Biggest Global Threat

[Herr Wozzeck]

The idea that the collective group is more important than the individual. The idea that the the government's job is to take care of people, and the idea that the government should control industries that would otherwise be owned by the private sector.

It is an issue I am passionate about because I fear it is a very real threat. Not in the near future, but the successes the far left has had in South America is troubling.

And the lord said to read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. :P

Seriously, though, the far left is a bad place, but trust me when I tell you the far right isn't any better than the far left. See, government control can be a good thing; if you knew anything about the American labor force at the dawn of the 20th Century, you'd know that they were underpaid, overworked, and their bosses had the power to fire them for getting on their nerves. (Immigrants had the additional problem of being cheated out of good living spaces by greedy realtors.) In short? You did not want to be a working class American (and especially not an immigrant) in that era. Why? Because the few with riches were really, really good at making life difficult for you. If you don't believe me, do what I said above. Even though it is fiction, it was very well researched; if it got the Clean Food and Drug act to pass after people looked into what was going on in those meat factories, then I'm pretty sure it got most of the other stuff right.

My point being, sure the far left has the trouble of the few oppressing the masses, but the far right also has the same problem. Only difference is, it's not the government that's oppressing you; it's the few that have riches beyond compare that vote people that'll only bolster their already obscene wealth into office that'll keep on overtaxing the poor and undertaxing the rich. And in my opinion, that's the worse kind of oppression since in that case the people (who actually have the opportunity to excercise their rights written out somewhere, which is something the far left doesn't have) can't really stand up for themselves or they'll lose whatever little pay they have. That's why a bit of government control is in fact a good thing; it keeps the abuses of the few rich people at the top from spiraling out of control.

That being said, I still think it's a bad idea for the government to take over absolutely everything, as we've all seen what that does already. So the best spot is to hover somewhere in the middle, where the government regulates the economy enough so that abuse can't really be registered by anyone but not enough to hinder competition and free will. Theoretically, it might not happen, but we can dream, right?

Okay, now that I've got that off my chest...

The biggest threat to the world? Our own folly. We can attribute most of the problems in this world today to our own folly, so if we don't take responsibility and work to undo the damage done, then we can bring the world back into a sense of the stasis it once had.

[Shuuda]

The biggest global threat is the sun dying of course.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Shuuda

[Herr Wozzeck]

The biggest global threat is the sun dying of course.

Problem is, it's not gonna die on us for billions of years, so we can rest easy there since we'll be long gone before then.

[Celice]

The biggest threat to the world as we know it is Socialism. Socialism masqueredes as the utopian version of Marxian Communism while still espousing ideals that go completely against everything western civilization has been fighting for the last few hundred years.

If our society ever accepts it, we will be ruined.

Oh noez, healthcare and welfare and social security.

now to leave the thread

[YokaiKnight]

A million things I'd like to disagree with, but I'll save the bitching for later.

By global threat, do you mean threat to humanity, or threat to life in general, or literally the existence of earth, or somewhere in between?

Edited February 19, 2009 by YokaiKnight

[Fox]

By global threat, do you mean threat to humanity, or threat to life in general, or literally the existence of earth, or somewhere in between?

I want to echo this, since the original post indicates a threat to the well being of man, not the Earth itself.

[Soviet Gregor]

The biggest threat to Earth would have been me, but that Dark hole project can make us implode in seconds.

[Duff Ostrich]

Concession accepted.

If that's a question, then yes, I do accept your concession.

[Der Kommissar]

If that's a question, then yes, I do accept your concession.

I take it you're going to continue to attempt to save face, rather than taking my offer of slinking away? Okay.

The biggest threat to the world as we know it is Socialism. Socialism masqueredes as the utopian version of Marxian Communism while still espousing ideals that go completely against everything western civilization has been fighting for the last few hundred years.

If our society ever accepts it, we will be ruined.

You claim that socialism espouses ideals that go "completely against everything western civilization has been fighting for for the last few hundred years." Okay. This flies in the face of the fact that numerous European states (see: Germany, France, Sweden) have a standard of living and offer a range of rights on-par with those offered in equivilent non-socialist states (see: the U.S.) There are exceptions in Europe, yes - see laws against hate speech or nazism - but these have not been demonstrably harmful. Neither can these states be said to be economically weak. Venezula's current predicament isn't the fault of socialist ideology, but that of a meglomanical de facto dictator.

Europe is not entirely Socialist, nor are the governments in any of its nations ideal whatsoever, and many fall short because of the leftist policies they implement. It is certainly not a given that Europe as a continent of many diverse nations is a model to follow.

1.) You espouse socialism as the biggest threat to the world, period. You don't qualify if "mostly socialist" or "a little socialist" is somehow different. Don't shift your goalposts when several people point out that you're wrong, we're not stupid enough to fall for that.

2.) Yes, numerous nations in Europe fall short of their lofty goals. This is irrelevant, as all nations do - first, second, and third world - regardless of social and economic ideologies.

3.) I never implied that Europe is a "model to follow," I simply mocked your idiotic claim that socialism is opposed to everything western civilization represents.

Now go home and get your fucking shine box.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Der Kommissar

[Ragnell]

I want to echo this, since the original post indicates a threat to the well being of man, not the Earth itself.

Threat to the well-being of man. Because there are a lot more things that can wipe out humans than the entire earth.

[YokaiKnight]

Threat to the well-being of man. Because there are a lot more things that can wipe out humans than the entire earth.

Thanks.

I would say it is the really radical terrorists in the Middle East. They haven't done much recently, but I bet attacks will start up again once the U.S. and other countries back out. That or North Korea. They scare the crap out of me. Especially with the new missiles they claim to have.

I definitely doubt that. Terrorists don't have enough shit to really mess humanity up as a whole, and North Korea's not even close. But anyway, others have countered this better.

Global Warming is probably the biggest GLOBAL threat.

There may be some more immediate danger to some countries, but world wide, Global Warming is easily the worst.

Could you expound on this? Why exactly is global warming by far the biggest threat?

[Raven]

The biggest threat to the globe? Decepticons, seriously. They want revenge. They're going to kill us all. Not even nuclear bunkers will protect us, they will find us all and destroy everything, even the Autobots.

That or some extra-terrestrial threat, such as a cluster of massive meteorites, each with the impact force of one million Hiroshima bombs.

That or global warming, but we all know global warming is utter bullshit.

[Magical CC]

What is, in you opinion, the biggest threat to global security at the moment? And don't just say "terrorism" or "pollution", be specific.

I would say it is the really radical terrorists in the Middle East. They haven't done much recently, but I bet attacks will start up again once the U.S. and other countries back out. That or North Korea. They scare the crap out of me. Especially with the new missiles they claim to have.

LOL~

You hate them becuase they are not your friend and when they have something like nuclear weapon, you said that they are the world biggest threat? Dude, only by chance, they are your biggest threat, not the whole world. But really, how many country have use nuclear bomb to destroy a whole city? What country does their nuclear weapon kill most ppl? Look at the mirror, dude.

The biggest threat to global is ironically, human themself. According to your point of view, it's Middle East and North Korea, but to me, it's China and Phillipine. And to the North Korea, it's must be South Korea and America.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Sulley

[Der Kommissar]

You should master the basics of the English language before you mock the intelligence others, Sulley.

It's important to note that Islamic terrorists don't like most of the first world for varying reasons. It's not a purely American thing as you would imply.

They're not particularly threatening on the whole, though. Things like disasterous climate change or global market collapse affect everyone, not just a relative handful of unfortunates.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Der Kommissar

[YokaiKnight]

That or global warming, but we all know global warming is utter bullshit.[/color]

Uh, no it's not. Global warming isn't some apocalyptic doomsday crap, but it's certainly not bullshit.

[Duff Ostrich]

I take it you're going to continue to attempt to save face, rather than taking my offer of slinking away? Okay.

You claim that socialism espouses ideals that go "completely against everything western civilization has been fighting for for the last few hundred years." Okay. This flies in the face of the fact that numerous European states (see: Germany, France, Sweden) have a standard of living and offer a range of rights on-par with those offered in equivilent non-socialist states (see: the U.S.) There are exceptions in Europe, yes - see laws against hate speech or nazism - but these have not been demonstrably harmful. Neither can these states be said to be economically weak. Venezula's current predicament isn't the fault of socialist ideology, but that of a meglomanical de facto dictator.

1.) You espouse socialism as the biggest threat to the world, period. You don't qualify if "mostly socialist" or "a little socialist" is somehow different. Don't shift your goalposts when several people point out that you're wrong, we're not stupid enough to fall for that.

2.) Yes, numerous nations in Europe fall short of their lofty goals. This is irrelevant, as all nations do - first, second, and third world - regardless of social and economic ideologies.

3.) I never implied that Europe is a "model to follow," I simply mocked your idiotic claim that socialism is opposed to everything western civilization represents.

Now go home and get your fucking shine box.

You cannot claim to win an argument before you make one, and I was not intending of letting you. Do you really think me so intimidated by your first post that I should just accept that? Well, the answer was no.

One, you cannot assume that the European system is something to go by, nor can you base what does and does not coincide with the values of western civilization on the standard of living.

My point? That western civilization fought for the freedom of choice, the freedom of enterprise, and the freedom from government control of these things. A socialist government, by definition, controls these. A high standard of living can exist in either system, but that's not the point.

Your mention of European states is regardless of anything. These are mixed systems... as is the United States. As one individual felt the need to mention, Social Security is a socialist policy that the US practices. But the US is not a Socialist government.

You can find freedom of enterprise in Britain, Belgium, Germany, and even the more socialized Scandinavian nations. That shows that these are mixed systems. The ultimate worry is that once too much control is given to the government, they will be able to act unchecked by the people they claim to represent. Why is Chavez a megalomaniac? Because he has been given the power and the means to act in such a way. The government he has created allows these actions, and his people have allowed it, and so his successor will do the same.

1.) I haven't taken back anything. Socialism is the biggest threat to the world. Period.

2.) Obviously.

3.) You mocked it by naming Europe. The implication of that post is that Europe, part of the western world, is upholding western ideals through socialist policies. I simply claimed that Europe having Socialist policies has nothing to do with whether or not they are upholding western ideals since they (obviously) aren't doing it perfectly. The implication of MY answer (and I thought this to be obvious) was that Europe is working against western ideals by implementing these policies. As does the US when they do.

I am unsure if your argument is just based on trivial semantics, or perhaps something more substantial. It's hard to see what else it could be though, since you've not really offered a defense of the policies themselves and just claimed that I was not aware of the European political situation and that without qualifying the degree of Socialism I was speaking of that I was somehow taking back what I said.

Which is a ridiculous premise.

[Der Kommissar]

I see the little retard that could got back on his tricycle to make another run at it.

You cannot claim to win an argument before you make one

My argument is that your argument is absurd, as borne out by...reality, oddly.

One, you cannot assume that the European system is something to go by, nor can you base what does and does not coincide with the values of western civilization on the standard of living.

I certainly can assume the European system is something to go by, considering a myriad of its governments are socialist to varying degrees. Standard of living is important to my mockery of your idiotic claim that socialism is the "biggest global threat," but you're right - it doesn't necessarily bear on western values. Good thing for you I didn't mention that Europeans living in socialist countries enjoy the same rights as we do. Oh wait, I did.

My point? That western civilization fought for the freedom of choice, the freedom of enterprise, and the freedom from government control of these things. A socialist government, by definition, controls these. A high standard of living can exist in either system, but that's not the point.

The idea that socialist government controls something as nebulous as "choice" is ridiculous and asinine, particularly considering the citizens of these nations support their systems of government. Neither does socialism demand total government control over enterprise.

You can find freedom of enterprise in Britain, Belgium, Germany, and even the more socialized Scandinavian nations. That shows that these are mixed systems. The ultimate worry is that once too much control is given to the government, they will be able to act unchecked by the people they claim to represent.

Socialism does not advocate total surrender of civilian control over the government, or total surrender of the means of production to the government. The latter is communism. The former encompasses any variety of non-socialist ideologies.

Why is Chavez a megalomaniac? Because he has been given the power and the means to act in such a way. The government he has created allows these actions, and his people have allowed it, and so his successor will do the same.

Chavez is a megalomaniac because he's an egotistical ratfuck bastard, not because he heads a socialist government. The dangers Venezuela faces are because the populace surrenders civilian powers over the government, not an ideal espoused by socialism.

1.) I haven't taken back anything. Socialism is the biggest threat to the world. Period.

3.) You mocked it by naming Europe. The implication of that post is that Europe, part of the western world, is upholding western ideals through socialist policies. I simply claimed that Europe having Socialist policies has nothing to do with whether or not they are upholding western ideals since they (obviously) aren't doing it perfectly. The implication of MY answer (and I thought this to be obvious) was that Europe is working against western ideals by implementing these policies. As does the US when they do.

As I've already indicated, socialist policies can exist besides western ideals, even a degree of freedom of enterprise. Even if you assume socialism precludes the existence of free enterprise, other western ideals exist besides that alone that socialism does not oppose.

I am unsure if your argument is just based on trivial semantics, or perhaps something more substantial. It's hard to see what else it could be though, since you've not really offered a defense of the policies themselves and just claimed that I was not aware of the European political situation and that without qualifying the degree of Socialism I was speaking of that I was somehow taking back what I said.

I have no interest in defending socialism, but rather in pointing out the idiocy in the claim that socialism is the "biggest global threat," and is opposed to "everything western civilization represents." Pointing out the laughable magnitude of your exaggerations by demonstrating functional socialism is not trivial semantics.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Der Kommissar

[Raven]

Uh, no it's not. Global warming isn't some apocalyptic doomsday crap, but it's certainly not bullshit.

Hmm, I believe it's a natural cycle, like the Ice Age comes and goes.

[YokaiKnight]

Hmm, I believe it's a natural cycle, like the Ice Age comes and goes.

Don't just believe, take 30 seconds to get a bare-bones summary.

What global temperature looks like depends on how far back you go in time. About the only constant is that it's pretty much not constant.

[California Mountain Snake]

Damn you Steve, I staked out that spot while browsing during class today, and rushed back to write a response, but you've already taken it

Oh well, this will still be a delicious meal.

My point? That western civilization fought for the freedom of choice, the freedom of enterprise, and the freedom from government control of these things. A socialist government, by definition, controls these. A high standard of living can exist in either system, but that's not the point.

First, Ostrich, go read Max Weber before you even think about preaching about "western ideals", because I know you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about when you use that term.

Second, get your terminology straight. There is not such thing as a "socialist government" in the world today. There are governments which practise socialist policies, but this is a very very important distinction that needs to be made, and I need to know you're with me on this before we move on. We good?

Okay.

Now why it's important to distinguish between socialist policies is that the governments which practice socialist policies can be democratic or dictatorial. The same is also true for the neoclassical ("Free market") model, which can also employed by democratic and authoritarian governments. Those who somehow equate democracy with the free market and dictatorial regimes with socialism together are ignorant, and severely lack a sense of historical perspective. Here are some examples:

Sweden is a highly socialist country, but by many standards (and that was the economist, not some pro-European pinko rag), it is one of the most democratic governments on Earth, allotting its people more control of the government than any other.

In stark contrast, I'll bring up a case in Latin America (Which you hinted about earlier as being an area of "great concern" to you, but I'm pretty sure you have no fucking idea about). One of the most successful free market economies to emerge in the 20th century was Chile in 1974 after coming under the rule of Augusto Pinochet. The Drawback? Well, first it's Generalissimo Pinochet to you, fucker, and it was also one of the most repressive regimes of the 20th century with zero workers rights, low standards of living, and absolutely no democracy.

Littered among these are dozens of other examples. For example, before Pinochet's coup, Chile was actually under the presidency of a full blown Marxist leader, Salvador Allende. The catch was he was the first Marxist leader ever democratically elected in history, and was a testament to Chile's long standing democratic tradition until the conservative force of Pinochet brought Allende down, and with him Chilean democracy.

What I need you to understand here is this: Democratic ideals such as the amount of control citizens have over their government, voting rights, rights to property and land, civil liberties, and all those "western" ideals you like to speak about, have absolutely no exclusive (or inclusive) correlation with socialism or neoclassical models. There is simply no connection, and you're trying to make one like every other Neo-McCarthyite out there. You can have democratic capitalistic economies like the United States or you can have Authoritarian and capitalistic societies like China, you can have democratic and socialist societies like Sweden, or you can have Authoritarian and socialist societies like the former USSR (or lack thereof). It doesn't make a difference.

So the moral of the story is, Socialism can't be a threat to the world beyond the capacity that the government who wields it is a threat to the world. The USSR was a land hungry menace that actively created conflict within Eastern Europe and the Middle East to spread its influence. The Swedes are happy enough to spend all day in the sauna. How threatening these governments were had nothing to do with the fact that they were socialist, it had to do with their militaristic and political ambitions. That's what you need to look at.

Also to everyone claiming Chavez is an out of control dictator, please realize his referendum for temporary "unlimited" presidential powers actually failed, and as the Venezuelan oil economy continues to sour, so does Chavez's popular support (something which was arguably only high because of the economic boom inaugurating his election). It is now a very sure fact that Chavez is going to have a hell of a fight ahead of him if he wants to remain president when elections roll around. Just because our media likes to take Chavez on his word that he's a crazy dictator doesn't actually inflate his power beyond his constitutional limits, in the reality that exists outside of the TV screens he's actually quite a weak president.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Black Knight

[dondon151]

I think most of us know that socialism and capitalism are in contrast; democracy isn't involved.

Duff Ostrich finding socialism to be a world threat (which I find slightly ludicrous but I see some reason in the argument) has nothing to do with purely socialist countries actually existing in the modern day. Socialism is economically less free than capitalism; political freedom is entirely different, although some believe that infringement on economic freedom leads to infringement on political freedom...

Socialism does not advocate total surrender of civilian control over the government, or total surrender of the means of production to the government. The latter is communism. The former encompasses any variety of non-socialist ideologies.

Socialism encompasses non-socialist ideologies? Either you worded this strangely or it doesn't make sense. Why would pure socialism be non-socialist?

Edited February 24, 2009 by dondon151

[Agro]

Don't be afraid, it's ok to be afraid.

What, didn't you just contradict yourself?

I think the biggest threat to the world is religion. We all know religion starts everything.

[YokaiKnight]

I think the biggest threat to the world is religion. We all know religion starts everything.

I'd disagree, because:

1) Maybe I'm wrong in your case, but often "religion" is used as a blanket term for Abrahamic beliefs. Religion period is not so volatile.

2) Often religion is a pretext for something else. e.g. Crusades are about Constantinople's usefulness to the HRE, not really God's Holy War to Take Back the White House Christendom.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

It doesn't really matter which Global threat is big. Either way me screwed up our planet big time.

[dondon151]

I think the biggest threat to the world is religion. We all know religion starts everything.

The Reformation is often cited along with the Enlightenment to have been one of the most important events in the development of Western political traditions, so... Religion's pretty damn important when fundamentalists aren't soiling its good name.