|
Hugo...doing it again. (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
I live 17,000km away, haven't lived in the UK for close to 15 years and don't subscribe to any of the local rags over there or read them on the internet, so I really don't care what your tabloid press says. What I dislike is that people who have no idea outside of their own country making these wonderful assumptions that nationalisation of private property is ever a good thing when they've never seen the repercussions of such an activity by a government and it's something I feel very strongly about.
No, they bounce out of their schooling, see the 'easy' way for everyone to be happy by simply levelling the infrastructure to the point where you've got the government running everything.
It simply does not work.
It never works!
The only people who lose out in the end are still those down on the lower rungs of society anyway and this is being done by a guy who couldn't get into power legitimately in the first place and tried to do it by a military coup! Everything points to this from histories examples alone that once prosperous or at least stable countries end up being turned into nothing more than barren holes overnight.
I've got a lot of time for people who life's dealt them a bad hand and need help, but the vast majority of people who end up on that bottom rung of the economic ladder are there either just passing through gaining employment experience, making ends meet or there because that's their lot in life. It's always been like this, it's not always fair but it doesn't matter what type of government is in charge, there's always someone at the bottom.
We don't pick them up and stick them in charge of anything important 'just because' they're human beings because they simply cannot do anything more complicated. You can't blame 'Capitalism' for everything, the vast majority of people out there in developed countries in some kind of economic distress are there from their own fault. They want a big tv, an expensive car, nice house, trendy clothes, crap-ton of 12carat nasty bling jewelry and they want it now and buy it through loans they cannot afford, living beyond their means.
And when the repo comes, they blame it all on... capitalism, the bank, the government?
Capitalism, banks and governments didn't make them spend money they didn't have on depreciating junk they couldn't afford! In fact, it's most of the reason for the markets bouncing up and down like a yoyo for the last few weeks :haha: |
Righty ho!
You did hear me earlier say I wasn't arguing for communism didn't you? And where ever you live, where ever you have lived, I don't get the impression you're in any position to be making sweeping statements about poor people being poor because it's their own fault.
Can you honestly tell me you don't think that health care should be free? Or that old people should get no help? Or that the unemployed should be thrown onto the streets?
What about the police and the military? Do you trust private corporations to provide these services? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
How does capitalism help combat crime? |
Roads, courts, and defense are all legitimate functions of government. State & local governments handle the first two quite well actually.
Under a truly capitalist system, there would only be two laws, both based on the libertarian principle of non-aggression:
#1 No theft.
#2 No violence. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Roads, courts, and defense are all legitimate functions of government. State & local governments handle the first two quite well actually.
Under a truly capitalist system, there would only be two laws, both based on the libertarian principle of non-aggression:
#1 No theft.
#2 No violence. |
So would crime incease or decrease in a libertarian society? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
So would crime incease or decrease in a libertarian society? |
Well given the dramatic increase in general prosperity we would see, I'm betting on a decrease. ;) |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Righty ho!
You did hear me earlier say I wasn't arguing for communism didn't you? And where ever you live, where ever you have lived, I don't get the impression you're in any position to be making sweeping statements about poor people being poor because it's their own fault.
Can you honestly tell me you don't think that health care should be free? Or that old people should get no help? Or that the unemployed should be thrown onto the streets?
What about the police and the military? Do you trust private corporations to provide these services? |
BAM, couldn't have be more well said.
Fact is: the stubbornness of the division of capitalism and socialism is a result of the cold war, and is being manufactured by certain political parties for their own ends even today, after the end of the cold war.
You said it best: we're already a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Our system is BEST as a dynamic, living organism. It makes it adaptable to humans. How else could democracy, a human system of government, function?
Like you said: we HAVE to help the sick. We HAVE to help the elderly. We HAVE to help the veterans.
It's just what's right. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Well given the dramatic increase in general prosperity we would see, I'm betting on a decrease. ;) |
If there was an increase in wealth equally distributed over the population I would agree, however, I think we both know that this increase in wealth will be concentrated in the top 10% or so, with the rest becoming even poorer comparatively. And to prove that beyond reasonable doubt, the exact same thing is happening in our societies today, and that's without the unopposed capitalism that libertarianism would introduce. Libertarianism takes the constraints off capitalism and the problems associated with that economic system we see today will multiply when regulations governing the market are lifted. You're a fool if you think that will benefit the majority of the population!
More capitalism means more desperate souls that will turn to crime. The country would descend into lawlessness and anarchy... |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
in the top 10% |
correction: less than 1%. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Like you said: we HAVE to help the sick. We HAVE to help the elderly. We HAVE to help the veterans.
It's just what's right. |
What's right? What if you are not a subscriber to moral and categorical imperatives? What if you are stoic like me? "Right" is so subjective. Right is the new wrong! |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
What's right? What if you are not a subscriber to moral and categorical imperatives? What if you are stoic like me? "Right" is so subjective. Right is the new wrong! |
I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but what you say is true, and I know this.
I suppose that because I am a bundle of flesh and blood and cells, I feel a kinship of sorts, and helping others makes me feel like the world is piece by piece coming into place as a planet that we would ENJOY living in, and passing that enjoyment onto our children and future generations.
Don't misunderstand, I understand the futility of utility... however, I suppose I believe in it for my own personal karma. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Well then, you might want to answer my prior question to Capitalizt. How does that pregnant girl learn from her harsh expirience, ie. growing a child on her own while trying to earn a wage? Also, how does that child benefit from his harsh experience, ie. having poor development from bad education, bad food and poor nurturance. |
There are numerous success stories of people coming from such a background though that prove hardships can be overcome.
Economic hardships in one's life, while inconvenient, doesn't always point to a life of failure, in fact, it's normally the fuel that drives them to succeed.
Could the government coddle them? Better yet, should the government coddle them?
'Assist' sure, but I have issue with permanent handouts for those that just want to sit at home, giving nothing back to the system that society has provided.
As a taxpayer in a free country, it's perfectly in my right to bitch. :p |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
smiley, you are talking with certainty about hypotheticals buddy..
You don't know what would happen if there were a bit more liberty in the world because it has NEVER HAPPENED. The trend from the founding of America (and every other country) has always been towards MORE government, MORE regulation, MORE control over people's lives. It is this trend that gotten us into the mess we're in today. There is simply no way to calculate the amount of harm the monster in Washington has done to us over the years...
The beauty of socialism is that its politicians can always point to a class of people that were helped directly by government, and say "See? It's working! We gave them money and look how happy they are!". Of course they never need to show you the victims of their policies. The fact is...with all government transfer programs, there are always thousands of visible beneficiaries and MILLIONS of invisible victims. You don't see the small businesses that never got off the ground or the employees that were never hired due to excessive taxation and red tape.. They are the losers under your authoritarian philosophy.
The truth is, we have very limited free markets today. The few markets we have left are the only glue holding the world together, and you lefties are constantly chipping away at them in an effort to create a perfectly planned society. I'm amazed that your prescription for the poverty and despair brought on by tyrannical economic policies over the years is always MORE MORE MORE government!
Mindblowing. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
As for Chavez...
The jury's still out for me. I can pick holes in most everything I read about him in the press which suggests he is no way as bad as he is made out to be. If the prejudiced view of socialism that Firestarter has is prevailant in American and their media and government, then I would suggest that is where most of the hatred stems from - ideological differences, not necessarily facts on the gound. |
Again, the 'hatred' is towards Hugo's version of Socialism (which is obviously and quickly becoming authoritarian in nature), not Socialism in general.
Having always lived in a free society, it is quite hard to fathom having the government spoon feed me everything even those we ourselves, here in Canada, have socialist policies ourselves.
Do I take some of it for granted; probably considering I haven't known anything different, but I certainly don't take for the granted those that have sacrificed their lives to ensure it; a problem with in current generations where entitlement is tantamount. But, that's a whole different subject... |
|
|
|
|
