Moontanman Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 I was referring to that, if someone asks me aobut capitalism or communism i would be glad to steer them to something that has the answers to their questions. if you really want a real example for capitalism kills, then here Lets just take a look at the current american capitalism. every day there are hundreds if not thousands of people dying and starving because they do not have the weath to go and buy what they need. however under the american capitalism you do have the safty nets of food stamps, goodwill stores, food distrobution, soup kitchens, but are they really enough. if they were then you wouldn't have the destitute dying. Zolar, hundreds or thousands of people dying in the USA due to hunger? I am a US citizen and even though on person dying due to lack of money to buy food is unacceptable I doubt your figures are even close to being true. Can you back that up with any evidence what so ever? now you have too look at the people who owned their houses,in which the dead people lived, these landlords took what they could from the people to meet thier own needs at the expense of the dead people. so therefore landlords win, dead people, well died. you can even bring this to another level. and say that the landlords had millions of dollars and no heart and took what he could from the people and killed them(eventually). Again, please provide evidence of all these people dying, Your basic premise depends on numbers that you need to back up.
Sisyphus Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 now you have too look at the people who owned their houses,in which the dead people lived, these landlords took what they could from the people to meet thier own needs at the expense of the dead people. so therefore landlords win, dead people, well died. you can even bring this to another level. and say that the landlords had millions of dollars and no heart and took what he could from the people and killed them(eventually). 1) A lot of starvation in the United States, is there? Statistics? 2) Nobody is renting anything against their will. The landlord isn't taking anything - he's selling the right to live somewhere in exchange for money. If the landlord wasn't offering them a place to live, they would be in a worse situation. (The tenant chose to rent from him over the next most desirable alternative, so presumably the tenant is better off than he would be without that best available option.) 3) In that situation, the landlord doesn't win, because they lost a tenant. 4) Why is it the landlord's responsibility? He is just someone that has had a voluntary business exchange with the person who died. Why isn't it equally your responsibility, if you have more than you need?
Phi for All Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 I was referring to that, if someone asks me aobut capitalism or communism i would be glad to steer them to something that has the answers to their questions.I have no problem with you preferring Communism to Capitalism, I really don't. I have no problem with you being Goth, or in the military, or anything else you feel you "are". What I have a problem with is some of the things you are saying about Communism and Capitalism. Much of it is either so generalized as to be meaningless, or wildly exaggerated or just plain false. You're taking isolated instances and claiming they represent the whole. I know a Goth girl who is really lazy, but I would never call all Goths lazy. Do you see what I mean? Lets just take a look at the current american capitalism. every day there are hundreds if not thousands of people dying and starving because they do not have the weath to go and buy what they need. however under the american capitalism you do have the safty nets of food stamps, goodwill stores, food distrobution, soup kitchens, but are they really enough. if they were then you wouldn't have the destitute dying.False. Hundreds a day, thousands? How about "seldom occurs" in the US? Dying of starvation and going hungry are not the same thing.While starvation seldom occurs in this country, children and adults do go hungry and chronic mild undernutrition does occur when financial resources are low. http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html now you have too look at the people who owned their houses,in which the dead people lived, these landlords took what they could from the people to meet thier own needs at the expense of the dead people. so therefore landlords win, dead people, well died. you can even bring this to another level. and say that the landlords had millions of dollars and no heart and took what he could from the people and killed them(eventually). Again false, based on the above false assertion. You really need to find facts for yourself and not just imagine them or believe them from others you listen to. now if you were to look at a communistic society, you would not have people dying because they do not have what they need. Ever.but like i said before the true communisitc state cannot exist because people are well people. i can imagine though that there could be a group of educated people that could infact make a small communistic society and it would work quite well. Can you give me some examples of a Communist society where this is occurring or has occurred?
Zolar V Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 it is somewhat my responsibility, atleast in my oppinion, i donate as much as i can. the way i see stuff like that, is what right do i have to deny people life or whatever. in my oppinion it could be the landlords fault that he did not help as much as he could. but then that goes even further that its the communities fault for not helping also. in a communistic society that would not happen, and because you dont have to focus effort on things like safty net programs, charities, paying for mortguages, rent, cars, loans, college. you could focus your efforts els where. such as inventing whatever, doing what you love to do. imagine if a carpenter could perform his carpentry because he loves it not because he has to so he can provide for his family. i have seen it before, iv met people who do some job they hate just because it makes them money so they can support his or her self. if they were able to do some job they loved without that kind of worry. i would think it would bring much joy to that persons life. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedsigh i was trying to avoid actually refrencing somehting because this is quite difficult to do on my ps3 system. the we browsing function is not as good as it could be, and it cant view word processing applications or documnets. i would have put linux on it but its the wrong type of console. i am now going to go and research the statistics i need, it will howver tiake a while. i will find the statistics i need to prove my point. besides originally wasnt this a "what if" thread anyways
Phi for All Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 it is somewhat my responsibility, atleast in my oppinion, i donate as much as i can. the way i see stuff like that, is what right do i have to deny people life or whatever. in my oppinion it could be the landlords fault that he did not help as much as he could. but then that goes even further that its the communities fault for not helping also. in a communistic society that would not happen, and because you dont have to focus effort on things like safty net programs, charities, paying for mortguages, rent, cars, loans, college. you could focus your efforts els where. such as inventing whatever, doing what you love to do. imagine if a carpenter could perform his carpentry because he loves it not because he has to so he can provide for his family. i have seen it before, iv met people who do some job they hate just because it makes them money so they can support his or her self. if they were able to do some job they loved without that kind of worry. i would think it would bring much joy to that persons life. What do you do with the people who don't want to work as hard as I do? Am I still supposed to share what I have with someone who does far less, or nothing at all? Does that person deserve an equal share even though they do nothing?
Zolar V Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 well according to my religion (christian) and my beliefs (also christian) yes they do deserve just as much and it does make sense, atleast to me. i dont see what right i have to deny that person any amount that they get that is the same as me. yes they have decided to live the life of a sloth. but that doesnt mean they arnt worth as much as i am and how hard i work. the real question here is should i be able to decide who is worth what based on what they do and thier decisions? i personally do not think that i could be arbitrary enough to decide. and if i was on the recieving end of the stick i dont think that the person doing the deciding is arbitrary enough. so like i said i dont think i have the right to deny anyone anything. Note, i am not quite strong in my faith, but it has served as a moral compass. i being a logical guy, really cant understand God, as i have no proof of his existance or his intervention. that and i have no faith. sorry about the above grammer and spelling, its agian caused by my ps3 system. im using a wireless keyboard and sometimes they keys i het dont register.
Phi for All Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 well according to my religion (christian) and my beliefs (also christian) yes they do deserve just as muchand it does make sense, atleast to me. I think that over a period of time, you'd come to resent a person who got just as much as you by doing far less, especially in a system that was supposed to be fair to all. This happens in Capitalism, too. i dont see what right i have to deny that person any amount that they get that is the same as me.Even if they don't do equal work to deserve an equal share? yes they have decided to live the life of a sloth. but that doesnt mean they arnt worth as much as i am and how hard i work.But by giving a sloth an equal share for unequal work, aren't you enabling them to continue to do less, knowing it really doesn't affect their share? An enabler is someone who tries, at all costs, to make someone else's life easier, and what usually happens is that the other person becomes weak and unable to do things on their own. the real question here is should i be able to decide who is worth what based on what they do and thier decisions? i personally do not think that i could be arbitrary enough to decide. and if i was on the recieving end of the stick i dont think that the person doing the deciding is arbitrary enough. I don't think I could be arbitrary enough either, nor would I trust others to divide the fruits of my labor fairly. You'd need some kind of system within the system that determined whether you had done enough for an equal share, or if you had just done enough for a minimal subsistence share (enough to get by, so you don't starve to death). so like i said i dont think i have the right to deny anyone anything.Can I have your PS3 system? Note,i am not quite strong in my faith, but it has served as a moral compass. i being a logical guy, really cant understand God, as i have no proof of his existance or his intervention. Well, the Bible is full of references on how to conduct business in a capitalist society. It never says, not once, that people should pool their resources and divide it equally, no matter how much or how little work is done. Rather, there are instances in both testaments that tell us we will reap what we sow, not reap what we sow, take a fair portion and give the rest to sloths.
Peron Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 There's the kicker. Socialism fails to account for selfish human nature, and so fails. Capitalism is designed to work with selfish people, and by design gives them an incentive to do things. And yet, many find time to do volunteer work, or extra money to donate to charity. Despite working in the capitalist system, we have also agreed to pay slightly more taxes, so that our own people won't starve or suffer too much from poverty. So in reality, we have the incentive to work that capitalism gives, yet we give some resources to people who don't have them. We have the best of both worlds in that regard. America only accounts for 5% of the worlds population yet consumes, 25%. A average person ins united states uses 25.7 acres of land when a guy in India only uses 1 acre of land. Our capitalistic system created poverty, because it acts on our selfish nature.
Mr Skeptic Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 America only accounts for 5% of the worlds population yet consumes, 25%.A average person ins united states uses 25.7 acres of land when a guy in India only uses 1 acre of land. Our capitalistic system created poverty, because it acts on our selfish nature. That does not follow. Your example seems more like an indication of success -- we capitalists have more. As I have said, capitalism encourages people to produce -- and when we produce, we have. We capitalists are the ones who created the green revolution that produced such an abundance of food, ending widespread famine in India and the rest of the world. Famine still happens, but no more due to a food shortage; rather the food does not get distributed to the hungry. India has recently switched from a protectionist economy to a free market economy and is now one of the fastest growing large economies.
Syntho-sis Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Well, the Bible is full of references on how to conduct business in a capitalist society. It never says, not once, that people should pool their resources and divide it equally, no matter how much or how little work is done. Rather, there are instances in both testaments that tell us we will reap what we sow, not sow what we reap, take a fair portion and give the rest to sloths. I couldn't figure out what that meant so I assumed it was a typo.
Moontanman Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Zolar, so your faith allows you to make wild speculaive claims that are clearly not true to make your point? Thousands of people die every day due to hunger in the USA? If you cannot support this claim everything else you say is in grave doubt as well.
Peron Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 That does not follow. Your example seems more like an indication of success -- we capitalists have more. As I have said, capitalism encourages people to produce -- and when we produce, we have. We capitalists are the ones who created the green revolution that produced such an abundance of food, ending widespread famine in India and the rest of the world. Famine still happens, but no more due to a food shortage; rather the food does not get distributed to the hungry. India has recently switched from a protectionist economy to a free market economy and is now one of the fastest growing large economies. My point was that because of our excessive consumption we indirectly generated poverty. To end poverty, we must lower our consumption here in United States. If every one lived like people do in united states then we would need five planets, we already live in 1.5 planets. That does not follow. Your example seems more like an indication of success -- we capitalists have more. I did not say capitalism doesn't work. What I was pointing out was the "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen", as they say in economics. What we see is the high standard of living in United States. What is not seen is the increase of poverty. Do you not agree that we consume to much resources?
Phi for All Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I couldn't figure out what that meant so I assumed it was a typo. Read it again. You assumed wrong.
Mr Skeptic Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 My point was that because of our excessive consumption we indirectly generated poverty.... Do you not agree that we consume to much resources? Yes, but what does that have to do with poverty? If the poor people consumed resources like us they wouldn't be poor but the planet would be more screwed than it is now. Are you saying we are stealing resources from the poor? So long as we generate our own resources rather than stealing them, it seems fair. Perhaps we do not generate all our resources and outbid them for some of the resources? Even so, the problem would not be consumption, rather consuming more resources than we produce and importing resources from other rich countries.
Syntho-sis Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Read it again. You assumed wrong. Can you please explain what it meant? It's not coherent. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I did not say capitalism doesn't work. What I was pointing out was the "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen", as they say in economics. What we see is the high standard of living in United States. What is not seen is the increase of poverty. Do you not agree that we consume to much resources? How much is too much? I've met some pretty poor people here in the U.S. You know about the war on poverty Johnson created? Well my family was directly impacted by that, living in Appalachia (Not that they were all that impoverished, they had a farm and were pretty self-sustained). Poverty still exists in the U.S. at a high level. I've known people just about as poor as those over in Africa or w/e. The only thing that separates the two, is one lives off the government generation after generation and the other barely even has a government. Not everybody over here has a slab on the mantelpiece, so to speak, I can guarantee you that.
Phi for All Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Well, the Bible is full of references on how to conduct business in a capitalist society. It never says, not once, that people should pool their resources and divide it equally, no matter how much or how little work is done. Rather, there are instances in both testaments that tell us we will reap what we sow, not reap what we sow, take a fair portion and give the rest to sloths. Can you please explain what it meant? It's not coherent.Bible say reap what's sown, not reap what's sown, keep some, give rest to sloths. [/Tarzan] In yet other words, according to Christianity, we're supposed to enjoy the fruits of our labor, not work hard so people who don't want to work can have some fruit. Christianity praises charitable acts, but not those that reward the lazy on an equal footing with the hard-working. Sorry if I used a confusing combination of words. I must need a new slab on my mantelpiece.
Zolar V Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) I think that over a period of time, you'd come to resent a person who got just as much as you by doing far less, especially in a system that was supposed to be fair to all. This happens in Capitalism, too. Even if they don't do equal work to deserve an equal share? yes, even if they dont. its not about if i think they deserve a equal share its about being fair. Can I have your PS3 system? well no, its mine. the ideal of not denying someone anything means much more than just material goods. it means that i dont have the right to deny a person anything to any extent of what im getting. say i got a ps3 system, well you can go out an buy one too if you wanted. so im not denying you anything. but if i was to buy the last ps3 system then i would be. honestly i actually thought about it Rather, there are instances in both testaments that tell us we will reap what we sow, not reap what we sow, take a fair portion and give the rest to sloths. meaning: Rather, there are instances in both testaments that tell us we will reap what we sow, not reap what we sow, take a fair portion and give the rest to sloths Edited November 25, 2009 by Zolar V
Sisyphus Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 The early Christian churches were communes of ascetics, though. And there's the famous quote about the difficulty of rich men being pious (camels and needles). And I distinctly remember some Old Testament bits about leaving the corners of your fields for the poor and travellers, or something. Here we go: Leviticus 23:20 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.' Leviticus 19:9 'Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.' Leviticus 19:10 'Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.' Deuteronomy 24:19 When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. So, all that.
Phi for All Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 yes, even if they dont. its not about if i think they deserve a equal share its about being fair.But I thought you said you weren't qualified to judge what is equal and what is fair. well no, its mine. the ideal of not denying someone anything means much more than just material goods. it means that i dont have the right to deny a person anything to any extent of what im getting. say i got a ps3 system, well you can go out an buy one too if you wanted. so im not denying you anything. but if i was to buy the last ps3 system then i would be. honestly i actually thought about it Oh, well, I didn't know you had the last PS3 system in the world. Maybe we could share it like Betty and Johnny might share the last job in the world. The early Christian churches were communes of ascetics, though. And there's the famous quote about the difficulty of rich men being pious (camels and needles). And I distinctly remember some Old Testament bits about leaving the corners of your fields for the poor and travellers, or something.The poor, the travelers, the needy, the orphans, the widows. Basically, those indigents who may need help to get over hard times. But not the lazy and slothful who want a fair share without doing anything to earn it. Romans 12:11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; Hebrews 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. Proverbs 12:27 The slothful man roasteth not that which he took in hunting: but the substance of a diligent man is precious. Proverbs 18:9 He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster. Proverbs 10:4 He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich. Proverbs 20:4 The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing. Proverbs 19:15 Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep; and an idle soul shall suffer hunger. Proverbs 13:4 The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat. Proverbs 21:25 The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour. Proverbs 6:6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Proverbs 6:9 How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? When wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?
Sisyphus Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 "The poor" sounds pretty all-encompassing, to me. I don't think chastising those who are poor through laziness contradicts a mandate to those who are not to give those same people charity. Not an equal share, I note, but scraps: enough not to starve. Together it actually sounds a lot like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Work hard and reap your rewards, but also make sure everyone's basic needs are satisfied. And don't worry if others aren't living up to those standards.
Zolar V Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Zolar, hundreds or thousands of people dying in the USA due to hunger? I am a US citizen and even though on person dying due to lack of money to buy food is unacceptable I doubt your figures are even close to being true. Can you back that up with any evidence what so ever? well, why yes i do have evidence. http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/index.htm http://www.worldometers.info/ "Hunger statistics Main article: Malnutrition In 2007, 923 million people were reported as being undernourished, an increase of 80 million since 1990-92.[6]. It has also been recorded that the world already produces enough food to support the world's population - 6 billion people - and could support double - 12 billion people. Hunger mortality statistics On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates). On the average, 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths (2002-2008 estimates). " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation
Sisyphus Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Zolar V, I don't think anyone doubts that there is starvation in the world. The contention is about how much starvation there is in the United States.
Syntho-sis Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 From what I understand, in order for a socialist system to function successfully all individuals must put in an equal share of labor to gain an eqaul portion of resources. Well that would be the ideal I guess. No form of human government/economic system is perfect though..
Phi for All Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 "The poor" sounds pretty all-encompassing, to me. I don't think chastising those who are poor through laziness contradicts a mandate to those who are not to give those same people charity. Not an equal share, I note, but scraps: enough not to starve. Together it actually sounds a lot like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Work hard and reap your rewards, but also make sure everyone's basic needs are satisfied. And don't worry if others aren't living up to those standards.Not an equal share, I agree. I'd support what I call a minimum subsistence standard for the US. Provide basic shelter, food, clothing and healthcare for whoever needs it. Nothing fancy, it's meant as a fallback, not a lifestyle (but if that's the way you want to live all the time, you won't be denied). Any society of humans should take care of it's citizens on the most basic of levels, imo, because we're all worth it. People shouldn't have to be homeless or hungry in a country as prosperous as the US. But I can also see why an equal division of resources will never work. There will always be people who don't want to do their fair share for their fair share, so we should set a minimum standard and support it. But I think humans need incentives to exceed what is expected of them, rewards for going above and beyond.
Sisyphus Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Then it seems you, the Old Testament, and I all agree. Neat?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now