News Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[Smurf]

As I argued a few times before, I don't think that any "black and white" ideology (capitalism - as an ideology ; communism ...) succeeds in doing so. It's a difficult problem to solve, which needs steering as we see how things go, and decisions should be made according to results, and not according to ideology.
Amen

No offence vanesch, but are you sure you've studied "Capitalism" and "Communism" enough to be sure of that?

 

[Smurf]

Capitalism has a wealth-redistribution system built into it, it's called wage-labor. The more money any individual capitalist has, the more apt he is to expand his business operations. That means hiring more people, and re-distributing the wealth he has accumulated to more and more people.
Left to expand, Capitalists will employ more and more people, until there is a relatively small percentage of those who aren't employed in some way. When this situation arises, wages begin to rise substantially, as workers become more and more scarce, they become more and more valuable, and higher wages are instituted to make sure that the Capitalists will constantly have people to work for them.
I think that if you look at the situations India and China currently find themselves in (after decades of socialist/communist meddling in economic status), you'll find that increasing Capitalism in these countries has significantly helped out the situation of the populace.

To me that just further proves Capitalism is flawed. It's very solution to inequal wealth (symbolizing power) is to create power inequality in a different way: By creating and expanding social classes so that all but a very small portion of the population is either an employer or employee.

And yes russ, I know that Marxism would agree with me on this one.

 

[Townsend]

By creating and expanding social classes so that all but a very small portion of the population is either an employer or employee.

So if everyone is an employer who are the employees? You believe that everyone should be equal but you have yet to explain why anyone should ever have to work in such cases. My goal in life is to build enough wealth so that I don't have to work. Without that incentive I want nothing to do with work.

 

[Smurf]

Without that incentive I want nothing to do with work.

Okay.

 

[Townsend]

Okay.

I read somewhere that if all the wealth in the world were to equally divide among all people that every person would have about 4 million dollars. Would you clean toliets if you had 4 million dollars? I don't think anyone would...and that is just the tip of the iceburg Smurf.

The miliary works because it has a class system that allows people to gain power over other people. In fact any effective system requires that some people have POWER over other people. I have NEVER heard of any system that has worked that had all people as equals.

Even if you take away government and money you still have a class system. Those that can and those that cannot...it's almost like a natural law. You don't have to like reality for it to be reality Smurf.

 

[Smurf]

I read somewhere that if all the wealth in the world were to equally divide among all people that every person would have about 4 million dollars. Would you clean toliets if you had 4 million dollars? I don't think anyone would...and that is just the tip of the iceburg Smurf.

I don't see why not.

I have NEVER heard of any system that has worked that had all people as equals.

That's your own fault for not listening then, isn't it?

Even if you take away government and money you still have a class system. Those that can and those that cannot...it's almost like a natural law. You don't have to like reality for it to be reality Smurf.

Don't really understand that.

 

[Townsend]

I don't see why not.

Really...you have got to be kidding me. You are a smart kid but that is simply the single stupidest thing I have ever hear anyone say. In NO world with NO system would your imaginary people exist.

That's your own fault for not listening then, isn't it?

No system that has ever been mentioned by you would ever accomplish such as task so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Don't really understand that.

Clearly...but that IS your fault now isn't it.

 

[Anttech]

I read somewhere that if all the wealth in the world were to equally divide among all people that every person would have about 4 million dollars. Would you clean toliets if you had 4 million dollars? I don't think anyone would...and that is just the tip of the iceburg Smurf.

whats your point? By equally sharing all the "money" in the world (which would devalue it anyway)all the toilets will get dirty?

 

[Anttech]

Even if you take away government and money you still have a class system. Those that can and those that cannot...

Are you trying to say that class is based on skills, rather than power?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Are you trying to say that class is based on skills, rather than power?

Abilities or inborn talents, plus the effect of environment on motivation. That is the reason one person gets the education and rises and the other drops out and sinks.

 

[Smurf]

Really...you have got to be kidding me. You are a smart kid but that is simply the single stupidest thing I have ever hear anyone say. In NO world with NO system would your imaginary people exist.

Your point is silly. Why does someone's toilet cleaning ability/motivation depend on the numerical value of the money in their pockets?

Furthermore, what relevance does that have, either way, to the discussion. If someone doesn't want to clean their toilet then they can sit on a dirty one. That's their choice. Me? I'm going to clean my toilet.

No system that has ever been mentioned by you would ever accomplish such as task so I have no idea what you're talking about.

... I kind of thought that every example I've mentioned has had that.

Clearly...but that IS your fault now isn't it.

What on Earth do you mean by those that can and those that can't? How do those constitute classes, and how does their existence prevent equal power within a society?

 

[loseyourname]

That's a big difference between you and me. I think that an "ideal system" (although I don't think of it that way) should result in less conflict, less violence, less inequality (which should in it's self be a goal, as well as a means), and more prosperity (But by more I mean increasing, not just being able to live) and all this should lead to -> more happiness and less suffering.

Your "system" is more ambitious than the purely economic system I'm referring to. You're talking about a complete reworking of human social structure, cultural norms, and possibly genetics. Given the way social engineering projects have turned out in the past, I have no desire to touch that. I'm an individualist, and so all I ask is that our economic system keep me out of poverty. Outside of that, I do the rest myself. I strive to be the best person I can be, and as far as I'm concerned, if everyone did the same, then we could do away with all of these other things that you so badly want to do away with.

I just don't view humanity the same way you do, as a collection of inert receptacles that are acted upon and caused to behave in a certain way. Above the level of crimes of survival forced upon people by utter poverty or self-defense, I see personal responsibility for abberant behavior. I also see violence and warfare across all of human history in all cultures and even amongst other great apes and conclude that we are simply a violent species, and no matter what cultural/political system we live under, some of us are going to find an excuse to perpetuate violence. It isn't the fault of the church, or the state, or capitalism. It is simply the way that humans are. We can certainly scale down violence by making everyone equal (no one has command of an army), but all we are doing is going back to square one. All social animals are heirarchical by nature, and we will stratify again.

All you want from an ideal system is to have the means to survive. In that sense humanity has always your idea as an ideal system and always will until it's extinction. I think that kind of defeats the point of 'ideal', doesn't it?

Really, it goes back to the personal responsibility thing. The system we have in the US is hardly "ideal," to be sure. But it does have the necessary features to make a good life possible for very nearly everyone if they would simply take advantage of the opportunities available. To make the "system" ideal, all I ask is that it give everybody that opportunity. To take the step from an ideal system to an ideal world, it would necessary for everybody to take advantage of that opportunity. As such, an ideal world is not going to be accomplished by any system; it will only be accomplished by ideal people.

 

[vanesch]

Capitalism has a wealth-redistribution system built into it, it's called wage-labor. The more money any individual capitalist has, the more apt he is to expand his business operations. That means hiring more people

I already suggested this: what if our technology level is high enough to produce droids that can do about what 80% of the population can do ?

 

[vanesch]

No offence vanesch, but are you sure you've studied "Capitalism" and "Communism" enough to be sure of that?

Well, you can theorise all you want, there have been "experiments", and we've all seen what communism leads to (ok, I know I know, that was not the idea, it wasn't real communism etc... but we're back to our "stability" discussion), and we also see that "capitalist" countries find it necessary to have a minimum social programme ; that even (on paper) very capitalist countries like the US do not succeed in eradicating "poverty that makes unhappy", so I observe, simply, empirically that the practical approximations of the "ideal" systems have flaws, and that things do not always turn out in practice as theory would say.
As such, my modest conclusion is that building a society that "brings reasonable happiness to most" is a difficult problem to solve, but we could hope that by letting things evolve (slowly and carefully!) we might improve things, taking theoretical suggestions, and looking empirically what it does. We've come already some way. We still have a way to go.
So I don't think that you can write down those rules on a few sheets of paper, that's too simple.

 

[vanesch]

Abilities or inborn talents, plus the effect of environment on motivation. That is the reason one person gets the education and rises and the other drops out and sinks.

Let's say that that is the "dynamical law"... but you forget the initial conditions ! Don't you think that (exceptions exist), ON AVERAGE, the level of living depends on the social status of mom and dad ?
Yes, you CAN work your way up as a poor kid, but does this happen, on average, to most poor kids ?
And yes, you CAN flunk your personal capital, even if Daddy left you his big factory, but does that happen to most rich kids, on average ?

 

[jimmie]

We still have a way to go.

Yeah, and it's one way, or the other way.

One way, human beings acknowledge the fact that "we" are in "this" (existence) together, and SHOULD function together as one WHOLE unit.

The other way, human beings choose to not acknowledge the fact that "we" are in "this" together, and continue to function independantly of each other, with no cohesion or integration.

but we could hope that by letting things evolve (slowly and carefully!) we might improve things,

"Things" have already evolved, slowly and carefully. THOUSANDS of years.

And the only conclusion that a true human being (I) can establish, based on all of the evidence, is that there are only two ways for human beings to INTEND to live, and intent to live is NOT synonymous with living.

There is always intent, but only RIGHTINTENT is RIGHT.

Humans are at a crossroads, and its time to decide which way to go.

There is ONLY one way to live.

 

[moose]

I disagree with Capitalism because it promotes inequality. That's it.

Are you saying there is no difference between me and the kids who smoke drugs all day and maybe keep a job at mcdonalds?Hard work should get you ahead, so...

 

[vanesch]

One way, human beings acknowledge the fact that "we" are in "this" (existence) together, and SHOULD function together as one WHOLE unit.
The other way, human beings choose to not acknowledge the fact that "we" are in "this" together, and continue to function independantly of each other, with no cohesion or integration.

Well, "l'enfer, c'est les autres"
We cannot deny living "together" in some ways (what one does, can have an influence on others), and we are both social animals, but not as social as ants, so we also need some individualism. Finding the right mix, for every aspect of life and society, is the difficult problem we should solve.
There are things we do better together, and there are things we do better as individuals. There are things that make us happier if we are together, and there are things that make us happy when we are on our own. And we're all different.

 

[jimmie]

And we're all different

That is correct.

However, PRIOR to being different, WE are all the same.

Its about order.

And that is the option that lays before all human beings: do you intend to develop your different "self", which precludes the possibility of developing your "other-than-self", or do you intend to develop your same "other-than-self", which THEN puts you in the position to develop your "self" the RIGHT way?

When the common/same becomes the priorty of the nations, the nations themselves will be ordered and integrated with each other, under the "umbrella" nation known as the UN.

However, if being different/unique remains to be the priority of the nations, they will become extinct, 'thinking' all the while they were 'different and unique', at the expense of the same/whole and ultimately, their "selves".

Something has to bind everything together. If everything is not binded together, you have one big mess, hence, the current global situation.

 

[Smurf]

Your "system" is more ambitious than the purely economic system I'm referring to. You're talking about a complete reworking of human social structure, cultural norms, and possibly genetics.

Correct. Except genetics. I don't see that as necessary or even applicable to my theory.

Given the way social engineering projects have turned out in the past, I have no desire to touch that. I'm an individualist, and so all I ask is that our economic system keep me out of poverty. Outside of that, I do the rest myself. I strive to be the best person I can be, and as far as I'm concerned, if everyone did the same, then we could do away with all of these other things that you so badly want to do away with.

Just because I'm proposing something slightly different than what you're used to all the sudden your approaching me like a mad scientist with his "social engineering project". I resent that. I've stated before that I am making absolutely no active attempt to bring this about, I consider it a natural evolution in human society, provided we live long enough. It's hardly a project, and it certainly isn't "engineering".

 

[vanesch]

Just because I'm proposing something slightly different than what you're used to all the sudden your approaching me like a mad scientist

You simply have no idea how conservative we all are, Smurf

 

[Burnsys]

I already suggested this: what if our technology level is high enough to produce droids that can do about what 80% of the population can do ?

It's very simple. if that happens in a capitalist society then 80% of the population will automaticaly left unemployed and in poverty, and all the production of this drones will go only to 20% of the population, who will have to work just the same as they did before the drones where invented.or even more.

Now, how can we explain the current situation of the world. when we have advances SO MUCH technologicaly in the past 100 years, but we are a lot worst than before.. We can build cellphones with digital cameras, Personal computers with 100 times more power that 20 years ago, we can manipulate mater at the atom level. but we cannot feed half of the world population...
What's the problem?? capitalism.

 

[Smasherman]

This argument seems to be between people who say that what works now is what works best and those who say that something else works better.

So, why do those of you who believe that what works now is best believe so? Likewise, why do those of you who believe that something else works better?

The argument between conservative ideals of not changing and progressive ideals of changing continues.

There are three levels of competition. Military, economic, and intellectual. All three levels exist at different levels today. Over much of the last 10,000 years, military competition has been the largest. Since the rise of capitalism, economic competition is the largest. The general liberal idea is to make intellectual competition the largest.

Now, ask yourself, is military competition beneficial? It used to be, just ask Rome. Today, countries are hesitant to go to war. War still happens, but countries that can rely on economic warfare usually do so.

So, ask yourself, is economic competition beneficial? Military competition sure was, but eventually it destroyed the Roman empire. Economic competition sure seems beneficial. Western nations have been working on building themselves economic empires for a while now.

Much like Roman Providences, poor countries (and colonies) aren't (and weren't) happy with being inferiors to the Empire's capitol. It's my guess that, eventually, economic empires will fall through as well.

The Roman Empire's error was that it forced those it conquered to give tribute instead of making them equals. In recent history, the American Revolution occurred because Britain treated its colonies as inferiors. Today, nations still treat the conquered as lessers.

Rome didn't conquer just to make the lives of "barbarians" better, Rome conquered to make the lives of Romans better. Rich nations don't do business with other nations to make their lives better, rich nations do business with other nations to make their own lives better.

I propose that no empire based on the principal that might (military or economic) makes right can last. Any body attempting to become more powerful will attempt to establish an empire. Any body attempting to make life better for all will not establish an empire. Any body simply trying to make itself safe will not establish an empire.

 

[jimmie]

Any body attempting to make life better for all will not establish an empire...

...with a particular name.

 

[edward]

Nothing is wrong with capitalism as our founders intended it to function. Our original form of capitalism has emerged as speculative corporatism.

Capitalism has fallen prey to its own strongest feature, the ability to profit. It has been corrupted by people who care less about the freedoms that allow them to make money, and more about a short term financial benefit.

For instance the suits at General Motors have been so focused on the speculative value of their stock that they have allowed their products to become shoddy and less stylish than their competitors. We all know how this ended up.

Buyouts, mergers, and cut throat CEO's who dismantle companies, then bail out with big bonuses are destroying what was an ideal system.

There is no honesty left in the system. A large number of companies have used illegal accounting practices which gave their "bottom line" a big boost on paper, but in reality was a total speculative scam. Corporate owned "Dead Peasant" life insurance policies are the practice that I find most abhorring.

Corporations operating under the guise of democracy are sending jobs to communist and other non democratic countries to get the cheap labor which pads their pockets. This has left behind a jumble of underemployed workers, vacant factories, and a decline in the skilled workforce.

It is time to clean the house of capitalism and throw out the trash and the speculative flim flam that it relies so heavily upon.

 

[Smasherman]

...with a particular name.

Let me define what I mean by empire:

An empire is a structure where the center/home/capitol/whatever gains wealth from outlying providences/colonies/countries/whatever unequally. This system is kept in check through the threat of force.


A body seeking power will attempt to create an empire because empire=power.
A body seeking only to keep itself safe will have no reason to want an empire.
A body seeking to help everyone won't impose force to keep itself in favor.

Bodies are corruptable, however; even good intent can lead to bad results.

 

[Smasherman]

edward, I'd say that capitalism will naturally lead to the corruption you describe because it relies on greed. I'm not christian, but the Seven Deadly Sins seem quite truthful to me (more or less).

 

[jimmie]

Let me define what I mean by empire:

Oh, that's what you mean.

Ok.

Let it be known: an "empire" is not a kingdom.

 

[pi-r8]

The only thing wrong with capitalism is that it has NEVER EXISTED. Pure, laizzes -faire capitalism has never once been implented. The closest any nation has ever come was the US during the 19th century, and in that century they abolished slavery and increased the standard of living faster than it had ever increased before. Since than, the US government has become more and more socialist, and its economic growth has slowed down as a result.

Now then, here are why people THINK that capitalism is a bad system.
- They take modern "mixed economies" to be examples of capitalism, blame capitalism for the problems caused by socialism, and then demand more socialism.

- They assume that the purpose of any government is to make everybody prosperous and pay no attention to the individual rights this violates.

-They are so enamored by the idea of socialism that they are willing to ignore all the problems it's caused throughout history, every single time. Look at the difference between east and west Berlin. Or between Taiwan and Hongkong, and the rest of China.

The simple fact is that capitalism is the ONLY moral system of government that there is, because it is the only one that consistently defends individual rights.

 

[Smasherman]

Oh, that's what you mean.
Ok.
Let it be known: an "empire" is not a kingdom.

I'm very much unable to tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll say this:

An empire has a center and outer areas. The center and outer areas follow different rules, which favor the center.

A kingdom more or less follows universal rules for all areas. Local rulers may set different rules, but the center doesn't.

This difference is what made Britain change from a kingdom and into an empire.


Also, the United States, in and of itself, is not an empire of States because there's no center: they're in it together. Sure, some States are more powerful, but no one state rules. This says nothing of the United States in relation to the rest of the world, however.

 

[jimmie]

I'm very much unable to tell if you're being sarcastic or not

I certainly was not being sarcastic.

You originally stated that various empires throughout history have, essentially, all been the same-having met your criteria so as to be classified as an 'empire'.

Also, the 'empires' you stated were, or could be, known by a particular name: Roman Empire, British Empire, American Empire.

I intended to discern the difference between an "empire" and a true kingdom, by stating that only a true kingdom is known when it has no particular name.

 

[Smasherman]

The only thing wrong with capitalism is that it has NEVER EXISTED. Pure, laizzes -faire capitalism has never once been implented. The closest any nation has ever come was the US during the 19th century, and in that century they abolished slavery and increased the standard of living faster than it had ever increased before. Since than, the US government has become more and more socialist, and its economic growth has slowed down as a result.
Now then, here are why people THINK that capitalism is a bad system.
- They take modern "mixed economies" to be examples of capitalism, blame capitalism for the problems caused by socialism, and then demand more socialism.
- They assume that the purpose of any government is to make everybody prosperous and pay no attention to the individual rights this violates.
-They are so enamored by the idea of socialism that they are willing to ignore all the problems it's caused throughout history, every single time. Look at the difference between east and west Berlin. Or between Taiwan and Hongkong, and the rest of China.
The simple fact is that capitalism is the ONLY moral system of government that there is, because it is the only one that consistently defends individual rights.

What about people who only have their ability to labor? They have only themselves as capital. Such people, under pure capitalism, could theoretically do whatever they want. When people can't just get up and leave (like the US during earlier times), they've got to rely on their employer for money (or resources directly), or starve.

Pure capitalism emphasizes that someone with capital can get more capital. If that is so, then they have a better chance of getting even more capital than someone with less capital. Don't believe me? Play a game of risk with someone, but let that person start with ten times as many troops as you.

The "communist" countries that have existed are really examples of capitalism at its extreme stage. An oligarcy controls all the capital, and everyone else has to obey or starve (or be killed, of course). In actual socialism, democracy is an absolute necessity. The USSR was socialist at its beginning, but it didn't have the resources to keep itself so (thanks for supporting the Whites, "freedom-lovers").

 

[Smasherman]

Sorry, I'm terrible at telling if someone is being sarcastic or not, even in person.

Also, perhaps instead of "particular name" you should say "particular title". This created some confusion for me.

 

[pi-r8]

What about people who only have their ability to labor? They have only themselves as capital. Such people, under pure capitalism, could theoretically do whatever they want. When people can't just get up and leave (like the US during earlier times), they've got to rely on their employer for money (or resources directly), or starve.

What person "only has the ability to labor?" That sounds like a robot, not a human being. And no, they can't do whatever they want, even theoretically. They'd still have to obey the laws of both men and nature.

Pure capitalism emphasizes that someone with capital can get more capital. If that is so, then they have a better chance of getting even more capital than someone with less capital. Don't believe me? Play a game of risk with someone, but let that person start with ten times as many troops as you.

Perhaps Risk isn't the best simulation of economics? It's true that having capital helps acquire more capital, but it's not a guaranteed thing. I've got a better test for you: find one person who's brilliant and hardworking (but poor), and one who's a lazy idiot. Give the lazy idiot one million dollars, then wait ten years and see who has the most money.

The "communist" countries that have existed are really examples of capitalism at its extreme stage. An oligarcy controls all the capital, and everyone else has to obey or starve (or be killed, of course). In actual socialism, democracy is an absolute necessity. The USSR was socialist at its beginning, but it didn't have the resources to keep itself so (thanks for supporting the Whites, "freedom-lovers").

This doesn't make sense at all. In a communist country, the STATE owns everything. They take it by FORCE, in other words, they'll shoot anyone who tries to keep it from them. Under capitalism, on the other hand, capital is the property of private citizens, and they're generally willing to sell it if they can get a good price.

 

[Smasherman]

Communism is essentially enlightened anarchy. The state doesn't own anything- everyone owns everything. Real-world examples are nearly all flawed, much as real-world examples of "capitalist" countries are flawed. Neither has existed in its absolute form for very long (at least not in large scale- communism has existed for thousands of years in some parts of the world, but it was very small scale).

Capitalistic countries use force as well. It's called economic force. Ever heard of an embargo? At an individual scale, if there's no other options, people will either work or starve. You don't need to shoot an unruly worker if firing is nearly as fatal.

Yes, a (foolish) person with a million dollars will lose that's million very fast under almost any circumstances. Of course, a foolish risk player could also lose, even if they started with many more troops. Risk has more limited rules than reality, of course, but fundamentally the simile works.

A person that "only has the ability to labor" is someone who has no money and no property, or perhaps is in an eternal debt, such as miners at some points in history. Read the Communist Manifesto for where I got that phrase.

I admit that yes, that person can still whatever they want, but they're die if they don't do what they're told to do. Furthermore, even an average person in North Korea can do whatever they want, but they'll be killed for it, as well.

Of course people can't break the fundamental laws of nature.Also, I'm speaking of pure capitalism, not socialism/capitalism, in this post.

 

[pattylou]

I read somewhere that if all the wealth in the world were to equally divide among all people that every person would have about 4 million dollars. Would you clean toliets if you had 4 million dollars? I don't think anyone would.

We make more money than most of our neighbors. They hire gardeners, we do our own yardwork. They hire housecleaners, we take responsibility for our own house mess and clean it ourselves. They shop at Costco, we grow our own food.

I realize we (my family) are weirdoes, but your statement is simply *wrong.* I clean toilets by choice. Why on Earth wouldn't I? I also take my microbiology students on a field trip to the sewage treatment plant. Why on Earth wouldn't I? We need to kow how we are connected to the world around us, including the crap we make. We need to understand how crap is cleaned up.

If you think I sound elitist or arrogant, ... why? I just frankly stated that we get into the muck of life, by choice.

It is a weird statement you make, Townsend.

(Incidentally, this thread is woefully estrogen-depleted.)

 

[jimmie]

we take responsibility

Isn't that what it comes down to? Accepting responsibility so as to BE responsible?

A responsible individual/nation/society that INTENDS to be responsible will IMMEDIATELY clean-up the mess they create, so as to maintain a clean home/land/planet.

Of course, a responsible individual/nation/society will intend to NOT create a mess, for any reason, in the first place.

However, an individual/nation/society that intends to NOT be responsible, and raises CHILDREN, sets an example for children to follow, thus teaching the children, knowingly or not, that not only is it all 'right' to make a mess, it is all 'right' to not clean it up.

Hence, cleaning a toilet has more nobility and usefulness to an individual/nation/society, than the venture capitalist that funds a business plan that details how to manufacture chocolate raspberry coffee (sold in a cardboard paper package) only to have that IPO "succeed", end up on the "Dow Jones Industrial Average", complement the day's "closing numbers", and provide reassurance to an individual/nation/society that intended to not be responsible/right, that everything is all "right".

What the planet NEEDS "right" now is ALOT more toilet cleaners, and ALOT less IPO's.

 

[Townsend]

I realize we (my family) are weirdoes, but your statement is simply *wrong.* I clean toilets by choice. Why on Earth wouldn't I?

I'm not talking about your own toilet...of course you wouldn't mind doing work to better your own life. But I am not talking about that kind of work, I am talking about having to clean public areas for a wage. I am asking of you would go to a public toilet and clean up the needles and blood and crap and urine, everyday with a big smile on your face knowing that it does you no good at all. Of course you wouldn't because it wouldn't be of any benefit to you.

I also take my microbiology students on a field trip to the sewage treatment plant. Why on Earth wouldn't I? We need to know how we are connected to the world around us, including the crap we make. We need to understand how crap is cleaned up.

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything? Just so you realize it, I was using the clean the toilet thing as an example of a crappy job that some would only due because they cannot get a better job. I am certain that if given a choice most or all of those people would like to have a job and life more like yours or other successful people.

If you think I sound elitist or arrogant, ... why? I just frankly stated that we get into the muck of life, by choice.

Of course, everyone gets into the muck of life by choice. It’s each individuals choice not to study hard in school or the choice of whether to have sex without protection and have 5 kids they cannot afford to raise. Some people think that it’s ok to try drugs and end up addicted to the stuff. All the choices people make can lead to a life of poverty and so as far as I am concerned everyone gets what they deserve and they can spend the rest of their days cleaning the crap off toilets for all I care. I don’t believe that these people deserve to have as good a life as someone who has spent their life working hard and making choices that are a benefit to themselves and to society. I wouldn’t want to see a crack addict have as good a life as you and your family. And I most certainly don’t believe that everyone should end up the same because that punishes the hard workers and encourages losers to suck the life out of society.

It is a weird statement you make, Townsend.
(Incidentally, this thread is woefully estrogen-depleted.)

If you say so...
The point is that some jobs suck and nobody wants them. The only reason some people will take them is because they need the money. If you take that away by making everyone equal who do you expect to take those jobs? I expect that no one in their right minds will take those jobs. And if you gave those jobs to people who were out of their minds then you would be taking advantage of people who can’t help it. Which is wrong….unlike giving the job to the guy who has to pay child support for the five kids has by five different mothers. Which is good.

 

[jimmie]

I expect that no one in their right minds will take those jobs.

Townsend, please explain what you believe the word "right" means.

 

[Smurf]

Communism is essentially enlightened anarchy.

Pfft. Communism is wanna-be anarchism.

 

[Smasherman]

Pfft. Communism is wanna-be anarchism.

Lol. I suppose it is, but what I got from the Communist Manifesto was a guideline on how to change a capitalist society into an anarchist one. Also a list of reasons why capitalism sucks. I don't fully agree with everything he wrote, but I haven't really analyzed everything, either.

 

[Townsend]

Communism is essentially enlightened anarchy. The state doesn't own anything- everyone owns everything. Real-world examples are nearly all flawed, much as real-world examples of "capitalist" countries are flawed. Neither has existed in its absolute form for very long (at least not in large scale- communism has existed for thousands of years in some parts of the world, but it was very small scale).

Great...so from the noble prize winners to the crack addicts...everyone owns pretty much the same thing...which mean the noble prize winner has no better of a life then the crack head...what a sweet deal that sounds like.

Capitalistic countries use force as well. It's called economic force. Ever heard of an embargo? At an individual scale, if there's no other options, people will either work or starve. You don't need to shoot an unruly worker if firing is nearly as fatal.

Ya...we force people to become so worthless that no one wants to pay them anything...no. That is a choice they made on their own. Just like when the poor kid who studies hard and works hard and becomes rich was not forced to do that, it was a choice (s)he made.

Yes, a (foolish) person with a million dollars will lose that's million very fast under almost any circumstances. Of course, a foolish risk player could also lose, even if they started with many more troops. Risk has more limited rules than reality, of course, but fundamentally the simile works.

Prove it!

A person that "only has the ability to labor" is someone who has no money and no property, or perhaps is in an eternal debt, such as miners at some points in history. Read the Communist Manifesto for where I got that phrase.

The labor of a lawyer is a very valuable thing and people will give up considerable capital in exchange for it. He has a lot to bargin with even if it is only labor. Much more in fact than the idiot with a million dollars has.

I admit that yes, that person can still whatever they want, but they're die if they don't do what they're told to do.

There are communist societies in America that will take almost anyone in...everyone has that choice in America.

Furthermore, even an average person in North Korea can do whatever they want, but they'll be killed for it, as well.

No one from the communist groups in America has ever been killed for being communist.

 

[pattylou]

The point is that some jobs suck and nobody wants them.

I would agree... I don't know that you can say that we'd all agree on what those sucky jobs are however. I think being a surgeon would suck, and being a researcher is way cool. Some people disagree.

 

[Townsend]

Townsend, please explain what you believe the word "right" means.

It's called rational self-interest and it has an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence supporting it. So what I mean is that a ration person will behave in a manner cosistent with what is considered rational self-interest.

 

[pattylou]

Just so you realize it, I was using the clean the toilet thing as an example of a crappy job that some would only due because they cannot get a better job.

The guy that ran the treatment plant loved his job.

His job is treating the sewage of 100,000 people. He samples it, several times a day.

He loves it. This is an engineer, he could get many jobs, but he became rapturous whenever he talked about the satisfaction of cleaning up the waste of the city.

I think there's enough diversity that you can't assume no one would clean the toilets and needles etc.

 

[Townsend]

The guy that ran the treatment plant loved his job.
His job is treating the sewage of 100,000 people. He samples it, several times a day.
He loves it. This is an engineer, he could get many jobs, but he became rapturous whenever he talked about the satisfaction of cleaning up the waste of the city.
I think there's enough diversity that you can't assume no one would clean the toilets and needles etc.

You're giving me examples of people who enjoy their work...I am talking about society in aggregate. A Single example doesn't mean anything since we are only considering how people will behave on average. Most of the people I know would quite their jobs if they had a 4 million dollars.

 

[Townsend]

I think there's enough diversity that you can't assume no one would clean the toilets and needles etc.

Why then is there almost no one willing to take the jobs? Why are people not in there busting their butts in public areas to keep it clean? I think it's pretty clear to even the most casual observer that I can make that assumption.

 

[jimmie]

So what I mean is that a ration person will behave in a manner cosistent with what is considered rational self-interest

"Rational self-interest" is an oxymoron.

In a society that is based on "capitalism", individuals need money to survive; hence an income/job.

Therefore, an individual that is sane and does not personally use 'crack', sells 'crack' because he is interested in only his "self", preserving his "self", ensuring that his "self" survives in a capitalistic society, and is therfore, "right".

Right?

 

[Smasherman]

Townsend, in that post I was talking about actual communism and actual pure capitalism, not those practiced.

Also, if someone has, say 10 people with rocks and all you have is you (with only a rock), what are your chances of success in a fight? Yes, you can win, but it's not likely.

Ok, a person that "only has the ability to labor" is someone who has no money, no property, little or no education, or perhaps is in an eternal debt, such as miners at some points in history.

The United States uses both capitalism and socialism. Socialism, however, is being removed. Yes, in the United States, someone born poor who works hard can become rich, but that's only because of public education. Also scholarships and grants and such, but I suppose one could just get a normal loan.

edit: changes "most" to "post"

 

[Townsend]

The United States uses both capitalism and socialism. Socialism, however, is being removed. Yes, in the United States, someone born poor who works hard can become rich, but that's only because of public education. Also scholarships and grants and such, but I suppose one could just get a normal loan.

I do believe in giving people a helping hand if they are truly in need and we have a lot of ways in which we do this. However, in the end I believe a person’s success in life should be a reflection on the choices that person makes. People who make the right choices such as working hard and studying hard should be rewarded by being more valuable and hence paid more. The people who make bad choices should not be worth as much (in terms of their labor capital of course) as the other person and hence should not be equally rewarded.