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 13:11:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1277 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> 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
Sorry, in what way is redistribution "fair"?
> 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.
This is the same old argument and the refutation is simple. NOT everyone has
to do good or be charitable. Merely enough people to take care of the
problem. We have empirical evidence that is the case already.
> 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.
NOT getting done, you mean. We have a larger underclass now than we did in
1964 or in 1932 even.
> 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.
No, not *all*... only the deserving ones, as judged by the morality of the
individual donor. Since we will have lots and lots of donors instead of one,
and they make individual moral judgements instead of a single commmon
political one, I'm OK with that.
Only those that are truly undeserving by anyone's standards will go
unhelped. And unless you really truly think that redistribution is "fair"
you'll be OK with that too.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
