Hey Blown here is something we might agree on.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Back on topic, I agree America has overcome complicated social woes such as slavery and about everything else but the kitchen sink. My worry is by world standards we are still a relatively new country and instead of embracing our democracy we seem to spend the majority of our time finding loopholes in it and judicating the morals of our fellow compatriots. In other words, we are abusing the document (reference to the Constitution) rather than building our lives aroound it. With UTOPIC SOCIALISM ( <--- type of socialism ) we could still enjoy the spirit of the document while managing a government interested in our social maturity, and not what we have now, which is a government interested in moderating every aspect of our lives.. and the worlds. In retrospect, Utopian Socialism sounds much more democratic than what we have evolved to. Calling it a government by the people and for the people.. doesn't make it so.
By the origional post I'll assume you mean the post I quoted, in which you stated "socialism in it's true form is the answer". It may have seemed like a complete definition to you. But from my perspective of not being able to read your mind the way you seem to think you can mine, I see no definition at all. Just a bunch of idealized empty rhetoric. Saying things like it "allows for entrepeneurialism and capitolism" or that it takes care of the lower classes, tells me nothing. Hell, the proponents of Fascism made those same claims.
In order to have an itellegent conversation we need for you to give a much more specific definition of what you consider to be the key elements of "Utopic Socialism" as a starting point. Otherwise we will just continue to butt heads here arguing over each others semantics. In short, I'm asking you for specifcs, not empty euphemisms, like "social maturity" which mean different things to different people.
P.S. I'm sorry to hear you are just a character on the internet. Please forgive me if I have or if I continue to talk to you as if you are a real person. :wink:

[eliminatedsprinter]

1- Minimum wage was meant for entry level completely unskilled labor. It isn't meant as a living wage. If an employer wants to hire a kid living at home or other young person it sets a wage standard for this type of worker. Now what should the minimum wage be and why/how do we decide on that number? In a capitalist system the wages are dictated by supply and demand.
2- Union pay levels are based on the minimum wage. If the min. wage is $5.00 they raise their pay scale in accordance. Raising the minimum wage for no other reason than to say we are helping the poor is ridiculous. It will contribute to inflation, raise the cost of goods and services, and ultimately achieve nothing more positive than a feel good for the "working poor".
Workers want to make higher wages, get educated and skilled in order to have marketable talents earning higher wages.
The minimum wage is really smoke and mirrors. It accomplishes little in a job market that has a 4-5% unemployment rate.
You want to raise wages get rid of the illegals that are driving wages down.
Very well said.
It also (of course) reduces the number and availability of entry level jobs for those who need the work experience etc....

[Poster X]

You're forgiven.
In my first post (regarding socialism) I specified Utopian Socialism. I can't be any clearer than that. I also said that in it's pure form it satisfies both your need for entrepeneurialism and basic capitalism..which it does. I can't (or won't) teach a class on the interpretism of the branches of socialism 101 here, or anywhere else. But, anyone (such as yourself) that has studied the different aspects and interpretations of socialism would know that Utopian Socialism was a moderate government supported by monopolized industry with an infrastructure that allowed for the capitalist spirit. It is also a form of government that is departmentalized and staffed much like a modern corporation but without a CEO (as it were.) Each branch is independantly operated and has it's individual president and that arm of the government must produce evidence of it's management standards and expenditures to us, the shareholders. It is also a form of government that calls for a mass vote (democratic by anyones standards) of any decision that affects the citizenry in whole. For example: statehood of Puerto Rico or a heavy financial investment in something like a nuclear powerplant. You get the idea. The military is also ran the same way. It is authorized to protect us without delay but at the same time a non emergency such as invading Iraq would take a concensus. That, is Utopian Socialism. It's never been practiced. Many aspects of Socialism HAVE been practiced but Utopian Socialism..never has. As you can read, it offers the best of both worlds and from an intellectual standpoint is the obvious metamorphosis of our current "Democracy."

[eliminatedsprinter]

You're forgiven.
In my first post (regarding socialism) I specified Utopian Socialism. I can't be any clearer than that. I also said that in it's pure form it satisfies both your need for entrepeneurialism and basic capitalism..which it does. I can't (or won't) teach a class on the interpretism of the branches of socialism 101 here, or anywhere else. But, anyone (such as yourself) that has studied the different aspects and interpretations of socialism would know that Utopian Socialism was a moderate government supported by monopolized industry with an infrastructure that allowed for the capitalist spirit. It is also a form of government that is departmentalized and staffed much like a modern corporation but without a CEO (as it were.) Each branch is independantly operated and has it's individual president and that arm of the government must produce evidence of it's management standards and expenditures to us, the shareholders. It is also a form of government that calls for a mass vote (democratic by anyones standards) of any decision that affects the citizenry in whole. For example: statehood of Puerto Rico or a heavy financial investment in something like a nuclear powerplant. You get the idea. The military is also ran the same way. It is authorized to protect us without delay but at the same time a non emergency such as invading Iraq would take a concensus. That, is Utopian Socialism. It's never been practiced. Many aspects of Socialism HAVE been practiced but Utopian Socialism..never has. As you can read, it offers the best of both worlds and from an intellectual standpoint is the obvious metamorphosis of our current "Democracy."
You did mention Utopian Socialism, but you also said it was denoted as "altruism" and that last use of a vague non-sequitur made me think you were providing examples of semantic terms, rather than supporting the specific style "Utopian Socialism"
The above is a little better.
What I wanted was your take on defining it.
My take is that this is way to cumbersom and there is far too much oppertunity for abuse. Who decides what industries get monopolized etc...The people?? By vote? Or government departments staffed like corperations?? I'm sorry I'll take the free market. It has been said that (forgive me if I paraphrase Churchill here) that capitolism often produces unequal distribution of wealth, while socialism produces equal suffering. I know this is not literally true (the established wealthy often do very, very well under various forms of socialism). But it is still a general truism for most of us who would like rise up the economic ladder with as little government "help" as possible.
To me the system you discribed above seems like one that would produce an incredible amount of mediocrity (at best) and would be a pretty bleak system to have to live under. I have not yet read the essay you posted (printed it to read later) but I suspect, you are correct, that I will agree with the author that the 2 idiologies would not mix well. I have seen first hand what happens when government attempts to ape the corperate model and the results are pretty ugly to me.
I am going to take your suggestion and read the essay you posted.
I have a suggestion for you. Read the document that (in it's era) was heralded around the world as being the first real attempt at creating a truely modern socialistic republic. I know it is not a true "Utopian" socialistic work, but it is interesting to see the difference between what is on the paper and what is it's result. The document is, of course, The Mexician Constitution of 1917. Sorry I don't have a link but I'm pretty sure you can google it. :wink:

[eliminatedsprinter]

Actually, it gives me even an unfairer advantage than I usually enjoy which is sizeable to say the least.
http://www.policyreview.org/dec02/harris.html
Please use the :wink: smilie when you are joking. Otherwise you may confuse those of us who don't have multiple PHDs. :wink:

[Poster X]

I'll look at it later. But still, I think the marriage of the two is the answer. When I'm Dictator <insert dick joke here> we'll see how it plays out.
What gives you the impression I'm an educated man? I still have my paper route. :wink: <-- joking icon

[eliminatedsprinter]

I read the essay last night.
It was clearly not intended to be a scholarly work (due to its' lack of proper referencing).
However, I did find it to be a kind of interesting editorial style opinion essay. It was a bit dry :wink: and esoteric. But I like esoteric. I'm still not sure why Mr. Harris feels a theory as outdated and dubious as Baran's reformation of Marxist docterine is worth mooting in this post cold war age of islamic threat, but hey, it was a kind of interesting hypothetical piece.