News Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[Smurf]

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

Ever is certainly not true. They're just not being killed and prosecuted anymore.

 

[Townsend]

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

Before there was a government and before there was money, there was production and capital. People used this capital to produce things they needed to survive and their actions were governed by rational self-interest. I don't see how you can call something with overwhelming evidence supporting it an oxymoron...

 

[Townsend]

Anymore...

Well, I really cannot say for sure if anyone has ever been killed in the past for this but anymore it is not very likely. So I suppose you are correct

 

[jimmie]

I don't see how you can call something with overwhelming evidence an oxymoron...

Prostitution.

The OLDEST profession.

A society that is based on any form of capitalism FORCES its constituents to do actions (because only actions generate revenue) that are not rational, despite the fact that the individual doing the actions that are not rational, is rational enough to know that their actions are not rational.

So, is prostitution "right"?

 

[Smasherman]

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.

I believe that people grow physically, mentally, and spiritually as time goes by. A bad decision early in life shouldn't be crippling. I'm not saying that people should get away with everything, leaving extra work on others; I'm saying that people should be able to grow even if they made bad decisions. Theoretically, if everyone is kind, helpful, productive, and fair, children will grow acting likewise. This can't be done immediately, but that's why I advocate socialism and not communism: people aren't ready for communism yet. I agree with Smurf on this one (though he doesn't call it communism).

Actually, it's not theory so much as fact. I don't have a wide range of literary knowledge to draw on, but I recently read a book on the Ohlone Indians, and Native American tribe* that lived in present-day California for thousands of years. They had a basically communist society where everyone adhered to the rules. People didn't need to be punished usually because everyone simply acted properly. Children grew up knowing how to act. That doesn't mean that they were oppressive, though. One could do a lot of things different, just as long as those things didn't mess with the fundamentals that kept their society together: sharing and proper breeding. Both of those things were necessary to keep everyone prosperous, as well as to keep populations reasonable. It all ended with European settlement, however (specifically Spanish missions).



*The Ohlone Indians are actually dozens of different tribes, but they all shared many of the same cultural aspects.

 

[Townsend]

So, is prostitution "right"?

Prostitution is not only right but IIRC there are many animals in the animal kingdom besides humans they practice prostitution.

Modern society has religion as it roots and so they believe that prostitution is bad, but I don't have a problem with it at all...

 

[pattylou]

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

If you say so....

Well, yeah. I mean, either you think both sexes have identical priorities and interests, or not.

Here you (pl) are, talking about building an ideal society, and you have zero women (except me here at the end) chiming in.

Don't you think this sort of discussion should include more of the population than adult white males?

 

[pattylou]

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.

Well, if 99% of people don't want to do those jobs, but it only requires one person in 1000 (for example) then we may still be fine on this score, right?You don't need everyone to want to do it.

This is a pretty small point in the scope of the conversation and you can ignore it if you like.

 

[Townsend]

I believe that people grow physically, mentally, and spiritually as time goes by. A bad decision early in life shouldn't be crippling. I'm not saying that people should get away with everything, leaving extra work on others; I'm saying that people should be able to grow even if they made bad decisions. Theoretically, if everyone is kind, helpful, productive, and fair, children will grow acting likewise. This can't be done immediately, but that's why I advocate socialism and not communism: people aren't ready for communism yet. I agree with Smurf on this one (though he doesn't call it communism).

Then we agree completely...I think that people are capable of recovering from mistakes but it takes hard work. Once again, giving people a hand out does not encourge the self sufficent behavior that is required of successful people. Take alcoholics for example. You can feel bad for them all you want to but if you give them money or take them in you're enabling them to continue their behavior. They are essentially being rewarded for their behavior and so they will continue to do it. Only when they have NO where left to go and NO one left to turn to, will they ever realize they need to change their behavior.
People need to deal with reality before you can expect them to want to be better people. Socialism basically gives people an excuse to do whatever they want knowing that society will make sure their needs are going to be meet.

Actually, it's not theory so much as fact. I don't have a wide range of literary knowledge to draw on, but I recently read a book on the Ohlone Indians, and Native American tribe* that lived in present-day California for thousands of years. They had a basically communist society where everyone adhered to the rules. People didn't need to be punished usually because everyone simply acted properly. Children grew up knowing how to act. That doesn't mean that they were oppressive, though. One could do a lot of things different, just as long as those things didn't mess with the fundamentals that kept their society together: sharing and proper breeding. Both of those things were necessary to keep everyone prosperous, as well as to keep populations reasonable. It all ended with European settlement, however (specifically Spanish missions).
*The Ohlone Indians are actually dozens of different tribes, but they all shared many of the same cultural aspects.

That is very interesting but I don't believe it is ok to extrapolate these small tribe examples to the whole of society. It would be nice, I actually agree but it is not realistic.

 

[jimmie]

Prostitution is not only right but

Based on your definition of "right", and based on your above quote, then ANY action that generates revenue is "right", in your world.

In your world, anything and everything goes, and it is all "right". In your world, everything that can be 'thought' of is "right".

Prostitution, nation making war with nation, student shooting student, lawyers over-billing, bribes, theft, and MANY other things along that line of logic, is "right" in your world.

So then, is there anything that is not "right" in your world?

 

[Townsend]

Don't you think this sort of discussion should include more of the population than adult white males?

Of course I want to hear the voice of women...I didn't mean I don't want the opinions of women. I just mean that I don't think this conversation is lacking just because certain groups are not interested in participating. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to participate of course.

 

[Smasherman]

Yes, patty, it would be nice if more females posted here. It's not as though we're excluding them, it's just that only you are.

So, to all female PFers, please post here!

 

[Smurf]

Don't you think this sort of discussion should include more of the population than adult white males?

Of course he doesn't. Only adult white males produce enough revenue to matter to him.

 

[Townsend]

Based on your definition of "right", and based on your above quote, then ANY action that generates revenue is "right", in your world.
In your world, anything and everything goes, and it is all "right". In your world, everything that can be 'thought' of is "right".

First of all, the world I am describing is the world and not some abstract place where I test my ideas. Secondly, I don't think everything is ok and I never said anything like that.

Prostitution, nation making war with nation, student shooting student, lawyers over-billing, bribes, theft,

Ever play that game where you pick out the thing that is not like the others? See if you can spot what is different.

So then, is there anything that is not "right" in your world?

Any thing the violates the civil rights of another person is not right.

 

[Smurf]

Ever play that game where you pick out the thing that is not like the others? See if you can spot what is different.

The most destructive is the only one that's legal?

 

[Smurf]

Are you really going to be that narrow minded?

I was KIDDING townsend. Pickin on you. Jesting. Making a joke. Telling a funny. Get a sense of humor.

 

[Townsend]

Get a sense of humor.

Sorry...I do need to get one of those. To bad you can't just buy one...

 

[Townsend]

The most destructive is the only one that's legal?

That maybe true for the United States but certainly not the whole world.

 

[jimmie]

Anything thing the violates the civil rights of another person is not right

And there is the problem folks; "civil rights".

The following definition was taken from Answers.com.

"The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."

Note the line "by virtue of citizenship".

When an individual is acting for their own "rational self-interest", their priority is their "self" and action.

If the US, the founding nation of "civil rights" and the cradle of democracy and capitalism, was indeed "rational", it would consider the effects its intended actions have on the whole, and choose to not do particular actions, such as dropping bombs in territories that they know will kill innocent civilians that are not intended "targets".

Do those innocent civilians have "civil rights"?

However, when an individual acts for the whole, their rational other-than-self, their priority is their "other-than-self" and not-action.

With a true world government, bombs do not get dropped.

 

[Smurf]

If the US, the founding nation of "civil rights" and the cradle of democracy

Havn't we argued this enough?

 

[Townsend]

If the US, the founding nation of "civil rights" and the cradle of democracy and capitalism, was indeed "rational", it would consider the effects its intended actions have on the whole, and choose to not do particular actions, such as dropping bombs in territories that they know will kill innocent civilians that are not intended "targets".

What does this have to do with this thread? Are you trying to do some hijacking?

 

[Townsend]

Havn't we argued this enough?

Indeed we have.

 

[Skyhunter]

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 guess everyone would just have to clean their own toilet then huh?

 

[Townsend]

I guess everyone would just have to clean their own toilet then huh?

Read more carefully...I wasn't talking about cleaning your own toliet! I was talking about cleaning the dirty nasty public ones that I'm scared to even go into. More generally I was talking about people having jobs they would never do if they could afford to not work or if they could find better work.

 

[Smurf]

What are you talking about? I clearly said it is not needed and that the service it provides is sex. Try actaully reading the post for once...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=need

need ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd)
n.
1. A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.
2. Something required or wanted; a requisite: “Those of us who led the charge for these women's issues... shared a common vision in the needs of women” (Olympia Snowe).
3. Necessity; obligation: There is no need for you to go.
4. A condition of poverty or misfortune: The family is in dire need.

Seriously townsend. Answer the question.

What need is it fullfilling, and why does this need not arise in other societies? [or why is it not fullfilled]

square brackets are my current addition

 

[Smurf]

Read more carefully...I wasn't talking about cleaning your own toliet! I was talking about cleaning the dirty nasty public ones that I'm scared to even go into. More generally I was talking about people having jobs they would never do if they could afford to not work or if they could find better work.

I didn't know that.

My new response: You're putting it into the context of imposed economic equality again. That's not what I was talking about!

 

[Townsend]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=need
Seriously townsend. Answer the question.
square brackets are my current addition

I don't understand what you're asking me I guess.

I am certain that in every society since the dawn of time there have been men who wanted sex and didn't want a relationship with that woman. I also believe that since the dawn of time and in ever society prostitution has existed wheather legal or illegal.

Making it illegal will not get rid of it and in fact nothing will get rid of it. It always has and will always exist as long as people exist.

I will try to answer the question as directly as I can. People want to have sex with someone else and would rather just pay money then deal with the hassels of a relationship. The service it provides is sex.

What part don't you understand?

 

[Townsend]

You WERE making an argument. An argument that prostitution is necessary to fullfill a need. You don't need to try to be pursuasive to present an argument.

Don't be obtuse...I was answering a question that you posed. The answer to a question IS NOT an argument...it is not a proposition. An explantion is comepletely different from an argument and I welcome you to look it up in your favorite encyclopedia.

 

[Smasherman]

So, back to the what's wrong with capitalism (or what's right with it, depending on your stance)...

 

[Skyhunter]

Read more carefully...I wasn't talking about cleaning your own toliet! I was talking about cleaning the dirty nasty public ones that I'm scared to even go into. More generally I was talking about people having jobs they would never do if they could afford to not work or if they could find better work.

I read your later post's when you clarified, after I responded. That was just the obvious answer to your original post.

 

[Skyhunter]

What about the people who are extreamly ugly?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Are their not homely people of both sexes?

 

[Smurf]

What about the people who are extreamly ugly?

What about the people who are extremely poor?

At least in my system ugly people can **** other ugly people. Of course there's that "inner beauty" argument too (oh I see skyhunter already made that one). And there's always beer.

Beer won't give you the money to buy sex.

 

[vanesch]

The only thing wrong with capitalism is that it has NEVER EXISTED. Pure, laizzes -faire capitalism has never once been implented.

I don't buy that. It is like communists who say that "communism" was never implemented, and that we shouldn't judge communism by what the USSR was/did. Sorry, if an *intention* to build a system leads to something that is not what is desired, then that is just an instability in the original idea and what it leads to, empirically, is then part of it, whether the original theoretician intended this or not.

Moreover, capitalism, in reduced form, does exist: you only need freedom of action and property rights, and it exists. Communism apparently leads to totalitarian regimes, and capitalism leads to corporatism. It's not intended that way, but it happens that way.

 

[Townsend]

An argument doesn't have to be a proposition either.

A proposition is just a statement that is either true or false but not both. Deductively speaking an argument is either true or false but not both so it does in fact have to be a proposition.

And an explanation can be an argument at the same time.

They are quite different things Smurf...if you disagree with me then try talking to a philiosophy professor at your school about it.

You were presenting a course of reasoning with the intent of proving truth or falsehood.

No...
Am I allowed to do something for a reason of my choosing or do you feel that you can tell everyone why they do what they do? I was giving a course of reasoning with the intenet of trying to give a satisfactory answer. The fact that you were using it in terms of an argument means nothing as far as my intent is concerned.

The fact that it was a response to a question is irrelevant.

You have never taken the time to study logic have you Smurf? There is a difference and I don't care to educate you on the matter when you're smart enough to educate yourself about it.

 

[Townsend]

What about the people who are extremely poor?
At least in my system ugly people can **** other ugly people.

What about the ugly people who want to have sex with only hot women? You're creating a class system based on beauty now...

Of course there's that "inner beauty" argument too (oh I see skyhunter already made that one). And there's always beer.
Beer won't give you the money to buy sex.

That is the single stupidest argument against prostitution I have ever heard. All you have said is that you don't like it and that there are other ways that people can get laid. Who cares? I think this way is best and you think that way is best...the difference is that you feel the way you do because you think it's ok to impose your values on other people.

 

[Smurf]

I don't buy that. It is like communists who say that "communism" was never implemented, and that we shouldn't judge communism by what the USSR was/did. Sorry, if an *intention* to build a system leads to something that is not what is desired, then that is just an instability in the original idea and what it leads to, empirically, is then part of it, whether the original theoretician intended this or not.
Moreover, capitalism, in reduced form, does exist: you only need freedom of action and property rights, and it exists. Communism apparently leads to totalitarian regimes, and capitalism leads to corporatism. It's not intended that way, but it happens that way.

I disagree Vanesch. I think your whole perception about this is completely uneducated. No Offence. But there are so many vast differences between Marxism and USSR communism, and also between American Capitalism and what Adam Smith envisioned that I don't see them the same at all.

Just because they commonly share a name, does not mean that they are the same.

 

[Skyhunter]

What is wrong with capitalism?

As jimmie mentioned in an earlier post, it is a matter of order/priorities. The first priority is to provide for the self maintenance needs of each and every individual on this planet. Capitalism does not provide this, therefore it is flawed.

In our present human form we are transient beings existing in an eternal universe. I am astounded at the idea that we, as finite creatures can presume to own that which is eternal.

 

[Townsend]

Saying I think I'm right is not the same as imposing my values on other people. Don't be so defensive.

If you were to prevent people from doing something you don't want them to do because it conflicts with your moral values then you would be imposing your morals onto other people. You might not be physically able to impose your values on other people but you certainly seem to want to be able to.

 

[Townsend]

The first priority is to provide for the self maintenance needs of each and every individual on this planet.

Why should this be first?

 

[Smurf]

A proposition is just a statement that is either true or false but not both. Deductively speaking an argument is either true or false but not both so it does in fact have to be a proposition.

A statement is either true or false. An argument can only be strong/weak/inductive/deductive. (you started with the fancy language)

They are quite different things Smurf...if you disagree with me then try talking to a philiosophy professor at your school about it.

It depends on the context. An explanation can be within an argument. In this case you were explaining a part of your argument. That is, that prostitution provides a respectable service to a society. Or something like that. Thus, I was arguing an illogical point of your argument - which you just explained.

No...
Am I allowed to do something for a reason of my choosing or do you feel that you can tell everyone why they do what they do?

Does it really matter what your intent was? If I say that Pasta is good because so and so. I'm making an argument. My intent might be to give my opinion, to explain my opinion, or what ever else you want. But it's still making an argument for the goodness of pasta.

You have never taken the time to study logic have you Smurf?

A little. Not a lot. You?

Actually.. maybe none. What's the difference between logic and critical thinking and reasoning and rhetoric?
fun fun fun

 

[Smurf]

If you were to prevent people from doing something you don't want them to do because it conflicts with your moral values then you would be imposing your morals onto other people. You might not be physically able to impose your values on other people but you certainly seem to want to be able to.

Prevent? Impose? I don't want to impose laws on people that they can't buy sex. I'm including this as part of anarchist arguments.

 

[Smurf]

Townsend. I think this logic argument arised because you didn't mean to include that as part of your prostitution argument because your main reason for supporting it should be one of their civil rights. And this whole thing is a misunderstanding.

The reaosn I said "didn't mean to", instead of just "didn't" is because I consider it a part of your argument because it presupposes that a society exists in which there is a need for the service to be bought in the first place.

 

[Skyhunter]

Who cares? What if a leper wants to make it with a beauty queen? If she will consent then it's all good, right? What is wrong with him using his other talents to help convince her to have sex with him? You know, like the ability to hand over a grip of cash?

I would not advocate laws against prostitution. I would not advocate laws against drug use either. Neither of these actions by themselves harm anyone except the principles. But that doesn't mean I think they are good things, in fact many people that participate in such practices many times do harm others, often as a result of their impaired actions while under the influence.

We are one. The Universe is one. Society is one. To act separately and selfishly we pay a price, which is our choice. Because everything is connected, our actions are never of consequence only to ourselves. If we do harm to ourselves, we do harm to the whole.

 

[Townsend]

A statement is either true or false.

Every single textbook I have says a proposition can only be true or false...they also say they use statements to mean proposition.

An argument can only be strong/weak/inductive/deductive. (you started with the fancy language)

I also said deductively speaking Smurf and I am 100 percent correct on that.

It depends on the context.

So we agree there is a difference then...

An explanation can be within an argument. In this case you were explaining a part of your argument. That is, that prostitution provides a respectable service to a society. Or something like that.

I agree that explanation can within an argument but we already agree that they are not arguments. I was explaining to you what you were asking of me. The fact that an argument and an explanation can sound very similar does not change the fact that they are in fact not the same thing.

Thus, I was arguing an illogical point of your argument - which you just explained.

NO you weren't...this is really starting to piss me off because I have been going over this subject in detail in class and you wrong on every point your think your making.

Does it really matter what your intent was?

It matters a lot! I can't believe you even said that!

If I say that Pasta is good because so and so. I'm making an argument. My intent might be to give my opinion, to explain my opinion, or what ever else you want. But it's still making an argument for the goodness of pasta.

Clearly you have never studies logic or you would know there is a difference.

A little. Not a lot. You?

I am currently doing so...

Actually.. maybe none. What's the difference between logic and critical thinking and reasoning and rhetoric?

I can't think of a good way to answer that question. Clearly you use logic in almost everything you do...in deductive logic you don't care about the actual truth value of the statements in general. You just deal with validity and stuff like that..

edit: I'm getting tired and making a crap load of mistakes.

 

[vanesch]

But there are so many vast differences between Marxism and USSR communism, and also between American Capitalism and what Adam Smith envisioned that I don't see them the same at all.
Just because they commonly share a name, does not mean that they are the same.

You refuse to see my point, Smurf. It doesn't matter what some guy wrote in a book somewhere, if, when one tries to implement it, it leads to another system than what is written in the book. This simply means that the guy writing the book had it wrong about the dynamical laws of society (which, themselves, are of course rooted in human psychology). So or the thing in the book started describing a system, but had it wrong concerning how things would evolve, or the book is describing a non-existant system.
From Adams' and Marx' writings, we can then OR conclude that "capitalism" and "communism" are strictly what is described in the book, and hence doesn't exist with real humans, OR that what they describe in the book is a kind of starting point of an evolution, and then, communism IS what the USSR was about, and capitalism IS what the west is about.

 

[Townsend]

I would not advocate laws against prostitution. I would not advocate laws against drug use either. Neither of these actions by themselves harm anyone except the principles. But that doesn't mean I think they are good things, in fact many people that participate in such practices many times do harm others, often as a result of their impaired actions while under the influence.

I don't believe prostitution is right either...I have been married for the last 6 years. I just don't believe my values trump everyone else’s values. If someone thinks that it's cool to drink their own urine I might think it's really gross and unhealthy but hey...it's their choice.

 

[Townsend]

Townsend. I think this logic argument arised because you didn't mean to include that as part of your prostitution argument because your main reason for supporting it should be one of their civil rights. And this whole thing is a misunderstanding.
The reaosn I said "didn't mean to", instead of just "didn't" is because I consider it a part of your argument because it presupposes that a society exists in which there is a need for the service to be bought in the first place.

That's pretty much exactly right.

 

[Skyhunter]

Why should this be first?

Because it's the American way?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Without wholesome food, clean drinking water, fresh air to breath, shelter, clothing, and I would also add, a place of dignity in society, then a person is not enjoying those inalienable rights.

Why should these self-evident truths not apply to everyone?

Do not all men have the same creator?

 

[Smurf]

I am currently doing so...

Hey. Me too!

I don't can't imagine a good way to answer that question. Clearly you use logic in almost everything you do...in deductive logic you don't care about the actual truth value of the statements in general. You just deal with validity and stuff like that..

So in a rhetoric perspective, logic would be the evaluative aspect?

 

[Townsend]

So in a rhetoric perspective, logic would be the evaluative aspect?

Um...no more like the specfic use of more general cases. Modus ponens is a valid argument technique that deals with general statements. Poeple use this argument all the time to prove things specifically. So I guess I would say that rhetoric deals more with the application of logic than it does with the study of logic itself.

edit: I'm really too tired to be posting...