Strong Link Found Between Supporting Communism And Never Once Having Opened A History Book

[Uncensored2008]

I would agree with that. Communism is great in theory but abysmal in practice.

Yet you support shitting bull, elizabeth warren,,,,

 

[Coyote]

The fact is, capitalism places a monetary value on human life, and if that value is less than the potential profit, human life is expendable.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. Capitalism is a system where the individual makes choices about their lives. What I study, what skills I acquire, where I work, what I do with the money I earn, where I live, what I eat, what I read, and how I think, are all choices the individual makes. In essence, the individual decides their own worth to society. They determine how they best want to make (or not make) a contribution to society.

In a Communist system, the value of any person is determined by their usefulness to the state. The state decides the value of a person based on what the state can get out of them.

Here is a reality check (and I am not defending communism) - capitalism is no more ethical.

When it comes to human lives, many industries view it as an economic calculus. If the potential cost of a human life, in terms of fines or legal settlements, is less than the profit gained by the enterprise, the human life is not worth preserving. We see this in pharmaceutical companies that market insufficietly tested drugs, or attempt to obscure the adverse effects of those drugs. We see it in companies such as those in the energy industries that rack up millions in fines, penalties and deaths because those costs are still less than the profit they will gain by cutting corners and putting lives at risk.

What does that say about the value of a person in that system?

 

[Coyote]

I would agree with that. Communism is great in theory but abysmal in practice.

Yet you support shitting bull, elizabeth warren,,,,

I actually haven’t said who I support, because I have not decided.

However, she is not a communist.

 

[fncceo]

Communism is just a political theory and thus it is interpreted and implemented by people

It usually fails like most political theories when people in the government become corrupt and want to beat people over the head with whatever floats

Even democracy has corruption and it by people who have no business being in power

The main difference is how easy or hard is it to get rid of corrupt people

I think communism fails because it does not account for human nature. We need something in it for ourselves, incentive,reward. It is all fine and dandy to do it all for the collective...except we don’t. And we don’t want to be forced to when we get no individual rewards.

What you are labeling Socialism is actually philanthropic zeal supported by the taxpayer.

Socialism, in its most fundamental definition, is a system where the means of production or the means of distribution, are controlled by the state (ostensibly in the name of the people).

Safety nets and social welfare programs aren't Socialism. They maintain no control over the economy or how the economy supplies goods and services. Social programs loot the economy through enforced taxes to give largess to the masses in the name of the state.

In the days of Rome, Senators bought votes and the love of the masses by spending their own money on bread and circuses.

Today, our politicians are much smarter, they do the same things, for the same reasons. But, they don't do it with their own money, they do it with the money of the taxpayers while still taking the credit.

 

[Coyote]

Does capitalism have a moral compass?

Does Communism?

I wouldn't pull on that thread if I were you.

But I will...you knew that right?


Communism in theory has more of a moral compass than capitalism because it takes into account the rights of the traditionally powerless individual. .

If I had a theory that gas cans turn into flowers when exposed to flame, I would test that theory.

After a few dozen incinerated laboratories, I'd go back to the chalkboard and revise my theory.

In both theory and practice, Communism is the ideology that allows one segment of society to control the reins of power by using the masses to eliminate the existing power structure.

It does this by making promises that Communism can't deliver and leaves those masses worse off than they were before. The morality of Communism is based on sowing hatred for an imaginary oppressor so he can be replaced with a cabal of revolutionaries who can then exploit the same masses for their own good.

The morality of Capitalism is rooted in the ethos that hard work and smart investment not only benefits the individual, but society at large.

Capitalism has delivered a higher standard of living, higher literacy rates, more free time, and more disposable income for the masses than any other system in the history of mankind.

Capitalism only did that with regulation, and some socialism. Unadulterated it lead to a divide between those who had and those who did not. The only difference was that instead of a hereditary aristocracy...you had a wealthy business aristocracy, but you still had a mass of people at the bottom who couldn’t get out.

Bill Gates, Alan Gerry, Oprah Winfrey, Do Wang Chang, Howard Schultz, and thousands of other individuals have begun their lives with literally nothing and built successful financial empires, allowing millions of others to earn their own livings, because they were allowed to make their own choices and utilized their own talents in ways they felt would benefit them the most.

None of these thousands of success stories would have been possible in a Communist society.

Yup.

And I absolutely agree.

It was possible however, in a REGULATED capitalist system.

 

[Coyote]

Communism is just a political theory and thus it is interpreted and implemented by people

It usually fails like most political theories when people in the government become corrupt and want to beat people over the head with whatever floats

Even democracy has corruption and it by people who have no business being in power

The main difference is how easy or hard is it to get rid of corrupt people

I think communism fails because it does not account for human nature. We need something in it for ourselves, incentive,reward. It is all fine and dandy to do it all for the collective...except we don’t. And we don’t want to be forced to when we get no individual rewards.

What you are labeling Socialism is actually philanthropic zeal supported by the taxpayer.

Socialism, in its most fundamental definition, is a system where the means of production or the means of distribution, are controlled by the state (ostensibly in the name of the people).

Safety nets and social welfare programs aren't Socialism. They maintain no control over the economy or how the economy supplies goods and services. Social programs loot the economy through enforced taxes to give largess to the masses in the name of the state.

In the days of Rome, Senators bought votes and the love of the masses by spending their own money on bread and circuses.

Today, our politicians are much smarter, they do the same things, for the same reasons. But, they don't do it with their own money, they do it with the money of the taxpayers while still taking the credit.

This taxpayer philanthropic zeal is exactly what most rightists on this board define as socialism....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I would agree with that. Communism is great in theory but abysmal in practice.

Yet you support shitting bull, elizabeth warren,,,,

I actually haven’t said who I support, because I have not decided.

However, she is not a communist.

 

[fncceo]

The fact is, capitalism places a monetary value on human life, and if that value is less than the potential profit, human life is expendable.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. Capitalism is a system where the individual makes choices about their lives. What I study, what skills I acquire, where I work, what I do with the money I earn, where I live, what I eat, what I read, and how I think, are all choices the individual makes. In essence, the individual decides their own worth to society. They determine how they best want to make (or not make) a contribution to society.

In a Communist system, the value of any person is determined by their usefulness to the state. The state decides the value of a person based on what the state can get out of them.

Here is a reality check (and I am not defending communism) - capitalism is no more ethical.

When it comes to human lives, many industries view it as an economic calculus. If the potential cost of a human life, in terms of fines or legal settlements, is less than the profit gained by the enterprise, the human life is not worth preserving. We see this in pharmaceutical companies that market insufficietly tested drugs, or attempt to obscure the adverse effects of those drugs. We see it in companies such as those in the energy industries that rack up millions in fines, penalties and deaths because those costs are still less than the profit they will gain by cutting corners and putting lives at risk.

What does that say about the value of a person in that system?

Today's life expectancy is higher than at any other time in human history. That is almost completely because of advances in the pharmaceutical industry.

Every thing from Aspirin to Interferon, comes from investment in research to find cures for humanities worst ailments.

If you've ever taken a Tylenol or an antibiotic, you can owe the alleviation of your suffering or your very life to the pharmaceutical industry.

Sometimes the cost of finding cures to mankind's ills costs billions of dollars in research. I don't expect any investor to spend billions of dollars of their own money without a market for that cure that won't support the investment.

You can call that putting a cost on human life.

In Communist system, the state, not the individual, decides which diseases they will fight and what sick they will treat, based on the needs of the state, not the needs of the individual.

That is also putting a cost on human life.

 

[fncceo]

Communism is just a political theory and thus it is interpreted and implemented by people

It usually fails like most political theories when people in the government become corrupt and want to beat people over the head with whatever floats

Even democracy has corruption and it by people who have no business being in power

The main difference is how easy or hard is it to get rid of corrupt people

I think communism fails because it does not account for human nature. We need something in it for ourselves, incentive,reward. It is all fine and dandy to do it all for the collective...except we don’t. And we don’t want to be forced to when we get no individual rewards.

What you are labeling Socialism is actually philanthropic zeal supported by the taxpayer.

Socialism, in its most fundamental definition, is a system where the means of production or the means of distribution, are controlled by the state (ostensibly in the name of the people).

Safety nets and social welfare programs aren't Socialism. They maintain no control over the economy or how the economy supplies goods and services. Social programs loot the economy through enforced taxes to give largess to the masses in the name of the state.

In the days of Rome, Senators bought votes and the love of the masses by spending their own money on bread and circuses.

Today, our politicians are much smarter, they do the same things, for the same reasons. But, they don't do it with their own money, they do it with the money of the taxpayers while still taking the credit.

This taxpayer philanthropic zeal is exactly what most rightists on this board define as socialism....

People frequently use words they don't fully understand because they have emotional appeal.

Strictly speaking, social programs aren't Socialism. It still doesn't mean I support them.

 

[fncceo]

It was possible however, in a REGULATED capitalist system.

No industry is regulated in its infancy. No politician took notice of automobiles, or telephones, light bulbs, or computers until it was possible to squeeze a buck out of them for themselves.

Every one of those product went from obscurity to a huge revenue stream to politicians as soon as the public adopted them. Frequently, to the detriment of the consumer and the business.

In a regulated Capitalist system, one of the biggest costs of doing business is the cost of paying legislators to pass legislation supportive of your product and detrimental to those of your competition.


There is a quote of which I'm fond, because it is pithy and because it's absolutely true.

"When buying and selling are legislated. The first thing to be bought and sold are legislators"

-- P.J. O'Rourke.

 

[Coyote]

The fact is, capitalism places a monetary value on human life, and if that value is less than the potential profit, human life is expendable.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. Capitalism is a system where the individual makes choices about their lives. What I study, what skills I acquire, where I work, what I do with the money I earn, where I live, what I eat, what I read, and how I think, are all choices the individual makes. In essence, the individual decides their own worth to society. They determine how they best want to make (or not make) a contribution to society.

In a Communist system, the value of any person is determined by their usefulness to the state. The state decides the value of a person based on what the state can get out of them.

Here is a reality check (and I am not defending communism) - capitalism is no more ethical.

When it comes to human lives, many industries view it as an economic calculus. If the potential cost of a human life, in terms of fines or legal settlements, is less than the profit gained by the enterprise, the human life is not worth preserving. We see this in pharmaceutical companies that market insufficietly tested drugs, or attempt to obscure the adverse effects of those drugs. We see it in companies such as those in the energy industries that rack up millions in fines, penalties and deaths because those costs are still less than the profit they will gain by cutting corners and putting lives at risk.

What does that say about the value of a person in that system?

Today's life expectancy is higher than at any other time in human history. That is almost completely because of advances in the pharmaceutical industry.

Every thing from Aspirin to Interferon, comes from investment in research to find cures for humanities worst ailments.

If you've ever taken a Tylenol or an antibiotic, you can owe the alleviation of your suffering or your very life to the pharmaceutical industry.

Sometimes the cost of finding cures to mankind's ills costs billions of dollars in research. I don't expect any investor to spend billions of dollars of their own money without a market for that cure that won't support the investment.

You can call that putting a cost on human life.

In Communist system, the state, not the individual, decides which diseases they will fight and what sick they will treat, based on the needs of the state, not the needs of the individual.

That is also putting a cost on human life.

While I don’t disagree with the benefits, that doesn’t put to rest the willingness in many cases, to hide or, pay settlements on drugs that have ended up having severe adverse consequences beyond potential benefits. That is absolutely putting a price on human life. Until that price threatens profitability, it will not change.

And, even worse, look at the mining industry with black lung, accidents, etc. The cost of a human life isn’t high enough to cause them to alter practices.

That is the reality of capitalism. Yes, you have great opportunity, if you are lucky, and yes it has led to great innovation and societal enrichment in a way communism can not...it also comes at a price. There is NO moral compass. That is provided through political activism, u ions, churches and regulation. Itis not inherent in capitalism itself.

 

[Coyote]

It was possible however, in a REGULATED capitalist system.

No industry is regulated in its infancy. No politician took notice of automobiles, or telephones, light bulbs, or computers until it was possible to squeeze a buck out of them for themselves.

Every one of those product went from obscurity to a huge revenue stream to politicians as soon as the public adopted them. Frequently, to the detriment of the consumer and the business.

In a regulated Capitalist system, one of the biggest costs of doing business is the cost of paying legislators to pass legislation supportive of your product and detrimental to those of your competition.


There is a quote of which I'm fond, because it is pithy and because it's absolutely true.

"When buying and selling are legislated. The first thing to be bought and sold are legislators"

-- P.J. O'Rourke.

So what do you propose...no regulation? Btw I agree, none are regulated in infancy and that isn’t a bad thing in start ups.

 

[fncceo]

The cost of a human life isn’t high enough to cause them to alter practices.

Not a single person in the Capitalist system ever went down a mine or took a breath of coal dust against their will.

In any Capitalist system worthy of the name, the worker has the ultimate choice of how he sells his skills and what price he will accept for those skills.

In a Communist system, the opposite is true. You work where you are told you will work and your recompense for that work is decided, not by you, but by the state.

 

[Coyote]

Communism is just a political theory and thus it is interpreted and implemented by people

It usually fails like most political theories when people in the government become corrupt and want to beat people over the head with whatever floats

Even democracy has corruption and it by people who have no business being in power

The main difference is how easy or hard is it to get rid of corrupt people

I think communism fails because it does not account for human nature. We need something in it for ourselves, incentive,reward. It is all fine and dandy to do it all for the collective...except we don’t. And we don’t want to be forced to when we get no individual rewards.

What you are labeling Socialism is actually philanthropic zeal supported by the taxpayer.

Socialism, in its most fundamental definition, is a system where the means of production or the means of distribution, are controlled by the state (ostensibly in the name of the people).

Safety nets and social welfare programs aren't Socialism. They maintain no control over the economy or how the economy supplies goods and services. Social programs loot the economy through enforced taxes to give largess to the masses in the name of the state.

In the days of Rome, Senators bought votes and the love of the masses by spending their own money on bread and circuses.

Today, our politicians are much smarter, they do the same things, for the same reasons. But, they don't do it with their own money, they do it with the money of the taxpayers while still taking the credit.

This taxpayer philanthropic zeal is exactly what most rightists on this board define as socialism....

People frequently use words they don't fully understand because they have emotional appeal.

Strictly speaking, social programs aren't Socialism. It still doesn't mean I support them.

Do you support social programs?

 

[Coyote]

The cost of a human life isn’t high enough to cause them to alter practices.

Not a single person in the Capitalist system ever went down a mine or took a breath of coal dust against their will.

In any Capitalist system worthy of the name, the worker has the ultimate choice of how he sells his skills and what price he will accept for those skills.

In a Communist system, the opposite is true. You work where you are told you will work and your recompense for that work is decided, not by you, but by the state.

Not necessarily. Not historically.

And even if so, does that give the employer unlimited rights? For example to chain doors shut causing workers to die in a fire. No. Workers have rights as well. Employers are not kings.

 

[fncceo]

It was possible however, in a REGULATED capitalist system.

No industry is regulated in its infancy. No politician took notice of automobiles, or telephones, light bulbs, or computers until it was possible to squeeze a buck out of them for themselves.

Every one of those product went from obscurity to a huge revenue stream to politicians as soon as the public adopted them. Frequently, to the detriment of the consumer and the business.

In a regulated Capitalist system, one of the biggest costs of doing business is the cost of paying legislators to pass legislation supportive of your product and detrimental to those of your competition.


There is a quote of which I'm fond, because it is pithy and because it's absolutely true.

"When buying and selling are legislated. The first thing to be bought and sold are legislators"

-- P.J. O'Rourke.

So what do you propose...no regulation? Btw I agree, none are regulated in infancy and that isn’t a bad thing in start ups.

We often fall into the trap of believing that we wouldn't have this or that or the other thing without the largess of the state.

The fact is, every service provided by the state on which we depend was, at one time, provided by the individual. Often at a superior level of service.

Before asking the questions, "What will the government do about _____?"
Ask yourself, the question, "What will I do about _____?"

If you don't like a product or the way a service is being provided, think about getting the support of like-minded individuals and putting forth your own solutions.

Uber, Amazon, MCI, Apple, Comcast, Google, and many others, all provide services that, at one time, were being provided by others, but not as well. They exist not because the people who founded them went running to Congress to provide a solution to their problems. They exist because someone said, "What is a better way of doing this?" , went on to find people who felt the same, and created a solution.

Everyone one of those companies will, some day, be replaced by someone else doing exactly the same thing.

The way to fight corrupt practices isn't to give more power to the people who perpetuate the corruption.

Legislators can only impede, they cannot create.

 

[fncceo]

For example to chain doors shut causing workers to die in a fire. No. Workers have rights as well. Employers are not kings.

Employers aren't kings, by any stretch of the imagination. Any employer in a Capitalist system is dependent not only on his labor force but his customer base to remain an employer.

Locking in workers to die in a fire isn't Capitalism (in theory or in practice). It's criminal and and prosecuted as such.

 

[fncceo]

Communism is just a political theory and thus it is interpreted and implemented by people

It usually fails like most political theories when people in the government become corrupt and want to beat people over the head with whatever floats

Even democracy has corruption and it by people who have no business being in power

The main difference is how easy or hard is it to get rid of corrupt people

I think communism fails because it does not account for human nature. We need something in it for ourselves, incentive,reward. It is all fine and dandy to do it all for the collective...except we don’t. And we don’t want to be forced to when we get no individual rewards.

What you are labeling Socialism is actually philanthropic zeal supported by the taxpayer.

Socialism, in its most fundamental definition, is a system where the means of production or the means of distribution, are controlled by the state (ostensibly in the name of the people).

Safety nets and social welfare programs aren't Socialism. They maintain no control over the economy or how the economy supplies goods and services. Social programs loot the economy through enforced taxes to give largess to the masses in the name of the state.

In the days of Rome, Senators bought votes and the love of the masses by spending their own money on bread and circuses.

Today, our politicians are much smarter, they do the same things, for the same reasons. But, they don't do it with their own money, they do it with the money of the taxpayers while still taking the credit.

This taxpayer philanthropic zeal is exactly what most rightists on this board define as socialism....

People frequently use words they don't fully understand because they have emotional appeal.

Strictly speaking, social programs aren't Socialism. It still doesn't mean I support them.

Do you support social programs?

I support anyone's right to create their own, privately funded, social system. I do not support systems that rely on taxpayers money to operate. Those systems often create more problems than they solve.

Trillions of dollars of taxpayer money have been spent waging a 'War on Poverty' since the 1960's... it's a war in which we haven't won a single battle and, in many ways, actually gone backwards.

In my current job, I work on the coalface with many providers of social services. They are most often ineffectual at their best, completely detrimental at their worst. The one thing they do have in common is their sense of moral superiority and the perception they are performing a service to the community ... regardless of the facts of the matter.

 

[Coyote]

I think communism fails because it does not account for human nature. We need something in it for ourselves, incentive,reward. It is all fine and dandy to do it all for the collective...except we don’t. And we don’t want to be forced to when we get no individual rewards.

What you are labeling Socialism is actually philanthropic zeal supported by the taxpayer.

Socialism, in its most fundamental definition, is a system where the means of production or the means of distribution, are controlled by the state (ostensibly in the name of the people).

Safety nets and social welfare programs aren't Socialism. They maintain no control over the economy or how the economy supplies goods and services. Social programs loot the economy through enforced taxes to give largess to the masses in the name of the state.

In the days of Rome, Senators bought votes and the love of the masses by spending their own money on bread and circuses.

Today, our politicians are much smarter, they do the same things, for the same reasons. But, they don't do it with their own money, they do it with the money of the taxpayers while still taking the credit.

This taxpayer philanthropic zeal is exactly what most rightists on this board define as socialism....

People frequently use words they don't fully understand because they have emotional appeal.

Strictly speaking, social programs aren't Socialism. It still doesn't mean I support them.

Do you support social programs?

I support anyone's right to create their own, privately funded, social system. I do not support systems that rely on taxpayers money to operate. Those systems often create more problems than they solve.

Trillions of dollars of taxpayer money have been spent waging a 'War on Poverty' since the 1960's... it's a war in which we haven't won a single battle and, in many ways, actually gone backwards.

In my current job, I work on the coalface with many providers of social services. They are most often ineffectual at their best, completely detrimental at their worst. The one thing they do have in common is their sense of moral superiority and the perception they are performing a service to the community ... regardless of the facts of the matter.

Yet when we depended on entirely privately funded social systems, poverty was a lot worse.

 

[regent]

When America's most noted historians voted FDR as our best president; seems there was a lot of calling historians communists.