Passy,

"from each according to their ability to each according to their need"

This statement has been taken apart ever since Marx uttered it. There's no need to go through that again

"I just think the way society is currently organised leads to sub-optimum outcomes for all of us"

A while ago I mentioned communism, socialism, despotism and (i think) some other systems of government - the point was that in every mode of government, there are winners and there are losers. So this statement would still be true in a socialist environment depending on your point of view.

"...opened my eyes to an alternative society based on respect, equity and justice in which all are fed, housed and fit (or able to receive decent medical treatment.)"

I'd suggest reading both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged to provide the alternative perspective (tho I'd say that reading John Galts rehashing of the whole thing 2/3rds of the way can be skipped in the latter of those two). There is virtue in pushing yourself forwards and gaining the rewards for your own efforts.

"...human nature is not immutable.It changes from society to society and system to system."

Some things change, but not everything can or will. As I noted earlier, greed has been part of our society for thousands of years and across all parts of the world, and additionally, so is lazyiness. Which is yet another reason why socialism is inherently flawed when it comes to humans. It'll work just fine for ants tho

Passy “You are viewing everything through the prism of the present profit driven anti-human system.”

Actually the prism I view the world through is not simply a “profit-driven” experience but far more holistic.

I value the element of personal sovereignty in all things the most important consideration.

That means I support a woman’s right to abort if she chooses, she alone then bears the consequences of that decision, just as I support a persons right to decide on their preferred employment and to wear the consequences (and rewards) of that choice.

So too, how I will live, the size of house I occupy and the type of car I drive are all choices I will make, without the input or direction of some half-witted bureaucrat appointed by a here-today-gone-tomorrow politician in Canberra or Spring St.

Likewise I am fully capable of choosing where my children will be educated, what hospital to attend, how much I can put in my superfund, how much insurance I need (income protection, life etc).
For myself I also chose which country I would live, what arts events I will support, if I exercise my freedom of speech and post on OLO… the list is endless

I do not need a political system to tell me I am not allowed to profit from the goods and services I supply

because that “political system” does not have the intellect to foresee future opportunities and does not have the monetary discretion to satisfy the demands of my clients, even if it could foresee anything.

“All these economic crises, wars, mass starvation and incredible alienation among working people”

And have gone on since the beginning of time and changing the economic system will not deter them.

Financial crisis happen every ten years, it is a generational thing, not much different to an economic spring-cleaning.

Despite the wealth generated from capitalism, we still have starving people but look at the political systems which prevail where people are suffering, mostly half-baked quasi-socialists or tribal driven idiots who would be far better off if we exported some real capitalist pragmatism to them.

Col Rouge

To me, your comments just prove the point. The ideology of individual sovereignty reinforces the present profit based system. It is of course a myth since society is inextricably intertwined. Without the whole structure of society, provided and sustained by the activity for example of millions of workers in Australia day in and day out, there could be no "individuality".

Passy,

"Without the whole structure of society, provided and sustained by the activity for example of millions of workers in Australia day in and day out, there could be no "individuality".

Yes, but that only works if each member of the society takes responsibility for themselves. Imagine a society where everyone said "it's not my fault - you deal with it". Not a very harmonious society.

For society to work, individual must face up to their own responsibilities, as Col mentioned in his previous post. Being in a society doesn't absolve you of your own responsilities - it further reinforces them as your actions then also flow on to the others in the society.

On to other things, I notice that you haven't yet responded to my questions about what you think goes on in a bank - is there a reason for that?

Passy, it seems to me what throws you, is the word "profit".

At the end of the day, we should all be able to make a living for
ourselves, so be compensated for our endevours. For some reason
you think its fine for workers to want ever more profit for their
wages, for after all, they are selling their labour. But if its
a small businessman selling his services, be they his labour, his
risk taking, his inginuity, his products or services and wanting to
make a profit, to you its somehow evil.

To me that speaks of basically flawed ideology! Kind of like
religion really, full of emotion and faith but lacking reason.

BN

I thought I had answered your question about banks. I'm a little busy with other things at the moment so will try to read back over the question and my response and come back to it and explain perhaps in clearer terms in the next few days.

I also don't understand your argument about individual responsibility in the context of my arguments against the mythology of the individual divorced from the rest of society. I don't see the two as related arguments at all. Certainly I am not opposed to concepts of individual responsibility but we need to be careful in what context they are used. Conservatives use the argument to bash the victims of colonialism or the narrow family unit or whatever their target is.

I read Ayn Rand years ago. And? I suspect her philosophy and that of the Friedmanites and others of similar ideological bent is going down the gurgler faster than a Wall St bank's profits.

Yabby, profit is the process whereby bosses expropriate the value their workers create and use that to reinvest. In other words the drive in capitalism is to exploit workers (through the wages system and ownership of the productive forces)) and reinvest that stolen amount in new machines to make more profit.

I am using this in the context of big business - eg BHP, Telstra, Woolworths, News ltd etc. Small business, depending on it size and structure, has element of that and elements of the owner's own labour.