting funneled up into a handful vast corporations that own basic means like transportation, communication, etc.
>New jobs open up at a similar rate as jobs being lost to machines.
I would disagree. A lot of employment is necessitated on repetitive tasks. These are the first things to get automated. Humans can only be in one place at once, and even hardware can only be in one place at once. Software, however, can be copied with no practical limit.
For example, a hypothetical software program that can do your taxes as accurately and efficiently as an H&R Block rep eliminates not just one H&R Block rep but all of them simultaneously. The number of people needed to maintain that software is a fraction of the number of representatives who have been replaced.
We haven't gotten to that point, where I can automate my tax filing and not have to do anything but click a button. But we *will* get there. Particularly with everything leaving a digital paper trail, I can see a piece of software analyzing my emails, texts, receipts, bank statements, etc, and perhaps do a better job at my taxes than a human being.
>>72119182
Being social doesn't change the analogy.My point is you can't force people to do things against their nature.Man is an individual and social.When you force him to do things he should not he start malfunctioning
Force a man to work in meaningless jobs he gets depression
Force a man to kill what he thinks is innocent and he get PTSD
I believe socialism is also against human nature because it forces us to abandon our egos.
>>72120198
If we originated from tribal socialism, that is how we evolved. Tribes of 150 ppl, surviving, without profit incentive that must be a real shocker because we lived like that for much longer than for profit.
Point being, it's a stupid point to bring up being against our nature when that's how we lived for hundreds of thousands of years.
>>72120443
What do you mean by profit incentive?
>>72119914
>For me the primary concern is that when Uber owns the entire transportation industry, they essentially become our rulers, and get to dictate transportation.
There's no real reason why a competitor couldn't innovate and offer an alternative service to a different market for a fair price. Also the general consensus with capitalism is that monopolies would be avoided, through whatever means are acceptable.
I think you're not thinking broadly enough - technology is still developing rapidly and there are hundreds of new jobs daily designing new software. As people become more well-off, more jobs open up in the service industries for middle class indulgencies.
>>72107543
No, it's failings are due to the buerocracy required
>>72120443
see
>>72113868
Tribal living is not comparable to modern day socialism.
If you are doubting what is human nature, look at any experiment ever that shows people act for their own interest.
>>72107543
Such a society would prefer competition anyway.
>>72107543
>intelligent individuals
>society
pick one
>>72118551
Everything would become cheaper as well. The only reason you don't notice this deflation right now is monetary policy
>>72118753
The 19th century WAS great, compared to the 18th, the 17th, the 16th, etc.
Get some perspective dude.
>>72121130
That's not exactly always the case or there would be no charity, no one would save you from drowning etc...
When someone is on the international space station, they don't claim a compartment for themselves as private property or start charging other members for food.
You may say that's different than being on earth, but earth is a space station also. We are floating in space on a rock, and resources aren't infinite.
>>72119331
CSL is fine. Problem is that all cities require highways, and that there's no regions. Light rail is also DLC.
>>72120198
>Being social doesn't change the analogy
I feel like it kind of does. You used the behavior of an individual as an example, when my thread specifically addresses the behavior of groups. A high-IQ spider is never going to travel to the moon because you need more than one person to build a rocket ship.
>My point is you can't force people to do things against their nature.
I never suggested you could necessarily. My thread basically is asking if the collective nature of intelligent individuals lends itself to certain outcomes.
Would you say that if I magically dropped +100 IQ points on the entire population of Africa, the continent would look the same decades later?
Our intellect *is* our nature.
>>72121016
>There's no real reason why a competitor couldn't innovate and offer an alternative service to a different market for a fair price.
Because you're competing against a monolith that can afford to undercut your much smaller operation? Because they can copy your concept faster and better? The same reason why there's probably 1-2 choices of ISPs in your area, and they are probably AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.
>technology is still developing rapidly and there are hundreds of new jobs daily designing new software.
Of course there are, but the question is if these jobs make up for the number of jobs they automate.
>>72107543
in a society composed of robots, not humans, yes it would be effective . that kind of society would fail to provide the incentives that competition can
>>72121705
Because they made tragic stories like Les Miserables about the 17th century.
I'd rather work in a small farm for substinence than work 14 hour days in a factory like a slave. Or live in one of those company towns.
Think about it.
>>72107543
No. Socialism can never work because equality is a false meme.
>>72121130
Ayn Rand is a bad meme bro
>>72111288
My IQ is around the same (139) but I got lucky. All I have is some trouble socializing. Never really felt too attached to things though, and I was a really weird chip apparently.
>>72122156
No one said equality in a socialist world, in fact it's the opposite.
It's rational to believe not everyone is equal, hence society is taking out insurance. Even if you lose both arms or become disabled, you are taken care of. In a true capitalist society, free market, you would have to rely on the charity of others.
>>72120198
Y'know if all people of your ethnicity were like you I'd welcome em with open arms
>>72107543
>highly intelligent
>hard working and industrious
Pick one.
>>72107543
ya no drake a fake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy1X9vEzB8c
>>72107682
Hi Nietszche
>>72122156
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
>>72122476
So:
>churches
>your family
>take out your own insurance
I shouldn't have to pay for your dumbass
>>72123076
I think if you had lost an arm or worse.. Born without arms or legs, and you had a choice beforehand knowing you could be born without hands, legs etc you would chose a socialist society. It's far safer option, than hoping for glory on a star.
>>72123076
>Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
That's kind of a paradox. It's not as if aliums have come and planted the idea in our heads... It comes from us. If we are revolting against our nature, is that revolt itself not thus part of our nature?
>>72107543
I believe some forms of socialism can and do work. However, such a society needs to be 98%+ homogenous, and the vast majority needs to willingly agree to pay into such a system, which requires a certain lvl of social trust. Such society also needs to have a strong work ethic, and an abundance of natural resources (oil, gold, silver, etc...), so it can have the wealth required to sustain it's social system.
Norway is a good example of a semi-socialist state, and it is working out extremely well for them. But it's unrealistic to expect this kind of a system to flourish in, say Brazil, Russia, or the US for that matter, since the circumstances are vastly different in terms of demographics, natural resources, work ethics, lvl's of social trust, and the general mentality and culture of these countries.
>>72107543
Socialism works just fine, communism never will.
>>72122643
Choosing certain individuals based on IQ might be beneficial for Germany.But it destroys the local brain power.
>>72121967
What is intelligence? The ability to get to a target or fulfill an action.The spider wants what it wants.What it wants is biological survival.
A spider trillion times smarter could go to moon,alone. It would find a way.But it doesn't want that.The thought would not cross it's mind in a million year.
A human -no matter the intelligence- would not want to do certain actions.Like wanting to produce some silk and letting the wind carry him a away.Like putting his children inside a living organism and -as the children grows- they eat the creature.But for an intelligent wasp would do that with no afterthought.
Socialism has no connection to intelligence because intelligence is how efficient we are at getting what we want.I want to live like kangs for example.Maybe you want to have a comfortable house and a harem etc
Africa would indeed be better because intelligence would allow them to do what they wish to do efficiently.What that is survival.Do you think a warlord would turn compassionate with Intelligence or a witch doctor somehow regret hunting albinos for magical potions?
What you say last is not entirely true.We use tools and we get efficient at using our tools.We also make art, poetry, dance, intoxicate ourselves, make emotional connections, cry, fight for resources.
It seems to me we are not our intelligence at all.Our self reflective consciousness is.
TL:DR-Inteligence is a tool to get what you want.It doesn't change human condition of individualism and egoism.
>>72108804
>Detroit
>capitalist
Gas yourself you dumb fucking commie kike
No it will definitely not work.
Less likely to work than it would with dumb people.
Smart people should be able to see that no matter how hard they work, no matter how great their success, theyll never be more than Tommy the titfucker down the road who just tit fucks sluts all day. So no one works and massive poverty is the eventual and inevitable result.
>>72107543
Shared ethnicity is more important to a healthy society than shared intelligence.
still, come races are more capable of having it, if capable at all
