Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
I would agree with that. Communism is great in theory but abysmal in practice.
Yet you support shitting bull, elizabeth warren,,,,
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I would agree with that. Communism is great in theory but abysmal in practice.
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.
I actually haven’t said who I support, because I have not decided.I would agree with that. Communism is great in theory but abysmal in practice.
Yet you support shitting bull, elizabeth warren,,,,
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.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
Yup.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.But I will...you knew that right?Does capitalism have a moral compass?
Does Communism?
I wouldn't pull on that thread if I were you.
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.
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.
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.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
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.
I actually haven’t said who I support, because I have not decided.I would agree with that. Communism is great in theory but abysmal in practice.
Yet you support shitting bull, elizabeth warren,,,,
However, she is not a communist.
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?
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.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
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....
It was possible however, in a REGULATED capitalist system.
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.
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.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.
The cost of a human life isn’t high enough to cause them to alter practices.
Do you support social programs?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.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
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.
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.
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.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.
For example to chain doors shut causing workers to die in a fire. No. Workers have rights as well. Employers are not kings.
Do you support social programs?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.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
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.
Yet when we depended on entirely privately funded social systems, poverty was a lot worse.Do you support social programs?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.
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.