Subject:
|
Re: Averages and Capitalism (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:55:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1175 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > <snip>
> > > I disagree and I see no further proof necessary other than to point out that
> > > the closer one gets to a pure capitalist system the better off on average
> > > everyone is, and the closer one gets to a pure socialist system the worse
> > > off on average everyone is. That's pretty generally accepted, I think,
> > > because we have so much empirical proof all around us.
> >
> > I'd generally accept that ;-).
> >
> > But in accepting that, I have to accept that, as one gets closer and closer
> > to a pure capitalist system, there are more and more people who are worse
> > off than average.
>
> That's not entirely accurate, but even if it was, it's not a good metric.
> The average standard of living in the US is significantly higher than, say,
> China.
>
> I don't tend to agree with Larry on political ideals, but as a goverment
> moves closer to pure socialism, the potential abuse becomes greater. This
> is not to say that socialism is more prone to abuse than capitalism, but
> that abuse in a pure socialist system is farther reaching. It is easier to
> become a tinpot dictator coming from a socialist gov't than a capitalist one.
>
> Capitalism, by acknowledging and explicitly incorporating the tendency of
> people to put themselves first is better protected against it.
>
> James
And I would tend to concur. I mean, if I'm going to be fed and housed, and
really not have to do anything to 'earn' it, why would I work? In the
'perfect' socialism, everybody works and then everything that they made gets
gathered up and redistributed fairly to everybody--but when we factor in
human nature, it is, as someone else said, counter-productive.
This is where capitalism has socialism beat by a long mile--in capitalism,
the 'harder I work' the more I can have--it all goes to me :)
Which again brings up my point--until human nature changes, when we become
selfless people instead of selfish people, neither pure capitalism nor pure
socialism is ever going to work.
In society there will be those that can't take care of themselves. Sure, as
it has been said by someone else that individuals can shell out money to
take care of these people, but then we're relying on the good graces of
individuals to do this, and not have a concrete 'gov't sanctioned' way of
taking care of those less fortunate. I may have faith in my fellow person
that he or she wants to do good, but I do not have faith that all my fellow
people will always do good. Having a binding law that will definitly take
care of those that need it, imho, is the only way, in todays age of
humanity, where those that need the help are asolutely assured they are
going to get the help they need.
Yes I know that the gov't does it poorly--i read about it in the papers
every day, but again, at least it's getting done. Leaving it up to the
auspices of individuals will take care of the ones the individuals are
taking care of, not *all* the folks that need taking care of.
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
