|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted February 13, 2008 08:03 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:05, 13 Feb 2008.
|
Quote:
Just because they can live comfortably without getting richer is no reason that they shouldn't try to get richer. And, in a free market, they don't exploit their workers because then they'd leave and go work somewhere else. Do you even understand how the free market works? Wanting to maximize one's utility is what drives it. Ambitious people looking to make a profit make the world better.
Sure they don't exploit workers, but they exploit nature... 
Do you know 'criminals' feel comfortable when they murder?
then again imagine the 'rich' people are the criminals murdering nature, ok?
oops, I forgot, you're the one who discriminates nature and thinks humans are the only ones who have "rights". (because you are one, if you were a bear I think you'd hate this 'mvassilev' human)
I think there's some word (don't remember it) for guys like you. While some people in the world are racists (they discriminate different races of humans), you are a specist (you discriminate different species, including nature itself if you take it as a mother-specie).
Quote:
Yes. And guess what? There's nothing wrong with that.
Oh yeah, nothing wrong? Do you even know what you're saying?
In a world with everyone being rich, then no-one will be rich anymore, and will be considered "average". The economics system works with exploits. That's because the gap between rich and poor will always exist -- at least if we are to use the terms rich or poor instead of average.
Quote:
Hard to disagree with you here, but have you ever considered that people want to get richer so they can have a better life. The divorce rate among the rich is lower. They are far more healthy. Their children are healthier and better educated. And so on.
Well criminals also want to kill more people so they can have a better life (for them, it'll be better, trust me!).
It's not what "someone" wants, you have to think of the consequences. You always seem to think that, if you feel comfortable, then that's a good thing, but you don't think of the consequences (i.e beside yourself, or perhaps your own race). Criminals "want" to murder too. Just because they murder humans while you/the rich people murder nature doesn't excuse it any less
Quote:
We can do whatever is advantageous for us.
Then
Quote:
But, and this is very important, this is why we have to social contract. The social contract makes it more advantageous for us to work within society's framework rather than steal, maim, and murder.
Sorry, but if you want something "advantageous" I recommend some death pill that makes you feel happy. Really, if someone doesn't care about anything else beside his/her own comfort (doing what's advantageous to him/her regardless of the things around), then the best place for them is to take on a "mental" comfort (like a pill) and die without disturbing the environment.
Ok, we can do what's advantageous for us, sure how about doing what's advantageous for nature or something else instead?
Quote:
Why is everyone such an idealistic socialist? If you guys somehow came to rule a country, I definitely wouldn't want to live in it.
Well, if you somehow came to rule a country, I and my friends, the martians aliens, wouldn't want to live in it, because they're discriminated 
Let me ask you something. IF making money off your slaves was advantageous for you, would you do it? (again, assuming it was, ok?).
if you say no, then please reconsider, because you're stating the exact thing, but replace "slaves" with "nature".
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2008 10:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sure they don't exploit workers, but they exploit nature...
Nature is a resource. It's okay to exploit resources, as long as it is done carefully and intelligently.
Quote:
Do you know 'criminals' feel comfortable when they murder?
Social contract should work to punish them.
Quote:
then again imagine the 'rich' people are the criminals murdering nature, ok?
Nature isn't sentinent.
Quote:
In a world with everyone being rich, then no-one will be rich anymore, and will be considered "average". The economics system works with exploits.
No. You have something I want (such as money, or food, or resources, or labor), and I have something you want (such as money, food, resources, or labor). We exchange what I want for what you want. That's how the economy works on a basic level.
Quote:
Well criminals also want to kill more people so they can have a better life (for them, it'll be better, trust me!).
No, it won't be better. The social contract works to punish them. It is a deterrent.
Quote:
Sorry, but if you want something "advantageous" I recommend some death pill that makes you feel happy.
Happiness isn't happiness if it's caused by LSD.
Quote:
Ok, we can do what's advantageous for us, sure how about doing what's advantageous for nature or something else instead?
Why should we?
Quote:
Well, if you somehow came to rule a country, I and my friends, the martians aliens, wouldn't want to live in it, because they're discriminated
If you and your martians are capable of dealing in a reasoned manner and can do things that we need, and we can do things that you need, there shouldn't be a problem.
Quote:
Let me ask you something. IF making money off your slaves was advantageous for you, would you do it? (again, assuming it was, ok?).
if you say no, then please reconsider, because you're stating the exact thing, but replace "slaves" with "nature".
No, I wouldn't. But slaves are sentinent human beings. Nature isn't. Is using coal wrong? Is using oil wrong? (Ignoring the pollution factors.) Is gathering food wrong? Is drinking water wrong? Nature is all of these things. And all of these are resources, so we have to manage nature so it can continue to nourish us.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 13, 2008 10:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nature is a resource. It's okay to exploit resources, as long as it is done carefully and intelligently.
I like how you keep repeating the same stuff like "Nature is a resource". Why do you keep believing it's a resource and it's not the other way around?
Quote:
Social contract should work to punish them.
Also to punish those that murder nature?
Quote:
Nature isn't sentinent.
Quote:
No. You have something I want (such as money, or food, or resources, or labor), and I have something you want (such as money, food, resources, or labor). We exchange what I want for what you want. That's how the economy works on a basic level.
I was talking about the rich/poor stuff, not about trading. You see, it's better if we refer to "the difference between rich/poor" rather than the rich and poor themselves, because it's this difference that makes up their terms, otherwise everyone will be average.
Tell me if everyone was rich, everyone would have everything they wanted? No, they will all be considered average, money value will keep dropping, etc..
Quote:
No, it won't be better. The social contract works to punish them. It is a deterrent.
This social contract can as well encourage criminals as far as I know. Or, the other way around. For example, I think this "social contract" should respect nature and punish those that (you don't agree) 'murder' it.
Quote:
Happiness isn't happiness if it's caused by LSD.
Then neither it is happiness when exploiting others (e.g nature).
Quote:
Why should we?
Why should we do what's advantageous to us then?
Quote:
If you and your martians are capable of dealing in a reasoned manner and can do things that we need, and we can do things that you need, there shouldn't be a problem.
Ah, so if your parents are sick and need your help, but they provide no real benefit to you at that stage (only annoyance as you have to take care of them), you should leave them to die, right?
You'll learn later in life that your own benefit is not the whole thing that matters. When you'll be in a situation and no one would offer you help (as you'll provide no benefit, let's say), you will most likely learn the lesson, I hope.
Quote:
Is using coal wrong? Is using oil wrong? (Ignoring the pollution factors.) Is gathering food wrong? Is drinking water wrong? Nature is all of these things. And all of these are resources, so we have to manage nature so it can continue to nourish us.
Yes, most of the above things are wrong. And we have to respect nature, since we are part of it, as a whole, much like we respect our parents, unless of course you have no value for the word "respect", in which case everything is reduced to "benefits" and taking others only on that. (so screw those that cannot provide you any benefits, right?)
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2008 12:59 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 01:00, 14 Feb 2008.
|
There is no such thing as a "free market", it is an idealized abstraction. This makes statements like
Quote:
don't you know how free market works?...in a free market, they don't exploit their workers because then they'd leave and go work somewhere else
somewhat meaningless. Because things really don't work that way in REAL LIFE.
Global economy will never be a free market.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2008 01:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I like how you keep repeating the same stuff like "Nature is a resource". Why do you keep believing it's a resource and it's not the other way around?
Because nature gives us what we need if we utilize it correctly.
Quote:
Also to punish those that murder nature?
We should punish those who misuse nature.
Quote:
Tell me if everyone was rich, everyone would have everything they wanted? No, they will all be considered average, money value will keep dropping, etc..
No, it would be that way if everyone had the same amount of money. There's a difference between being rich and having a lot of money. Money is only useful because it can be exchanged for goods and labor. If you were stranded on a desert island with $1 million, you would starve. Rich people own other things, such as property, means of production, etc. And those don't lose value like money does. If everyone has the same amount of property and the same value of means of production, the economy wouldn't stop, because, while everyone would own the same value of stuff, everyone would still own different stuff, so some would want what others have and exchange what they have for it, or exchange what they produce for it.
Quote:
This social contract can as well encourage criminals as far as I know. Or, the other way around. For example, I think this "social contract" should respect nature and punish those that (you don't agree) 'murder' it.
The human social contract basically asks for the greatest amount of good towards the greatest amount of people.
Quote:
Then neither it is happiness when exploiting others (e.g nature).
Nobody exploits anybody who works volountarily. The workers sell their labor, and get money for it. They get money based on what their labor is worth. If they are poorly paid, that means their labor isn't worth much.
Quote:
Why should we do what's advantageous to us then?
Because, by definition, it's advantageous to us. What do we get by helping abstract concepts such as nature beyond what we need for it to continue supporting us?
Quote:
Ah, so if your parents are sick and need your help, but they provide no real benefit to you at that stage (only annoyance as you have to take care of them), you should leave them to die, right?
Ah, but they still do provide a benefit. Maybe not a material benefit in the literal sense, but an emotional benefit.
Quote:
Yes, most of the above things are wrong. And we have to respect nature, since we are part of it, as a whole, much like we respect our parents, unless of course you have no value for the word "respect", in which case everything is reduced to "benefits" and taking others only on that. (so screw those that cannot provide you any benefits, right?)
So basically electricity is wrong? Being alive is wrong? Why do you live then, if it's so wrong to live? Why not commit suicide so you can help nature (no offense)? And parents are both a material and an emotional benefit during childhood/adolescence, and just an emotional benefit during the rest of life. An emotional benefit is still very much a benefit. And I am an emotional benefit for my parents.
Quote:
somewhat meaningless. Because things really don't work that way in REAL LIFE.
Yes, they do. If person A pays me $7 dollars per hour for labor, and person B pays me $9 dollars per hour for the same labor, why should I work for person A?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 14, 2008 03:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it would be that way if everyone had the same amount of money. There's a difference between being rich and having a lot of money. [...]
You did not get my point.
So-called "rich" people that have big houses, swimming pools, etc.. have all of those *because* of money they previously had (obviously). BUT, if previously everyone would have had the same amounts of money, it's value would have dropped (i.e products become "more expensive" in a simple view).
The problem of course is that it's easy once you have all those things you previously bought, but before that you still had to have had an edge over others. To put in simple terms, rich people will exist as long as poor people exist. Otherwise they will all turn into average people.
Let's take an example. Suppose Bill Gates has 100$ per month (I know I way under-priced him!), and poor people get like 1$ per month. This is the 'current' scenario that is happening, but actually the gap is even wider!
Now, let's take some advice and help the poor get 'magically' richer. Let's assume the poor get 100$ per month, just like Gates. The problem, of course, since everyone has this amount of money, the value of a dollar will go down. Products will become more expensive. Since companies usually expect some gains from their products, 1$ is now pretty much useless (if they previously sold their products with 1$), now they need to sell it to approximately 100$ dollars a piece. In short, nobody's rich anymore, they are all average.
Putting the 'magic' stuff aside, if Bill Gates would have donated his money to the poor, let's say everyone would have had around 20$ per month. This would be the same scenario as above, just that the money values are different. The 1$ product which was 100$ in the previous example would be, this time, sold at 20$. Again, nobody is neither rich nor poor.
So as long as there exist the term "rich" people, be sure the opposite extreme also exists.
But of course, if Bill Gates had bought his big house before everyone had 100$, then he would be considered "rich" much like you said. But this scenario is not practical, because it requires this "stage" in which rich and poor people exist (i.e not average).
Quote:
The human social contract basically asks for the greatest amount of good towards the greatest amount of people.
How about nature instead?
So if the greatest amount of people are criminals, then the social contract should encourage them?
Quote:
Nobody exploits anybody who works volountarily.
Well I was talking about nature, and I don't recall nature works voluntarily for us, at least not if she's abused.
Quote:
Because, by definition, it's advantageous to us. What do we get by helping abstract concepts such as nature beyond what we need for it to continue supporting us?
Then let me put it up differently. Ever heard of selfishness? Since I think we, as a specie, have evolved that means we should seek union rather than our personal benefits -- if not then we are simply animals in a different way (and by animal I do not mean the biological representation, but rather the mental one). We are not here just to take.
Since I believe we're on a Heroes forum, I think you're familiar with the good/neutral/evil (even though you might think otherwise, those are just names anyway) concepts defined in those games. Since I do not have the time to describe it here, I'll send you a quick link I found with google that defines this. Here.
I think you, towards nature (not your own species) is somewhere between Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil (again, towards nature).
Quote:
Ah, but they still do provide a benefit. Maybe not a material benefit in the literal sense, but an emotional benefit.
In that case, Nature does as well 
Quote:
Why not commit suicide so you can help nature (no offense)?
Better idea is, why not help nature instead of commiting suicide and 'ignoring' it (cause that's what you do if you suicide). We can help nature if we are willing, but unfortunately when an environmentalist looks at a human he sees a degenerate species that has come to seek only personal benefits and has the same mentality as primates.
And yet, they can change since a tiny percent seems to be against this, so it's not an impossible task, they have to leave behind their selfishness for themselves (as a race, if you will).
So in conclusion, we as a species are still pretty much in the primitive state of mind (cave men also wanted only personal benefits), and have to escape this but somehow most of us are not strong enough or perhaps not willing to do this, which further proves their savage mental state.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2008 09:57 PM |
|
|
There is certainly a divide between rich and poor. There always has been one, and there probably always will be one. It's inevitable. When people work at jobs that are at high demand, they will get paid more. And there's nothing wrong with this. It rewards those who do for what there is a demand. As long as everyone is getting richer, it doesn't really matter what the difference is. A growing pie, even if unequally divided, grows all pieces.
Quote:
How about nature instead?
Nature isn't a person. We can't make contracts with nature.
Quote:
So if the greatest amount of people are criminals, then the social contract should encourage them?
Criminals are those whose actions bring benefit to themselves but harm others. The social contract has to make it so that the criminal's actions will result in a net negative for the criminal.
Quote:
Well I was talking about nature, and I don't recall nature works voluntarily for us, at least not if she's abused.
Nature isn't a person. Nature is a thing. Do you enslave your computer? How about your pen or pencil? The paper you write on? The ground you walk on? Are those slaves too? No, of course not. Only humans can be slaves.
Quote:
Since I think we, as a specie, have evolved that means we should seek union rather than our personal benefits
Yes and no. We should seek benefit to ourselves that is also a benefit to others. Bill Gates benefited himself when he invented DOS. He also benefited those who bought it.
I took that test and got Lawful Neutral.
Quote:
In that case, Nature does as well
Certainly. For some. I don't deny it. What I said was we shouldn't help nature for its own sake. It's different when we help it to make ourselves feel good.
Quote:
So in conclusion, we as a species are still pretty much in the primitive state of mind (cave men also wanted only personal benefits), and have to escape this but somehow most of us are not strong enough or perhaps not willing to do this, which further proves their savage mental state.
I sort of agree. What I think is that selfishness and helping others are not necessarily in conflict. Think about it. When you help a poor man, you feel good, don't you? That is an evolutionary advantage that helps the species. You do it because it makes you feel good. Thus, it's selfish. Or is it selfish? It helps others. The answer is it is both selfish and altruistic. Altruism is pleasurable to the giver. To quote Adam Smith, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher and the baker that we depend on our sustenance, but in regard to their own self-interest." They work to help themselves, yet in it they undoubtedly help us. Selfishness is often bad (such as in the "prisoners' dillema"), and altruism is often useless, but a combination of the two often does the trick.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 16, 2008 11:23 PM |
|
|
Regarding the selfish ambiguity...
If you put it in that way (I call it the 'scientifical' way, obviously the term "selfish" corresponds to almost everything a human does by his own will or desires (not by being forced, for example), since every such action will make him 'feel good'. But this conclusion is rushed because it is quite superficial to say that we do all our altruistic deeds to make "ourselves" feel better. Yes I agree there is an inner emotion that perhaps makes us feel good in that respect (for certain things, which vary subjectively of course, not everyone likes the same things), but I doubt it's effects upon these altruistic decisions. Put simply, for those who are selfless, they do these deeds thinking about the others first and only then feeling good. The "feeling" is just an aftermath effect that has no importance on the decisions, well at least to normal people (not those 'dependent' or other such 'diseases').
A very good example of this would be life sacrifice -- here the 'feeling good' effect is very temporary because life itself could end (e.g you sacrifice yourself for something/someone), and after death the emotions are no longer the same (or don't even exist, if you think death is the end, i.e like some atheists do). So even though the feeling good aftermath effects usually exist they do not hold much importance for those humans who are truly selfless, in the sense that they think about the others (or the environment) first, and not on their own emotions and benefits (of course, emotional benefits). The benefits that conclude thereafter are only temporary and not decisive, at least for the aforementioned type of humans.
Truly 'good' people (let's say selfless = good) don't need any kind of "reward" for the things they do: in fact, such a quest for rewards eventually leads to a position in which they are no longer held 'good' since, by definition, selfless deeds require no leading determination for rewards. Therefore, 'good' people must not be hunting for rewards when doing good deeds, something which is impossible with the previous paragraphs since in this case "reward" would be the emotional benefit. If this benefit is the one who dictates our deeds, then we are literally seeking the reward, which no longer makes us selfless (or good if you will), since that is in contradiction with the definition of it. So I can conclude that selfless acts must not be based upon the desire for a reward, either emotional or material. Note, I said that the desire for the reward must not play the deciding factor. The reward may STILL be applied thereafter (as is in most cases), and just because it is, doesn't mean that it was the one who made the decision. The decision should be made without the reward in mind, completely pure of it. I believe, like TitaniumAlloy nicely put it, that beauty also enforces this, but that's only a part of it.
As for selflessness I think it should view both nature & humans from the same angle. Selfless is not characterized only from the human point of view, or rather from those that can 'imagine' how it feels since they are one of the group themselves (i.e part of the human species). You don't hurt someone because you know it hurts him, at least not if you intend to. This is drawn from the fact that you are part of this 'group'. However, foreign groups should also play a part in the selfless deeds because they are part of the absolute group, which is the Universe itself. Putting emotional benefits aside (explained before anyway), let's say that I could 'heal' a plant that has been deceased by humans or other corrupting factors. Let's say this particular plant does not have any effect what-so-ever on my 'material' life gains (I already left out the emotional 'reward' since it will come later in my mind). However, if selfless, I shall heal the plant if I can. One possible explanation might be beauty however, but it's only part of the entire union of things -- in that the plant has been brought back to it's life, and this alone would not qualify any kind of discrimination. The plant is not human (and possibly not sentient either), but it's still part of the process.
Selfless people that only think about the humans, while 'seriously' disturb the bonds of nature are not, in my book, truly selfless to the world, but rather only to their limited and flawed group. Some even restrict this group to a nationality with the so-called patriotism, a term which I despise, since we are all part of the union and should not be separated. There is yet another interpretation in this case that does establish a similar pattern to nature; we can put the entire human species inside a nation called 'humans', and by limiting our selfless acts to this group we'll get what's called the nationality discrimination, only in this case nationality applies to species (as an analogy of course). And since I have briefly explained why I despise patriotism and such groups that do not seek union, it's not hard to draw this into the 'nature' perspective as well -- in this case of course nature includes the environment surrounding us, and not only to the animals & plants as one might take the interpretation of this. One aspect of this might be greed, but I'm not going into that since it will most probably make this a lot longer and I don't have time for that; and neither do I think you have the patience to read that.
These are my main thoughts on the subject of the nature and human acts (mainly selfishness/selflessness). I do not expect you to mostly agree with everything as each one is entitled to their own morals, and this is also a subjective view since most of the aforementioned things have this somewhat 'distinct character' I most likely put, in the sense that it takes many factors obviously outside our group into consideration when we may not know anything about. However I do hope I have defined selflessness as an objective term that can apply to everyone regardless of their morals (e.g greedy people couldn't call themselves selfless, now could they?), and in turn this might perhaps clear the ambiguity we had before with that 'emotional benefit' which I named the 'reward' (I hope you got the ideas).
I do not expect this subject to come to an ending, so I'm considering this post 'just my 2 cents' if you will 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 16, 2008 11:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Put simply, for those who are selfless, they do these deeds thinking about the others first and only then feeling good. The "feeling" is just an aftermath effect that has no importance on the decisions, well at least to normal people (not those 'dependent' or other such 'diseases').
To put it a different way, people are so used to helping others, that they no longer conciously think, "Okay, I'm going to help someone so I can feel good." It's automatic, but that's what causes it.
Quote:
A very good example of this would be life sacrifice -- here the 'feeling good' effect is very temporary because life itself could end (e.g you sacrifice yourself for something/someone), and after death the emotions are no longer the same (or don't even exist, if you think death is the end, i.e like some atheists do).
Actually, this is altruism taken to the extreme. Internally, your subconcious (or whatever you want to call it) still thinks that you will feel good after helping others after sacrificing your life, even though this is not so.
Quote:
Truly 'good' people (let's say selfless = good) don't need any kind of "reward" for the things they do: in fact, such a quest for rewards eventually leads to a position in which they are no longer held 'good' since, by definition, selfless deeds require no leading determination for rewards.
They don't seek it knowingly.
Quote:
However, foreign groups should also play a part in the selfless deeds because they are part of the absolute group, which is the Universe itself.
It really depends on the size of the group we choose to care about.
And sometimes you won't even feel good after helping someone/something (at least not noticeably), but you're so used to helping, that you will reflexively.
And, just for the record, I'm not patriotic.
And this is really not where I intended this discussion to go.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 17, 2008 12:02 AM |
|
|
Just to keep things straight, i never said you were patriotic in the true sense of the word (since that implies different nationalities of 'humans').
Sometimes this 'subconscious' is not always trying to 'help the body/brain feel good' since there have been incidents in which patients on their near-death experiences have gone through terrible thoughts or nightmares, so it seems the subconscious is either not helping the brain in all cases, or it's simply not the thing that drives us humans to do that
Quote:
And this is really not where I intended this discussion to go.
Sorry then I did not know this was not the subject of this thread
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 17, 2008 01:12 AM |
|
|
Yeah, I undestand what you meant.
Regarding the subconscious, you're right. But the subconcious knows that helping others makes (or is supposed to make) you feel good. Thus it makes you do it.
As for the subject of this discussion, it's fine that it went here, I just expected it to be more of a debate about trade, outsourcing, and the minimum wage rather than about human nature.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 19, 2008 01:18 PM |
|
|
|
mvassilev, never before have I seen someone with such an egotistical, disgusting, and utterly disrespecting and unthankfull attitude towards nature. It's people like you that strengthen my belief humanity is closer related to Virusses and Parasites than to Mammals.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2008 02:03 PM |
|
|
Moonlith, I could respond in kind, but where would that get us?
To return to the subject at hand, I would like to discuss a sector of the economy that is getting a lot of attention now: health care. There are several plans I have seen suggested. Here they are, arranged in what is, IMO, from worst to best.
Insurance subsidies
Suggested by Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, this would basically be the current system, with one difference: if you are too poor to afford insurance, the government will give you money to spend on insurance. And the government would require all to have insurance, or pay fines.
Pros:
Everyone will have insurance.
Cons:
It would end up like socialized medicine, but even more expensive. The government would be paying for the insurance of the poor. The insurance companies realize that they can raise rates and still have the same number of clients. They raise rates. Less people can afford insurance, so they apply for government subsidies. Then the insurance companies raise rates again and again, and the government responds by subsidizing more and more people until it is subsidizing everyone, even the most rich.
Socialized medicine
Suggested by Kucinich, this plan would nationalize all health care. The government would pay for everybody's procedures.
Pros:
No one will have to pay for themselves...
Cons:
but everybody will pay for everybody else. This throws individual responsibility out of the window. Smokers, alcoholics, and people who eat donuts all day would be treated at the expense of those who exercise and have a healthy diet.
Regulations on the insurance industry
This plan would set insurance rate caps, require minimum quality of coverage, or both.
Pros:
Doesn't tinker with the current system too much.
Cons:
If you set insurance rate caps, the quality of coverage will go down.
If you require minimum quality of coverage, insurance rates will go up.
If you do both, you'd basically be squeezing the insurance industry out of existence.
Current system
The way health care in America is right now.
Pros:
It works, but not well.
Cons:
People have no reason to shop around to get the best health care for the money. They have no reason to care how much a procedure costs, so doctors charge as much as they want to, and the people don't care until rates go up. Then doctors know that the companies have more money, so they charge more, rates go up again, etc.
Tax breaks for those who buy their own insurance
As the name implies, this plan gives tax breaks to those who buy their own insurance.
Pros:
Doesn't tinker with the current system too much.
Makes insurance slightly cheaper.
Cons:
Coverage would still be too expensive for many.
My plan
Abolish health insurance. Have the government pay for some percentage of health care. The percentage would depend on the cost of the procedure and on the income of the individual who is receiving it. This percentage would never be 100% or 0%. The individual pays for the rest. Yet give universal coverage to children and the elderly.
Pros:
Encourages people to get the best health care for their money.
Encourages personal responsibility.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted April 29, 2008 12:11 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 00:15, 29 Apr 2008.
|
I've kept asking myself lately wether I am the one who misses something, or can't see something, or wether something is wrong with you, Mvas. Then, just today, after reading more of your posts in the democracy thread, it finally hit me, and I drew my conclusion.
You are amoral.
A bit of simple reasoning teaches us then:
Mvass = amoral
Mvass = the epitome of capitalism
---------------------------------
Capitalism = amoral.
Enfin, personal attacks aside, and for a moment ignoring the fact capitalism is amoral, Capitalism is even flawed by definition (as in humanity) in that it (and human behavior) is based on a flawed principle: Growth.
You see, in nature, there is something they call "the circle of life"...
Baby rabbits are born, they eat and take recources from nature, untill one day they die, and return said recourses. Mother nature has a few cute little tricks as well (virusses, natural predators, limited supply of food, homosexuality...) to ensure a population doesn't grow too large, and as a result, disturb that delicate circle of life.
Humans are flawed in that they cannot accept this as a necessary part of life. Everything humans do is aimed at growing at the cost of the environment, and even other people (poor countries). You see, in order for a big businessman's capital to grow (making profit, the basic essence of capitalism), it needs to come from somewhere. And if it's not people suffering, it is nature that suffers.
The fun thing is, there is a LIMIT. The way people - through capitalism - treat this world, does not speak of acknowledgement that there is a limit. And that's because capitalism does NOT strive towards creating a healthy world in which people live in balance with their environment to prosper for many ages to come, but rather it strives to enrich the individual on the short term, and it raises a big fat middle finger to, well, pretty much everything else - especially the future generations.
If you really don't have a little voice inside your head telling you it's plain WRONG, you don't have a concience (Which, HOW FUNNY!, seems to be a prerequirement to make it in the big business!).
Also funny is that I wind up back at declaring capitalism as amoral even though I started off with stating that growth is a flawed principle in a finite environment.
Ah well, I don't think you care.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2008 02:27 AM |
|
|
Your evaluation of capitalism is somewhat correct; your evaluation of me - not so much.
Capitalism is indeed amoral. Not immoral, it is important to note, but amoral. It rewards scarcity, which has no inherent connection to value. For example, diamonds are far more valuable than water. In many countries, water is practically free, while diamonds are insanely expensive. Yet if all the diamonds in the world disappeared, we would be inconvenienced; if all the water disappeared, we would all die. Yet there is a higher demand in relation to supply for diamonds than there is for water. This is while much of the world doesn't have access to safe drinking water.
As for me, I am hardly amoral. I simply have a different interpretation of the origins of morality than many. I think that morality came from the interests of the group, but was twisted over time. Thus, there are several aspects of what is usually considered immoral, such as genetic modification of humans, that I think are perfectly all right. On the other hand, I oppose theft and murder as much as the next person.
To return to capitalism, let us play the quote game, shall we?
Quote:
Humans are flawed in that they cannot accept this as a necessary part of life.
Why should we accept it? I think that if we can lengthen our lifespan, improve our health, and generally improve our lives, we should by all means do so. In fact, it would be wrong not to. If we don't have to comply with the "circle of life", why should we? Though we are far from completely controlling nature, that is a goal to strive towards, not run away from.
Quote:
Everything humans do is aimed at growing at the cost of the environment, and even other people (poor countries).
Not necessarily. The environment - yes, we can use it more wisely, but continue to grow. But look at, for example, the air pollution data for London. In which of the following years was air pollution the worst: 1870, 1900, 1920, 1950, or 1970? The answer is 1870. As it has progressed, the amount of air pollution has dropped. In fact, today the amount of air pollution there is the lowest it has been since 1550, a time when we were far from cavemen, but still far more at nature's mercy than we are now.
Regarding people in poor countries, we could and should do more for them. They need more aid, they need more protection from diseases, and they need better education. But they also need jobs so that they can feed themselves and their families. That is what capitalism provides. The pay in a typical Vietnamese sweatshop is twice the average national wage. These jobs make people in both rich and poor countries better off. Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore were transformed by sweatshops from poor countries to the economic powerhouses they are now. On the other hand, sub-Saharan Africa, which has no comparable economic phenomenon, stumbles from decade to decade without any improvement. (Of course, there is also the factor of wars, but that is caused by it being more profitable to plunder than to work. If there would be more job opportunites, there would be less wars.)
A more vivid example of the benefit of sweatshops is a certain Nike plant in Bangladesh. It was found to be using child labor, Thus, there was a huge outcry, and Nike shut the plant down. What happened to the children? Did they go to school or find better jobs? No. Some of them turned to crime, including prostitution. Is that what the anti-capitalist movement wants?
This is why Thomas Friedman (if I remember correctly) suggested that the anti-capitalist movement should be renamed into "the coalition to keep the world's poor people poor." Too often we assume that we know better than the poor foreign workers about what is best for them. Perhaps this is partially shaped by American welfare queens and gangs full of poor people. That is the major difference between poor people in rich countries and poor people in poor countries: in rich countries, too often the poor are those without the will to get off their behinds and work (or, more rarely, without the ability or the opportunity), while in poor countries, there simply isn't enough opportunity. If a job appears that pays at twice the average national wage, one would be a fool not to take it.
All of this, of course, does not apply to forced labor, which is wrong in all cases except those regarding prison inmates.
Quote:
You see, in order for a big businessman's capital to grow (making profit, the basic essence of capitalism), it needs to come from somewhere. And if it's not people suffering, it is nature that suffers.
Wrong. Completely wrong. For a profit, the business has to do what people want. Otherwise, it wouldn't have a profit.
Quote:
And that's because capitalism does NOT strive towards creating a healthy world in which people live in balance with their environment to prosper for many ages to come, but rather it strives to enrich the individual on the short term, and it raises a big fat middle finger to, well, pretty much everything else - especially the future generations.
A thousand years ago, the world could sustain far fewer people than it can now. As we make advances and leaps forward, who knows? The carrying capacity could be increased more and more. And as people become more educated and their time becomes more valuable, population growth will slow.
Sometimes corporatism, which is indeed bad, is mistaken for capitalism. But it is not capitalism. Subsidies for corn farmers to grow corn for useless ethanol is harmful to everyone but the farmers and the politicians who want their votes. The military-industrial complex has too much influence on the government. It profits whenever there is war. We have to reduce the role that business plays in government, but also the role that government plays in business.
I don't know what we'll be doing in a hundred years. Perhaps we'll all lie in ash heaps after World War III. If not, we might be colonizing Mars or generating energy from saltwater. What I do know is that capitalism will play a major role in doing these things.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted April 29, 2008 12:27 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 12:36, 29 Apr 2008.
|
First of all, I need to make a correction.
I've noticed I've used "amoral" where I meant to use "immoral". Simple error in using a foreign language. So in order to read my post properly, replace "amoral" with "immoral".
Quote:
Capitalism is indeed amoral. Not immoral, it is important to note, but amoral. It rewards scarcity, which has no inherent connection to value. For example, diamonds are far more valuable than water. In many countries, water is practically free, while diamonds are insanely expensive. Yet if all the diamonds in the world disappeared, we would be inconvenienced; if all the water disappeared, we would all die. Yet there is a higher demand in relation to supply for diamonds than there is for water. This is while much of the world doesn't have access to safe drinking water.
Wrong. The price of diamonds is simply higher because it is RARE. While water is in higher demand in an absolute sense, Diamonds are in higher demand in a relative sense, thus artificially boosting their price. But what this has to do with Capitalism being immoral I do not get.
Quote:
As for me, I am hardly amoral. I simply have a different interpretation of the origins of morality than many. I think that morality came from the interests of the group, but was twisted over time. Thus, there are several aspects of what is usually considered immoral, such as genetic modification of humans, that I think are perfectly all right. On the other hand, I oppose theft and murder as much as the next person.
I wasn't evaluating you, I was merely accusing you of being immoral, which I still think you are if you REALLY think that exploiting recources is good or "okay" - wether those recources are nature or lower-loan people from poor countries.
Moreover I stated Capitalism is immoral in that it does NOT have future plans, but merely aims at enriching the individual on the short term at the cost of screwing up a healthy environment for future regenerations. I don't know about YOUR interprentation, but I find that immoral.
Quote:
Why should we accept it?
Did you even bother to READ my post? People should accept it because it is a NECESSARY part of life.
Quote:
I think that if we can lengthen our lifespan, improve our health, and generally improve our lives, we should by all means do so. In fact, it would be wrong not to. If we don't have to comply with the "circle of life", why should we?
What the HELL makes you think we don't have to ? You really thinks Humans are an uberspecies that have some kind of RIGHT to dominate every other life? As I said, immoral. Seriously, what makes you better than other life? What gives you this right? Because you can and they can't ? Answer me this.
Quote:
Though we are far from completely controlling nature, that is a goal to strive towards, not run away from.
True words of a dictator lacking a conscience.
Quote:
Not necessarily. The environment - yes, we can use it more wisely, but continue to grow.
I never said we couldn't. But there IS a limit. Even advanced technology cannot turn "finite" into "infinite". And in my opinion, that limit is soon being breached. Or rather, the limit at which all of mankind COULD have all lived a perfect life. Because there is a point where it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to let all of mankind live in luxery without totally screwing up the balance of nature.
As such, "growth" remains to be a flawed principle to live by, and as such, Capitalism is flawed.
Quote:
Regarding people in poor countries, we could and should do more for them. They need more aid, they need more protection from diseases, and they need better education. But they also need jobs so that they can feed themselves and their families. That is what capitalism provides.
Aside from being immoral, you are even arrogant in declaring that Capitalism would "improve" their lives... You really know best for everybody, don't you?
Many people in Africa for example still live in tribes, go out hunting daily, and deal with their hardships without complaining WHATSOEVER, they accept it. The keyword here, is mentality. You don't see a whiny teenager there complaining about how his life sucks and how much he or she wants to end it. Ironicly, those kind of people ONLY grow up in western civilisations.
LUXERY is not NEEDED to live a good life - that's only what spoiled brats and spoiled materialists think.
In fact, I would go as far as to say luxery ruins human mentality and breeds sick and twisted individuals, you being a prime example.
Admitted though, I used to think the same way you did when I was 16.
Quote:
The pay in a typical Vietnamese sweatshop is twice the average national wage. These jobs make people in both rich and poor countries better off. Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore were transformed by sweatshops from poor countries to the economic powerhouses they are now. On the other hand, sub-Saharan Africa, which has no comparable economic phenomenon, stumbles from decade to decade without any improvement. (Of course, there is also the factor of wars, but that is caused by it being more profitable to plunder than to work. If there would be more job opportunites, there would be less wars.)
And do you realize the mere REASON big bussinessmen have their labor performed in such countries is BECAUSE of their lower loans? If you're so great with logic, you should be able to reason that bussinessmen have NO reason whatsoever to turn such a country wealthy, and in turn, raise the loans. In fact, they are better off keeping the country poor. Again, immoral.
Quote:
A more vivid example of the benefit of sweatshops is a certain Nike plant in Bangladesh. It was found to be using child labor, Thus, there was a huge outcry, and Nike shut the plant down. What happened to the children? Did they go to school or find better jobs? No. Some of them turned to crime, including prostitution. Is that what the anti-capitalist movement wants?
The sound of blackmail rings my ears again. Aka "Work for me, or go down in prostitution". Very moral, yes. And arrogant. You sound as if the western world is some sort of "savior" for those countries that brings them wealth and good fortune. That's where we differ.
Quote:
This is why Thomas Friedman (if I remember correctly) suggested that the anti-capitalist movement should be renamed into "the coalition to keep the world's poor people poor."
How hypocritical Capitalism does not strive towards making all people wealthy, only the select few.
Quote:
Too often we assume that we know better than the poor foreign workers about what is best for them.
HYPOCRIT.
Quote:
All of this, of course, does not apply to forced labor, which is wrong in all cases except those regarding prison inmates.
And how exactly is saying "Work for my minimal wage or die of hunger" not forced labor? Sure they have a choice - work or die. Very moral, again.
Of course, in your words: They have another choice, find another job! Another job that tells them the EXACT same thing.
Quote:
Wrong. Completely wrong. For a profit, the business has to do what people want. Otherwise, it wouldn't have a profit.
You are avoiding my point. In order for you to GAIN something, it needs to be TAKEN from somewhere. If you want a CAR, its recources have to be taken from somewhere - in this case, mother nature. (and as a fun little side note: usually mother nature from poor countries). We call it exploitation.
The same applies to the principle of making profits. In order to gain profits, recources are taken - AKA harming nature sheerly for making more money. That summons up Capitalism, again. And again we differ in that I find harming something merely for enriching yourself immoral.
Quote:
A thousand years ago, the world could sustain far fewer people than it can now. As we make advances and leaps forward, who knows? The carrying capacity could be increased more and more. And as people become more educated and their time becomes more valuable, population growth will slow.
Again, you are avoiding the main issue. You speak as if "finite" can be turned into "infinite". And growth will never slow unless a LOT of mentalities will change - untill people can accept they ARE a part of the circle of life and are NOT above it - like you.
Controlling nature.... it reminds me of SLAVE LABOR. Again, immoral.
Quote:
The military-industrial complex has too much influence on the government. It profits whenever there is war.
* All cheer for Bush and those that voted for him, yeeeaay!*
Quote:
We have to reduce the role that business plays in government, but also the role that government plays in business.
Fanatism of any kind is bad. That includes fanatic communism, but as well fanatic capitalism... It's an extreme end of the spectrum, and extremes are never good.
Government NOT mingling with business leads inevitably to corruption..... Sheesh, did you not see that one coming or what?
Quote:
I don't know what we'll be doing in a hundred years. Perhaps we'll all lie in ash heaps after World War III. If not, we might be colonizing Mars or generating energy from saltwater. What I do know is that capitalism will play a major role in doing these things.
Hmmhmmm... Survive survive survive, spread spread spread, exploit exploit exploit... Like a virus.
You don't need to be a genius to conclude it remains immoral.
____________
Face it, there is no Namus.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2008 02:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I've noticed I've used "amoral" where I meant to use "immoral". Simple error in using a foreign language. So in order to read my post properly, replace "amoral" with "immoral".
But capitalism is amoral. Not immoral, amoral.
amoral - without morals
immoral - against morals
Quote:
Wrong. The price of diamonds is simply higher because it is RARE.
That's exactly what I said.
Quote:
But what this has to do with Capitalism being immoral I do not get.
Because the human race needs water more than it needs diamonds, yet diamonds are more expensive than water. Capitalism is amoral in that sense.
Quote:
I still think you are if you REALLY think that exploiting recources is good or "okay" - wether those recources are nature or lower-loan people from poor countries.
You say "exploitation", I say "using what you have". And by "loan" you mean "wage", right?
Quote:
Moreover I stated Capitalism is immoral in that it does NOT have future plans, but merely aims at enriching the individual on the short term at the cost of screwing up a healthy environment for future regenerations.
Capitalism doesn't gain anything by screwing anything up. Businesses make a profit by producing what there's a demand for. Unfortunately, that sometimes pollutes the environment, an action that of course has to be punished.
Quote:
People should accept it because it is a NECESSARY part of life.
If we can make it less necessary, why shouldn't we?
Quote:
You really thinks Humans are an uberspecies that have some kind of RIGHT to dominate every other life?
The hypocrisy here just kills me. We are humans. Therefore, we should do what is best for humans.
Quote:
Seriously, what makes you better than other life?
There is nothing that makes us inherently "better". But we are ourselves. Because we are humans, and we should act in the interest of humans.
Quote:
True words of a dictator lacking a conscience.
True words of one without initiative.
Quote:
Even advanced technology cannot turn "finite" into "infinite".
It could turn "finite" into "virtually infinite".
Quote:
Because there is a point where it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to let all of mankind live in luxery without totally screwing up the balance of nature.
We only need nature to sustain us.
Quote:
you are even arrogant in declaring that Capitalism would "improve" their lives... You really know best for everybody, don't you?
Capitalism provides them with jobs. If they don't want the jobs, it's their choice. But many of them do want the jobs, and are grateful to capitalism for the opportunity. People want to improve their lives. Capitalism gives us a way to do that. But I'd never expect a primitivist like you to understand.
Quote:
Many people in Africa for example still live in tribes, go out hunting daily, and deal with their hardships without complaining WHATSOEVER, they accept it.
That's because they have no choice. If we gave them job opportunities, they would use them and no longer live this way.
Quote:
You don't see a whiny teenager there complaining about how his life sucks and how much he or she wants to end it.
No, but I do see a whiny 21-year old complaining about how humanity sucks and how he wants to end it. Guess what? You are a human. What you have said applies to you.
Quote:
LUXERY is not NEEDED to live a good life - that's only what spoiled brats and spoiled materialists think.
Yet many people, given the choice, choose luxury rather than austerity. I would choose the same. And I am a materialist, now that you mention it.
Quote:
And do you realize the mere REASON big bussinessmen have their labor performed in such countries is BECAUSE of their lower loans?
Of course, if by "loans" you mean "wages".
Quote:
If you're so great with logic, you should be able to reason that bussinessmen have NO reason whatsoever to turn such a country wealthy, and in turn, raise the loans.
Now here you're wrong. Businessmen do have a reason to turn a country wealthy. If it isn't, then its people can't buy whatever rich countries produce. And, as technology improves, we will need mass labor less and less.
Quote:
Aka "Work for me, or go down in prostitution".
It's not capitalism's fault that they go into prostitution. It's socialism's.
Quote:
You sound as if the western world is some sort of "savior" for those countries that brings them wealth and good fortune.
I'd rather live in the Western world than anywhere else.
Quote:
Capitalism does not strive towards making all people wealthy, only the select few.
Capitalism, being based on volountary exchange, strives to make everybody better off than they are now.
Quote:
HYPOCRIT.
Hardly. It is arrogant of you to say that they're better off without those jobs. It makes far more sense to give them job opportunities and see if they take them. They do. So they think that the jobs make them better off.
Quote:
And how exactly is saying "Work for my minimal wage or die of hunger" not forced labor?
You have to work to eat. "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." It's that way everywhere, from tribal societies to mature capitalism. The only exception - socialism, where those who don't do anything are rewarded.
Quote:
In order for you to GAIN something, it needs to be TAKEN from somewhere.
Not true at all. This is thievery, not capitalism. Capitalism is based on volountary exchange. If I have a car, and you have $10,000, we can trade. I'd rather have the $10,000 than the car, and you'd rahter have the car than $10,000. If one of us didn't want the transaction, it wouldn't happen. So no one is harmed.
Quote:
In order to gain profits, recources are taken - AKA harming nature sheerly for making more money.
As long as we do it wisely and do it in a way that lets nature recover, why not?
Quote:
Controlling nature.... it reminds me of [bSLAVE LABOR
Except that nature is not sentinent. Nature is basically a concept that consists of many objects. I don't see what's wrong with making them work for you.
Quote:
* All cheer for Bush and those that voted for him, yeeeaay!*
Bush sucks.
Quote:
Government NOT mingling with business leads inevitably to corruption
Not necessarily. Government has to defend itself against corruption, but not extend itself.
You know, you're really hard to take seriously. If you like nature so much, why don't you go and be a hermit and stop dragging the rest of humanity down?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted April 29, 2008 03:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But capitalism is amoral. Not immoral, amoral.
amoral - without morals
immoral - against morals
Thus I conclude, Capitalism is immoral.
Quote:
Because the human race needs water more than it needs diamonds, yet diamonds are more expensive than water. Capitalism is amoral in that sense.
One thing being more expensive than the other due to need has nothing to do with morality.
Quote:
You say "exploitation", I say "using what you have". And by "loan" you mean "wage", right?
And the funny thing is, you DON'T have it, you TAKE it from the environment. AKA exploitation. You can twist things as much as you like to make them sound less bad, but that's mere manipulation.
Quote:
Capitalism doesn't gain anything by screwing anything up. Businesses make a profit by producing what there's a demand for. Unfortunately, that sometimes pollutes the environment, an action that of course has to be punished.
The main argument you give for capitalism being good is the meager SIDE effect of it producing goods people need. You DON'T need capitalism to produce stuff!
The point remains that capitalism is a way of treating economics to produce the most efficient kind of PROFIT - at the cost of everything else. Big bussinessmen don't give a RAT's ass about anything other than their own profits.
Quote:
If we can make it less necessary, why shouldn't we?
If you had an actual CONCIENCE or a grasp of morality, you wouldn't even ask this question.
Quote:
The hypocrisy here just kills me. We are humans. Therefore, we should do what is best for humans.
And with these words I again conclude you lack a conscience and morals.
Quote:
There is nothing that makes us inherently "better". But we are ourselves. Because we are humans, and we should act in the interest of humans.
Ruining the world for the sake of making a select few bastards rich I don't consider in the interest of humanity.
Quote:
True words of one without initiative.
You just had to make a comeback huh?
Quote:
It could turn "finite" into "virtually infinite".
Bull-snow.
Quote:
We only need nature to sustain us.
Aka slavery. Again, I suspect you lack conscience and morals.
Quote:
Capitalism provides them with jobs.
They HAVE fricking jobs - they go out hunting, gathering food, making huts, sustaining themselves. Or does that not qualify as a "job" for you? You really are narrowminded.
Quote:
If they don't want the jobs, it's their choice. But many of them do want the jobs, and are grateful to capitalism for the opportunity. People want to improve their lives. Capitalism gives us a way to do that. But I'd never expect a primitivist like you to understand.
Sorry, I'm not a materialist I can see there is more to life than just luxery. And it saddens me you cannot see that. Maybe when you grow older.
Quote:
No, but I do see a whiny 21-year old complaining about how humanity sucks and how he wants to end it. Guess what? You are a human. What you have said applies to you.
That's because I'm confronted with YOU, and witness the lowest scum that luxery and materialistic thinking turns humanity into.
Quote:
Yet many people, given the choice, choose luxury rather than austerity. I would choose the same. And I am a materialist, now that you mention it.
And I say luxery is bad It breeds thankless, respectless, and lazy people.
Quote:
Now here you're wrong. Businessmen do have a reason to turn a country wealthy. If it isn't, then its people can't buy whatever rich countries produce.
Nope - they sell their crap in the western world, they don't NEED poor countries to buy their goods. Unless of course they want even more profits.
Quote:
And, as technology improves, we will need mass labor less and less.
AKA more reason for the poor to grovel for minimal-wage jobs.
Quote:
It's not capitalism's fault that they go into prostitution. It's socialism's.
How is SOCIALISM at fault for them going into prostitution???
Quote:
I'd rather live in the Western world than anywhere else.
That's because you're a materialist.
Quote:
Capitalism, being based on volountary exchange, strives to make everybody better off than they are now.
Being given the choice to work or die of hunger I don't call Voluntary. And it DOESNT strive to make everyone better off - it strives to exploit the masses in order to provide the individual with profit. Sheesh...
Quote:
You have to work to eat. "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." It's that way everywhere, from tribal societies to mature capitalism. The only exception - socialism, where those who don't do anything are rewarded.
Bull-snow. Socialism is based on the principle that everyone helps each other out. AKA the strongest shoulders carry the heaviest load. That DOESN"T mean you can sit back and let others subsidize you. Narrowminded...
Quote:
Not true at all. This is thievery, not capitalism. Capitalism is based on volountary exchange. If I have a car, and you have $10,000, we can trade. I'd rather have the $10,000 than the car, and you'd rahter have the car than $10,000. If one of us didn't want the transaction, it wouldn't happen. So no one is harmed.
The RECOURCES for the CAR are taken from NATURE without giving ANYTHING back. Do you get that or not?
[quote[As long as we do it wisely and do it in a way that lets nature recover, why not?
*points at above statement about immorality and lack of conscience.
Quote:
Except that nature is not sentinent. Nature is basically a concept that consists of many objects. I don't see what's wrong with making them work for you.
Again, see above. Nature consists of LIVING things as well. But I don't expect you to care.
Quote:
Not necessarily. Government has to defend itself against corruption, but not extend itself.
*groans* I obviously meant corruption in business... AKA bussinessmen making deals with other bussinessmen to keep prices extra high in order to create more profit... It happened before. Of course they won't go the extend of screwing up the entire economy, but they would make sure they stay at the top.
____________
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted April 29, 2008 04:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
growth is a flawed principle in a finite environment.
Only if the span of technological progress is finite.
If it's not, with progress, we can produce more value from the same, finite and renevable, resources. We have growth in a finite environment, knowledge being the only relevant factor .
Besides, if we were not bleed earth's non-renewable resources dry(oil, coal, ores) so that every generation can use them, we should not use them at all (as we can assume infinite span of humanity's existence), and that makes no sence at all, as it makes NOBODY better off. Conversly, when we, or our descendants, will run some resources out, next generations will have to reprocess the existent products some way, so they most probably won't be deprived of a particular resouce completely, it will be just more expensive for them to obtain it.
And I fail to see any immorality in idealistic capitalism  .
In fact, I perceive idealistic capitalism as the ultimately fairest economy model that can be ever created. If you think it still being not fair enough, get rid of economy at all in first place.
Whatever unfairnesses there are in a market economy, they come from poeple being unfair and greedy in general, not from the economic model itself. So by turning away from capitalism won't make poeple better, this must be done somwhere else (upbringing at home, most probably).
And remember, being a materialist (which I am not) is rahter what makes people suffer, not being an advocate of capitalism (which I am) and putting it in practice.
People just should not allow themselves to be turned into materialists, and everything should be better .
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2008 09:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
One thing being more expensive than the other due to need has nothing to do with morality.
Then you have a very wierd definition of morality. You claim that making our lives better is immoral, but something that we don't really need being worth more than something we need doesn't strike you in any way at all.
Quote:
And the funny thing is, you DON'T have it, you TAKE it from the environment.
The environment doesn't HAVE anything. If no one owns it, then it is no one's. No one has it. And you can't take something from someone if no one has it.
Quote:
The main argument you give for capitalism being good is the meager SIDE effect of it producing goods people need.
SIDE effect? That's its main purpose!
Quote:
You DON'T need capitalism to produce stuff!
No, but capitalism distributes stuff the best way.
Quote:
Big bussinessmen don't give a RAT's ass about anything other than their own profits.
That's what's so great about capitalism as opposed to socialism. In socialism, if the people in power look only after themselves, then everybody else suffers. In capitalism, people can be extremely self-interested, but everyone benefits from their acting in their own self-interest.
Quote:
If you had an actual CONCIENCE or a grasp of morality, you wouldn't even ask this question.
I simply don't see why we should give up.
Quote:
Ruining the world for the sake of making a select few bastards rich I don't consider in the interest of humanity.
Do you have some sort of personal vendetta against capitalism or something?
Quote:
They HAVE fricking jobs - they go out hunting, gathering food, making huts, sustaining themselves. Or does that not qualify as a "job" for you?
Yes, those are jobs. But they would rather work in factories than have those jobs. And I don't say this out of arrogance or immorality or something like that. It's simply because they want to, and they know that it gives them a better life. Then again, you don't see making a better life for yourself as a valid goal.
Quote:
It breeds thankless, respectless, and lazy people
On the contrary, it gives people something to strive towards.
Quote:
Nope - they sell their crap in the western world, they don't NEED poor countries to buy their goods. Unless of course they want even more profits.
Of course they want more profits. And don't you see the beauty of capitalism here? They make a profit from making the poor richer. The more people there are in the world wanting to buy their goods, the better for them. So they have a definite interest in making people richer.
Quote:
AKA more reason for the poor to grovel for minimal-wage jobs.
We will have less need for minimum-wage jobs. As people become more educated and the value of their labor rises, they will have less children, and spend more time with the children that they already have. Thus, the population explosion will stop.
Quote:
How is SOCIALISM at fault for them going into prostitution???
Because socialistic thinking about exploitation is what shut the factory down.
Quote:
That's because you're a materialist.
Well, I don't see you hurrying off to live in the depths of Africa.
Quote:
Being given the choice to work or die of hunger I don't call Voluntary.
So it's better to give someone something for not working rather than to pay them for their work?
Quote:
AKA the strongest shoulders carry the heaviest load
Why do the strongest owe anything to the weakest? Why should they be forced to do something for them? (You see, that's why socialism is based on force, and capitalism on volountary exchange.) The strongest made it to where they are, and you suggest that they should be punished with a heavier load? Guess what, if you do that, then the strongest will disappear.
Quote:
The RECOURCES for the CAR are taken from NATURE without giving ANYTHING back.
You can't take something from someone that doesn't own anything.
Quote:
AKA bussinessmen making deals with other bussinessmen to keep prices extra high in order to create more profit
I agree. Monopolies and other monopolistic actions should be broken up. They actually restrict capitalism from truly functioning.
Quote:
If it's not, with progress, we can produce more value from the same, finite and renevable, resources. We have growth in a finite environment, knowledge being the only relevant factor
Exactly. As technology advances, we become more productive. The real price of a chicken, for instance, has fallen dramatically since 1900. Back then, the average American worker would almost have to work until lunch to earn his or her lunch. But now, it only takes about half an hour of work to earn lunch. We have become more productive, and thus have a better life. We have wiped out smallpox and conquered many other diseases. It is only third-world countries with a lack of capitalistic development that still suffer.
Quote:
And remember, being a materialist (which I am not) is rahter what makes people suffer
I don't see how enlightened self-interest based on materialism makes people suffer.
Quote:
people just should not allow themselves to be turned into materialists, and everything should be better
Or we could delay consumption (both literally and metaphorically), and lead a better life, even from a materialistic perspective. After all, materialism =/= instant gratification.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
