Pages:
Author

Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 8. (Read 30782 times)

member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
Far too loaded question to be honest

Some people are hard-wired to take, others to give.

There will always be people that benefit from the vulnerability of others. Sadly, it's in our nature unless we evolve to a better state of being.

I quite like the idea of giving every human alive a basic, comfortably living wage to sustain themselves on. The choice to go out to work and earn more is theirs. That would solve a lot of problems IMO - no more getting any old job because you need one, no more trying to stab someone in the back to afford basic food and water, etc etc.

It's proven that when you alleviate poverty - crime and corruption go down.

If I had my way everyone would have all they wanted, people would only work because they enjoyed it, and there would be absolutely no hatred to your fellow human because of race/religion/nationality/sex/sexual orientation/possessions etc etc

Ahhh, but, I'm just an idealist! Not a Marxist before you start! There's no ultimate equality in my dream, nor in any reality.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1018
We need a Resource Based Economy, google it.

We need less government and more freedom
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
We don't have any more need for state protection so now we have crusades against adjectives!

Was on poverty!
War on drugs!
War on terror!

Lol

Poverty, drugs, and terror are nouns, not adjectives.

Cool, never was good at English (thanks state school system! Good job) Genuine thanks for the correct though x

Let the war on scary sounding nouns continue unabated until these nouns are so utterly defeated they become adjectives!
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
We don't have any more need for state protection so now we have crusades against adjectives!

Was on poverty!
War on drugs!
War on terror!

Lol

Poverty, drugs, and terror are nouns, not adjectives.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Still not convinced poverty is a problem that needs to be fixed. Or even a problem.

Agreed, state fabrication to justify its continued existence.

We don't have any more need for state protection so now we have crusades against adjectives!

Was on poverty!
War on drugs!
War on terror!

Lol
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
Still not convinced poverty is a problem that needs to be fixed. Or even a problem.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Why not let this topic die?
Let's sum this up:

Libertarians: let them die and rot.

Socialists: welfare.

Religious: charity.

Which of them solves poverty? In the bad way only libertarians. The others just assume a constant flow of the poor.

It isn't dead because of gross misrepresentations of the arguments of capitalism and libertarianism, like this shit you just pulled.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
Why not let this topic die?
Let's sum this up:

Libertarians: let them die and rot.

Socialists: welfare.

Religious: charity.

Which of them solves poverty? In the bad way only libertarians. The others just assume a constant flow of the poor.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
We need a Resource Based Economy, google it.

This has come up already.

(RBE == Communism) != A_solution;
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
We need a Resource Based Economy, google it.
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1002
Far from it; socialism is contrary to human nature. The free market IS human nature.
Right-wingers, be more cautious with the words about human nature! Sooner of later biohackers will definitely listen you Wink
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.

Man, get some sense, check out reality and take a standpoint. Really.

Capitalism creates largely the same level of income for people with the same productive capacity (meaning workers with skills have more) at the maximum level that humanity can sustain, AND some rich people.

Communism creates the same level of income for all, at a level that continually diminishes, EXCEPT for the few people that has positioned themselves to administer all the sameness. To keep the sameness, the productive capacity of society has to be destroyed, with it, millions of people also have to be destroyed, literally, as in killing.


I must have missed something. Did I endorse communism? Far from it; socialism is contrary to human nature. The free market IS human nature. But survival of the fittest is also nature. Does that mean we ignore the losers and let them reek in the gutter? Nature, or God, also gave us compassion and intellect. We have the means. It would be inhuman not to have a social safety net.

You had a wishywashy middle ground standpoint.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 661
I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.

Man, get some sense, check out reality and take a standpoint. Really.

Capitalism creates largely the same level of income for people with the same productive capacity (meaning workers with skills have more) at the maximum level that humanity can sustain, AND some rich people.

Communism creates the same level of income for all, at a level that continually diminishes, EXCEPT for the few people that has positioned themselves to administer all the sameness. To keep the sameness, the productive capacity of society has to be destroyed, with it, millions of people also have to be destroyed, literally, as in killing.


I must have missed something. Did I endorse communism? Far from it; socialism is contrary to human nature. The free market IS human nature. But survival of the fittest is also nature. Does that mean we ignore the losers and let them reek in the gutter? Nature, or God, also gave us compassion and intellect. We have the means. It would be inhuman not to have a social safety net.

So pay now for your own social safety net for what can happen to you tomorrow. The non forced version is called insurance, and embraced by free market.
We just don't want to be forced into it.
There is no need for charity, and insurance is not a charity, and provide your so called safety net.

No, I don't need safety net for unemployment, because I know I will never be unemployed, so why should I pay for it ?  (but I don't mind people protecting themselves with it and paying for it)
For health ? Ok, I would pay, since it does not depend on me.
But a fucking bureaucrat taking the decision to submit to one, another or both against my free will, "for my protection" is what libertarian are arguing about.

Quote
We probably need a brand new system, something in between i reckon.
There is no in between, either you are free to pay for the services you want, either you are forced to at the point of the gun.
There is no compromise possible.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
I agree the state-supported system needs a kick in the pants. But I've never been convinced private charity would be sufficient. Truly, I'm open to it and I'd love to see the experiment play out somewhere in the world. But I think throwing out government would be a mistake.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.

Man, get some sense, check out reality and take a standpoint. Really.

Capitalism creates largely the same level of income for people with the same productive capacity (meaning workers with skills have more) at the maximum level that humanity can sustain, AND some rich people.

Communism creates the same level of income for all, at a level that continually diminishes, EXCEPT for the few people that has positioned themselves to administer all the sameness. To keep the sameness, the productive capacity of society has to be destroyed, with it, millions of people also have to be destroyed, literally, as in killing.


I must have missed something. Did I endorse communism? Far from it; socialism is contrary to human nature. The free market IS human nature. But survival of the fittest is also nature. Does that mean we ignore the losers and let them reek in the gutter? Nature, or God, also gave us compassion and intellect. We have the means. It would be inhuman not to have a social safety net.

If we accept that god gave people compassion then we accept that people are compassionate.

If people are compassionate then they need not be forced to act in a compassionate manner.

Given people need not be forced to act in a compassionate manner there is no requirement for a forced social safety net.

Private charity is more effective than state forced redistribution will ever be, private charity will help those deserving.

After all, what else is welfare but charity for assholes?
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.

Man, get some sense, check out reality and take a standpoint. Really.

Capitalism creates largely the same level of income for people with the same productive capacity (meaning workers with skills have more) at the maximum level that humanity can sustain, AND some rich people.

Communism creates the same level of income for all, at a level that continually diminishes, EXCEPT for the few people that has positioned themselves to administer all the sameness. To keep the sameness, the productive capacity of society has to be destroyed, with it, millions of people also have to be destroyed, literally, as in killing.


I must have missed something. Did I endorse communism? Far from it; socialism is contrary to human nature. The free market IS human nature. But survival of the fittest is also nature. Does that mean we ignore the losers and let them reek in the gutter? Nature, or God, also gave us compassion and intellect. We have the means. It would be inhuman not to have a social safety net.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
I have another year left at university studying physics, I'm going to take an elective class from the school of politics and economics on socialism and then I'm going to fail it.

When I fail my class, I'm going to demand that other peoples grades be redistributed for the benefit of my own, so that people who got 1st class grades have them taxed down to a 2:1 and my grade is raised up to a pass.

#SolutionToPoverty


And if this destroys the university, all students now in concentration camps, you have made your point...
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
I have another year left at university studying physics, I'm going to take an elective class from the school of politics and economics on socialism and then I'm going to fail it.

When I fail my class, I'm going to demand that other peoples grades be redistributed for the benefit of my own, so that people who got 1st class grades have them taxed down to a 2:1 and my grade is raised up to a pass.

#SolutionToPoverty

legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.

Man, get some sense, check out reality and take a standpoint. Really.

Capitalism creates largely the same level of income for people with the same productive capacity (meaning workers with skills have more) at the maximum level that humanity can sustain, AND some rich people.

Communism creates the same level of income for all, at a level that continually diminishes, EXCEPT for the few people that has positioned themselves to administer all the sameness. To keep the sameness, the productive capacity of society has to be destroyed, with it, millions of people also have to be destroyed, literally, as in killing.

newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.
Pages:
Jump to: