Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Fox]

[Nowhere Man]

Sorry, been away.

1) As "strict Constutionalists" who view "centralized" government intervention as "socialist", would you not say that the choice of the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation was the United States' first step toward "socialism"?

2) I mean really, any government intervention is "socialism"? Rather than further bastardizing terms, would it not be easier for you guys to describe yourselves as laissez-faire capitalists? I mean, really. You dance about with these broad, sweeping definitions of "socialism", then point to China and Russia for evidence. Then, you dance back to saying it's not really about Marxism, it's about government intervention. In between that, you spend time telling people that they don't know what "capitalism" is because "capitalism" means no government intervention. I mean, really. Why can't you just say you're laissez-faire capitalists? Wouldn't that make a helluva lot more sense than trying to bend terminology around your ideology?

3) "Right" and "Left" aren't useful terms when it's all about freedom. Ron Paul opposes Roe v. Wade, but supports prayer in public schools. Is it just a coincidence that your version of "freedom" matches the right-wing agenda?

4) A very small number of private entities control almost all of our media. Would the absence of government intervention remedy this?

5) In the cases of trust and collusion, what happens?


6) Eliminate the Fed? What happens when there's a run on a bank?

7) In order to realize any of this ideology, you're going to have to participate in elections just like any other party. How will promises of no pollution hold up?

I mean, really. It's easy to point fingers. By the time you have 50 congressmen in the House, they're going to be horse-trading just like the rest. The ideology will be all pasty and vague. There's still going to be pollution, isn't there? Realistically, when can we expect you to come through on no pollution?

[Rteacher]

Using the Vedic model that likens the social body to an individual human body with different parts serving different functions, there are basically four types of social classifications based on quality of work and psycho-physical nature: intellectuals, administrators, producers, and laborers (who assist the higher classes and tend to be more sentimental by nature.)

Each social class requires its own form of government to function optimally and constructively as part of society as a whole.

While monarchy is best for strong leaders, anarchism works best for intellectuals; while pure capitalism works best for business and commercial types, and communism/socialism is best for the general laborer class.

So, my understanding is that greater society should operate on principles that promote "unity in diversity", incorporating diverse elements of government according to the needs of different classes of people.

Mainly, capitalism can't work without socialism - and there are many more people who naturally are more fit to work as laborers and artisans than as businessmen, political/milary leaders, or intellectuals.

Ultimately, the only way unity and harmony can be achieved is if all classes (and governments) recognize that God is the real proprietor and supplier of all resources, and everyone should work cooperatively for spiritual as well as material progress.
http://www.prabhupadaconnect.com/Isopanisad_mantra_one.html