Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 3. (Read 30782 times)

Give everyone a Bitcoin account.. donate a percentage of processing fees to the registered less fortunate.. or give it all to me.

For what have they proceeded against your men if not for His man?

So has the USA. There are five types of Ebola virus and the newest strain is named Bundibugyo, or Ebobun for short. The U.S. government holds a patent on Bundibugyo Ebola — US20120251502 A1 , for “Human Ebola Virus Species and Compositions and Methods Thereof” related to the Bundibugyo version of the virus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkHL2K7CmZg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALsOWR0ZcyA

Yes they are sick mofos.

emp. Limakasidios, an authoritarian anarchist and limakasidian entropist.

So you trust what elite to make the decisions for the majority?  In spite of what they may want? 

Hitler tired that. 

So did Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao.

Bitmore
I am describing 19 century Europe that do look like your paradise with basically no rule about your walfare mainly
No revenu tax, no capital gain tax, no capital tax, and no VAT.This MUCH more true in the working environment where there is NO rule except few state monopoly that is not the subject here.
You got maximum liberty as there is few rules (compared to today).Hell if a workman wanted to work 20 hours a day to get rich, he could!
This totaly free capitalism invented legal mass slavery. And the law where not responsible for that (except maybe there absence).
Capitalist used the fear of loosing a job to lower wages. They used automatisation to simplify the work, leading to kids and women working ( they are cheaper than men). Family where so poor that they send there kids every time younger to work. Leading to even more pressure on wages and more poverty if you didn't send your kid.
They didn't do it because they are specially bad poeple, i would probably too. They did it because they could. this is the nature of capital: turning 2 to 4.

Kid working from 6 to 8 pm from 6  to 18 leaded to smaller, half retared population.
At this time, women working means nobody to take care of the baby leading to up to 25% death rate from 0 to 1. At the age of 1 you can't feed yourself.

Living condition was much worst than during the 18 century.
Free the capital now, you will get that back.


so what is left? Not much to be honest. A mix of freedom and regulation.
To me socialism is about those rules and it hads very nice result and very bad.
what is YOUR exemple of good "capitalism" ?

Anyway to me the problem is more politic and the way so-democracy works...

That is an interesting point.  

Ebola, if it requires quarantine, could tear apart our liberties and freedoms and way of life for the socialistic "for the people".    

That is if the government (or Russians who had the bio-weapons development since they cheated the Chem/Bio weapons treaty since the 1973 treaty) didn't create the whole disease/crisis in the first place.

What is said is that humanity bears sensibility insufficient for its own excession. Indeed, something exceeding them must hail upon the beast for that.

looks like it might be ebola.

So the ends justify the means?
Just admit that please.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

If government enslaved the whole of the rest of humanity, it could have them toil unto achievement until sufficient achievement (or their extinction) had been achieved.

How is that socialism detrimental to humanity?

Europe is NOT an example of a sustainable form of Capitalism/socialism.  It IS failing.

Capitalism does require -some- regulation, but too much and you kill the golden egg laying goose.   

And EQUALITY OF OUTCOME is not a desirable goal.   Only in OPPORTUNITY, requiring incentive and motive, as outlined in the Declaration and Constitution in protecting individual rights over group rights.  Forced charity is not charity, but force.
 
There is a myth among many that seem to think that the growing inequality between classes is the fault of the far right and extreme capitalism, when in fact it is the left or socialistic policies and 'crony capitalism' that increase that gap by obstructing class mobility;  RESULTING IN REDUCED "CLASS MOBILITY".   For example, raise taxes on the rich and what happens?  The rich pay tax attorneys who get them a lower end tax rate than the low class, or no taxes at all, while the middle class ends up with a higher obstacle to succeed and gain wealth by paying proportionally a much higher burden because we all can't afford a tax attorney.  Thus moving from middle to upper class is obstructed by socialistic good intentions.

THat is the key to maximizing personal liberty, respecting personal property, and reducing the gap between the upper and lower class; TO INCREASE CLASS MOBILITY as a goal, or the ability to move up in class,,,OR DOWN,,, if you fail, as ENRON did, GM did, and the huge bailout "stimulus" at the end of the Bush administration to save banks who were "too big to fail".  THAT was Bush's major failure; he should have let them fail, and broken them up like the baby Bells.  THAT is why we have had an anemic economic recovery, with high unemployment, poor workforce participation and the highest number of people on welfare and food stamps ever.   

Nothing or nobody is 'too big to fail' or you risk not having any risk in business which defines success for the majority. 

It is all about "CLASS MOBILITY".  To deny that is to deny human nature in working in self interest;  a mistake the Soviets made when they tried to create the "New Soviet Man" who would have no self interest, but only act in the interest of the collective.

What humanity have they known by this such that one may cease to term them "dust?"

I tell you, so long as their entropy is insufficient for the denying them physical structure, they are but dust.

Virtue is the sole sustenance of humanity. A human system disbarring the development of its virtue is a system seeking their (eventual) damnation.

if your definition of socialism is a dictatorship then of course your right. But things tend to be a bit more complicated.



What you call morality and charity is what i call socialism. To much of morality and charity is bad. To few is bad too.
19 century was a paradise for capitalism because very few rules was preventing you to do anything you want. At that time working 18 hours a day was normal and working 16h was charity.

Those too words you used remind me of a movie ( agora i think ) about the birth of cristianism. Where in a cast sociaty some stranges guys start to claim that it is good to share with the poor and (worst) that all men are equals in front of god. What a revolution! This idea of equality and sharing that you would call morality and charity, really looks like early socialism to me.

Capitalism has nothing to do with sharing or men equality. Capitalism has to do with turning 2 into 4. It is indeed a good idea but not at all price.
At some point China is much more capitalist than the USA which is the thing i found hilarious  given the state of mind and the examples here...

Socialism as loads of meanings. I do not think that socialism = "communist" dictatorship but again if you prefer call it morality and charity.
As an exemple in france socialism manage to get workers Holliday, limiting work-hours, man/women equality, recently gay mariage ...

I don't think if you look in North Korea, Russia, or China or any other socialist paradise that you will find an EPA, child labor laws, or OSHA.   

You will find how if you as a citizen of those places complain of any poor or lacking treatment, will find yourself in deep shit if you ever ask for such protections though.  You might be lucky to survive to make it to a Gulag, where labor laws are.... well you work until you are dead.  Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn wrote extensively on that subject being one of the few survivors of that treatment.

The only ones that benefited where the guys running factories. Of course the workers benefited when the alternative was death, duh.

Perhaps you missed it, but my very first statement on the post above was that for Capitalism to work there has to be morality, and charity.   The child labor was of course brutal.  The socialist system is even more so.   And 19th century Europe was by no means the highest form of the free market.
 

Look at the achievements of the respective systems, and you will find all the major advancements happening in capitalistic systems, while socialism produced,,, what,,, the AK-47?  Lake Karachay?  Yamantau Mountain?

People were choosing to work in factories and everyone ended up benefiting of the wealth created, leaving the market fix prices and regulating lightly doesn't mean you have no rules, you just have good ones

Read about the 19century in europe. No socialism there, nice economic boom, pure capitalism mixed it is true with colonialism.
Marx has spotted children of 2years old working in some lace factory. I just can't imagine a kid doing anything usefull at that age. In this industry the norm was to train them at 3 and get them to work at 4. He might be the angel of hell to you but others spoke about the working condition during that period.
Under this fantastic period of history mankind actually shrink not in quantity but in size. Due to the working conditions, poeple simply shrink. Put your kid in a box for 14hours per day without a windows from 6 to 18 years old, i bet he won't pass 1m60.
This is no mass murder it is true, it is pure capitalism with no rule except the one linking he who owns the capital to human meat who doesn't. Nobody broke any law here, yet working conditions was probably comparable to soviet goulag on the scale of a country.

It is quite easy to have extreme exemples to defend ideological stance. but it is of no use.
I am not defending any socialist nor capitalist as this is just ideological shit baked by some extreme useless exemple.