NationStates Jolt Archive

Why can't those with the ability to do so rise up in society?

In my particracy nation, I'm boggled down by socialists and I'm the only pro-capitalist person there. Constantly they take away capitalist freedoms such as freedoms to own a business, freedom to private healthcare, freedom to the air waves, and freedom to private universities.

I don't understand this. Every person has the right and ability to rise up in a society. Although it varies amongst people for the difficulty, the results are almost always the same if they work to obtain their wealth. So....why are we just stopping them from doing so?

Mild socialism and capitalism works best really. Everyone has the full opportunity to rise up, and those that fail or do not have the willpower to are still supported by the government.

You're mixing communism and socialism. Please define what you mean by "socialism".

Myself and most of the socialist I know are socialist in the sense of helping people out across the board. taxes that get things done, healthcare that doesn't require down payments, stuff like that. The whole "submitting to the state" thing is a hard sell; I tend to prefer helping out through the state.

Myself and most of the socialist I know are socialist in the sense of helping people out across the board. taxes that get things done, healthcare that doesn't require down payments, stuff like that. The whole "submitting to the state" thing is a hard sell; I tend to prefer helping out through the state.
But why EVERYONE must submit to state healthcare? Why can't those that can afford better healthcare, and even have their lives on the line, pay for their own healthcare? Let the poor have all the money for healthcare that otherwise would've been wasted on richer people that can afford it themselves.

But why EVERYONE must submit to state healthcare? Why can't those that can afford better healthcare, and even have their lives on the line, pay for their own healthcare? Let the poor have all the money for healthcare that otherwise would've been wasted on richer people that can afford it themselves.
If they can afford better healthcare, then they can have better healthcare. That's socialism. You seem to be mixing it up with communism.

If they can afford better healthcare, then they can have better healthcare. That's socialism. You seem to be mixing it up with communism.
....

I'm going to have a little talk with the socialist-gone-communist parties in my nation.

If they can afford better healthcare, then they can have better healthcare. That's socialism. You seem to be mixing it up with communism.

Yeah, the only things I really oppose are cases where, say, two people need life-saving surgery and one of them gets it because he's got more money. A lot of things I can let slide, but that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Nobody should fall by the wayside just because a bigger wllet showed up, is what I mean.

Mild socialism and capitalism works best really.

Agreed.

Everyone has the full opportunity to rise up, and those that fail or do not have the willpower to are still supported by the government.

Much as I wish that I could be an idealistic Pollyanna, I can't agree with this statement.

U.S. monetary policy exists to protect the wealth of those who have the most, and, in doing so, ensures that a sizeable minority of the population will be at least temporarily unemployed and that an even larger fraction of the population will work for wages that are below subsistence levels for a family.

Where, exactly, is the "full opportunity" for those persons?

Why can't those with the ability to do so rise up in society?

In my particracy nation, I'm boggled down by socialists and I'm the only pro-capitalist person there. Constantly they take away capitalist freedoms such as freedoms to own a business, freedom to private healthcare, freedom to the air waves, and freedom to private universities.

I don't understand this. Every person has the right and ability to rise up in a society. Although it varies amongst people for the difficulty, the results are almost always the same if they work to obtain their wealth. So....why are we just stopping them from doing so?

Mild socialism and capitalism works best really. Everyone has the full opportunity to rise up, and those that fail or do not have the willpower to are still supported by the government.

What you mean is probably "regulated capitalism".

Yeah, the only things I really oppose are cases where, say, two people need life-saving surgery and one of them gets it because he's got more money. A lot of things I can let slide, but that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Nobody should fall by the wayside just because a bigger wllet showed up, is what I mean.
Suffering is suffering. When your suffering, when your dying, money is nothing to a man anymore.

Besides, can you suggest an alternative anyway?

Agreed.



Much as I wish that I could be an idealistic Pollyanna, I can't agree with this statement.

U.S. monetary policy exists to protect the wealth of those who have the most, and, in doing so, ensures that a sizeable minority of the population will be at least temporarily unemployed and that an even larger fraction of the population will work for wages that are below subsistence levels for a family.

Where, exactly, is the "full opportunity" for those persons?
I don't get it. Why does a person already have a family if he cannot and never had the money to support it anyway? Obviously someone is at fault, and it's not the evil rich guy.

Besides, it's not like everyone got together and said "Okay, we're going to keep the rich richer and we'll just screw over the poor. Okay? BREAK!"

Suffering is suffering. When your suffering, when your dying, money is nothing to a man anymore.

Besides, can you suggest an alternative anyway?
Pay for the surgery of the guy who can't afford it? There's enough doctors, but not enough money to pay them.

Pay for the surgery of the guy who can't afford it? There's enough doctors, but not enough money to pay them.
So if there's enough doctors.

And one man can pay for his own surgery.

And state has enough money left over to pay for the poor man's surgery.

Where's the money problem?

So if there's enough doctors.

And one man can pay for his own surgery.

And state has enough money left over to pay for the poor man's surgery.

Where's the money problem?
I'm talking about when there isn't free healthcare. There's no problem with free healthcare and enough doctors.

Suffering is suffering. When your suffering, when your dying, money is nothing to a man anymore.

Besides, can you suggest an alternative anyway?

But money could mean something to a doctor, or nurse, or hospital, couldn't it?

I'd suggest that a lot of the money put towards military spending and other less-practical endeavours could be better used to make it easier, quicker and safer for anyone to get medical help. Or, if we're feeling a shade more heartless, we could just draft the poor, right? I think my Grandfather said, from his observations in the second World War, "Nothing cures a broken arm faster than a bullet through the heart".

I don't get it. Why does a person already have a family if he cannot and never had the money to support it anyway? Obviously someone is at fault, and it's not the evil rich guy.

Besides, it's not like everyone got together and said "Okay, we're going to keep the rich richer and we'll just screw over the poor. Okay? BREAK!"

The result, though, is the same.

And it's nice to know that you have the wisdom to decide exactly who among us should have the right to procreate.

In the average first world nation, what you see of capitalism is just the tip of the iceberg. The true nature of capitalism is not quite as rosy as you picture it. For starters, look at the link in my signature on sweatshops.

The result, though, is the same.

And it's nice to know that you have the wisdom to decide exactly who among us should have the right to procreate.
Eh, when I read that it sounded like sarcasm. Now it sounds like a compliment. Now I'm reading it again and it sounds like sarcasm. Elaborate.

If you can't afford it, then it is wrong for you, your partner, and all of the tax-payers to have a child.

Besides, more and more people seem to be having children for idiotic reasons. Such as "well there was this hot guy and he was...like...HOT!" and "I dunno, we just fucked each other...yeah".

In the average first world nation, what you see of capitalism is just the tip of the iceberg. The true nature of capitalism is not quite as rosy as you picture it. For starters, look at the link in my signature on sweatshops.
No one likes that and you know it. Though that's where you get into laws. It seems to be more the fault of China for a lack of proper laws. Obviously this wouldn't happen in capitalist America.

No one likes that and you know it. Though that's where you get into laws. It seems to be more the fault of China for a lack of proper laws. Obviously this wouldn't happen in capitalist America.

Capitalist America seems quite happy to consume the fruits of this labour, and multi-national corporations which are nominally American seem quite happy to take the profit, therein is the nub of the problem: 'first world' nations and corporations embracing practices that would be forbidden in their 'home' states.

Hey, I'm agreeing with you; capitalism, when reasonably moderated, is the best of a very imperfect set of alternatives.

However, it is important that we recognize that even the best of these choices has a cost in human terms. Everything in this world has a cost.

Business does not shut down because of socialism. Now I'm a communist, but socialism involves government ownership of utilities and larger businesses. Those that are absolutely necessary to the survival of the people and state should always be in the hands of the people. In many ways, state ownership of businesses is a good thing. With larger industries, by being a monopoly that's accountable to the consumer/citizen (as private monopolies are only accountable to the shareholders and company owners) prices can be kept reasonable without the necessity of large amounts of profit.

You see, the American state-employment system is incredibly expensive. The government is still a customer, and thus subject to the standard 100-400% value raise. Social industry provide what is necessary to the people, at a cost that is only enough to maintain the industry, or act in the manner of taxes for the government (the government can fund itself through profits derived).

Private enterprise is never in harms way. If it can provide a better service for a lower cost than the government, or if it is in a field that the government doesn't do business in (toys, software, vehicles, general consumer goods and midsized companies) then it will continue to exist.

The industries where one cannot become an Uber-rich billionaire are:
Oil
Gas
Steel
Rail
Electricity
Water
Military (it's cheaper to buy guns when they aren't for a profit)
Farming (though food is still up for grabs)

All other branches of business are fair game.

Also, one consideration as to why socialism is beneficial in a business-sense. Take a look at the European Cellular Phone Network. It consists of open-use towers that never run out of service, and all the companies who use them do is pay rent on those.

Now, the American system, comparably sucks my fat left testicle. Each company has to purchase and set up it's own towers, in the name of capitalism. Now these companies have to spend more (which translates into us paying more) and some companies have far worse service than others. Overall, a nationwide network that had service everywhere would work wonderfully, but because of the lack of socialism, we all have to pay shitloads more for phone service than the Europeans.

Does that help Colodia?

Capitalist America seems quite happy to consume the fruits of this labour, and multi-national corporations which are nominally American seem quite happy to take the profit, therein is the nub of the problem: 'first world' nations and corporations embracing practices that would be forbidden in their 'home' states.
Nay.

The corporations purposely play down the cries against child labor.

Thus we are not exposed to it as much as we are exposed to, say, the Iraqi War. You see our calls against the Iraq war. Child labor is WAY worse, and yet we have not seen anything concerning it.

It's propaganda. Not capitalism. Two different things.

EDIT: Of course we KNOW there's child labor going on in Asia. But we do not understand the full extent of it because the media FAILS to show us. Just as they fail to show us the full extent of all the problems in the world.

Does that help Colodia?
You do make a good point. But until I find a reasonable answer to your argument, I'll be a jackass and say "But I still don't like full socialism."

Sorry. But I mean...c'mon...I can't think up anything NOW!

Nay.

It's propaganda. Not capitalism. Two different things.

No: the root problem here is capitalism. It assumes and proclaimsthe existence of a market of rational economic men who chose to support and endorse capitalism by the choices they make in the marketplace, but simultaneously distorts the information that they receive and on which they are to make their choices. Capitalism does not escape the historic problem of zero-sum gain transactions, instead the invisible hand is shackled by forces of business and so what appears to be a positive gain transaction for all involved often conceals a disproportionate negative gain for others (...and those others are often the descendents of the traders and consumers, but environmental concerns are not the prime issue here).

There are many reasons things like privatized healthcare, privatized education, etc. are bad.

Education is the worst one by far, in fact: By allowing the privatization of education, you're essentially turning your country from capitalism to an aristocracy: The families which have money keep it, and there's very little room for those in the lower classes to rise up unless he or she is the best of the best and able to get a scholarship.

Just imagine this scenario: You have two children from two different families, Albert and Bob. Albert was born into a rich family with plenty of extra money to spend on a private education, while Bob was born into a very poor family living under the poverty line and must go to public school.

Albert isn't particularly hard-working, or smart, but he gets the best of the best education, and even though he is only getting 60s and 70s, he is still able to get into a good private university, graduate with a degree and get a good, well-paying job right out of school.

Bob, on the other hand, works hard, and is very intelligent. He may not be the hardest working person on the planet or the most intelligent, but he's probably in the top 20% in both. He works hard through school, going to public school and getting a crappy education, getting 80s and low 90s. Come his senior year in High School, he applies to the local public university and gets accepted, but because he's not the top in his class, tough luck, no scholarships and he can't even go there. So, he gets stuck going to a cheap community college to become a plumber or an electrician. Albert and Bob both have kids, and the cycle starts all over again with their children.

So why, tell me WHY should Bob, who is a smart, intelligent and hard-working individual not be allowed access to the same quality of life as Albert who is an average, lazy brat? Just because Albert's PARENTS made more money than Bob's? Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Yes, maybe if Bob was the most intelligent, hardest working person in his class, he would have had a chance of breaking out of the cycle and getting a better future, but somebody should not have to do that just to compete with someone who doesn't work hard and isn't intelligent and just happens to have rich parents. Not everybody can be Hank Rearden, and they shouldn't have to be in order to be able to live well.

Healthcare is the same deal: Why should someone get better treatment just because either they or their parents have more money?

Social Welfare: The programs in place in most places are inadequate. Social welfare needs to be designed to help the people on it to get employment, not just give them the minimum amount of money they need to survive. A lot of the people on social welfare are single moms, people who were thrown out by their parents, people who are in between jobs when they were teenagers, and drug addicts. The first two categories certainly deserve the aid, and as for the last: these are people who made a bad choice at some point in their lives, and who can be rehabilitated if adequate resources were devoted to doing it. They are people with the potential to be good, clean, productive members of society.

Nay.

The corporations purposely play down the cries against child labor.

Thus we are not exposed to it as much as we are exposed to, say, the Iraqi War. You see our calls against the Iraq war. Child labor is WAY worse, and yet we have not seen anything concerning it.

It's propaganda. Not capitalism. Two different things.

EDIT: Of course we KNOW there's child labor going on in Asia. But we do not understand the full extent of it because the media FAILS to show us. Just as they fail to show us the full extent of all the problems in the world.



But if they started showing it, millions of Americans would stop buying most outside products. It would be the end of Consumerism as we know it!!! But seriously, that sounds peachy-keen to me. There would probably be a resurgence of American manufacturing, and suddenly socialism would be 20 years sooner down the line.

No: the root problem here is capitalism. It assumes and proclaimsthe existence of a market of rational economic men who chose to support and endorse capitalism by the choices they make in the marketplace, but simultaneously distorts the information that they receive and on which they are to make their choices. Capitalism does not escape the historic problem of zero-sum gain transactions, instead the invisible hand is shackled by forces of business and so what appears to be a positive gain transaction for all involved often conceals a disproportionate negative gain for others (...and those others are often the descendents of the traders and consumers, but environmental concerns are not the prime issue here).
Woah. Simplified please. I'm barely fifteen. ;)

There are many reasons things like privatized healthcare, privatized education, etc. are bad.

Education is the worst one by far, in fact: By allowing the privatization of education, you're essentially turning your country from capitalism to an aristocracy: The families which have money keep it, and there's very little room for those in the lower classes to rise up unless he or she is the best of the best and able to get a scholarship.

Just imagine this scenario: You have two children from two different families, Albert and Bob. Albert was born into a rich family with plenty of extra money to spend on a private education, while Bob was born into a very poor family living under the poverty line and must go to public school.

Albert isn't particularly hard-working, or smart, but he gets the best of the best education, and even though he is only getting 60s and 70s, he is still able to get into a good private university, graduate with a degree and get a good, well-paying job right out of school.

Bob, on the other hand, works hard, and is very intelligent. He may not be the hardest working person on the planet or the most intelligent, but he's probably in the top 20% in both. He works hard through school, going to public school and getting a crappy education, getting 80s and low 90s. Come his senior year in High School, he applies to the local public university and gets accepted, but because he's not the top in his class, tough luck, no scholarships and he can't even go there. So, he gets stuck going to a cheap community college to become a plumber or an electrician. Albert and Bob both have kids, and the cycle starts all over again with their children.

So why, tell me WHY should Bob, who is a smart, intelligent and hard-working individual not be allowed access to the same quality of life as Albert who is an average, lazy brat? Just because Albert's PARENTS made more money than Bob's? Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Yes, maybe if Bob was the most intelligent, hardest working person in his class, he would have had a chance of breaking out of the cycle and getting a better future, but somebody should not have to do that just to compete with someone who doesn't work hard and isn't intelligent and just happens to have rich parents. Not everybody can be Hank Rearden, and they shouldn't have to be in order to be able to live well.

Healthcare is the same deal: Why should someone get better treatment just because either they or their parents have more money?

Social Welfare: The programs in place in most places are inadequate. Social welfare needs to be designed to help the people on it to get employment, not just give them the minimum amount of money they need to survive. A lot of the people on social welfare are single moms, people who were thrown out by their parents, people who are in between jobs when they were teenagers, and drug addicts. The first two categories certainly deserve the aid, and as for the last: these are people who made a bad choice at some point in their lives, and who can be rehabilitated if adequate resources were devoted to doing it. They are people with the potential to be good, clean, productive members of society.



Woooo!!!!!!!! Wonderful, absolutely wonderful!

With privatized education, no one will be able to afford the good stuff. Unless they want to take out massive loans for 12-24 years worth of schooling that is!

But if they started showing it, millions of Americans would stop buying most outside products. It would be the end of Consumerism as we know it!!! But seriously, that sounds peachy-keen to me. There would probably be a resurgence of American manufacturing, and suddenly socialism would be 20 years sooner down the line.
Not everyone would boycott it. Those that are hit hardest will start first.

Then they will send their message on to others and to their kids.
And then those will send that message on.
And so on and so on.

Thus the corporations slowly lose more and more money. Eventually their profits start to sink to unsustainable amounts for running such a large company. Jobs are cut, the company weakens. Eventually the company must prove to the consumer that it is improving conditions/has quit the practice of child labor in order to ever hope that it can revitalize itself.

Not everyone would boycott it. Those that are hit hardest will start first.

Then they will send their message on to others and to their kids.
And then those will send that message on.
And so on and so on.

Thus the corporations slowly lose more and more money. Eventually their profits start to sink to unsustainable amounts for running such a large company. Jobs are cut, the company weakens. Eventually the company must prove to the consumer that it is improving conditions/has quit the practice of child labor in order to ever hope that it can revitalize itself.


Well, not everyone thus I said millions of Americans, instead of all Americans. But assuredly, if people knew, Socialism would be much more supported as a political movement.

Did you look at my other post Colodia? From efficiencies sake, it is beneficial for there to be some state ownership.

Woah. Simplified please. I'm barely fifteen. ;)


Wha wha what??? And I thought you were in college! Damn dude, you had to torpedo your reputation right there! Ouch! Well, anyhow, I won't hold it against you. :D

Woah. Simplified please. I'm barely fifteen. ;)

Ah, good to know I can still lay down convincing smokescreens to obfuscate and confuse 15 year olds even when I'm drunk as a proverbial skunk....


...to summarise: Capitalism claims to operate on the basis of informed and self-interested consumers, however, in effect what it does as part of its trading mechanism is to make a compact with them of the nature 'if you buy our product at our price we will conceal the actual nature of its production from you'. Compare this model of conventional international capitalism with a fair trade model where the contract is of the nature 'We will tell you that the nature of the method of production is somewhat less than you would accept as a producer, but we will salve your conscience by taking more money off you in this exchange'.

Ah, good to know I can still lay down convincing smokescreens to obfuscate and confuse 15 year olds even when I'm drunk as a proverbial skunk....


...to summarise: Capitalism claims to operate on the basis of informed and self-interested consumers, however, in effect what it does as part of its trading mechanism is to make a compact with them of the nature 'if you buy our product at our price we will conceal the actual nature of its production from you'.Compare this model of conventional international capitalism with a fair trade model where the contract is of the nature 'We will tell you that the nature of the method of production is somewhat less than you would accept as a producer, but we will salve your conscience by taking more money off you in this exchange'.
Quick! Seal the internal interfluxes or else they might protrude the internal combustion radiation modules and cause the multilatteral deranging-facilitators to do collateral damage to the external protolavish kernel...

If you are Captain Pretentious I can be your sidekick Smarty McSmartypants.
;)

If you are Captain Pretentious I can be your sidekick Smarty McSmartypants.
;)

Care to actually engage with the content?

No: the root problem here is capitalism. It assumes and proclaimsthe existence of a market of rational economic men who chose to support and endorse capitalism by the choices they make in the marketplace, but simultaneously distorts the information that they receive and on which they are to make their choices.
You're saying "Corporations lie to their customers"?

Capitalism does not escape the historic problem of zero-sum gain transactions, instead the invisible hand is shackled by forces of business and so what appears to be a positive gain transaction for all involved often conceals a disproportionate negative gain for others (...and those others are often the descendents of the traders and consumers, but environmental concerns are not the prime issue here).
You're saying "Coroprations exploit others but average Joe doesn't know"?

So why, tell me WHY should Bob, who is a smart, intelligent and hard-working individual not be allowed access to the same quality of life as Albert who is an average, lazy brat? Just because Albert's PARENTS made more money than Bob's? Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Yes, maybe if Bob was the most intelligent, hardest working person in his class, he would have had a chance of breaking out of the cycle and getting a better future, but somebody should not have to do that just to compete with someone who doesn't work hard and isn't intelligent and just happens to have rich parents. Not everybody can be Hank Rearden, and they shouldn't have to be in order to be able to live well.
Because Kevin, Michael, Holly, Sean, and Emily should not have to suffer just because some rich guy isn't as smart and as hardworking as them. Your speaking as if the rich are all braindead idiots and all the poor are intellectuals. Obviously this is not the case. Both the rich and the poor have their brandeads and intellectuals.

And there's always student loans. I haven't checked up on how they work though.

Healthcare is the same deal: Why should someone get better treatment just because either they or their parents have more money?

Social Welfare: The programs in place in most places are inadequate. Social welfare needs to be designed to help the people on it to get employment, not just give them the minimum amount of money they need to survive. A lot of the people on social welfare are single moms, people who were thrown out by their parents, people who are in between jobs when they were teenagers, and drug addicts. The first two categories certainly deserve the aid, and as for the last: these are people who made a bad choice at some point in their lives, and who can be rehabilitated if adequate resources were devoted to doing it. They are people with the potential to be good, clean, productive members of society.[/QUOTE]

There are many reasons things like privatized healthcare, privatized education, etc. are bad.

Education is the worst one by far, in fact: By allowing the privatization of education, you're essentially turning your country from capitalism to an aristocracy: The families which have money keep it, and there's very little room for those in the lower classes to rise up unless he or she is the best of the best and able to get a scholarship.
There are student loans and public education. I see no reason why you can’t have both public and private education.

Just imagine this scenario: You have two children from two different families, Albert and Bob. Albert was born into a rich family with plenty of extra money to spend on a private education, while Bob was born into a very poor family living under the poverty line and must go to public school.
…

No he won’t have to become a plumber, there is no reason why quality public education cannot coexist with privatized education.

Healthcare is the same deal: Why should someone get better treatment just because either they or their parents have more money?
Because they can afford to pay for better treatment? I don’t see the issue here?

Social Welfare: The programs in place in most places are inadequate. Social welfare needs to be designed to help the people on it to get employment, not just give them the minimum amount of money they need to survive. A lot of the people on social welfare are single moms, people who were thrown out by their parents, people who are in between jobs when they were teenagers, and drug addicts. The first two categories certainly deserve the aid, and as for the last: these are people who made a bad choice at some point in their lives, and who can be rehabilitated if adequate resources were devoted to doing it. They are people with the potential to be good, clean, productive members of society.
Well, as long as they’re clean that is. And not just clean, SQUEAKY clean!

The whole "submitting to the state" thing is a hard sell; I tend to prefer helping out through the state.
"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."- F. Hoeldernin

Everyone has the full opportunity to rise up, and those that fail or do not have the willpower to are still supported by the government.

This is exactly the sort of system I have advocated for the longest time.

Basic survival should not require money, and one's survival should never be jeopardized. But, if you have the ability, smarts, connections, etc, to go higher...as long as you don't do it on the backs of others...go for it.

...Besides, it's not like everyone got together and said "Okay, we're going to keep the rich richer and we'll just screw over the poor. Okay? BREAK!"

Yes they did. That's how I spend my days at the country club. We start by talking about the hot secretaries we're screwing on the side, and then we talk about the most recent million we made by screwing the poor.

Honestly though, pure capitalism puts the value of a dollar above the value a human life. So what if you have to screw a lot of people to get paid, it's worth it. In the short run it pays to screw everyone because what I might call 'selfish capitalism' is more effective than any humanitarian or socialist capitalism.


And as for Healthcare:
(quote) "Healthcare is the same deal: Why should someone get better treatment just because either they or their parents have more money?"

In one sense I think they SHOULD get it because that's what money buys: better things. But those better things should only include stuff like tooth whitening, and boob jobs. All necessary medical care should be available to everyone. Emergency medical care in the US already is, but it costs more to treat someone once it has become an emergency than to prevent it. If we provided preventive and long term care to everyone, then people with money couldn't get any better treatment. The skill of the surgeon and quality of cafeteria food are cetainly important, but the main test of quality is whether the patient got better. A rich guy whose injury got better from the surgery and medicine provided by a top doctor, is no better off in the long run than the bum who was cured by a volunteer. Our problem at this point is that so many people are getting no care at all.

Yes they did. That's how I spend my days at the country club. We start by talking about the hot secretaries we're screwing on the side, and then we talk about the most recent million we made by screwing the poor.

Honestly though, pure capitalism puts the value of a dollar above the value a human life. So what if you have to screw a lot of people to get paid, it's worth it. In the short run it pays to screw everyone because what I might call 'selfish capitalism' is more effective than any humanitarian or socialist capitalism.
So is this an argument against capitalism? It's just as easy to screw someone over in another system. It's not like socialism will change man himself, we'll still be greedy. However, perhaps medical treatment are areas that shouldn't be guided by profit, but there's still no reason to not allow priavte medical treatment. I don't see why we can't have both.

i don't think private healthcare is fair. paying to get better when a poor person can't afford to so has to suffer isn't a fair system. if you have NHS and private healthcare, then there's still an issue. here you are paying to have it done sooner than teh poor person if there wasn't an advantage in paying you wouldn't.

my gran had her cateract operations done privately. they cost her quite a bit, but she got them done quickly. she's happy with that, and i'm happy for her. but i don't think its fair that a poorer person has to wait however many months or years to get the same op done, just coz they;re poorer.

about it being wrong to have kids if you can't afford them? who says? and what's afford? surely its wrong to stop people having kids if they want them. what if they get pregnant, enforced aborthions like china if you have a2nd child (effectively enforced in that instance)?

i think people should be allowed to have children if they want children, and a minimum level of help must be provided by the state, help for education, helthcare and if the poorer families need it, food as well. why should the rich be allowed more children?

i don't think private healthcare is fair. paying to get better when a poor person can't afford to so has to suffer isn't a fair system. if you have NHS and private healthcare, then there's still an issue. here you are paying to have it done sooner than teh poor person if there wasn't an advantage in paying you wouldn't.

my gran had her cateract operations done privately. they cost her quite a bit, but she got them done quickly. she's happy with that, and i'm happy for her. but i don't think its fair that a poorer person has to wait however many months or years to get the same op done, just coz they;re poorer.

about it being wrong to have kids if you can't afford them? who says? and what's afford? surely its wrong to stop people having kids if they want them. what if they get pregnant, enforced aborthions like china if you have a2nd child (effectively enforced in that instance)?

i think people should be allowed to have children if they want children, and a minimum level of help must be provided by the state, help for education, helthcare and if the poorer families need it, food as well. why should the rich be allowed more children?
Private health care is sort of fair. I think that society should help up to a certain point, and if a patient needs or wants an operation that is not covered by the nation's policy then they should pay. Human life ultimately has a bit of a dollar sign and we can not help too many people get rid of warts or pay for extremely expensive operations for free.

It is wrong to have kids if you can not afford them. Some people are idiots! Some people do not deserve to have children! How much a person makes can be a good way to discriminate between the inherently unworthy and the possibly worthy. I think that people should not have children just because without any economic justification. A person who can make money is a person who can succeed in society. We want people who can succeed in society so it is better that those who can provide more and have more to teach have more children.

One of the major producers of unemployment and a vast number of unsuccessful people in capitalist systems, though, is ignorance of the market. People need to recognize as they begin to plan out their lives and their careers that their choice of jobs must be dictated by the way the market is developing, not their interests. A great deal of unemployment comes from people who stick with careers that, while having been successful in the past, are now dead-end roads in life. In addition to attachment to locations (i.e. people don't want to move from where they grew up and when the work moves they don't move with it) this factor can really skew the unemployment figures.

Everyone has the full opportunity to rise up, and those that fail or do not have the willpower to are still supported by the government.
I do not agree with such a system. I think that under a system all beings that are loyal to the society have their place. The old get to rest as a reward(but if they have skills that may be useful they are encouraged to get jobs), the young are made to learn what they need to succeed, and the non-old adult population works in order to further society.

A person that does not work because they do not want to has no place in society. I advocate rehabilitation first then killing the fool if that fails. A person who is too insane to work is given to relatives who decide the crazy person's fate(either they support his life or decide to euthanize the person). Everyone has a duty to society (unless it is already fulfilled such as with the old).

A person that does not work because they do not want to has no place in society. I advocate rehabilitation first then killing the fool if that fails. A person who is too insane to work is given to relatives who decide the crazy person's fate(either they support his life or decide to euthanize the person). Everyone has a duty to society (unless it is already fulfilled such as with the old).

seriously, you're advocating killing poor people and the mentally ill?!? you're sick.


and to whoever was talking about sweatshops earlier--
capitalism results in a race to the bottom, in environmental, labor, and safety standards. and don't be so foolish as to think that sweatshops are only in 3rd world countries. Google Imokalee and their fight against Taco Bell. there's also tyson foods, amongst others. there are horrible, horrible union-busting practices going on here in the states. not as bad as what Coke is doing in Colombia, but still bad.

the economic policies institute and wider opportunities for women have calculated a living wage (the wages needed to work full time and stay at or above the poverty line) to be about $13-15/hour. Minimum wage has been at about $5.00 for 8 or so years now. see if you can find the first episode of Morgan Spurlock's show 30 Days if you can, if anything it shows living on minimum wage as being easier than it is. Minimum wage was low even in the 90's, but by it being frozen (vs. indexed to inflation) $5.15 buys even less than it did when it was instituted. It's like having 8 bucks to buy something that costs 8 bucks, but then only having 5 to buy it the next time. and the $5.15 is before taxes and social security, both of which are being taxed at higher rates than the super rich (rupert murdoch only pays about 6% on his billions). i'm kind of rambling, but about 20-25% of the general population is living under the poverty line right now. to me, that is total bullshit. there is no reason why the government cannot take care of its own people. there is also no reason why the government should at the same time further subsidize the richest 1%.

having formally considered myself a socialist for about a semester's worth of college, and an unofficial one since the beginning of high school (about 5 years now), i've finally explained to myself a simplified definition of socialism:
the belief that the state has an obligation to provide for the basic needs of all peoples living within its borders, including wage floors, labor and environmental standards, and good education and healthcare. Additionally, these needs should be met irregardless of social standing, race, gender, age, or any other classification. Any services above and beyond what the state provides should be the responsibility of the client.

under that, no more of this private-school voucher crap. and private education and healthcare should be taxed.

unfortunately what i see happening in the near future is a noticable split between the middle class and the upper class, and then the disappearance altogether of a true middle class.

seriously, you're advocating killing poor people and the mentally ill?!? you're sick.

I am advocating the death of those who do not support our society. Every human being needs to have a purpose, a reason to keep them alive. I do not see why we should support every inferior being in society. People are defined as being necessary by their usefulness and the societal good that they bring.

Why should I keep people alive who do not understand that they are a burden to society? I do not wish to support the useless, and those who can not be made useful are not helping anyone. I will admit that there is a difference between a man who can not work and a man who will not work and I am only opposed to the existance of the latter.

I am not sure what I am. I have a tendency to prefer state ownership of industry but the ultimate economic goal in my mind is economic efficiency(and full employment :) )

I am advocating the death of those who do not support our society. Every human being needs to have a purpose, a reason to keep them alive. I do not see why we should support every inferior being in society. People are defined as being necessary by their usefulness and the societal good that they bring.

Why should I keep people alive who do not understand that they are a burden to society? I do not wish to support the useless, and those who can not be made useful are not helping anyone. I will admit that there is a difference between a man who can not work and a man who will not work and I am only opposed to the existance of the latter.

I am not sure what I am. I have a tendency to prefer state ownership of industry but the ultimate economic goal in my mind is economic efficiency(and full employment :) )


Are you generally left of the fence? I gather that from most of your posts.

I am not sure what I am. I have a tendency to prefer state ownership of industry but the ultimate economic goal in my mind is economic efficiency(and full employment ) If I had to guess, I'd say Fascist.

If I had to guess, I'd say Fascist.

Killing people who don't "support society"? Definitely Fascist.

If I had to guess, I'd say Fascist.
Authoritarian. Not sure if I fit exactly into fascism, I think that I might underestimate my beliefs when I take a political quiz.

Yes, I tend to be an authoritarian. Sort of to the left, but I am starting to be more and more tolerant towards capitalism(capitalism seems to get the job done)

Killing people who don't "support society"? Definitely Fascist.
Killing people who don't "support society" isn't Fascism. That's Nazism. Fascism is kind of different...although Nazism is a child of Fascism.

WW2 Italy (who didn't do all the crap that Hitler did) was Fascism. WW2 Germany was Nazism. WW2 Japan was somewhere in between.

seriously, you're advocating killing poor people and the mentally ill?!? you're sick.


and to whoever was talking about sweatshops earlier--
capitalism results in a race to the bottom, in environmental, labor, and safety standards. and don't be so foolish as to think that sweatshops are only in 3rd world countries. Google Imokalee and their fight against Taco Bell. there's also tyson foods, amongst others. there are horrible, horrible union-busting practices going on here in the states. not as bad as what Coke is doing in Colombia, but still bad.

the economic policies institute and wider opportunities for women have calculated a living wage (the wages needed to work full time and stay at or above the poverty line) to be about $13-15/hour. Minimum wage has been at about $5.00 for 8 or so years now. see if you can find the first episode of Morgan Spurlock's show 30 Days if you can, if anything it shows living on minimum wage as being easier than it is. Minimum wage was low even in the 90's, but by it being frozen (vs. indexed to inflation) $5.15 buys even less than it did when it was instituted. It's like having 8 bucks to buy something that costs 8 bucks, but then only having 5 to buy it the next time. and the $5.15 is before taxes and social security, both of which are being taxed at higher rates than the super rich (rupert murdoch only pays about 6% on his billions). i'm kind of rambling, but about 20-25% of the general population is living under the poverty line right now. to me, that is total bullshit. there is no reason why the government cannot take care of its own people. there is also no reason why the government should at the same time further subsidize the richest 1%.

having formally considered myself a socialist for about a semester's worth of college, and an unofficial one since the beginning of high school (about 5 years now), i've finally explained to myself a simplified definition of socialism:
the belief that the state has an obligation to provide for the basic needs of all peoples living within its borders, including wage floors, labor and environmental standards, and good education and healthcare. Additionally, these needs should be met irregardless of social standing, race, gender, age, or any other classification. Any services above and beyond what the state provides should be the responsibility of the client.

under that, no more of this private-school voucher crap. and private education and healthcare should be taxed.

unfortunately what i see happening in the near future is a noticable split between the middle class and the upper class, and then the disappearance altogether of a true middle class.


It doesn't go far enough though! Talk to me about communism (small c), I was once a socialist but I realized that even that won't go far enough. And hey, by being a communist, I still advocate socialism (as it's the step before communism). The class seperation is going to cause violence someday. The mood is crackling and sizzling. People have nothing good to say about capitalism any more, and most people only think of the bad things.

It's the worker's time now.