Coloradomtnman
Rational and proud of it.
I wonder about human beings a lot. As an optimistc pessimist (meaning I think human beings are destined to cause their own extinction, but at least I'm enjoying the ride) I see the moral merits of socialism, but I also see the rational merits of capitalism.
A society that takes care of it own, even the so-called undeserving at the sacrifice of the "deserving" so that all children have health care, that people don't go bankrupt from medical costs, where poverty is nearly extinct, where education is a right not a privelege, where one doesn't spend their youth and their lives to make already wealthy people wealthier, to have a better opportunity to do meaningful work seems moral to me. And it reflects human nature, right? We don't like that people are poor and we want to help them. We don't want children starving. We want people to be educated. We don't want to be beholden to megacorporations for almost every aspect of our lives.
But,
A society that relfects that nature of life has its merits as well. Life survives as it does because those which survive are best suited to survive. Human beings, as all life, achieves greater things because of competition. But there is the great possibility of failure.
Obviously these are simplifications of both systems and neither system is perfect. And no where does one system exist in its pure form. Just look at what is happening in our economy currently. Ford, GM, and Chrysler would be going out of business, and may still go bankrupt and the ripples from their failures, if they do fail, will drag the economy even further down. Many people will lose their jobs, their businesses and their livelihood. But the government stepped in to help. Though that may be changng.
Those who support capitalism justify it with ideas like pure freedom, meaning freedom to succeed as much as you can but also freedom to fail. They also claim that private and non-profit industries can handle the burden of the needy who fail (not always through their own faults) as a result of the capitalism. Its the humanitarian side of society that capitalism doesn't really address. In my opinion, I don't think that private and non-profit companies can handle all of society's needy people.
Those who support socialism talk of the humanitarian side of socialism but don't mention how the economy will be driven, or how to keep the economy stable. Not that it is stable in a capitalistic economy.
Since neither creates a steady state economy, and neither addresses all facets of human nature, so I wonder, how can we reconcile the humanity of socialism and the natural selection of capitalism? What if we can't? Should we choose humanity over the evolutionary process of capitalism and live at a materially lower quality of life, or vice versa and attempt to somehow take care of all the needy the capitalism produces?
A society that takes care of it own, even the so-called undeserving at the sacrifice of the "deserving" so that all children have health care, that people don't go bankrupt from medical costs, where poverty is nearly extinct, where education is a right not a privelege, where one doesn't spend their youth and their lives to make already wealthy people wealthier, to have a better opportunity to do meaningful work seems moral to me. And it reflects human nature, right? We don't like that people are poor and we want to help them. We don't want children starving. We want people to be educated. We don't want to be beholden to megacorporations for almost every aspect of our lives.
But,
A society that relfects that nature of life has its merits as well. Life survives as it does because those which survive are best suited to survive. Human beings, as all life, achieves greater things because of competition. But there is the great possibility of failure.
Obviously these are simplifications of both systems and neither system is perfect. And no where does one system exist in its pure form. Just look at what is happening in our economy currently. Ford, GM, and Chrysler would be going out of business, and may still go bankrupt and the ripples from their failures, if they do fail, will drag the economy even further down. Many people will lose their jobs, their businesses and their livelihood. But the government stepped in to help. Though that may be changng.
Those who support capitalism justify it with ideas like pure freedom, meaning freedom to succeed as much as you can but also freedom to fail. They also claim that private and non-profit industries can handle the burden of the needy who fail (not always through their own faults) as a result of the capitalism. Its the humanitarian side of society that capitalism doesn't really address. In my opinion, I don't think that private and non-profit companies can handle all of society's needy people.
Those who support socialism talk of the humanitarian side of socialism but don't mention how the economy will be driven, or how to keep the economy stable. Not that it is stable in a capitalistic economy.
Since neither creates a steady state economy, and neither addresses all facets of human nature, so I wonder, how can we reconcile the humanity of socialism and the natural selection of capitalism? What if we can't? Should we choose humanity over the evolutionary process of capitalism and live at a materially lower quality of life, or vice versa and attempt to somehow take care of all the needy the capitalism produces?
