NationStates Jolt Archive

I was curious as to the varying morals of everyone here. Feel free to discuss what you base them upon, and how far you would take them.

In my own personal experience, I feel that as long as an action does not hurt anyone else, or at least anyone else who isn't consenting, then people can do it. It's not my business, nor anyone else's, until the health and well-being of others is at stake. I would also say that my own personal way of determining what is most correct or incorrect can be based upon what is best for the State, or society. For example, consider this hypothetical situation: Russia and the United States are on a state of mutual red-alert. All English-speakers who are fluent in Russian are dead, except for one, who badly needs an organ transplant. Would I make someone else, or myself, sacrifice their/my life to save this person, to stop a war? Yes.

Anyways, I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on what is right and wrong to them. And I say 'right and wrong' in a strictly personal sense. Have a good day, people.

Sadly, I think a lot of people would have to die before I sacrifice myself.

But the situation changes if it concerns my family/those I love ofcourse.

I was curious as to the varying morals of everyone here. Feel free to discuss what you base them upon, and how far you would take them.

In my own personal experience, I feel that as long as an action does not hurt anyone else, or at least anyone else who isn't consenting, then people can do it. It's not my business, nor anyone else's, until the health and well-being of others is at stake. I would also say that my own personal way of determining what is most correct or incorrect can be based upon what is best for the State, or society. For example, consider this hypothetical situation: Russia and the United States are on a state of mutual red-alert. All English-speakers who are fluent in Russian are dead, except for one, who badly needs an organ transplant. Would I make someone else, or myself, sacrifice their/my life to save this person, to stop a war? Yes.

Anyways, I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on what is right and wrong to them. And I say 'right and wrong' in a strictly personal sense. Have a good day, people.
Okay, so I read your post again and I felt like elaborating. Morals facinate me. ;)

First of all, I recognize that humans are selfish by nature, and the most important thing, my biological task, is to ensure my genes into the next generation. Therefore, I would sacrifice someone else for peace, but not myself. Would I sacrifice myself for my own children (when I have them) ? Probably. Would I sacrifice myself if it would seem as if my entire family would die if I didn't? Probably.

Let's face it, nothing really matters but you and your family(loved ones).

Concerning "Right and wrong". Personally, I accept that there is no "right or wrong" and that there is no "universal" or "basic" moral code. Moral, our concept of right and wrong, are social constructs. Thus, I believe fiercely in Civil Rights and democracy, because those are the systems that allow me the greatest odds at survival, procreating and living in comfort.

Be productive, love your children(in the not-illegal way), and defend your country.

The first one tends to preclude a lot of subcultures that are emerging in America today. Which is why I don't associate with many people besides the crazed Objectivists who usually tend to hold very similar moral beliefs. :p

...and defend your country.

I went to the border and there were no dotted lines there, so I think countries are just made up. Not that made up things aren't important. Money is a made up thing that is important. But personally I find it hard to follow a morality that makes distinctions between people based upon what side of an imaginary dotted line they happened to be born on. I will defend myself against someone who tries to kill me and I will defend others against people who try to kill them. If people are fighting and there is no clear aggressor, I'm willing to mediate.

and defend your country.

Why, how and who from? this isn;t a major moral for me at all.

I can't agree with moral objectivism. Thoguh I accept that what we consider to be right and wrong is a function of our socialized societies, which differ acrooss the world, I still cannot accpet that cannibalism (for example) is okay or was okay both here/now, and in whatever society/time it was pracitced.

So clearly, there is a discrepancy here. I believe in non-absolute morals intelectually, but in actual fact, I feel the morals that govern my life to be absolute.

I was curious as to the varying morals of everyone here. Feel free to discuss what you base them upon, and how far you would take them.

In my own personal experience, I feel that as long as an action does not hurt anyone else, or at least anyone else who isn't consenting, then people can do it. It's not my business, nor anyone else's, until the health and well-being of others is at stake. I would also say that my own personal way of determining what is most correct or incorrect can be based upon what is best for the State, or society. For example, consider this hypothetical situation: Russia and the United States are on a state of mutual red-alert. All English-speakers who are fluent in Russian are dead, except for one, who badly needs an organ transplant. Would I make someone else, or myself, sacrifice their/my life to save this person, to stop a war? Yes.

Anyways, I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on what is right and wrong to them. And I say 'right and wrong' in a strictly personal sense. Have a good day, people.
I pretty much agree with you & would do the same. Whether or not I would defend my country, depends on the definition of 'defend'.
If it's about expansionist warfare, I would be tempted to enlist in the target's army.
Furthermore, I believe it's important to try to improve the world. Not just for the masses, but also for comming generations. It's just one of the reasons why I oppose our nations and capitalist systems. They're antiquated and ruin things for mankind in the long run (which is getting horribly short to be honest). Also, I believe in setting a good example. I try my best to show that a different approach to our societies is possible by living that way myself. I'm also a firm believer that change starts at home. So I work both within and outside the establishment.

I don't waste time with soul searching. We're empathic animals. We're capable of putting ourselves in other people's place. That is what decides my sense of ethics.

why I oppose our nations and capitalist systems. They're antiquated and ruin things for mankind in the long run (which is getting horribly short to be honest)
What makes you morally oppose capitalism?

What makes you morally oppose capitalism?
Easy question. Capitalism destroys our future. We continue to be unable to prevent it from doing so

Capitalism continues to be the main reason for human misery, slavery and exploitation. Again, we can't prevent this.

So capitalism has to go. It's destroying itself & us.

What other reason could I possibly have? I don't give a shit about ideology. One is as good as the other. My criteria is it has to benefit us and the ones who come after.

Be productive, love your children(in the not-illegal way), and defend your country.

The first one tends to preclude a lot of subcultures that are emerging in America today. Which is why I don't associate with many people besides the crazed Objectivists who usually tend to hold very similar moral beliefs. :p

Defend my country? Why what good does it do me. Id rather overthrow my government..... hope the FBI doesnt get this i might be arrested with the patriot act.

Easy question. Capitalism destroys our future. We continue to be unable to prevent it from doing so

Capitalism continues to be the main reason for human misery, slavery and exploitation. Again, we can't prevent this.

So capitalism has to go. It's destroying itself & us.

What other reason could I possibly have? I don't give a shit about ideology. One is as good as the other. My criteria is it has to benefit us and the ones who come after.How is capitalism destroying our future?

Why is capitalism responsible for human misery, slavery and explotation? You realize it's a rather elaborate scheme to pin those three on capitalism? It's not often you see an abstrac idea own slaves.

What do you propose instead of capitlism?

Easy question. Capitalism destroys our future. We continue to be unable to prevent it from doing so

Capitalism continues to be the main reason for human misery, slavery and exploitation. Again, we can't prevent this.

So capitalism has to go. It's destroying itself & us.

What other reason could I possibly have? I don't give a shit about ideology. One is as good as the other. My criteria is it has to benefit us and the ones who come after.

While this is true society cannot exist with out capitalism. Human beings are to selfish they always think about themselves some to greater extents then other A capitalist free society such as Karl Marx suggested is impossible because it gives hummanity to much credit for bennovelences and brotherly love neither of which it has.

Defend my country? Why what good does it do me. Id rather overthrow my government..... hope the FBI doesnt get this i might be arrested with the patriot act.
Just wear a tinfoil hat so they can't read your mind :mp5:

How is capitalism destroying our future?

Why is capitalism responsible for human misery, slavery and explotation? You realize it's a rather elaborate scheme to pin those three on capitalism? It's not often you see an abstrac idea own slaves.

What do you propose instead of capitlism?

Because capitalism is the embodiement of human selfishness however its neccesary there is nothing better because humans will always be selfish to a certain extent we just need to keep it in check and try to make sure no ones greed goes to far.

Just wear a tinfoil hat so they can't read your mind :mp5:

Tinfoil nah i got a lead box i put over my head serves dual purposes they cant use their x-ray gogles to see who i am. :gundge:

The fact that you have the right to question why you should defend your country is reason enough for me to defend it.

I was curious as to the varying morals of everyone here. Feel free to discuss what you base them upon, and how far you would take them.


The only moral I ever need to live by is one simple simple rule:

--Make as many people as happy as you can--

If I succeed at that, then all else follows. Every rule, every thought, every instance can be sub divided down to this very rule.

Good vs Bad, happy or sad.

Because capitalism is the embodiement of human selfishness however its neccesary there is nothing better because humans will always be selfish to a certain extent we just need to keep it in check and try to make sure no ones greed goes to far.
I don't think you answered my questions. "Because capitalism is the embodiement of human selfishness" I challenge you to back this up.

The only moral I ever need to live by is one simple simple rule:

--Make as many people as happy as you can--

If I succeed at that, then all else follows. Every rule, every thought, every instance can be sub divided down to this very rule.

Good vs Bad, happy or sad.
Donate your liver today!

Easy question. Capitalism destroys our future. We continue to be unable to prevent it from doing so

Capitalism continues to be the main reason for human misery, slavery and exploitation. Again, we can't prevent this.

So capitalism has to go. It's destroying itself & us.

What other reason could I possibly have? I don't give a shit about ideology. One is as good as the other. My criteria is it has to benefit us and the ones who come after.
how does capitalism destroy our future? You will need to back up your claims sometime.

I don't think you answered my questions. "Because capitalism is the embodiement of human selfishness" I challenge you to back this up.
As far as I'm concerned, this is irrelevant.

Capitalism is a system designed for people to profit at the expense of eachother. This might not be so bad if we just started using it and stopped using it again, before the few got too much power to be restrained by the many.

The problem is, capitalism makes it impossible for us to exert control over those who benefit from it. And people benefit more from behaviour that is detrimental to our planet and ourselves.
Calling it a system build and maintained by increasing human misery and devastation of nature is entirely correct. And it's why it most go. It's destroying us and we can't reign it in.

Were it up to me - and in a small way, it is - I would do away with both capitalism and democracies. Neither contribute to our wellbeing or the future of our world.

If you want to play any proof game with capitalism, you need to prove it can be controlled. Because it sure as hell isn't sustainable in and of itself.

I don't think you answered my questions. "Because capitalism is the embodiement of human selfishness" I challenge you to back this up.

Why should i its so pathetically obvouis to any one with intelligence. What is capitalism but the pursuit of personal goods by CAPITALIZING on a person place item or situation all you have to do is look it up in a dictionary and it will support this.

As far as I'm concerned, this is irrelevant.

Capitalism is a system designed for people to profit at the expense of eachother. This might not be so bad if we just started using it and stopped using it again, before the few got too much power to be restrained by the many.

The problem is, capitalism makes it impossible for us to exert control over those who benefit from it. And people benefit more from behaviour that is detrimental to our planet and ourselves.
Calling it a system build and maintained by increasing human misery and devastation of nature is entirely correct. And it's why it most go. It's destroying us and we can't reign it in.

Were it up to me - and in a small way, it is - I would do away with both capitalism and democracies. Neither contribute to our wellbeing or the future of our world.

If you want to play any proof game with capitalism, you need to prove it can be controlled. Because it sure as hell isn't sustainable in and of itself.

In Russia, it sure as hell wasn't capitalism that destroyed the people and evironment. Besides, there is not proof that Communism or Socialism can be controlled either.

In Russia, it sure as hell wasn't capitalism that destroyed the people and evironment. Besides, there is not proof that Communism or Socialism can be controlled either.

It cant be it assumes to much of human nature we are to selfish communism isnt flawed people are flawed very few if any people do things for the greater good of hummanity or even their country.

how does capitalism destroy our future? You will need to back up your claims sometime.
Alright, but I'll be brief. I'm off to bed in a moment.

1. Using Capitalism, everything can be owned and privatised. The air we breathe and the water we drink. Nothing stops the owner from administrating this ownership in a way that causes harm to others. In fact, companies are doing this as we speak (not the air bit... Yet).

2. Using capitalism, money equals control. Right now, business interests are behind sweatshops, wars, and the bulk of the laws governing trade. The result is exploitation of both humans and nature.

3. Using capitalism, we have managed to cause harm to ourselves and our planet on a scale unrivaled by anything we know of.

If you think capitalism can be sustainable, I'd like to see some evidence for the conclusion. The world economy is capitalistic. Most of the countries on the planet are as well. None of us have managed to make it sustainable.

In Russia, it sure as hell wasn't capitalism that destroyed the people and evironment. Besides, there is not proof that Communism or Socialism can be controlled either.
I am not advocating communism. I'm advocating that we don't selfdestruct. 80% of the worlds population doesn't benefit one bit from capitalism, and it's destroying our planet. We need to stop using it and try something else. Whatever your ideology may be, the fact of the matter is we're killing ourselves. We need to try something else. That another idiotic failure didn't work either, doesn't mean we have to selfdestruct with this one. What are we? Lemmings or men?

as much as i rant about capitalism at times, i think it may be the only workable economy (right term?)

however, i think we need far more restrictions and such on it, and people/corporations need to be held accountable for things such as pollution, overharvesting, waste disposal, climate/ecosystem changes, etc., as well as social damages.

however, this will never happen, since those with all the money(corporations) have all the power, and have the most to benefit from the above actions, and they sure as hell arnt going to roll over and cut back on their profits to make a bunch of us damned hippies and bio-geeks happy.

anybody hear anything on the olduvai theory? basically we use up all our natural resources(fossil fuels, easily refinable metal ores, etc) and society grinds to a halt, and collapses back into the early agricultural stages....

i can live with that:)

as much as i rant about capitalism at times, i think it may be the only workable economy (right term?)

however, i think we need far more restrictions and such on it, and people/corporations need to be held accountable for things such as pollution, overharvesting, waste disposal, climate/ecosystem changes, etc., as well as social damages.

however, this will never happen, since those with all the money(corporations) have all the power, and have the most to benefit from the above actions, and they sure as hell arnt going to roll over and cut back on their profits to make a bunch of us damned hippies and bio-geeks happy.

anybody hear anything on the olduvai theory? basically we use up all our natural resources(fossil fuels, easily refinable metal ores, etc) and society grinds to a halt, and collapses back into the early agricultural stages....

i can live with that:)

Even without corporate law, with limitations on what people can own, and with forced social business practices, I don't think capitalism can work. I already stated why. It's systematic exploitation. It always will be. Otherwise it isn't capitalism.... Sustainable capitalism is an oxymoron.
And we have tons of alternative ideas. They just haven't been tried on any sort of scale at all. But why the hell not try? It's not like we have anything to lose. If we abolish capitalism and come up with yet another fluke, then we try again. Or we truely are gutless, suicidal lemmings, marching off to the abyss, because we are too bloody daft to take another direction.

Perhaps it wouldn't bother you to live on a maimed planet where only the rich can survive, because only we have the means to adapt as we destroy. It bothers me though. I think it's sick.

I don't want to turn back time. We live in relative peace in the western world, and we have pretty stable cultures. It has taken us several thousand years to achive that, and reverting to some romantic middleage stage, where warlords own the lives of their subjects and are in a constant state of war, is not my idea of a noble goal.

...And thus we got back on topic :) Now someone knock me out please. I'm fucking tired and I can't fall asleep.

I have heard some interesting theories on capitalism. Extremely inticing and interesting, so if I may put in my personal comments, I shall.

Early capitalism was a sort of proto-freemarket, emerging from mercantilism. Mercantilism was a system of economics which was prevalent in the European feudal age, in which wealth was measured by the acquisition of gold, and riches. I am being extremely general with the definitions and the ideas, but I'm sure people will understand.

Eventually, the idea of mass-production came into being, and things could be produced at what people of those days must have considered astronomical. Many may have worried about the coming effects, and they were dead on. But there were also benefits in the end. Mercantilism was replaced by capitalism, which placed more value on labor and land. Land, to acquire resources and manufacture those into products, and labor which powered the machines.

This created a new lifestyle for European society. Food could be more easily produced and acquired, and with mass-production came lowering prices. Although relatively high in a still heavily-stratified (class) society, products and services became much more affordable. This meant with the extra food, people could live longer, and with less social ills, the pursuit of knowledge and betterment through science was aided. Inventions sprung up, to better textiles, to make agriculture efficient, etc. Sanitation was made easier, but that didn't stop the mass of poor hovels, the filthy streets, and the dying children. That was a sad time, in a world developing, to suffer at the same time, in the greatest cities of their era.

Capitalism isn't a pretty thing. It has created many new problems which never had existed, and it has affected the human species to the core, whether for "good" or "bad". Yet, capitalism has made possible new ventures of manufacturing, new ways of acquiring, new methods of bettering society. Sure, capitalism hasn't solved all of society's woes. To be honest, if every government in the world cared, all of human industry could be channelled to clothe and feed and shelter every single human being within, say, at least 30 years. But it doesn't happen because it's not profitable. But beyond that piece of speculation, capitalism has certainly pissed me off at some points. I'm sure everyone was pissed off at the system once or twice. But what other system could there honestly be? Russia has shown us that a planned economy is a doomed failure, because supply and demand is ignored.

In a capitalist economy, consumers decide what to have produced through choices. Yes, there are profits made by producers. It's what drives the market. New entrepreneurs arrive to corner some new invention or innovation, or modify. It's what truly makes our global economy so great and international.

And it's really not that bad. If you don't like people making a few bucks off you so they can replace their products for new customers, then shop at Goodwill; they have extremely low prices. Capitalism is certainly sustainable. It has existed in form for almost four hundred years, it can certainly exist for another four hundred. It is self-sustainable because it props itself up through supply and demand.

In short, history has shown us that attempts to control the system of economy ultimately fail because they ignore the natural forces of demand. Perhaps one day a planned economy would exist that receives its orders for products from local communities. That would certainly be something I would be willing to experiment with. But for now, capitalism exists, and capitalism really isn't all that bad. Imagine no capitalism, how else would things be? If anyone has any suggestions, feel free to do so. Just try and be reasonable about alternatives. Good day.

Okay, so I read your post again and I felt like elaborating. Morals facinate me. ;)

First of all, I recognize that humans are selfish by nature, and the most important thing, my biological task, is to ensure my genes into the next generation. Therefore, I would sacrifice someone else for peace, but not myself. Would I sacrifice myself for my own children (when I have them) ? Probably. Would I sacrifice myself if it would seem as if my entire family would die if I didn't? Probably.

Let's face it, nothing really matters but you and your family(loved ones).

Concerning "Right and wrong". Personally, I accept that there is no "right or wrong" and that there is no "universal" or "basic" moral code. Moral, our concept of right and wrong, are social constructs. Thus, I believe fiercely in Civil Rights and democracy, because those are the systems that allow me the greatest odds at survival, procreating and living in comfort.
Another case of chronic misapplication of the term "sacrifice." A sacrifice is when you give up something for another item or object that is of lesser value. You'd only be sacrificing yourself for your family if you thought their lives were worth less than yours. Anything else is a trade or even a gain.

There is some truth abvout what you say about right and wrong; a common misconception regarding Objectivism is that we all put our stck in ironclad absolutes like the Ten Commandments; this isn't exactly the case. We beleive morality and values are derived from objective principles and this principle [life] should be the benchmark by which moral action should be judged. This isn't a carte blanche liscence to ignore the context of the moral quandary in question.

Why should i its so pathetically obvouis to any one with intelligence. What is capitalism but the pursuit of personal goods by CAPITALIZING on a person place item or situation all you have to do is look it up in a dictionary and it will support this.
Oh shut up. There's nothing wrong with the pursuit of personal goods.

As far as I'm concerned, this is irrelevant.

Capitalism is a system designed for people to profit at the expense of eachother. This might not be so bad if we just started using it and stopped using it again, before the few got too much power to be restrained by the many.
What’s wrong with profiting on the expense of another?

Calling it a system build and maintained by increasing human misery and devastation of nature is entirely correct. And it's why it most go. It's destroying us and we can't reign it in.
How is it destroying up? Back up your claims. How is capitalism destroying nature? How is it increasing human misery?

Were it up to me - and in a small way, it is - I would do away with both capitalism and democracies. Neither contribute to our wellbeing or the future of our world.

If you want to play any proof game with capitalism, you need to prove it can be controlled. Because it sure as hell isn't sustainable in and of itself.
Democracy and capitalism are the main contributors to the wellbeing of our future, tell me why it’s not.

Alright, but I'll be brief. I'm off to bed in a moment.

1. Using Capitalism, everything can be owned and privatised. The air we breathe and the water we drink. Nothing stops the owner from administrating this ownership in a way that causes harm to others. In fact, companies are doing this as we speak (not the air bit... Yet).

2. Using capitalism, money equals control. Right now, business interests are behind sweatshops, wars, and the bulk of the laws governing trade. The result is exploitation of both humans and nature.

3. Using capitalism, we have managed to cause harm to ourselves and our planet on a scale unrivaled by anything we know of.

If you think capitalism can be sustainable, I'd like to see some evidence for the conclusion. The world economy is capitalistic. Most of the countries on the planet are as well. None of us have managed to make it sustainable.

1. Wrong, this is why we have democracy silly. You cannot go around claiming you own stuff without backing it up with proof.

2. Exploiting humans and nature is what we do. How would the sweatshop workers find work without delicious Nike or Adidas factories? We've explotied nature and humans long before capitalism.

3. Correlation =! Causation

I don't get the last thing you wrote. Capitalism is doing well, in the west we've never had it so good.

We have the right to determine our own actions, as long as they do not impinge on the rights of others or cause harm to the world around us.
Oh shut up.That's a good one. I'll have to remember that argument for future discussions.

We have the right to determine our own actions, as long as they do not impinge on the rights of others or cause harm to the world around us.discussions. And?

Why should i its so pathetically obvouis to any one with intelligence.
I was responding to your ad-hom

(Edited for 20% more fun)
(Edit: Not editing the ad-hom, just to make my post understandable)

Capitalism is a system designed for people to profit at the expense of eachother. This might not be so bad if we just started using it and stopped using it again, before the few got too much power to be restrained by the many.


What is wrong with that? If a person takes the time and effort to gain an advantage over others in a competition like the free market, why shouldn't they be able to profit? That's like saying "you won the race, but we're not going to give you an award because you won at the expense of someone elso losing."


The problem is, capitalism makes it impossible for us to exert control over those who benefit from it. And people benefit more from behaviour that is detrimental to our planet and ourselves.

No it doesn't. The government creates systems to regulate the anti-competitive effects of monopoly and protects the consumer through laws and the right to sue. In a true capitalist system, this would not be necessary, but in the real world, it is.

Ironically, the worst environmental damage has come from the Communist nations of the world, from bioweapons accidents to nuclear disasters like Chernobyl. The USSR nearly destroyed the Aral Sea through its disasterous irrigation schemes, and the Nile area suffered from the Aswan Dam to the point where some land once fertile is now wasteland.

Were it up to me - and in a small way, it is - I would do away with both capitalism and democracies. Neither contribute to our wellbeing or the future of our world.

The democratic capitalist states offer the best life, economic opporunity, and stability of any nation on Earth. The people living under dictatorships like China or the USSR would gladly have switched places with the people living in free countries. Communism failed, socialism is tottering, and no other economic system has proven to be longer lasting or beneficial than capitalism.

Another case of chronic misapplication of the term "sacrifice." A sacrifice is when you give up something for another item or object that is of lesser value. You'd only be sacrificing yourself for your family if you thought their lives were worth less than yours. Anything else is a trade or even a gain.

There is some truth abvout what you say about right and wrong; a common misconception regarding Objectivism is that we all put our stck in ironclad absolutes like the Ten Commandments; this isn't exactly the case. We beleive morality and values are derived from objective principles and this principle [life] should be the benchmark by which moral action should be judged. This isn't a carte blanche liscence to ignore the context of the moral quandary in question.

Well forgive me for my layman's tounge then ;) sacrifice was the wrong word.

I would have no problem to go from the "every life is a precious snowflake" perspective. It's solid, and if society hold life in high regards, better odds for me.

I was curious as to the varying morals of everyone here. Feel free to discuss what you base them upon, and how far you would take them.

In my own personal experience, I feel that as long as an action does not hurt anyone else, or at least anyone else who isn't consenting, then people can do it. It's not my business, nor anyone else's, until the health and well-being of others is at stake. I would also say that my own personal way of determining what is most correct or incorrect can be based upon what is best for the State, or society. For example, consider this hypothetical situation: Russia and the United States are on a state of mutual red-alert. All English-speakers who are fluent in Russian are dead, except for one, who badly needs an organ transplant. Would I make someone else, or myself, sacrifice their/my life to save this person, to stop a war? Yes.

Anyways, I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on what is right and wrong to them. And I say 'right and wrong' in a strictly personal sense. Have a good day, people.

My personal moral:

Don't hurt anybody, ever, under any circumstances.
Don't take more than you give, if you can give more than you take.

That's about it, really...

My personal moral:

Don't hurt anybody, ever, under any circumstances.
Don't take more than you give, if you can give more than you take.

That's about it, really...
Don't hurt anyone emotionally, or kill them, or what?

Don't hurt anyone emotionally, or kill them, or what?

Both.
Please note that I don't expect anybody else to follow these ideas, it's just how I try to live.

My morals are, in order, Justice, Sacrifice, and Kindness.

And I'm too lazy to explain any of these.

Why should i its so pathetically obvouis to any one with intelligence. What is capitalism but the pursuit of personal goods by CAPITALIZING on a person place item or situation all you have to do is look it up in a dictionary and it will support this.

I suppose in your infintie wisdom, communism is the better idealogy? What benefits has that brought? It is completely impossible to have a truly communist state. Although, you do seem to have a healthy disregard for human freedom and independence. Why not accept that your idealogy is failed and useless rather than try to pinpoint the negative aspects of capitalism?

I suppose in your infintie wisdom, communism is the better idealogy? What benefits has that brought? It is completely impossible to have a truly communist state. Although, you do seem to have a healthy disregard for human freedom and independence. Why not accept that your idealogy is failed and useless rather than try to pinpoint the negative aspects of capitalism?

Has it ever occured to you that there may be more options out there than just capitalism and communism?
Or that you can effectively merge the two, ensuring a balance of liberties and securities?
Capitalism has its negative sides, and so does Communism. Neither will ever work very well, unless they are balanced out by other aspects and legilation.

Has it ever occured to you that there may be more options out there than just capitalism and communism?
Or that you can effectively merge the two, ensuring a balance of liberties and securities?
Capitalism has its negative sides, and so does Communism. Neither will ever work very well, unless they are balanced out by other aspects and legilation.
In other words, social democracy. Hey wait, we've got that.

And by the way, capitalism and communism, as an economic system, communism has far more downsides than capitalism.

What is wrong with that? If a person takes the time and effort to gain an advantage over others in a competition like the free market, why shouldn't they be able to profit? That's like saying "you won the race, but we're not going to give you an award because you won at the expense of someone elso losing."




No it doesn't. The government creates systems to regulate the anti-competitive effects of monopoly and protects the consumer through laws and the right to sue. In a true capitalist system, this would not be necessary, but in the real world, it is.

Ironically, the worst environmental damage has come from the Communist nations of the world, from bioweapons accidents to nuclear disasters like Chernobyl. The USSR nearly destroyed the Aral Sea through its disasterous irrigation schemes, and the Nile area suffered from the Aswan Dam to the point where some land once fertile is now wasteland.



The democratic capitalist states offer the best life, economic opporunity, and stability of any nation on Earth. The people living under dictatorships like China or the USSR would gladly have switched places with the people living in free countries. Communism failed, socialism is tottering, and no other economic system has proven to be longer lasting or beneficial than capitalism.

You are completely correct. Communism is a defeated and unworkable idealogy. It brings about little more than a revolution of ignorance and is merely a vehicle upon which despots can ride to power. If you could show me one truly successful communist state, which had a healthy culture, and a genuinely peaceful history then I would eat my proverbial hat. Communism does nothing but to reduce everyone to the same level of subservience under a usually corrupt and evil government. In China, student protestors were shot on Tiananmen Square. Stalin had his gulags. Communism enforces total conformity and stifles humanity. You cannot refute this. Communism leads to misery for all except the leadership. Capitalism leads to misery for some. It is a better system.

In other words, social democracy. Hey wait, we've got that.

And by the way, capitalism and communism, as an economic system, communism has far more downsides than capitalism.

We do, and it's still not perfect. Balance is difficult.

As an economic system, communism has one single flaw : it assumes that people are ready to do something without seeing instant benefit from it. It assumes that people have the foresight to do what's best for all in the long run. they don't.
That's were capitalism comes in. It assumes that humans are basically egoistic, greedy, shortsighted and after immediate benefit and satisfaction, and it's right there.

Humans on the whole will always look after their own reward first, that's where communist thought comes in to balance out capitalism: In order to sustain a community, people sometimes have to be forced to look after others as well.

Has it ever occured to you that there may be more options out there than just capitalism and communism?
Or that you can effectively merge the two, ensuring a balance of liberties and securities?
Capitalism has its negative sides, and so does Communism. Neither will ever work very well, unless they are balanced out by other aspects and legilation.

It has, but I have not found any that either appeal to me or seem especially workable. Securities and liberties are, of course, important to maintain and balance, but that can be done within a capitalist system, with no need for any stray into communism. You seem to suggest that capitalism is an extreme in the same way that communism is on the left. This is not the case, as capitalism embodies the majority of poltical thought, from socialists and liberals, to some of the far-right. Capitalism, in my view, works very well. Of course, not everyone lives in luxury, drives a mercedes, and eats lobster in the sunset, but at least there is the possibility to create better for yourself and to rise in society. With communism, all ambition and talent is mannacled and wasted, used only to productive purposes of the stats and not the individual. I see nothing in communism which should be taken into account in the running of a nation.

We do, and it's still not perfect. Balance is difficult.

As an economic system, communism has one single flaw : it assumes that people are ready to do something without seeing instant benefit from it. It assumes that people have the foresight to do what's best for all in the long run. they don't.
You're not saying this is the one single flaw about communism as a economic system? That's quite laughable. Centrally planned economies will always do much worse than the good ol' supply and demand. Just look at Russia or China (before the reforms).

That's were capitalism comes in. It assumes that humans are basically egoistic, greedy, shortsighted and after immediate benefit and satisfaction, and it's right there.
Wait wait wait. I'm calling bullshit on this one. Capitalism is A SYSTEM, AN ABSTRACT IDEA, it cannot assume anything, it is not a person.
Capitalism assumes nothing. You're basically making a lot of blank statements, one big appeal to emotion.

Humans on the whole will always look after their own reward first, that's where communist thought comes in to balance out capitalism: In order to sustain a community, people sometimes have to be forced to look after others as well.
What communist thought? I feel that many of them are morally wrong.

Edit: I sppell good tooday :(

It has, but I have not found any that either appeal to me or seem especially workable. Securities and liberties are, of course, important to maintain and balance, but that can be done within a capitalist system, with no need for any stray into communism. You seem to suggest that capitalism is an extreme in the same way that communism is on the left. This is not the case, as capitalism embodies the majority of poltical thought, from socialists and liberals, to some of the far-right. Capitalism, in my view, works very well. Of course, not everyone lives in luxury, drives a mercedes, and eats lobster in the sunset, but at least there is the possibility to create better for yourself and to rise in society. With communism, all ambition and talent is mannacled and wasted, used only to productive purposes of the stats and not the individual. I see nothing in communism which should be taken into account in the running of a nation.

If you are talking about capitalism in its pure form, it won't allow for social wellfare, it won't allow for human rights, it won't allow for anything ressembling taxes.

Capitalism is a system based on the belief that everybody in a society should be left to their own devices, that they will succeed if they try and if they fail, that's their problem. No society has yet tried to live capitalism in this pure form, but I daresay that they would fail soon enough.

Every society on this planet today lives a mixture of capitalism and communism, in different ratios. Don't mistake China for a communist country, just because it claims to be. And neither was the USSR communist. They were and are dictatorships leaning to a leftish ideology to justify their doctrines and oppression. Franco and Hitler did the same leaning to the right.

You're not saying this is the one single flaw about communism as a economic system? That's quite laughable. Centrally planned economies will always do much worse than the good ol' supply and demand. Just look at Russia or China (before the reforms).


Wait wait wait. I'm calling bullshit on this one. Capitalism is A SYSTEM, AN ABSTRACT IDEA, it cannot assume anything, it is not a person.
Capitalism assumes nothing. You're basically making a lot of blank statements, one big appeal to emotion.


What communist thought? I feel that many of them are morally wrong.

Edit: I sppell good tooday :(

Erm... did you ever read any of Marx's theories on communism?

Neither China nor the USSR are/were communist countries, they were just using the name. Centrally planned economy has as much to do with communist theory as it has with capitalist theory, nothing at all. Communist theory is that all economic power should be in the hands of the people, basically it is an attempt to democratise economy.

I wasn't trying to get emotional here, I was trying to explain things in an easily understandable way. For "it assumes" you could substitute the term "its basis is". Both are abstract ideas, and both are based on assumptions of human nature.

In what way would communist thought be morally wrong?

If you are talking about capitalism in its pure form, it won't allow for social wellfare, it won't allow for human rights, it won't allow for anything ressembling taxes.

Capitalism is a system based on the belief that everybody in a society should be left to their own devices, that they will succeed if they try and if they fail, that's their problem. No society has yet tried to live capitalism in this pure form, but I daresay that they would fail soon enough.
You're confusing capitalism with a political ideology. We're talking about economic systems. Social welfare can ofcourse co-exist.

Every society on this planet today lives a mixture of capitalism and communism, in different ratios.
Because capitalism and communism are two opposites on a magical compass.

No.

Don't mistake China for a communist country, just because it claims to be. And neither was the USSR communist. They were and are dictatorships leaning to a leftish ideology to justify their doctrines and oppression. Franco and Hitler did the same leaning to the right.

Well hello, no true scotsman fallacy!

If you are talking about capitalism in its pure form, it won't allow for social wellfare, it won't allow for human rights, it won't allow for anything ressembling taxes.

Capitalism is a system based on the belief that everybody in a society should be left to their own devices, that they will succeed if they try and if they fail, that's their problem. No society has yet tried to live capitalism in this pure form, but I daresay that they would fail soon enough.

Every society on this planet today lives a mixture of capitalism and communism, in different ratios. Don't mistake China for a communist country, just because it claims to be. And neither was the USSR communist. They were and are dictatorships leaning to a leftish ideology to justify their doctrines and oppression. Franco and Hitler did the same leaning to the right.

Moderate Capitalism is not as harsh and stark as the capitalism you describe. However, there is no moderate communism. Communism is a absolute and does not dilute with anything. Socialism and capitalism can merge and blend together. Communism is abused too easily to be credible. It cannot tolerate freedom and individualism because of its very nature. Hitler and France were not capitalists. They were socialists of a sort. Both believed in an all-powerful state which interefered at every level of national life. In this respect, they had more in common with communists. It is important to recall what the NSDAP actually stood for. Hitler was right-wing, but like communism, fascism is an extreme which has little in common with capitalism.

Erm... did you ever read any of Marx's theories on communism?

Neither China nor the USSR are/were communist countries, they were just using the name. Centrally planned economy has as much to do with communist theory as it has with capitalist theory, nothing at all. Communist theory is that all economic power should be in the hands of the people, basically it is an attempt to democratise economy.
No true scotsman.

I wasn't trying to get emotional here, I was trying to explain things in an easily understandable way. For "it assumes" you could substitute the term "its basis is". Both are abstract ideas, and both are based on assumptions of human nature.
You were using some pretty emotionally loaded words in your arguments. Would you be so kind as to rephrase and elaborate?

In what way would communist thought be morally wrong? I was asking you what "communist thought" you were reffering to, as there are many of them.

You're confusing capitalism with a political ideology. We're talking about economic systems. Social welfare can ofcourse co-exist.

No, I don't see either communism nor capitalism as political. Both are economic concepts and theories.


Because capitalism and communism are two opposites on a magical compass.

No.

Then what would you say Germany's famous social market ecomony would be? It was designed to be a compromise between hardcore capitalism and communism.



Well hello, no true scotsman fallacy!


:confused:

No, I don't see either communism nor capitalism as political. Both are economic concepts and theories.
Then why does not capitalism allow for social welfare?

Then what would you say Germany's famous social market ecomony would be? It was designed to be a compromise between hardcore capitalism and communism.
A compromise between hardcore capitalism and communism?

:confused:
No true Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) is a fallacy. This is the fallacy you're making about how the USSR and China (before the reforms) were not communist countries.

No, I don't see either communism nor capitalism as political. Both are economic concepts and theories.



Then what would you say Germany's famous social market ecomony would be? It was designed to be a compromise between hardcore capitalism and communism.





:confused:

Id say that communism is a political thoery actually. Capitalism isnt. There are communist parties, but no "capitalist party" because that is usually everyone else. Capitalism is an economic principle.
Id also say germany's social market economy can be summed up as this currently : a failure.

I went to the border and there were no dotted lines there, so I think countries are just made up. Not that made up things aren't important. Money is a made up thing that is important. But personally I find it hard to follow a morality that makes distinctions between people based upon what side of an imaginary dotted line they happened to be born on. I will defend myself against someone who tries to kill me and I will defend others against people who try to kill them. If people are fighting and there is no clear aggressor, I'm willing to mediate.

Thank you. I've been trying to make that argument for years now.

Oh, I see it turned into another thread about Communism v. Capitalism. Well under Communism, I'd have never been worrying about where the food was going to come from, or whether there would be enough hot water (Let's assume that someone makes a Communist system which actually works, because my argument here is a philosophical one, not a practical one.), but I also wouldn't be able to write whatever I wanted, if I could write at all. I'm quite certain society would consider it better to educate only 15% of the people if it meant more food for them, and you better believe no system where the people are in direct charge has freedom of speech. (Look at the stereotyped ideas of the inhabitants of the southern US. You think they're going to feed and clothe someone who is writing articles supporting homosexuality between people of different races?)

1. Wrong, this is why we have democracy silly. You cannot go around claiming you own stuff without backing it up with proof.

2. Exploiting humans and nature is what we do. How would the sweatshop workers find work without delicious Nike or Adidas factories? We've explotied nature and humans long before capitalism.

3. Correlation =! Causation

I don't get the last thing you wrote. Capitalism is doing well, in the west we've never had it so good.

1. What proof do you need? I'm not sure I understand you.
Corporate ownership and distribution of stuff like sanitation and watersupplies is real. Antisocial business conduct regarding such things are also real. South America is a prime example. Subsidised agribusiness is another... Like I said, I don't know what you're asking. Read a news papaer or look out the window.

2. I see... Ok then. We've killed humans as long as they've existed. Does that justify me killing you? What you just said here, is exactly what's wrong. We have to do better than that.

3. Again, I don't understand you. Are you suggesting that our systemised exploitation isn't related to capitalism? Maybe so. But how is that relevant? Capitalism rewards our destructive behaviour. You can't deny it. I get the impression you think I'm a communist or some other dangerous heretic. I'm not. All I am saying is that we need to change our behaviour. That 20% of the worlds population controls 80% of the wealth is hardly beneficial to everyone. In fact, 10 million (circa) kids die every year, because we deny most of the world access to the benefits we have.
I don't think that's a good thing. You're wellcome to defend it if you like. All I can say is it's at odds with what I think is ethical.

About that last thing I wrote: Capitalism is doing very well. There's no denying that. It's just that the vast majority of humans don't bemefit from it & in it's current form, it's destroying the planet. If you think that's a good thing, well good for you. I think it's unethical.
And no. Capitalism, at least in it's current form, isn't sustainable. It's destroying the things people make money off.


What is wrong with that? If a person takes the time and effort to gain an advantage over others in a competition like the free market, why shouldn't they be able to profit? That's like saying "you won the race, but we're not going to give you an award because you won at the expense of someone elso losing."

Damn.. Say one word about the ill effects of capitalism and the whole world throws a fit! Hehehe!
Look I'm not saying competition is a bad thing at all. I'm bitching about the real world. Not ideology. If you can actually make some sort of capitalist construct that benefits us and don't lead to uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources and insane levels of pollution, then I'm all for it. The problem with the current state of things is that "losing" is a lifetime of misery or possibly death. There needs to be some sort of moderation. We're not at war with eachother, thus getting an advantage over others shouldn't mean you have the rights or means to do whatever the hell you want with the poor sods. Currently that's not how it works, and that's against my sense of ethics.
If I see 5 guys raping a woman down a backally, I'm not just gonna walk away thinking "Well if they can do it, they have the right".


No it doesn't. The government creates systems to regulate the anti-competitive effects of monopoly and protects the consumer through laws and the right to sue. In a true capitalist system, this would not be necessary, but in the real world, it is.

Ironically, the worst environmental damage has come from the Communist nations of the world, from bioweapons accidents to nuclear disasters like Chernobyl. The USSR nearly destroyed the Aral Sea through its disasterous irrigation schemes, and the Nile area suffered from the Aswan Dam to the point where some land once fertile is now wasteland.

If our governments were able to restraint business, I wouldn't have a problem with neither capitalism nor democracy. But that's not what's going on. IFM often attatch corporate demands to any helping hand it extends to a poor nation. That's not us controlling capitalism. That's capitalism controlling us.

Ironically, a huge majority of people are currently so poor they're suffering, and have little or no control over their own resources or the conduct of forign businesses in their countries. Chernobyl is a drop in the ocean compared to all the shit our current global economy have done.

The democratic capitalist states offer the best life, economic opporunity, and stability of any nation on Earth. The people living under dictatorships like China or the USSR would gladly have switched places with the people living in free countries. Communism failed, socialism is tottering, and no other economic system has proven to be longer lasting or beneficial than capitalism.

Socialism tends to get massacrated by corporate interests. Either because corporate interests run the governments or because the corporate interests can bully a government into waging war on a socialist country.

There's no doubt we're living in pretty nice places. At least when it comes to our own wellbeing. The problem is that right now, our wellbeing is facilitated by other people's misery. And we are actively preventing others from achiving our standart of living - despite all the talk of doing the opposite. Our actions doesn't match our stated intentions at all.

Capitalism is a great get-rich-quick scheme. It works really really well for preserving and consentrating wealth.. Only it's so damn good at it, it causes incredibly much harm to the ones who're left behind. And no. Capitalism - in it's current form - isn't sustainable at all. We're killing the life on the planet and gradually making it uninhabitable. Sure it's sustainable the next 50-200 years. But it leaves each generation worse off than the previous one. To me, that's the very definition of amoral behaviour.

As I've said a couple of times already: This doesn't work for the vast majority of us. It's detrimental to our continued existence. We have to do better than this. Just accepting it because it's good for myself isn't my idea of ethical behaviour. It's not like we can't try something else. Sure it will piss off all the current fatcats, but face it. They're maybe 5-10% of us. If 80% of us will benefit from them giving up their privileges, why the hell not do it? Participatory economics might be worth a shot. And if it isn't, we can try something different. I'm open to suggestions.
Anyway... We're going off topic methinks.

Then why does not capitalism allow for social welfare?


A compromise between hardcore capitalism and communism?


No true Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) is a fallacy. This is the fallacy you're making about how the USSR and China (before the reforms) were not communist countries.

Strictly speaking, capitalism that allows for things like wellfare & corporate structures, isn't capitalism. It's a sort of socialism. No true scotsman yourself ;)

I don't get that either... The imfamous fascists have all been "socialists". Only, they were pretty selective about it.

The no true scotsman thing... That's debatable. What USSR & China were doing contradicted communism outright. Owning a plane and calling it a beer doesn't mean your plane is a beer.
Is it a NTS fallacy to call The Democratic Republic of Congo a fascist dictatorship? It outright contradicts both what a democracy and a republic is, but it's still the name of the thing...

Nit picking is a bitch...

Thank you. I've been trying to make that argument for years now.

Oh, I see it turned into another thread about Communism v. Capitalism. Well under Communism, I'd have never been worrying about where the food was going to come from, or whether there would be enough hot water (Let's assume that someone makes a Communist system which actually works, because my argument here is a philosophical one, not a practical one.), but I also wouldn't be able to write whatever I wanted, if I could write at all. I'm quite certain society would consider it better to educate only 15% of the people if it meant more food for them, and you better believe no system where the people are in direct charge has freedom of speech. (Look at the stereotyped ideas of the inhabitants of the southern US. You think they're going to feed and clothe someone who is writing articles supporting homosexuality between people of different races?)
Couldn't the exact same thing be said about Capitalism?

I mean.. Trust fag bashing rednecks to educate or even sell goods to someone like that. I don't see it happening. And what would the schools teach? Math? Or just the bible?

Oh this is a long one indeed :)

1. What proof do you need? I'm not sure I understand you.
Corporate ownership and distribution of stuff like sanitation and watersupplies is real.
This is why we distinguish between a product and the compounds it’s made of. I can claim owner ship over “Comedy Option Water” if it is my product, but I can’t claim I own water. Much like the makers of Xanax do not own medicine, but their product.

Read a news papaer or look out the window.
Let slip the eyes of rolling.

2. I see... Ok then. We've killed humans as long as they've existed. Does that justify me killing you? What you just said here, is exactly what's wrong. We have to do better than that.
No, you’ve missed my point. What I meant was: “We cannot survive without ‘exploiting’ our fellow members of society” some people wash tables, some people build buildings.

3. Again, I don't understand you. Are you suggesting that our systemised exploitation isn't related to capitalism? Maybe so. But how is that relevant?
It’s relevant because correlation isn’t the same as causation. Human misery isn’t caused by capitalism, or any other emotionally loaded word you try to attatch to it.

Capitalism rewards our destructive behaviour. You can't deny it. I get the impression you think I'm a communist or some other dangerous heretic. I'm not. All I am saying is that we need to change our behaviour.
This is a double edged sword. As much as capitalism rewards “evil deeds” it rewards “good deeds” and does not hinder such deeds. If you’re going to bring out all the bad things capitalism has done, you also have to bring out all the good things. And describing capitalism as destructive is the opposite of what I would do.

And I don’t really care if you’re a communist, heretic or whatnot. I can still have a civilized discussion with you :)

That 20% of the worlds population controls 80% of the wealth is hardly beneficial to everyone. In fact, 10 million (circa) kids die every year, because we deny most of the world access to the benefits we have.
I haven’t denied anyone my benefits? Who are these people you are talking about?

I don't think that's a good thing. You're wellcome to defend it if you like. All I can say is it's at odds with what I think is ethical.

About that last thing I wrote: Capitalism is doing very well. There's no denying that. It's just that the vast majority of humans don't bemefit from it & in it's current form, it's destroying the planet. If you think that's a good thing, well good for you. I think it's unethical.
And no. Capitalism, at least in it's current form, isn't sustainable. It's destroying the things people make money off.
Well, in all the western world there is a lot of people benefiting from it? And those countries that are in a regular poohole are those who are currently or have been non-capitalist countries.
And sorry I don’t have the energy right now to respond to the rest of your post. One day perhaps? :)

Strictly speaking, capitalism that allows for things like wellfare & corporate structures, isn't capitalism. It's a sort of socialism. No true scotsman yourself ;)
Well explain to me why!

The 'no true scotsman' doesn't apply here.

The no true scotsman thing... That's debatable. What USSR & China were doing contradicted communism outright. Owning a plane and calling it a beer doesn't mean your plane is a beer.
Is it a NTS fallacy to call The Democratic Republic of Congo a fascist dictatorship? It outright contradicts both what a democracy and a republic is, but it's still the name of the thing...
Oh, the fallacy isn't about names. USSR & China had all the communist components, but of course they didn't follow it. But that's not the point, the point is, inherently communistic systems fail, and claiming "But they weren't REAL communists" ain't no good. Am I being clear here? (This is sadly a crude explanation)

Couldn't the exact same thing be said about Capitalism?

I mean.. Trust fag bashing rednecks to educate or even sell goods to someone like that. I don't see it happening. And what would the schools teach? Math? Or just the bible?

:rolleyes: If fag-bashing rednecks want to do that, it's their business. The whole point is that communism doesn't permit people to do as they please, whilst in a capitalist system the preventions are fewer; there are still laws about it but ultimately the only other hinderance is an absence of means, which can be rectified through hard work and good planning. Even if your nation is deep in the shitter, a decade of concentrated effort will lift it up and three decades will make it shine. And seeing as communism is all about the people working together, I see no problem with that.

Oh this is a long one indeed :)


This is why we distinguish between a product and the compounds it’s made of. I can claim owner ship over “Comedy Option Water” if it is my product, but I can’t claim I own water. Much like the makers of Xanax do not own medicine, but their product.

When business interest can take over a nation's water supply, and through international political & economic pressure make the country outlaw things like collecting rain water, the distinction you make goes up in smoke.
In the post you replied to, I was not commenting on what the nature of capitalism is or anything of the sort. I was stating why I oppose what we're doing.

No, you’ve missed my point. What I meant was: “We cannot survive without ‘exploiting’ our fellow members of society” some people wash tables, some people build buildings.

And... Guess what? You assume things about me I haven't given you any reason to assume. People will always be different. I'm not a rocket scientist. I wouldn't even want to be one. The guy who runs the next company that employs me will be paid more than me. That's fine. It's perfectly fair.
It's not fair when he gets payed 50 times what he pays me, because that means the work I do earns me less than the guy I do it for. Under such circumstances, I wouldn't work for the guy if I could possibly help it.

It’s relevant because correlation isn’t the same as causation. Human misery isn’t caused by capitalism, or any other emotionally loaded word you try to attatch to it.

Alright... Well, our current way of doing things are responsible. We need to change the way we do things. There; capitalism wasn't mentioned. Happy?

This is a double edged sword. As much as capitalism rewards “evil deeds” it rewards “good deeds” and does not hinder such deeds. If you’re going to bring out all the bad things capitalism has done, you also have to bring out all the good things. And describing capitalism as destructive is the opposite of what I would do.

The destruction we cause with the way we use capitalism makes our current way of living unsustainable. I'm not denying it's been really really good to me, and still is. I'm saying we need to stop the bad things. It's gonna be very very hard to say something sensible, if I have to make a 1200 page statement of all the pro's every time I mention something most people will agree is negative, and say I think we need to reverse it.

And I don’t really care if you’re a communist, heretic or whatnot. I can still have a civilized discussion with you :)

Civilized, yes. Constructive? No. Problem is, when you assume a host of things I'm not actually suggesting, the conversation will end up with me explaining you misunderstand me, instead of us debating how we can make a positive change ;) Honestly, I'm against capitalism because we've lost control of it and aparently can't regain it. It's like a fraight train without brakes.

I haven’t denied anyone my benefits? Who are these people you are talking about?

If you live in a western democracy, you can't deny anyone your benefits. You can elect someone to do it for you, and you have.

Well, in all the western world there is a lot of people benefiting from it? And those countries that are in a regular poohole are those who are currently or have been non-capitalist countries.
And sorry I don’t have the energy right now to respond to the rest of your post. One day perhaps? :)

I don't know why you bother with defending this at all. Wouldn't it be more constructive talking about what to do and not do, instead of talking about positive aspects of an overall faliure?
I'm not out to reverse-engineer all the good we've accomplished. I want to improve on them. Not undo them ;)

Well explain to me why!

The 'no true scotsman' doesn't apply here.


Oh, the fallacy isn't about names. USSR & China had all the communist components, but of course they didn't follow it. But that's not the point, the point is, inherently communistic systems fail, and claiming "But they weren't REAL communists" ain't no good. Am I being clear here? (This is sadly a crude explanation)

Well.. Capitalism is about unrestricted market economy. Everyone change it to fit some socialist ideals, but if you wanna be perfectly strict about it, wellfare & corporate structures are opposed to capitalism. Because both are state intervention on free market economics (taxation & undermining free trade).

It's not like I disagree with you. I have no illusions about communism either. I just disagree with your Scotsman claim. I already stated why.

When business interest can take over a nation's water supply, and through international political & economic pressure make the country outlaw things like collecting rain water, the distinction you make goes up in smoke.
When has this, or things like this, ever happened?

Ironically, those things are much more likely to happen in a non-cappitalist country.

In the post you replied to, I was not commenting on what the nature of capitalism is or anything of the sort. I was stating why I oppose what we're doing.
Well, I agree that there are a lot of shitty things going down in the world, but you're blaming capitalism for it, and I don't know why.

And... Guess what? You assume things about me I haven't given you any reason to assume. People will always be different. I'm not a rocket scientist. I wouldn't even want to be one. The guy who runs the next company that employs me will be paid more than me. That's fine. It's perfectly fair.
It's not fair when he gets payed 50 times what he pays me, because that means the work I do earns me less than the guy I do it for. Under such circumstances, I wouldn't work for the guy if I could possibly help it.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here? It's unfair if someone gets paid 50 times more than you? And what have I assumed about you? I'm a little lost.

Alright... Well, our current way of doing things are responsible. We need to change the way we do things. There; capitalism wasn't mentioned. Happy?
I'm assuming you mean 'irresponsible'? Yes I am happy because you're not blaming capitalism for the problems we have today.

The destruction we cause with the way we use capitalism makes our current way of living unsustainable. I'm not denying it's been really really good to me, and still is. I'm saying we need to stop the bad things. It's gonna be very very hard to say something sensible, if I have to make a 1200 page statement of all the pro's every time I mention something most people will agree is negative, and say I think we need to reverse it.
We need to stop the bad things. Okay, but it's people who destroy the world. Capitalism can both better and worsen it, you need to change the people not the economic system.


Civilized, yes. Constructive? No. Problem is, when you assume a host of things I'm not actually suggesting, the conversation will end up with me explaining you misunderstand me, instead of us debating how we can make a positive change ;) Honestly, I'm against capitalism because we've lost control of it and aparently can't regain it. It's like a fraight train without brakes.
Well, I think laws and regulations can control that wild capitalist horse. Feel free to create a thread about how to better the world, I'd be interested.

If you live in a western democracy, you can't deny anyone your benefits. You can elect someone to do it for you, and you have. Who are these people? I haven't voted for anyone who denies benefits? Care to elaborate?

I don't know why you bother with defending this at all.
Okay, if you don't bother, I guess I win.

Wouldn't it be more constructive talking about what to do and not do, instead of talking about positive aspects of an overall faliure?
I honestly don't know.

What is wrong with that? If a person takes the time and effort to gain an advantage over others in a competition like the free market, why shouldn't they be able to profit? That's like saying "you won the race, but we're not going to give you an award because you won at the expense of someone elso losing."


No it is not, because in a race in fact nothing (apart from victory and losing) is at stake. In the "free market" people have to take care for their survival and humane living conditions. So this comparsion is like comparing a children's game with Russian roulette.

Well.. Capitalism is about unrestricted market economy. Everyone change it to fit some socialist ideals, but if you wanna be perfectly strict about it, wellfare & corporate structures are opposed to capitalism. Because both are state intervention on free market economics (taxation & undermining free trade).
Well, assume I'm using some sort of "changed" capitalist idea to fit my socialist ideal.

It's not like I disagree with you. I have no illusions about communism either. I just disagree with your Scotsman claim. I already stated why.
Well let's not argue about the Scotsman, although I think it's fitting. It's not like I frown upon people who have different opinions than I, I welcome everyone to share their opinions for the common good of the discussion :)

But anyways, I think we've derailed this thread enough now? If you'd like to continue the discussion we can always make a new thread.

Tallyho pip-pip old chaps ;)

Quoting Carops
You are completely correct. Communism is a defeated and unworkable idealogy. It brings about little more than a revolution of ignorance and is merely a vehicle upon which despots can ride to power. If you could show me one truly successful communist state, which had a healthy culture, and a genuinely peaceful history then I would eat my proverbial hat. Communism does nothing but to reduce everyone to the same level of subservience under a usually corrupt and evil government. In China, student protestors were shot on Tiananmen Square. Stalin had his gulags. Communism enforces total conformity and stifles humanity. You cannot refute this. Communism leads to misery for all except the leadership. Capitalism leads to misery for some. It is a better system.

My sentiments exactly. Though no state in this world was ever communist, it would be humanly impossible to forge a state without a resulting government. All states which have at one point been avowed communists were simply fascists riding in the guise of pseudo-Marxist theory. And to be honest, who is to say that the purpose of the creation of communist, not socialist, theory, was not to provide a vessel for the tyranny of a new bureaucracy? It seems just as reasonable to say that communism was a deliberate plot as to say that it is good on paper.

Easy question. Capitalism destroys our future. We continue to be unable to prevent it from doing so

Capitalism continues to be the main reason for human misery, slavery and exploitation. Again, we can't prevent this.


What about human emotion itself? Not trying to be poetic, but jealousy, unrequited love, betrayal, heart ache, yearning, and loss are all so destructive that they can lead to suicide.

Likewise, famine, disease and natural disaster cause human misery but can't be blamed on capitalism.

Plus, if capitalism is just an expression of human selfishness (which you say somewhere else), and that is what makes it bad, isn't it just the selfishness which is bad? In isolation, capitalism is just bartering which isn't a bad thing. However, it can be exploited and manipulated by greed. So it's greed that is bad, not captialism per se. It would be like saying that knives were evil because people can be stabbed with them.

And exploitation and slavery would exist without capitalism. Slavery has been around long before international trade and so on. There are just those who dominate others and force them to do the work, while they sit back and relax. Again, capitalism might be the tool, but there is someone using the tool- and it that person who must suffer the moral judgement.

(By the way, I do realise I'm off what people were just discussing, but I am on thread for the rest of it. I'm trying to talk about morals as opposed to politics. Just thought I'd mention that before I looked like I was babbling).

When business interest can take over a nation's water supply, and through international political & economic pressure make the country outlaw things like collecting rain water, the distinction you make goes up in smoke.

When has this, or things like this, ever happened?

Ironically, those things are much more likely to happen in a non-cappitalist country.

Hmm... The concrete example happened in 2002 I think. Things like this happens all over the 3rd world all the time, and have been since the late 70's.
Not very ironic at all, but I can't think of any examples of this sort of thing happening in a non-capitalist country. I'm not saying it doesn't, just that I can't think of any examples.
Anyway, this discussion can easily get derailed over what we define as capitalism. For the sake of clarity, please consider any previous mention of capitalism as corporatism. Thanks. Also, saying "But it can happen under different economic models" isn't relevant. I'm not talking about other failures. I'm talking about the most influential current one. And just for the record, let me clearly state once again: I am ABSOLUTELY not suggesting planned economy (the communist idea).


In the post you replied to, I was not commenting on what the nature of capitalism is or anything of the sort. I was stating why I oppose what we're doing.

Well, I agree that there are a lot of shitty things going down in the world, but you're blaming capitalism for it, and I don't know why.

Because corporatism (well capitalism, strictly speaking, isn't real) makes it possible to keep nearly the entire world from achiving equal standing, it's abusing our natural resources, and it's preventing our dysfunctional democracies from intervening.


And... Guess what? You assume things about me I haven't given you any reason to assume. People will always be different. I'm not a rocket scientist. I wouldn't even want to be one. The guy who runs the next company that employs me will be paid more than me. That's fine. It's perfectly fair.
It's not fair when he gets payed 50 times what he pays me, because that means the work I do earns me less than the guy I do it for. Under such circumstances, I wouldn't work for the guy if I could possibly help it.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here? It's unfair if someone gets paid 50 times more than you? And what have I assumed about you? I'm a little lost.

Sorry, maybe I'm the one assuming things. It seems to me like you keep defending the way we currently run things, and that you do it, because you think I'm suggesting we revert to full blown communism, the stone age or something along those lines. I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm advocating we (as in ALL of us) regain control of the economy and that we use it as a means of promoting liberty, justice, equality and happiness. Instead of exploitation, concentration of wealth, and the slow murder of the biosphere.
I suppose a socialist form of capitalism can do this, but corporatism cannot. It's no more feasible than planned economy is.


Alright... Well, our current way of doing things is irresponsible. We need to change. There; capitalism wasn't mentioned. Happy?

I'm assuming you mean 'irresponsible'? Yes I am happy because you're not blaming capitalism for the problems we have today.

I edited the sentence above. Strictly speaking, either one of us talking about capitalism is a red herring. None of our societies have ever tried it, and the global economy is based on corporatism... But it's splitting hairs. Just like you defending our current economy because I've called it capitalism.


The destruction we cause with the way we use capitalism makes our current way of living unsustainable. I'm not denying it's been really really good to me, and still is. I'm saying we need to stop the bad things. It's gonna be very very hard to say something sensible, if I have to make a 1200 page statement of all the pro's every time I mention something most people will agree is negative, and say I think we need to reverse it.

We need to stop the bad things. Okay, but it's people who destroy the world. Capitalism can both better and worsen it, you need to change the people not the economic system.

We need to change the economic models we use. Why? Because we can't control it. It's beyond us intervening with it.
Here's the deal: Current business interests dictates all financial decisions. Corporations have the power to dictate politicies, but we don't have the power to dictate economic policies.

A good example is the US arms industry. Currently it employs so many people that decreasing spending is impossible.


Civilized, yes. Constructive? No. Problem is, when you assume a host of things I'm not actually suggesting, the conversation will end up with me explaining you misunderstand me, instead of us debating how we can make a positive change Honestly, I'm against capitalism because we've lost control of it and aparently can't regain it. It's like a fraight train without brakes.

Well, I think laws and regulations can control that wild capitalist horse. Feel free to create a thread about how to better the world, I'd be interested.

I can do that very simple: Abolish the current systems. Abolish borders and corporate law. Redistribute at least 50% of global wealth. Make direct, constitutional democracies or anarchism in the western world. Make the modernisation of the 3rd world the top priority. Base the economy on the Participatory economics model.
I'm not saying it would work, and I'm not saying we could do it in less than 30-50 years without crashing the economy and starting WWIII. But I think it's worth a shot. I don't see any alternative, but if you do, fill me in.


If you live in a western democracy, you can't deny anyone your benefits. You can elect someone to do it for you, and you have.

Who are these people? I haven't voted for anyone who denies benefits? Care to elaborate?

The global economy, would crash and burn if we made any serious attempt at redistributing the wealth under the current system. Every politician knows this. I doubt you have any candidates to vote for, who really want to change this. But prove me wrong if you can. I love hearing about people who put the common good before their own self.


I don't know why you bother with defending this at all.

Okay, if you don't bother, I guess I win.

...<Sigh>... Alright. You were wrong. Your facts are wrong. Your claim is wrong. We're capitalists, and the shitholes I talk about are capitalist as well. Although, we're actually all corporatists. Capitalism might not be able to cause the same level of havoc as corporatism currently do, but noone have ever tried it so noone can really say for sure. You lose.
I still don't know why you bother. I'm not complaining about the good sides of corporatism. I'm complaining about the negative ones. I suggest we keep the good things and scrap the bad ones. Why are you so hell bend on defending capitalism?


Wouldn't it be more constructive talking about what to do and not do, instead of talking about positive aspects of an overall faliure?

I honestly don't know.

I do. The answer is yes. So why not try it?

But yea.. We're far far off topic.

In theory, true socialism works very well when instated in a rich country, with a non corrupt government. But, in reality, even when the government is not corrupt, and everyone gets paid alot for their work, a very large problem occurs, a lack of motivation. Socialism/communism leaves no room for greed, leaving no desire to work harder, leaving no room for advancement. I agree that capitalism is human greed manifested in the form of a government. But this greed is what causes people to work harder, trying to get promotions, getting jobs that are more benificial to society, so they get more money, to buy more products, which are of better quality due to human greed. But, back to the topic:

My basic moral code is that anything that goes on between two or more consenting people, (who are old enough to consent), is fine. When in a tough position, do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. And nobody should be descriminated against without just cause.

What about human emotion itself? Not trying to be poetic, but jealousy, unrequited love, betrayal, heart ache, yearning, and loss are all so destructive that they can lead to suicide.

Likewise, famine, disease and natural disaster cause human misery but can't be blamed on capitalism.

Plus, if capitalism is just an expression of human selfishness (which you say somewhere else), and that is what makes it bad, isn't it just the selfishness which is bad? In isolation, capitalism is just bartering which isn't a bad thing. However, it can be exploited and manipulated by greed. So it's greed that is bad, not captialism per se. It would be like saying that knives were evil because people can be stabbed with them.

And exploitation and slavery would exist without capitalism. Slavery has been around long before international trade and so on. There are just those who dominate others and force them to do the work, while they sit back and relax. Again, capitalism might be the tool, but there is someone using the tool- and it that person who must suffer the moral judgement.

(By the way, I do realise I'm off what people were just discussing, but I am on thread for the rest of it. I'm trying to talk about morals as opposed to politics. Just thought I'd mention that before I looked like I was babbling).

Sorry. I tend to oversimplify things. You're of course right. The statement I made should have said: Capitalism (or corporatism if you prefer) is a means to destroy ourselves. Reason has nothing to do with it. Obviously, concepts aren't sentient.

But it does motivate our selfdestruction, because it rewards antisocial & destructive behaviour, and it's impossible to control.

If knives gave you a heroin shot when you stab people, knives would be comparable to capitalism.

There's no doubt slavery existed long before capitalism was 'invented'. But how does that justify us putting up with either?

I put up with it because there is no realistic alternative to capitalism.

gah.... lots of stuff since my last post.


anyways, i think my comment about living in a post-apocalyptic/post-industrial society was mistaken, wasnt implying that i was fine with it because i am rich and would grind others under my heel,

i was saying im fine with it cause i wouldnt mind roaming the hills, eating grubs and berries and the occaisional fish/bird/small mammal.
i think i would rather enjoy a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, it would just be a rough transition the first couple months/years.


anyways, i think communism is valid, butonly on small scales so far- small villages, families, etc. (everyone is pretty quick to demonize communism, but thats essential how things work at the family level, people rarely chuck out the 2-5 year olds cause they arent helping with the rent, yet still using utilities and food...)

but at the same time, 'pure' capitalism is bad. it needs to be regulated. hence we have all sorts of problems, many of which the us has already experienced... 'company' stores, sweatshops, etc.

i just think we need some sort of social/ecological accountability. how to achieve that....i dunno, but hopefully someone will think of something before we (literally) burn-out.

Which is exactly what I was getting at :)

I wouldn't want to live in some post-industrial world. But there's no reason you can't live that kind of life right now if you want to, though. That's one of the many great things about our current western societies. You can lead almost any sort of life you can imagine.

Hmm...my morals:
Try not to hurt other people.

Try to be accepting of other people's way of life if it doesn't hurt anyone.

Try to help other people when it's possible and practical.

Quality of life is the important thing for me, rather than life itself (thus I am in favour of voluntary euthanasia, and also pro choice regarding abortion).

I also happen to think it's wrong to eat meat, though I don't go around telling people not to, I just don't.

If the world ever falls prey to a zombie virus, feel free to gnaw on my arm.

If the world ever falls prey to a zombie virus, feel free to gnaw on my arm.

Thanks :)

I'm sure there would be unspoiled packages of tofu though.

And perhaps fried chicken. And watermelon.

In my own personal experience, I feel that as long as an action does not hurt anyone else, or at least anyone else who isn't consenting, then people can do it. It's not my business, nor anyone else's, until the health and well-being of others is at stake.

Then you're not living by "morals". You are living by human law. A "moral" is about deciding on issues which are not bound by law. Morality is an extension of human law. That's why it is so controversial.

I'm living by my own beliefs which come from that which I have experienced.

Defining morality as strictly something arising from "human law", something which is purely subjective, is pretty generalizing, wouldn't you say?

I'm living by my own beliefs which come from that which I have experienced.

Defining morality as strictly something arising from "human law", something which is purely subjective, is pretty generalizing, wouldn't you say?

No no. Law is a "subset" of morality. Law defines moral issues that affect other people. Other issues which don't affect other people or society, like homosexuality, are not legal, but moral.

I think we confused each other... when I said "generalizing" I meant as a whole. When you say morals, you seem to imply that there are certain morals universal or somehow commonly accepted? That's the impression I'm getting.

I think we confused each other... when I said "generalizing" I meant as a whole. When you say morals, you seem to imply that there are certain morals universal or somehow commonly accepted? That's the impression I'm getting.

How about this (simplified version of what I'm trying to get at):

All human behaviour are split into two categories, instinct and moral. Within moral, we have a choice, obviously. For example, the choice to kill, the choice the smoke, the choice to beat up your children.

Within this category of "moral", there are indeed some moral rules in which the society has laid ground rules for. This is called "law", which is usually made for the moral dilemmas that harm other people. For example, the moral choice of "killing" has become an illegal. But other moral dilemmas that do not harm other people, like "is homosexuality moral" is open to debate and will always be plunged into controversy.

I can certainly agree with some of the psychological aspects of morals. But I think you mean "subconscious" in place of "instinct", and "conscious" in place of "moral".

Concerning the morals of "society", laws are rulings passed down by oligarchies of people. I am not compelled to agree with those morals, but I don't break the law doing so, because it would obviously not be in my favor to be locked up. What I was trying to say was that I feel that all morals are subjective. I don't think that people can say "killing is wrong" and expect everyone to agree on that as a common moral. Morals are based upon everyone's experience, and people need to understand that beyond math and laws of physics, everything is subjective.

But I think we understand each other now.

Then you're not living by "morals". You are living by human law. A "moral" is about deciding on issues which are not bound by law. Morality is an extension of human law. That's why it is so controversial.

Actually I think it's the other way around. Laws arise from morals.

I have to agree with you, Zombie. To make laws, those making the laws have their own views on right and wrong. Thus, morality is required for law-making. We could say some morals arise from laws, but those morals are only morals we have been convinced of, by a majority of society which simultaneously embraces those.

Actually I think it's the other way around. Laws arise from morals.
I think you misunderstood me, because I do agree that laws arise from morals.

See this: I have three moral issues below:

1. Killing
2. Homosexuality
3. Gambling

These are moral issues, but one of them has been converted to a law - killing is punishable, so it becomes both a moral and legal issue. In some countries, gambling is illegal, so that has become both a moral and legal issue. Homosexuality has become only a moral issue in recent years in Western countries. The interchangeability of moral and legal are high.

Drzhen: you said that no moral issues can ever have a decision of rith and wrong which has a consensus. That is true if you take the entire globe into account. But legal systems are not global - they are regional, national, or simply local. Within these smaller societies some morals have already been defined by law.