Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 2. (Read 30782 times)

Cricket-bat kangaroo swimming pool laptop cheesecake map phone. Ebola zeppelin yeti with a chocolate topping.

Wealth proves measure of that degree whereto one withholds excession. "Rich" and "poor" proceed unto that madness within consideration of these "condition."

have the rich setup a free bitcoin system on a incentive based on homeless to gain points going back to the working force.

And only recieve a total of their bitcoins once they stay at the job for more then 4 months.

From you statements one can deduce then that logic has nothing to do with morality, which is to say that ones morality need not be logically consistent. If morality is not logically consistent, then it is not morality, it is aesthetics, and has nothing to say on the solution to any problem.

Capitalism eliminates involuntary poverty (see trend of poverty in 1950s America etc).

Socialism imposes involuntary poverty (see trend of poverty and wealth inequality in socialist states).

Darvinism, what i believe in, like evolution is clearly saying that poverty cant be get rid off. Its human, so far in the 21st century. no tendensy of changing.

neither socialism or capitalism cant eliminate poverty. Just people in poverty itself can change it by themself (but also not really).

During 19 century there were no rule preventing a worker to get rich. Wages went down so much it was impossible...
The funny thing is that in many point in england where there where no slave working work condition looks comparable in human pain that coton field of usa.
That is what a nice capitalist system provided with very cheap goods ( from slavery) manage to do.

Capitalism has nothing to do with moral.
If moral prevent to multiply 2 into 4, moral will change. This is pure logic, money has already proven to alter poeple's mind.
19 century was religious and "moral", yet it create work condition that would not have been accepted before.
Law might help.
Do you think law regulating working hours, creating safe working environment, giving holidays, preventing child labour ... are good laws?
How do you call the movement that produce those  kind of laws?


I agree with you about the distinction of republic and democracy. which is important and not mentioned a lot. Democracy is a popular word i guess.

Now what about a "pure" democracy where the constitution guarantee equal treatment of people? Would that suits you?
Also how do you know it is one of the worst form of government? There is really no such example in history ...
On the other hand, with all those nice example of history you cited, you must know that our nice democratic republic also produce its lot of dictator.

Fixed

A democratic republic is two wolves and a snake voting a lion president.

A Democratic Republic prevents mob rule which is what Democracy is. It is one of the worst forms of governance that exists. I find it interesting that the US Politicans, including Obama, talk about how the USA is a democracy and never mention the truth.

A Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.
In a Democratic Republic the sheep will have a gun.

Republican democracy is merely a means to having one's oligarchy accepted by the people ("unwashed masses").

I think it is important to add, that a pure democracy is not the ideal.   In fact, a pure democracy would allow for slavery of the minority.  That is why we live in a democratically elected, representative republic.  Republic being the critical word (no I am not a Republican).  Republic I believe relates to the latin term for rule of law, under which everyone has equal responsibility.  Even the highest leader has to obey the law just as much as the poorest citizen.  That clearly is not the case in this country today, where the elite are exempt from the law it seems.

Beast may comprehend little beyond a whip.

Or...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ayxot9vQ_k

If I fashion "A" by virtue, and he grows "B" by virtue, we both have "A" and "B" (as we ought [by virtue]).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwztaQgv3-Y

Or this.

Maybe something is lost in the translation, but that makes no sense.


lets try this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

"In knowing those labors they ought, they know those riches they should."

This is what you miss.

Socialism IS mass slavery.
What I am saying is that 19 century Europe, or any time Europe never was the 'capitalist paradise'.  There was never a sustainable free trade when you have what amount to slaves producing something that the workers could not afford.  Henery Ford I believe wanted to make something that the MIDDLE CLASS could afford.   THAT was invented in the industrial revolution in the US, with free labor able to organize and bargain collectively.  Government did not, nor could not create the real capitalist paradise that the US became in the 20th century that left the rest of the world behind in quality of life.




A free market society with rights to private property would allow people to accumulate wealth, and build on it.  That didn't happen in 19th century Europe for a lot of reasons mostly regarding the established wealth and land ownership that existed prior to the industrial age.  There were options for those workers, but that only included to be returned to being serfs for the land owners in Europe, but that wasn't the reality in the US where land ownership was available to the poorest people who traveled out of the city, homesteaded and created their own self sustaining lives.  So your example is not quite honest.[/quote]

That would explain a lot of what has happened in Europe in the last 300 years... (LOL)

Life was pretty brutal in those times except for the elite.  That goes for about everywhere.
Are you sure about that?   I have doubt.

As I said, capitalism is best under a moral society where people are inspired to be ethical.  It has, and it is falling apart in absence of morality.  It succeeded when it adhered to a moral code.  Forced charity, or socialism, is not charity and it ends up not being humane in the end.  It ends up being brute force.

and buy ebola....