vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth   SSHOLEPosts: 4618 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 14:20 |
LOki: Being "less fortunate" is not a mortgage on the life, and life's work, of another. Recognizing that it is theft to place an obligation on someone else, by the use of force, is what makes us civilized. The farther from that we get, the less civilized we become.
A drop in the "why I love you" bucket.
Mofo: Rich bastards see no reason to support the poorer people. Hell, they worked for it, right?
Right. The end.
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
SexNinja
the illest nigga  SSHOLEPosts: 1546 Registered: 10/28/2007 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 14:39 |
Mofo: In theory, communism is utopia. No class systems, equalness for all, everything is everyones. Communism is not flawed, humans are. No human, in this modern day, wants to be equal as the next. We all want to be bigger and better (steriods anyone?)
YES! That's what I've been saying since forever. It truly is the perfect form of government, but humans, like you say, are not the perfect species to use it for their own betterment. This is why I have to agree with LOki even though his reason for arguing the negative might be slightly different than mine here:
Mofo: "If you took a completely uneducated mass that has never lived through politics and capatialism, and introduced them into communism ( pure and clean - not that corrupted crap pitched by Stalin and Mao), it'd probably work. They have no sense of being on top or being rich or poor. If people would just accept each other, communism would work."
And there's the rub. People will never "accept" each other, even among a completely uneducated mass. There will always be that one person who has a slight edge over another or the group, be it physical or mental, and he or she will use it to exploit his fellow (weaker) humans for personal gain. EVEN IF he or she was never taught to do it, or saw another person doing something like. People are flawed, stupid individuals who say stuff like "let's roll" and "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, yee haw!" and drop words like "Crusade" after an attack on their country by ancestors of a people who suffered horribly under the Crusades. (!?, you idiot.) Given this utter foolishness, how can anyone expect humans to strive for something better?
LOki: No. It would never work, because communism denies the fact that you own yourself. Under communism, you are a means to the ends of the collective. You are a slave to the "community."
I don't know. Can't human individuality be destroyed if enough time under "slavery" (especially if it's non-violent and actually works for the better of human society, like true communism would be) is spent? Even if a human retained a sense of the individual throughout it, wouldn't he or she resist efforts to destroy it? Remember, we're talking about communism actually working as it's supposed to, helping society. Under true communism, I bet it wouldn't even feel like "slavery" and the individual(s) would probably WANT it to continue, and would most likely do anything and everything to keep this wonderful system going. Right?
I'm not disagreeing with you on it not working, I'm just disagreeing with you on why it never would. (I think...)
(Punctuation, content edit)
[Edited on 4/17/2005 by SexNinjaMcDeath]
____________________
HAMFIGHTER> He shrugged, and started finishing himself off, on my breasts, while I was crying. |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent  SSHOLEPosts: 567 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 15:21 |
There have been a lot of minor socialist experiments that would have shed some light on the viability of a socialist-capitalist system, but they always got crushed by fascism and the foreign intervention (AKA Allende and Pinochet, Spain and Franco).
Arguments for and against Communism/ Capitalism still seem to take place largely in a Cold War context. I just wrote a paper on the Guatamalan resistance movement, and on a collection of small stories written by the fighters. I think Gabriel said it best: "Many of [Marx’s] concepts overlap with the traditional way of life in my own country…I don’t think Marx has a monopoly on these ideas…coinciding on certain issues doesn’t make us zombie-like followers of Marx…to label us superficially is to rob us of our individuality”
Mayan communities have functioned for centuries in a communalistic way of life. They would probably still be functioning well if people stop fire-bombing their villages and massacring their children.
People who claim that comunalistic-socialist-communist systems CANNOT survive because of some vague ideological concepts (slavery, the evil of the masses, etc.) are ignoring thousands of years of history of functioning communalistic history in the Americas and other places. Why did these systems work then and not now? Why couln't they again?
Remember, there are no contradictions. Check your premises.
____________________
I'm an INTJ. This explains why I'm alternating between silence and judging you. |
| |
Lever
Tender vittles  Posts: 9 Registered: 1/8/2005 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 16:09 |
AcheronDCS: Mayan communities have functioned for centuries in a communalistic way of life. They would probably still be functioning well if people stop fire-bombing their villages and massacring their children.
People who claim that comunalistic-socialist-communist systems CANNOT survive because of some vague ideological concepts (slavery, the evil of the masses, etc.) are ignoring thousands of years of history of functioning communalistic history in the Americas and other places. Why did these systems work then and not now? Why couln't they again?
In these successful "communal living" situations are those involved doing so because they see a personal benefit to be gained from living in a mutual way? Sounds like a form of trade to me, trade based on enlightened self interest.
Solving problems through mutal effort is not a concept unknown in capitalism (it is, in fact, rife), but the principles of the political system shouldn't allow for coercion to achieve that. |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit  SSHOLEPosts: 442 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 18:24 |
Right. The end.
So if you owned a factory, and got rich off of it, you'd see no reason to support those below you? After a while, high prices would result in you being forced to pay your workers more or lose them. All those poor people the rich refuse to help are holding the rich up on their high and mighty thrones.
No we don't, and no it doesn't.
Being "less fortunate" is not a mortgage on the life, and life's work, of another. Recognizing that it is theft to place an obligation on someone else, by the use of force, is what makes us civilized. The farther from that we get, the less civilized we become.
I wouldn't call helping someone "theft". They're not breaking into your house at night and stealing your TV or anything. If we did place obligations on someone else, where would we be? No one would have anything to do with anyone else. You wouldn't have a house because people would see no need to build you a house. You can't deny that you have responsibilties that must be full filled, whether you like them or not. Humans naturally want to live in a community that works for self good. We're not animals that are born to live by themselves and help no one else.
No you're not. You don't have to pay any tax bases on GVW if you don't put a vehicle with GVW on the road. Totally voluntary, and as I stated, apportioned, so that it goes to road maintentance, and equitable in that the heaviest vehicles (which beat the roads the most) pay more for the maintenance of the roads.
Its voluntary to own a car or not. Putting a tax on vehicle weight doesn't make it voluntary, it just allows you to have some control in how much money you pay. And, as you said before, "What is so imminently fair about Bobby paying 12.5% of his wages to income tax, and Robbie paying 28% of his wages to income tax?". Just replace income tax and wages with gvw and road repairs. It's odd to support flat tax rates on somethings, like income tax, but to support perpotionate tax rates on other things, like gvw.
Communism doesn't mean you have to give up individuality. All it asks for you is to work for the good of the society. Art can still exist, only it shouldn't be use to rip on other people or sow desent among the people. You can still seek to get ahead, as long as it helps the community in whole, not just you. If you get rich off of making hydrogen engines and sell them to the community, it helps the community to lower greenhouse gas emittions. As long as you don't charge so much that no one can afford it or take all your money and live in a castle on a hilltop, there is nothing wrong with it.
In the ultimate form of communism (at least, in my head's ultimate form), the society almost acts as one. Each community member is another limb of the organism. But, unlike our limbs, every limb has a say. Independent, yet one. All working towards a common good. |
| |
BeachGoat
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 431 Registered: 10/31/2003 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 18:46 |
" BeachGoat says:"WAR!"
UH! GOOD GAWD, Y'ALL!
You make me laff0rZ. (say it again!)"
WAR!
Say it Again, Y'all.
What is it Good For?
Absolutely Nothin'!
Whaooo-ooooo-woahhoooo!!
I still resent my money being spent to kill children. Fuck you, commie bastards.
____________________
|
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth SSHOLEPosts: 4618 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 18:50 |
Mofo: Vasudeva: Right. The end.
So if you owned a factory, and got rich off of it, you'd see no reason to support those below you?
I'd see no reasonably enforceable obligation to do so. I didn't say altruism or humanitarianism are bad concepts. Just that, yes, if I worked for my property, then it's mine, and not yours, and not someone else's.
A proportional tax punishes the successful for being successful.
Obversely, proportional fines are a swell idea, I think, if the idea of a fine is to punish me sufficiently that I decide for myself not to recommit the offense in question. You whip a 12-year-old harder than you whip a 5-year-old for obvious reasons.
Mofo: After a while, high prices would result in you being forced to pay your workers more or lose them.
Not sure of your point here. If I fail to pay my workers a competitive salary, then when they quit en masse I'm experiencing the natural consequences of my greed and/or failure to understand economics.
It's not my argument that the rich deserve to oppress the poor. But I do believe they don't deserve to be punished for their success and luck by being forced to prop up the poor.
Mofo: All those poor people the rich refuse to help are holding the rich up on their high and mighty thrones.
I submit that the above statement is bullshit.
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik  SSHOLEPosts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 20:03 |
dragonstaff: LOki:
No it wouldn't. The perfect the socialism, the more likely there would be war and hunger.
Why? The perfect theoretical socialism would ensure that everyone had what they needed ( without rich bastards throwing out whole roast chickens after eating one wing ), And what is the point of war when no-one needs anything
(Then, if "no-one needs anything" then no-one need socialism either.)
"Perfect theoretical socialism" is denial of reality, heaped upon denial of reality. It is a "wish" that people should be able to get all they need (and eventually desire) without having a moral framework for "deserving." It presupposes that the world becomes useful by the magic of brilliant and industrious beasts of burden.
dragonstaff: LOki:
It would also mean the end of art, poetry, music, love, friendship, medicine, agriculture, and many other cool things that desire, and the ambition to achieve desire, beget.
Again, why? Surely if the struggle for the almighty dollar has been effectively removed from the list of important things to do on everyone's fridge door, there will be more time for the good things in life.
The end of the desire for, and the ambition to achieve, art, poetry, music, love, friendship, medicine, agriculture, and many other cool things, would mean the end of art, poetry, music, love, friendship, medicine, agriculture, and many other cool things. [Yes, Turk this is a tautology, but an illustrative one.] Thus, efforts to eliminate desire and ambition serve to eliminate the fruits of desire and ambition which "the almighty dollar" is just one of. [No, vladdo, NOT "straw-man" as the illustration serves to illuminate that "elimination of desire and ambition" is not a reasonable goal for any "-ism" (aside from nihilism), including socialism.]
It is precisely "the struggle for the almighty dollar," amongst those who understand what "the dollar" means, that makes possible "more time for the good things in life." People creating value and trading it (through the vehicle of dollars), made possible indoor plumbing, telecommunications, vaccines, vacuum cleaners, dishwashing liquid, washing machines, etc. (and manufacturing jobs for stupid fuks otherwise useful only as soldiers), all providing a greater amount of time for music, poetry friendship, etc.
As long as you think "dollars" are nothing but magic pieces of paper that entitle you to "the good things in life," then you'll never hold anything but resentment for those who have them, because possession of "the magic" is then arbitrary. "Why should that guy have more magic than me? Aren't I a guy too? Aren't I here, and wanting/needing magic too? Wasn't I born just like that guy? That guy must be keeping all the magic, that I am equally entitled to, for himself."
Whether or not your socialism is "perfect theoretical socialism," it makes receiving "the good things in life" as arbitrary as magic. Rather than creating value valuable for himself and his own ends, the socialist simply creates it, hands it over to "society," and then, hat in hand, petitions "society" for his "fair" share of "the common good." Then, like wishing on a star, hopes "society" lets him have a heart transplant, or dental work, or tires, or shoes, or some bread. He has to fuking hope that no-one else needs "whatever," (in the unmeasurable opinion of "society") more than he does. It's a rigged lottery, and the riggers are the only one guaranteed to eat.
dragonstaff:
I think what is happening here is that I am arguing for socialism as it is theorised, and you are arguing against socialism as it has been, and is being, practised. Try looking at the theory, not the practise for a while. I agree that the Russian and Chinese etc. experiments left, and leave, a lot to be desired. I still insist, however, that this is the result of evil men, not an evil system. I disagree. I am fully aware that Soviet and Chinese socialism are not best examples of socialism--how about Swedish socialism? Pretty benevolent by all measures, but still destined for failure. I predict that it won't be catastrophic revolution; because the Swedes are practical and rational, they will move back towards free-market capitalism in time to save their economy. I'm sure you'll point out how the Swedes don't practice your "pure" socialism either, and you'll indict their failure on that.
How about this:
In pure theoretical socialism, run by people with the very best intentions, any individual is a expendable means to the common good of society. In other words: under socialism, society can dispense the life of any individual in any means that promotes the society. Yes?
Under socialism, can any individual consider himself the owner of his own life? If not, by what rational should he consider himself in any way responsible for his own life? If he is not responsible for his own life, why should he care for another's life in order to meet the responsibilities of his life? If he's not responsible for his own life, and has no reason to be responsible for someone else's, what is the mechanism for maintaining the individuals? Is it force? Every individual cannot be expendable. This is because the prerequisite for society are the individuals that populate it. Correct? If so, how can pure theoretical socialism possibly work if an individual cannot put his own rational self-interest first?
dragonstaff:
As for being a 'slave' to the community, you are a part of the community, so you are your own slave, and you 'own' every other member of your community. What is the problem?" The problems are (1)I cannot be my own slave, (2)I don't want to be anybody else's slave and (3)I don't want any one else to be my slave. I don't accept the principle of equitable injustice.
SexNinjaMcDeath:
It truly is the perfect form of government, but humans, like you say, are not the perfect species to use it for their own betterment. HAHAHA! This is classic! It's just like saying vegetarianism is the perfect diet for lions except that they're carnivores. Other than that, PERFECT!
SexNinjaMcDeath:
Can't human individuality be destroyed if enough time under "slavery" (especially if it's non-violent and actually works for the better of human society, like true communism would be) is spent? I'm saying that it is necessarily so. Are you trying to trick me? It won't work you know.
SexNinjaMcDeath:
Under true communism, I bet it wouldn't even feel like "slavery" and the individual(s) would probably WANT it to continue, and would most likely do anything and everything to keep this wonderful system going. Right? Right. But by that time we'd stop being human beings and the discussion is as pointless as ascribing politics to an ant hill.
AcheronDCS:
Mayan communities have functioned for centuries in a communalistic way of life. They would probably still be functioning well if people stop fire-bombing their villages and massacring their children. Or if Cthulu didn't pull them all into the abyss and roast their souls as an appetizer.
AcheronDCS:
People who claim that comunalistic-socialist-communist systems CANNOT survive because of some vague ideological concepts (slavery, the evil of the masses, etc.) are ignoring thousands of years of history of functioning communalistic history in the Americas and other places. Why did these systems work then and not now? Why couln't they again? The answer lies in how far beyond family/tribal/hunter & gatherer/primitive agriculture you'd like to get. We lived for thousands of years with shit running down the middle of the street , and "it worked." We suffered thousands of years of cholera, and we "functioned." We started wanting better stuff for ourselves and we got plumbing, electricity and modern medicine.
Lever:
In these successful "communal living" situations are those involved doing so because they see a personal benefit to be gained from living in a mutual way? Sounds like a form of trade to me, trade based on enlightened self interest.
Solving problems through mutual effort is not a concept unknown in capitalism (it is, in fact, rife), but the principles of the political system shouldn't allow for coercion to achieve that. TESTIFY!
Voluntary cooperation based on rational self interest.
Mofo:
So if you owned a factory, and got rich off of it, you'd see no reason to support those below you? Support them? No. Pay them a mutually and volunarily agreed upon sum based on their mutually and voluntarily agreed upon production? Yes.
Mofo:
I wouldn't call helping someone "theft". I would call being forced to help someone theft. Theft of my time, theft of my effort, theft of my life.
Mofo:
They're not breaking into your house at night and stealing your TV or anything. No. You're right. They breaking into my bank account and stealing the money for my TV and anything else I might like.
Mofo:
You wouldn't have a house because people would see no need to build you a house. What the fuk are you on about here?
I would certainly have a house, even if I had to build it myself. You might not, if you lack the skills to provide for yourself. But as luck would have it, I would build you one for a reasonable exchange of value. Should you try to force me to build you a house, or take mine based solely upon your "need" it would constitute theft.
Mofo:
We're not animals that are born to live by themselves and help no one else. We're not sacrificial animals either.
Mofo:
Its voluntary to own a car or not. This statement is as poorly considered as every thing in the paragraph that followed it.
Mofo:
Communism doesn't mean you have to give up individuality. It sure does. You can see that just by having it the same sentence.
Mofo:
Art can still exist, only it shouldn't be use to rip on other people or sow desent among the people. What was it that you were saying about communism and individuality?
Mofo:
As long as you don't charge so much that no one can afford it or take all your money and live in a castle on a hilltop, there is nothing wrong with it. Only under socialism/communism could you charge so much money for [anything] that no one can afford it, and then take all your money and live in a castle on a hilltop.
Under free-market capitalism, you would have to make [whatever] affordable, so you could make enough money to buy a castle on a hilltop, and there is nothing wrong with that.
vasudeva:
I didn't say altruism or humanitarianism are bad concepts. I'll say it for altruism: ALTRUISM IS A BAD CONCEPT.
vasudeva:
Just that, yes, if I worked for my property, then it's mine, and not yours, and not someone else's. Capitalist.
vasudeva:
A proportional tax punishes the successful for being successful. Hrad coer!
vasudeva:
Obversely, proportional fines are a swell idea, I think, if the idea of a fine is to punish me sufficiently that I decide for myself not to recommit the offense in question. You whip a 12-year-old harder than you whip a 5-year-old for obvious reasons. Interesting. Very interesting. How do you think that would fit into the notion of equal protection under the law?
vasudeva:
Mofo:
All those poor people the rich refuse to help are holding the rich up on their high and mighty thrones. I submit that the above statement is bullshit.
[Edited on 4/18/2005 by vasudeva]
____________________
|
| |
dragonstaff
Too old to Rock and Roll...too young to die  SSHOLEPosts: 787 Registered: 8/19/2004 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 21:27 |
vasudeva said :
Obversely, proportional fines are a swell idea, I think, if the idea of a fine is to punish me sufficiently that I decide for myself not to recommit the offense in question. You whip a 12-year-old harder than you whip a 5-year-old for obvious reasons.
Loki said:
Interesting. Very interesting. How do you think that would fit into the notion of equal protection under the law?
Simple. If you lock me up for five years, and lock Bill Gates up for five years, we both lose five years of our lives. If you fine me $1000, that is two weeks net income, and it hurts me and my family, But if you fine Mr Gates $1000, that is about 2 seconds net income, and he doesn't feel it at all. Is that "equal justice"?
____________________
The Grumpiest Alpha
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov |
| |
Sachsenpaule
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 167 Registered: 11/16/2003 Offline
|
4/17/2005 at 21:38 |
dinozoa
"Once you get past some of the ideas that seem so natural about capitalism, like ownership, markets, working for money, etc, socialism doesn't seem so bad. It's only when you try to force socialist ideas into a capitalist framework that you get in trouble and start calling things theft or infringement of rights. "
I agree, mankind has an tousands of years old history with the old master-servant scheme,
its naturally, its build in. All inclusive. All included in the human bio computer.
Monkeysphere, we have the people born rich with disrespect of the people who "didnt make it" and we have the poor people, dreaming about "a good life", or more stuff like hobo said, and we have the really poor people dreaming about foods, houses and so on.
Also we have a paradigm:
"Mofo: All those poor people the rich refuse to help are holding the rich up on their high and mighty thrones."
Which isnt bullshit, its fully correct, but it doesnt show any understanding of human nature. Humans work on security, "if i do something iam risking my life and/or my current
life situation". Which doesnt mean that people are happy with their current situation
rather that they feel secure. They know how to act.
Search the dictionary about freedom and you will find many pages, seach about happiness
and you will find some sentences. Is the bum free? Happy? I dont know!
" Just that, yes, if I worked for my property, then it's mine, and not yours, and not someone else's."
I agree, but it also implies that you had the ability to do so.
Who says that the bum in the street hasnt the ability to work better then you, or
better then i? Its all about competition. If politics or business rejecting the
idea that someone might be better than they, and if their only successes insinsts on
the fact that they have the money/power to opress better ideas they will die, slowly.
And they will. It is about fairness. I know that i will
run faster than someone wheelchair, but iam not satisfied if i win the race, nor
is the audience. When we lay down this whiny fairness thing we still have the question
"when will somebody discover poor people as a market, or a thing to sell".
The more people are rich, the more are going to buy something, its ethical, and
more important: its money to be earned.
Socialism is illusoric, no bum takes advantages of the $ we give them (and, we do, in some cases here in germany, altough there is a tendence to american standards).
I believe in win-win, i believe that business will profit from the fact that
everybody has money. Every form of society (that i know) fails at that.
There will always be differences, but food and stuff for everyone
is a goal to reach. Expand the market.
[Edited on 17/4/2005 by Sachsenpaule]
____________________
I used to be an atheist, until I realized I had nothing to shout during blowjobs. "Oh Random Chance! Oh Random Chance!" just doesn't cut it….
Robert Anton Wilson, 1932 - 2007
|
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 442 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
4/18/2005 at 01:10 |
I submit that the above statement is bullshit.
Really? You picks your fruit? You harvests your vegetables? Who cleans the house of the rich? Who drives them around? Who cooks their meals. If you had the choice between paying 5 bucks for something or spending four hours doing (disregard things like art or personal aspects), what would you take? Unless you are complete self reliant, which I really doubt you are, someone below is supporting you. It's a social pryamid, and there's no way it'll ever go away.
No. You're right. They breaking into my bank account and stealing the money for my TV and anything else I might like.
Well then, leave. The gov't isn't forcing you to be here. You're in their country, on their land. You're gonna have to do what they want you to do. If you hate paying taxes to support things like roads and schools, move to some remote place in Africa. I'm sure you'll have a swell time there.
So, because you don't feel the need to do something, it shouldn't be done? If you see someone bleeding on the street, is it right to let him bleed to death because you don't want to do anything about it? You're the same as those that demand something for nothing. You want to live in society, but not pony up your part of the dues.
I would certainly have a house, even if I had to build it myself. You might not, if you lack the skills to provide for yourself. But as luck would have it, I would build you one for a reasonable exchange of value. Should you try to force me to build you a house, or take mine based solely upon your "need" it would constitute theft.
But what if no one wanted to your skill? You'd be just as out of luck as the poor people. I don't know if you have ever lived on the street (I haven't), but I'm sure that would change your perspective on the matter (that is, if you haven't lived on the street). Those who rise of the dirt to become big certainly are worthy of praise for their accomplishments, but you gotta remember we were all once helpless.
As for taking out of necessity and calling it "theft", I have this to say: somewhere along to way, you got the idea that communism is a big bad wolf hiding under your childrens' bed ready to eat them. It wouldn't take your house. It my enlist your help in order to build other's house, but they just don't kick down your door and take it, as that does no good for the public.
Neither does sacraficing individuals. You can be as individual as you want. Make all your art and poetry ripping on someone else. But, does it do you any good? Do you feel any better after it? Do most people really care that you hate someone else? There is no purpose in life for personal hatred and vendettas. It's what causes pain and suffering.
It is precisely "the struggle for the almighty dollar," amongst those who understand what "the dollar" means, that makes possible "more time for the good things in life." People creating value and trading it (through the vehicle of dollars), made possible indoor plumbing, telecommunications, vaccines, vacuum cleaners, dishwashing liquid, washing machines, etc. (and manufacturing jobs for stupid fuks otherwise useful only as soldiers), all providing a greater amount of time for music, poetry friendship, etc.
Sure, money and the want there of it has caused a lot of good for society. But you can't say that those things wouldn't have come around without money as the driving force. Was the wheel invented to sell to others? Or was it invented to make transportation easier?. Did Bell invent the telephone just to sell? Or to make communication easier? Everything comes in time. The drive for a better life isn't always pushed by money or wealth.
This statement is as poorly considered as every thing in the paragraph that followed it.
How so? If you'd explain why you saw it poorly considered, one might be able to improve on his logic.
In all fairness, what gov't would you like loki?
[Edited on 18/4/2005 by Mofo]
[Edited on 18/4/2005 by Mofo] |
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth SSHOLEPosts: 4618 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/18/2005 at 01:48 |
Mofo: I submit that the above statement is bullshit.
Really? You picks your fruit? You harvests your vegetables? Who cleans the house of the rich? Who drives them around? Who cooks their meals.
Who cares? You seem to be confusing reality with some sort of rigidly vertical hierarchy wherein anyone I pay for a service is subjugated to me in my rich fat dollar-leaking whiteness.
It is the very fact that a poor person can drive Miss Daisy around town or fix her plumbing or pick her fruit that makes them productive members of a viable society -- and thus less poor.
To put it another way: what if that poor person couldn't perform any useful service for a customer? The fact that they can't legitimately earn some of the dollars in my pocket isn't de facto proof I should then just hand those dollars over in the absence of a service.
"I'll pay you fifteen American dollars to clean my gutters. Oh, you cannot use your limbs? Then I suppose I owe you the fifteen American dollars for laying there. Here you are."
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
LORDKAHUNA
Don't make me fuk your moustache  SSHOLEPosts: 1691 Registered: 8/5/2003 Offline
|
4/18/2005 at 03:01 |
vasudeva:
"I'll pay you fifteen American dollars to clean my gutters. Oh, you cannot use your limbs? Then I suppose I owe you the fifteen American dollars for laying there. Here you are."
____________________
never underestimate how many women have basically no self-esteem to speak of |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 442 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
4/18/2005 at 04:15 |
vasudeva: Mofo: I submit that the above statement is bullshit.
Really? You picks your fruit? You harvests your vegetables? Who cleans the house of the rich? Who drives them around? Who cooks their meals.
Who cares? You seem to be confusing reality with some sort of rigidly vertical hierarchy wherein anyone I pay for a service is subjugated to me in my rich fat dollar-leaking whiteness.
It is the very fact that a poor person can drive Miss Daisy around town or fix her plumbing or pick her fruit that makes them productive members of a viable society -- and thus less poor.
To put it another way: what if that poor person couldn't perform any useful service for a customer? The fact that they can't legitimately earn some of the dollars in my pocket isn't de facto proof I should then just hand those dollars over in the absence of a service.
"I'll pay you fifteen American dollars to clean my gutters. Oh, you cannot use your limbs? Then I suppose I owe you the fifteen American dollars for laying there. Here you are."
You seem to confuse "supporting the less fortunate" with "give them free money for no apparent reason". Even if you pay them to hoist your throne to the sky, those poor people below you still support you. Communism finds a place in the community for everyone. He may not be able to clean your gutters, but for all you know he could recite poetry or be a comedian. Either way, he is supported by those more fortunant, and should support those less fortunant.
Those you support or buy services from aren't subjugated to you, but there is a strict social heirarchy. Whats the chances of Bill Gates coming down and partying with you? And whats the chances of you going down and partying with a bunch of Mexicans living 30 to a room in an orange tree orchard? It may not be as definied or as social unacceptable as something like India's caste system, but it exists none the less.
In capitalism, if you're giving 10 dollars, and you only need 5, you then get to keep 5 bucks. Even though you may have no need for it, its yours, and no one else deserves it. In communism, you get 10, keep 5 for yourself, and redistribute that 5 to others who need it. That way, the whole profits, not just one person.
I'm not quite sure when, but at some point it "became" human nature to become self centered and to tell others to fuck off, regardless of their story.
And this is why I hate getting suckered into debates. 
[Edited on 18/4/2005 by Mofo] |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
4/18/2005 at 07:39 |
There's something in our government that says, "if some part of this government or economic system benefits you unfairly over somebody else then this is fine and natural and you don't owe anybody a goddamn penny."
There's also something that says (more recently), "if some part of this government or economic system penalizes you unfairly over somebody else then this is really not cool and you should hold whoever you can find responsible."
Both these statements are wrong. If I'm rich because I made some lucky investments in the stock market (or something, for getting rich is luck and luck only; it's luck you don't get run over by a car, it's luck you weren't born black, it's luck your parents were rich enough to get you an education, etc) I have no right to be irresponsible and squander my money on jaguars and and cocaine and not look out for people less fortunate than myself.
And if I'm born black, or I get my legs shot off in the war, or I get unlucky somehow, it's not somebody's fault (except maybe george bush's fault in the second one,) so nobody owes me anything really. I should make the argument that life is unfair, and life owes me one.
Capitalism doesn't worry about this. It accepts that some people get lucky and some don't. Communism worries intensely about this, but communism can't give you your legs back, communism can't make stop racist cops from beating you, or take away your aids.
Communism makes people equal in terms of material wealth.
"Fuck material wealth" - Buddha or somebody
As I see it, the only things that can help anybody in any substantial terms are advances in medical technology. Cleanliness is next to godliness.
But then, America doesn't really feel like sharing its medical technology with 3rd world countries (although it will subsidize pharmaceutical companies), even as its global corporations exploit them for labor, resources, etc.
So fuck medical technology.
The only things really important then are:
1. Don't blow up the world with nuclear bombs.
2. Don't screw the world by letting the ozone layer collapse.
3. Don't screw the environment in general.
4. Don't screw the world by letting everybody get aids. Fuck religion. Yay condoms.
|
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth SSHOLEPosts: 4618 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/18/2005 at 12:27 |
Mofo: You seem to confuse "supporting the less fortunate" with "give them free money for no apparent reason".
Then perhaps you should define your terms, because when you use the term "support the less fortunate" I do equate that with giving them money for no reason other than yielding to some communist or socialist ideal.
And this is why I hate getting suckered into debates.
It seems to me that you're not debating so much as proselytizing. I'm waiting for you to give me something I can work with, but you keep delivering appeals to conscience. I'm not knocking you -- in fact, selfless concern for another is about the closest I can imagine to a universal goodness -- just that I'm looking for and not finding a logical structure to your arguments or the ideas therein.
To be specific, I guess I'm asking you to show me how those people I pay for services are supporting me, where the idea of support presupposes an obligation on my part to support them back above and beyond the dollars I pay for those services.
Incidentally,
I'm not quite sure when, but at some point it "became" human nature to become self centered and to tell others to fuck off, regardless of their story.
I submit that it is primary and profoundly ingrained human nature to be selfish, and only the concentrated work of society can instill in a majority of persons the concept that giving to others is a worthwhile pursuit and a universal good. Note how much time we spend training children to share and not be selfish, self-centered little bastards. If it were human nature to be giving, I don't think this would be the case. I think natural exceptions exist, as always -- people who were just born givers, and almost any parent or mate -- but in general, I think people are born selfish and then have to be laboriously taught by society that selfishness is wrong.
Feel free to treat that as a digression, though. I just saw this idea that "human nature is kind and giving and selfless" a couple times earlier on this thread and it's been bugging me ever since.
[Edited on 4/18/2005 by vasudeva]
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard  SSHOLEPosts: 1690 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
4/18/2005 at 14:50 |
vasudeva: To be specific, I guess I'm asking you to show me how those people I pay for services are supporting me, where the idea of support presupposes an obligation on my part to support them back above and beyond the dollars I pay for those services.
well, here's the problem. you pay X amount for a good or service. does the person who actually does the work get paid that amount? if not, what percentage? an example would be the fact that you can buy objects made in china for much less than they would cost if they were made here.
but then you get into globalism and whether or not those people being paid a pittance are actually better off if they didn't have those jobs. but even if so, is it fair? (don't blame me, loki brought up fairness)
not to mention my head hurts this morning.
vasudeva: I submit that it is primary and profoundly ingrained human nature to be selfish, and only the concentrated work of society can instill in a majority of persons the concept that giving to others is a worthwhile pursuit and a universal good. Note how much time we spend training children to share and not be selfish, self-centered little bastards. If it were human nature to be giving, I don't think this would be the case. I think natural exceptions exist, as always -- people who were just born givers, and almost any parent or mate -- but in general, I think people are born selfish and then have to be laboriously taught by society that selfishness is wrong.
Feel free to treat that as a digression, though. I just saw this idea that "human nature is kind and giving and selfless" a couple times earlier on this thread and it's been bugging me ever since.
this has bothered me as well. it's not just human nature, either.
dragonstaff: Wild animals share food all the time, in the same way that you and I do, within a 'family' unit. Watch a pride of lions, one or two make a kill, and the whole group feasts.
total fucking bullshit, man. what happens if the cubs try to feed before the alpha male is finished? what happens to the runt of the litter if there's not enough food? do you propose to tell me that every lion eats a little less so the weak can survive? negro please!
despite opposable thumbs, speech, and tools we cannot just ignore millions of years of survival-based evolution. |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 442 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
4/19/2005 at 00:29 |
It seems to me that you're not debating so much as proselytizing. I'm waiting for you to give me something I can work with, but you keep delivering appeals to conscience. I'm not knocking you -- in fact, selfless concern for another is about the closest I can imagine to a universal goodness -- just that I'm looking for and not finding a logical structure to your arguments or the ideas therein.
Thats the problem, and one of the reasons communism won't work. There is no logic to selfless concern for another. It is just about as close to be good as you can get, but there is no reason for it. Mankind looks out for oneselfs first, with the exception of those who transcend, if you will, the human inhibitor. Utopia means no place, and indeed there is no place as utopia, nor will there ever be a place (most likely).
As for debating/proselytizing (you learn new words everyday), I'm not quite sure how will I could debate the fact that concern for others is important without coming off as preaching.
Then perhaps you should define your terms, because when you use the term "support the less fortunate" I do equate that with giving them money for no reason other than yielding to some communist or socialist ideal.
Well, it irks me to see people slamming communism/socialism because they think that they automatically lose what is theirs. Sure, everything belongs to everyone, but you're still going to retain some control over whats is "yours". They just don't kick down your door in the middle of the night and start a lootin'.
vasudeva: To be specific, I guess I'm asking you to show me how those people I pay for services are supporting me, where the idea of support presupposes an obligation on my part to support them back above and beyond the dollars I pay for those services.
Well, you're paying them for goods/work that is specifically done to support you. Chances are you don't pay to have your roof fixed because you get bored one day. As for going up and beyond the call of duty in support, they could be as easily full filled as giving their card to your neighbors or letting them leave a sign in your front yard for a couple of days. You don't have to do it, its like a tip.
Supporting those who most need it is an obligation I feel. We shouldn't be so cold as to let people starve or freeze to death on the streets because we feel we need a new TV set.
total fucking bullshit, man. what happens if the cubs try to feed before the alpha male is finished? what happens to the runt of the litter if there's not enough food? do you propose to tell me that every lion eats a little less so the weak can survive? negro please!
There will always be that catch-22. They're sharing their food, its just that theres a heirarchy to it. Just like the old west and frontier where the parents got to eat first, and children had no say in anything.
I've kind of ran my self in circles into the ground. I support the idea of unselflish concern for others and everyone working together as one big happy family. But I also am a realist, and no that there is no way in hell human nature would ever change enough for this to happen, at least not for a long time. Life sucks and you can't always get what you want.
For the real world, I am in full support of capitalism and free market society. In theory, I'm all for communism. |
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard SSHOLEPosts: 1690 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
4/19/2005 at 00:42 |
Mofo: I've kind of ran my self in circles into the ground. I support the idea of unselflish concern for others and everyone working together as one big happy family. But I also am a realist, and no that there is no way in hell human nature would ever change enough for this to happen, at least not for a long time. Life sucks and you can't always get what you want.
For the real world, I am in full support of capitalism and free market society. In theory, I'm all for communism.
i'm with ya, boyo. |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 442 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
4/19/2005 at 04:07 |
mundhra: Mofo: I've kind of ran my self in circles into the ground. I support the idea of unselflish concern for others and everyone working together as one big happy family. But I also am a realist, and no that there is no way in hell human nature would ever change enough for this to happen, at least not for a long time. Life sucks and you can't always get what you want.
For the real world, I am in full support of capitalism and free market society. In theory, I'm all for communism.
i'm with ya, boyo.
Yea, it's a sad reality. |
| |
Lever
Tender vittles Posts: 9 Registered: 1/8/2005 Offline
|
4/19/2005 at 07:32 |
dinozoa:
As I see it, the only things that can help anybody in any substantial terms are advances in medical technology. Cleanliness is next to godliness.
But then, America doesn't really feel like sharing its medical technology with 3rd world countries (although it will subsidize pharmaceutical companies), even as its global corporations exploit them for labor, resources, etc.
What's the incentive for wholesale giving away medical technology that costs literally millions of dollars to develop? How will advanced medical technology develop without a sustainable way of supporting it?
I bet nearly every doctor out there loves being a doctor and wants to help people, wants to make lives better. Maybe they became a doctor specifically for that reason. However, ask them to do it for free - for the common good. Or, even just ask them to do it for the same salary as a garbage man makes (communism in work, from each to each). Do you think the number of doctors (and our quality of life) might just drop precipitously? |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/19/2005 at 10:50 |
When vasudeva said:
" Just that, yes, if I worked for my property, then it's mine, and not yours, and not someone else's." Sachsenpaule said:
"Who says that the bum in the street hasnt the ability to work better then you, or
better then i?"
When vasudeva said:
"I submit that the above statement is bullshit."  72x! Mofo said:
"Really? You picks your fruit? You harvests your vegetables? Who cleans the house of the rich? Who drives them around? Who cooks their meals. If you had the choice between paying 5 bucks for something or spending four hours doing (disregard things like art or personal aspects), what would you take? Unless you are complete self reliant, which I really doubt you are, someone below is supporting you. It's a social pryamid, and there's no way it'll ever go away."
When LOki said:
"No. You're right. They breaking into my bank account and stealing the money for my TV and anything else I might like." Mofo said:
"Well then, leave. The gov't isn't forcing you to be here. You're in their country, on their land. You're gonna have to do what they want you to do. If you hate paying taxes to support things like roads and schools, move to some remote place in Africa. I'm sure you'll have a swell time there."
Mofo said:
"So, because you don't feel the need to do something, it shouldn't be done?" Well, not by me. But much more importantly, and to the point I'm making (and the one you are desperately avoiding), just because YOU think something "needs" to be done, you are not entitled to FORCE me to do it. Can you savvy that Jasper?
Mofo said:
"But what if no one wanted to your skill? You'd be just as out of luck as the poor people." You're right. As long as I had nothing of value to offer (for whatever reasons), then yes, I'd be shit out of luck. There is nothing at all wrong about that.
And for your information, I have had my encounter with homelessness, but it didn't last long because I made sure that I was not completely useless to everybody (unlike the vast, vast majority of worthless fuks who live on the street).
Mofo said:
"As for taking out of necessity and calling it "theft", I have this to say: somewhere along to way, you got the idea that communism is a big bad wolf hiding under your childrens' bed ready to eat them." Now you're just making shit up.
Mofo said:
"[Communists/Socialists] wouldn't take your house." They sure would. In fact it is all too common in socialist societies to have nice single family residences confiscated and torn down (in the interest of the "common good")to make room for multi family residences.
Mofo said:
"Neither does sacraficing individuals." The political prisoners sent to Siberia would agree with you, but the socialists who sent them there would not.
Mofo said:
"Sure, money and the want there of it has caused a lot of good for society. But you can't say that those things wouldn't have come around without money as the driving force." You are only technically correct. In-so-far as money is only the medium of exchange for value, money is not the driving force--but the value it represents does. So, yes I can, and I do.
When LOki said:
"This statement is as poorly considered as every thing in the paragraph that followed it." Mofo said:
"How so? If you'd explain why you saw it poorly considered, one might be able to improve on his logic."
When vasudeva said:
"I'll pay you fifteen American dollars to clean my gutters. Oh, you cannot use your limbs? Then I suppose I owe you the fifteen American dollars for laying there. Here you are." Mofo said:
You seem to confuse "supporting the less fortunate" with "give them free money for no apparent reason".
Mofo said:
"Communism finds a place in the community for everyone. He may not be able to clean your gutters, but for all you know he could recite poetry or be a comedian. Either way, he is supported by those more fortunant, and should support those less fortunant." See? Even if that poet's poetry sucks, or the comedian is not funny, he gets "a place in the community." And furthermore, he gets it without providing a single fuking value; he get's it by taking it at gunpoint from those who can, and do, produce value.
Mofo said:
"Those you support or buy services from aren't subjugated to you,.." And that is the most important point.
Mofo said:
"...but there is a strict social heirarchy." If this is true; so what?
Mofo said:
"Whats the chances of Bill Gates coming down and partying with you? And whats the chances of you going down and partying with a bunch of Mexicans living 30 to a room in an orange tree orchard?" If I had someting to offer Bill, and the Mexicans had something to offer me, a pretty good chance I'd say.
Mofo said:
"In capitalism, if you're giving 10 dollars, and you only need 5, you then get to keep 5 bucks. Even though you may have no need for it, its yours, and no one else deserves it. In communism, you get 10, keep 5 for yourself, and redistribute that 5 to others who need it. That way, the whole profits, not just one person." What you describe as capitalism, is not capitalism. It's lunacy. If you give $10, and need $5, how do you keep $5? Senseless. Then you go on about communism where you (1) get$10, (2) keep $5, and (3) distribute $5 to those that "need"it. (1) Why? (2) Why? (3)Why? I suspect that you don't know what you're talking about.
Dinoza said:
"There's something in our government that says, "if some part of this government or economic system benefits you unfairly over somebody else then this is fine and natural and you don't owe anybody a goddamn penny."
There's also something that says (more recently), "if some part of this government or economic system penalizes you unfairly over somebody else then this is really not cool and you should hold whoever you can find responsible."
Both these statements are wrong." Incorrect. The first statement is a statment of lawlessness. It is a license to steal. The second statement is a statement of law denying the use of force or fraud.
Dinoza said:
"If I'm rich because I made some lucky investments in the stock market (or something, for getting rich is luck and luck only; it's luck you don't get run over by a car, it's luck you weren't born black, it's luck your parents were rich enough to get you an education, etc) I have no right to be irresponsible and squander my money on jaguars and and cocaine and not look out for people less fortunate than myself. " And now you tipped your hand. All communists and socialists belive that wealth arrives to particular individuald due to "luck." I alluded to this earlier: LOki said earlier:
"As long as you think "dollars" are nothing but magic pieces of paper that entitle you to "the good things in life," then you'll never hold anything but resentment for those who have them, because possession of "the magic" is then arbitrary. "Why should that guy have more magic than me? Aren't I a guy too? Aren't I here, and wanting/needing magic too? Wasn't I born just like that guy? That guy must be keeping all the magic, that I am equally entitled to, for himself." You and Mofo both seem to belive that welth is some finite mystical power that was stolen in the first place,is hoarded by the "rich," and must be stolen back to make it fair. If you think this, you couldn't be more wrong.
Wealth is the accumulation of value. Value is created by people through the excersize of their merits (eg. strenght, speed, motivation, ambition, intellect, etc.). Th poor are "poor" in their lack of merit. They have a limited capacity to create value, but (like everybody) an unlimited capacity to consume it. Those who accumulate value (the wealthy or "rich" if you will) are those who can create value in excess of what they consume.
Dinoza said:
"And if I'm born black, or I get my legs shot off in the war, or I get unlucky somehow, it's not somebody's fault (except maybe george bush's fault in the second one,) so nobody owes me anything really. I should make the argument that life is unfair, and life owes me one." That may be true, but I don't owe you a fuking thing. OK?
Dinoza said:
"... but communism can't give you your legs back, communism can't make stop racist cops from beating you, or take away your aids." ...but it can, and will, take by force that portion of your life and effort that you spent trying to make your life better and easier, and give it away to someone who didn't do dick.
Dinoza said:
"Communism makes people equal in terms of material wealth." Despite the fact that they are not equals in creating value. In other words, and true to the coomunist's founding principle "From each according to his ability; to each according to their need," communism is the enslavement of the competent minority by the incompetent majority. Yes?
Mofo said:
"Well, it irks me to see people slamming communism/socialism because they think that they automatically lose what is theirs. Sure, everything belongs to everyone, but you're still going to retain some control over whats is "yours". They just don't kick down your door in the middle of the night and start a lootin'." Well, what irks me is when someone denies the truth about "lootin'" on the basis of that it is gently done for the alleged "common good." Don't piss down my back and tell me it raining.
Mofo said:
"Supporting those who most need it is an obligation I feel." Then do it. No capitalist would stop you. Offence is only taken when you take their money by force to satisfy your "need" to help someone else.
Mofo said:
"For the real world, I am in full support of capitalism and free market society. In theory, I'm all for communism." Well, I'm certainly glad for the reality, because in theory, you're an asshoel.
[Edited on 19/4/2005 by LOki]
____________________
|
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard SSHOLEPosts: 1690 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
4/19/2005 at 14:08 |
LOki: Again, you are totally wrong. (1) The government is in MY country, and they are fuking around on MY land.
actually, i think you are both on iroquois land.  |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent SSHOLEPosts: 567 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
4/19/2005 at 15:10 |
mundhra: LOki: Again, you are totally wrong. (1) The government is in MY country, and they are fuking around on MY land.
actually, i think you are both on iroquois land.
HAHA!
I have nothing to contribute to this debate, since it consists of massive generalizations about socialism mainly based off the USSR, but this: if you are going to be defending capitalism in its present state you better be off your ass defending the IMF, the World Bank and neoliberal policies. Take into that account the military industrial complex which is actually, be definition, a socialist model-being massive government subsidy to chosen private interests-and all of the other crony capitalism that goes along with it that eliminates competition. Remember, there are no contradictions. Check your premises.
Also, be defending the privatization and massive increase of utilities like that which happened in Cochabamba, Bolivia with their water costs, which is all part of the structural adjustment programs of the IMF. The IMF is all part of risk-free lending, which is an anti-capitalist principle that Adam Smith would have balked at. All of this WTO, IMF, World Bank shit is the very essence of global capitalism right now. I'm not saying capitalism is a bad idea by nature of theory, but you better realize what your supporting. NONE of this shit is sustainable. My generation may be around to witness the collapse. WERD
____________________
I'm an INTJ. This explains why I'm alternating between silence and judging you. |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 442 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
4/20/2005 at 01:26 |
Loki, you seem to see the word communism and automatically think of the USSR as being the way communism actually is. I believe the word "theoretical" has been tossed around a bunch already. Good on paper, not in reality.
I don't object to paying taxes--particularly for things like the military, police, and courts. I object to being forced to pay for roads that I don't use, and schools that I (or my children) don't go to; that provide an indoctrination that I don't agree with.
Well then, I'm sorry if you see supporting the future generations as a lost cause. Not much I can say in difference to one's personal ideas.
Check "tautology" and get back to me
Uhhh... I said it was voluntary to own a car. Forcing a tax on weight basis doesn't make the tax voluntary.
You are right about the social pyramid, but you are all fuked up about whom supports whom. The fruit pickers, chauffers and fry cooks do not support brain surgeons. You see, a brain surgeon could pick his own fruit, drive his own car, and cook his own meals. No fruit picker is capable of brain surgery. The brain surgeons support the fruit pickers.
If the brain surgeon spent all his time growing and picking his vegetables and fruits, there wouldn't be much time left for brain surgery.
Well, not by me. But much more importantly, and to the point I'm making (and the one you are desperately avoiding), just because YOU think something "needs" to be done, you are not entitled to FORCE me to do it. Can you savvy that Jasper?
Well, without forcing people to pay taxes, there wouldn't be enough money to get things done. Enough people aren't going to pay out of good nature to get anything done. If it was voluntary, how much money would you spend?
No, he isn't confused, you are. You are the one defending the position of "[giving the less fortunate] free money for no apparent reason" in guise of "supporting the less fortunate." You are not fooling anyone except, apparently, yourself.
I don't support giving them money for no apparent reason. I support giving them money to try and help them get back on track. I don't know where or when I mentioned wasting money.
What you describe as capitalism, is not capitalism. It's lunacy. If you give $10, and need $5, how do you keep $5? Senseless. Then you go on about communism where you (1) get$10, (2) keep $5, and (3) distribute $5 to those that "need"it. (1) Why? (2) Why? (3)Why? I suspect that you don't know what you're talking about.
I know what I am talking about. Capitalism: If you only need 5, where does that other five than go? You make it seem as if it just magically disappears. Communism: You redistribute the five to help other people. You could have 10 for a loaf of bread. You buy one for five. You then have five. You can either keep it and put it towards a TV set you really don't need (capitalism), or buy a bread of loaf for someone else that needs it (communism / good nature,help). I really don't see how its that hard of a concept. |
| |
|
