Capitalism is depressing

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

Which is why European countries with far more socialist policies than the US are doing much better than we are. Though in a sense, I agree that true socialism could never work in such a large and populated country as the US. It's just too much for a centralized system to handle.

-Sun_Tzu-

Yeah Greece and Spain are doing great.

So the euro is a socialist policy now?

What does that have to do with my response?

Your reading comprehension seems off today.

#152 Posted by Radiatedrich91 (707 posts) -

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

So is life.

What you just explained is literally every form of government, ever, in the history of time. You can whine about it or you can get over it and just accept that you're part of a system and you always will be, and that you should just strive to be successful.

That's not really a "life is beautiful" arguement, but sometimes you just have to take the pragmatic route and forget that life isn't perfect.

-TheSecondSign-

2vbv9ja.jpg

Man what am I supposed to do about it? Its like I said it sucks, yeah, but am I supposed to be everyone's solution to their economic strife?

No one is asking you to. But passing off people who are fed up with it all as "whiners" is grossly unfair.

#153 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Yeah Greece and Spain are doing great.

SpartanMSU

So the euro is a socialist policy now?

What does that have to do with my response?

Your reading comprehension seems off today.

And what specifically did I miscomprehend? In response to the statement that there are european countries with very robust social welfare systems that are doing better than the US (that much is debatable), you responded with pointing out that Spain and Greece are suffering through a solvency crisis. What at all does that have to do with the European welfare state?
#154 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -
kids hate daddy, he does a great job at providing the things you need, but he does not care about your opinion of 'should'.
#155 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] So the euro is a socialist policy now? -Sun_Tzu-

What does that have to do with my response?

Your reading comprehension seems off today.

And what specifically did I miscomprehend? In response to the statement that there are european countries with very robust social welfare systems that are doing better than the US (that much is debatable), you responded with pointing out that Spain and Greece are suffering through a solvency crisis. What at all does that have to do with the European welfare state?

I simply responsed to his false logic.

His logic;

Socialist European countries doing better than capitalist U.S., therefore socialism is better and capitalism has failed.

I simply pointed out that's not the case with a counter example. It's much more complicated than that.

#156 Posted by Radiatedrich91 (707 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

What does that have to do with my response?

Your reading comprehension seems off today.

SpartanMSU

And what specifically did I miscomprehend? In response to the statement that there are european countries with very robust social welfare systems that are doing better than the US (that much is debatable), you responded with pointing out that Spain and Greece are suffering through a solvency crisis. What at all does that have to do with the European welfare state?

I simply responsed to his false logic.

His logic;

Socialist European countries doing better than capitalist U.S., therefore socialism is better and capitalism has failed.

I simply pointed out that's not the case with a counter example. It's much more complicated than that.

I never said socialism was better. I was responding to the assertion that everything wrong with the American economy is the result of "socialism". If that were the case, then theoretically, shouldn't the much more socialist nations in Europe all be failing? Some of them are, and some of them aren't. This tells me that the problem isn't socialism in and of itself. The fear of socialism that is taught in American schools is truly remarkable, considering it is no better or worse than capitalism.

#157 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And what specifically did I miscomprehend? In response to the statement that there are european countries with very robust social welfare systems that are doing better than the US (that much is debatable), you responded with pointing out that Spain and Greece are suffering through a solvency crisis. What at all does that have to do with the European welfare state? Radiatedrich91

I simply responsed to his false logic.

His logic;

Socialist European countries doing better than capitalist U.S., therefore socialism is better and capitalism has failed.

I simply pointed out that's not the case with a counter example. It's much more complicated than that.

I never said socialism was better. I was responding to the assertion that everything wrong with the American economy is the result of "socialism". If that were the case, then theoretically, shouldn't the much more socialist nations in Europe all be failing? .

sees euro, yup.
#158 Posted by Radiatedrich91 (707 posts) -

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I simply responsed to his false logic.

His logic;

Socialist European countries doing better than capitalist U.S., therefore socialism is better and capitalism has failed.

I simply pointed out that's not the case with a counter example. It's much more complicated than that.

surrealnumber5

I never said socialism was better. I was responding to the assertion that everything wrong with the American economy is the result of "socialism". If that were the case, then theoretically, shouldn't the much more socialist nations in Europe all be failing? .

sees euro, yup.

Because all countries that use the Euro = socialist.:roll: And you do know that not all countries in the EU use the Euro, right?

#159 Posted by kingkong0124 (8710 posts) -

Capitalism is the most proven and successful economic system we have to date. Fact.

#160 Posted by Radiatedrich91 (707 posts) -

Capitalism is the most proven and successful economic system we have to date. Fact.

kingkong0124

Even if we assume that's true, all of that "economic success" only benefits the bourgeoisie.

#161 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

I never said socialism was better. I was responding to the assertion that everything wrong with the American economy is the result of "socialism". If that were the case, then theoretically, shouldn't the much more socialist nations in Europe all be failing? .

Radiatedrich91

sees euro, yup.

Because all countries that use the Euro = socialist.:roll: And you do know that not all countries in the EU use the Euro, right?

i know a hell of a lot more than you, your comment has zero merit with regards to my post. the ocean being blue has no relevance to a earthquake on mars.
#162 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Capitalism is the most proven and successful economic system we have to date. Fact.

Radiatedrich91

Even if we assume that's true, all of that "economic success" only benefits the bourgeoisie.

Not true. Regardless of class status, anyone has the same opportunity to rise. However, that depends on a number of things like education, family, etc.

Why does everyone think capitalism only benefits the rich? Seriously why? Look back in the past where capitalism was nonexistent and you see people were still in the same social class because they were related to royalty. The same with socialism and communism. Yeah everyone's equal except the leader who's more equal than you.

#163 Posted by Radiatedrich91 (707 posts) -

i know a hell of a lot more than you, your comment has zero merit with regards to my post. the ocean being blue has no relevance to a earthquake on mars.surrealnumber5

I'm sure you do, which is why you've taken the high road of resorting to personal attacks. If you're going to blame the status of the Euro on socialism, please at at least have something to back that up.

Not true. Regardless of class status, anyone has the same opportunity to rise.leviathan91

I can see why you'd think that, but as long as we lack equal opportunity for education and health care, that honestly isn't the case at all.

#164 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -
@Radiatedrich91, me knowing more than you, especially in the fields of economics/politics is not a personal attack, you however interpreting my comment beyond what it was*(sees euro, yup.) and stated "Because all countries that use the Euro = socialist. And you do know that not all countries in the EU use the Euro, right?" could be construed as a few different fallacious attacks towards me, even your latest comment. good luck getting me off topic, it will take more than that.
#165 Posted by SUD123456 (4446 posts) -

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] Yeah, let's beat on the poor and say it's all their fault.iHarlequin

Hooray for made up statements. Let me try. You are a Pol Pot mass murderer wannabee. See how that works?

Instead of throwing out random statements, why don't you try to actually make an argument?

Starting with either the economic principles that lead to capitalism beating on the poor...or a description of the outcomes which you believe to be evidence of your proposition.

I'll start with the latter topic since you seem ill equipped to deal with the former, with two of my own simple outcome based propositions.

1. The poor under modern capitalist societies are vastly better off now than they were before (either pre or early capitalism).

2. The poor under modern capitalist societies are vastly better off than the poor in any other society in this age that is not capitalist.

No, they aren't. Unless by modern capitalist society you mean the twelve or fifteen countries comprised of Canada and a few of Western European countries, and even then, it's not something sure. You may argue that the USSR was a dictatorship, but the nations that were a part of it experienced a leap in quality of life that capitalism could never hope to provide. The difference Lenin and the Communist party made in twenty or so years in Russia was massive - they went from a Monarchic capitalism (a capitalism nonetheless) where the vast majority of the population lived in sub-human conditions to one of the greatest superpowers in the late 40's, with better wealth distribution and public systems (healthcare, education, work) than before. Unfortunately, corruption happened, Stalin happened (I'm not a fan of alternate history (other than for Science fiction), but had Leon Trotsky prevailed along with Lenin's ideals, the world as we know it would be considerably different), and the ideals of the nation were corrupted.

Tito's Yugoslavia, and all the other nations that took independent roads to communism, had better QoL projections than many developed (capitalist) countries have today. Unfortunately, capitalism's 'fantastic plastic' is much more appealing than ideals and concepts.

LMAO. The USSR as a socialist paradise. Priceless. Tito's Yugoslavia as a model for quality of life. Beyond the pale. Lenin and Trotsky's ideals :) :):lol:

Come back when you are actually able to articulate something/anything about the actual economic principles of communism.

In the meantime, your challenge is to explain why the poor in the Soviet Union literally starved to death in the early 30s whereas at that time in the US the poor relied on publicly funded soup kitchens? The fact that you are lauding the murder of millions of people and displacement of millions more under the guise of quality of life is laughable.

#166 Posted by Lonelynight (30041 posts) -
I don't think it's that bad
#167 Posted by JoGoSo (455 posts) -
When you get born, every squre foot of land around you is owned by someone. So you end up taking orders from your parents for the first 18 years of your life. You go to college and explode with debt. And after you need to get a job to pay it off and end up taking even more orders from the land owners. Capitalism is punishing people for existing.RushKing
Ugh, none of this has to happen at all except following parents. In fact, capitalism is the best option for you to not work for someone else.
#168 Posted by RushKing (1771 posts) -
[QUOTE="RushKing"]When you get born, every squre foot of land around you is owned by someone. So you end up taking orders from your parents for the first 18 years of your life. You go to college and explode with debt. And after you need to get a job to pay it off and end up taking even more orders from the land owners. Capitalism is punishing people for existing.JoGoSo
Ugh, none of this has to happen at all except following parents. In fact, capitalism is the best option for you to not work for someone else.

Read the whole thread. I already destroyed this argument.
#169 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150772 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Socialism is for those who expect to have everything handed to them by others.

RadecSupreme

Not really, in socialism everyone works.

No. There are people incapable of work no matter the economic system.
#170 Posted by JoGoSo (455 posts) -
[QUOTE="JoGoSo"][QUOTE="RushKing"]When you get born, every squre foot of land around you is owned by someone. So you end up taking orders from your parents for the first 18 years of your life. You go to college and explode with debt. And after you need to get a job to pay it off and end up taking even more orders from the land owners. Capitalism is punishing people for existing.RushKing
Ugh, none of this has to happen at all except following parents. In fact, capitalism is the best option for you to not work for someone else.

Read the whole thread. I already destroyed this argument.

I don't want to read the whole thread since it may very well be full of wrong that I respond to. I fyou don't want to restate, just tell me the page and I'll be happy to easily counter ;)
#171 Posted by RushKing (1771 posts) -
[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

In a free liberal society, capitalism benefits the individual. How you think it crushes them, I'll never know why.

There's always going to be winners and losers, there will always be those who are underprivileged, but there are also those who will rise to the greatest potential, and just because there's going to be winners, losers, and the underprivileged, it doesn't mean they're going to be like that forever. Not everyone started off rich, some had to work at it.

RushKing

Would the chance of becoming a slave owner justify slavery?

What!? If we're talking about wage slavery, that also doesn't exist and cannot exist for one simple goddamn reason: If you were a person looking for work, would you honestly take a job that paid .50 cents an hour? Everyone with a brain would say no.

As for slavery itself, again, in a liberal society as in human rights are protected so a corporation can't force you to purchase a product or make you into a slave just because it can.

Capitalism is full of force. The land owners get to enslave people. Capitalism forces people to work for a boss due to the threat of starvation. If you don't own land, you can't grow food. If you don't conform to private property, you get shot.

#172 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150772 posts) -
[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

What!? If we're talking about wage slavery, that also doesn't exist and cannot exist for one simple goddamn reason: If you were a person looking for work, would you honestly take a job that paid .50 cents an hour? Everyone with a brain would say no.

As for slavery itself, again, in a liberal society as in human rights are protected so a corporation can't force you to purchase a product or make you into a slave just because it can.

RushKing
Capitalism is full of force. The land owners get to enslave people. Capitalism forces people to work for a boss due to the threat of starvation. If you don't own land, you can't grow food. If you don't conform to private property, you get shot.

Doesn't look like you destroyed the argument.
#173 Posted by RushKing (1771 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="RushKing"] Capitalism is full of force. The land owners get to enslave people. Capitalism forces people to work for a boss due to the threat of starvation. If you don't own land, you can't grow food. If you don't conform to private property, you get shot.

Doesn't look like you destroyed the argument.

Capitalism is only individualism for the bosses and landlords.
#174 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150772 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="RushKing"]RushKing
Doesn't look like you destroyed the argument.

Capitalism is only individualism for the bosses and landlords.

No under capitalism everyone has a chance....
#175 Posted by RushKing (1771 posts) -
[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Doesn't look like you destroyed the argument.LJS9502_basic
Capitalism is only individualism for the bosses and landlords.

No under capitalism everyone has a chance....

And to have a chance you take orders from a boss, unless you have rich parents.
#176 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150772 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="RushKing"] Capitalism is only individualism for the bosses and landlords.RushKing
No under capitalism everyone has a chance....

And to have a chance you take orders from a boss, unless you have rich parents.

All systems have bosses dude...

#177 Posted by RushKing (1771 posts) -

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No under capitalism everyone has a chance....LJS9502_basic

And to have a chance you take orders from a boss, unless you have rich parents.

All systems have bosses dude...

Not Anarchism.
#178 Posted by dkdk999 (6738 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="RushKing"]RushKing
Doesn't look like you destroyed the argument.

Capitalism is only individualism for the bosses and landlords.

They only get to be bosses and landlords if other people want to work for them.
#179 Posted by Radiatedrich91 (707 posts) -

@Radiatedrich91, me knowing more than you, especially in the fields of economics/politics is not a personal attack, you however interpreting my comment beyond what it was*(sees euro, yup.) and stated "Because all countries that use the Euro = socialist. And you do know that not all countries in the EU use the Euro, right?" could be construed as a few different fallacious attacks towards me, even your latest comment. good luck getting me off topic, it will take more than that.surrealnumber5

I apologize if you feel offended, but if you're really so adamant about people not misinterpreting your posts, perhaps you could have been a bit more disambiguous than "sees euro, yup."

#180 Posted by ghoklebutter (19327 posts) -

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] All systems have bosses dude...

coolbeans90

Not Anarchism.

Because it doesn't exist.

Obviously it's not nearly as common, but there have been anarchist societies in the past. And besides, that doesn't change the fact that anarchism entails the abolition of employment.

#181 Posted by ghoklebutter (19327 posts) -

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Because it doesn't exist.

coolbeans90

Obviously it's not nearly as common, but there have been anarchist societies in the past. And besides, that doesn't change the fact that anarchism entails the abolition of employment.

I have doubts that there was no "bosses" or otherwise people holding disproportionately powerful social or economic influence within those societies either. If that by definition conflicts with Anarchy, then I'm nary too certain that said societies beyond small ones in short-lasting intervals have ever really existed.

Well, of course not all of those societies were the same. Some of them, for instance, had widespread, institutionalized violence against women. Others did not. And then there were societies based on gift economies and societies that were based on more authoritarian systems. What matters to me is not whether most of those societies were egalitarian, but whether the existence of those truly egalitarian societies says something about the feasibility of anarchy.

#182 Posted by ghoklebutter (19327 posts) -

My initial point had to do with the notion that people can necessarily do whatever the fvck they want in anarchy, and more specifically, parameters of what they can and cannot do will likely have something to do with people. I'm not too familiar with a system of the sort that has ever existed. I'm all ears, however.

To some extent, it might be feasible to implement anarchy, but it hasn't seemed to prove itself on a large scale, yet, unlike modern Western social democracies which do a kinda okay-ish job at ensuring people have access to necessities like safety, food, water, shelter, education, health care and some degree of personal autonomy - moreover, they have for the past several decades been improving on most of these fronts. I'm nary too convinced to agree with implementing a political structure which would necessitate the removal of the on in place, particularly when the current system is reasonable and - more importantly, the trend within the system is positive, Slow, but positive.

coolbeans90

Technically, people can do whatever they want in anarchy, but that's like saying that I can do whatever I want in this current system. In other words, society, with or without a centralized legal system, does discourage and encourage certain kinds of behavior. For instance, in an anarcho-syndicalist society, it's unlikely that a worker who tries to dominate the workplace will be tolerated by other workers and non-workers.

And yes, I do agree that there haven't been many examples of widespread, successfully implemented anarchy. However, I think that the anarchy established in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, while imperfect, shows that anarchy can be implemented on a decently large scale.

#183 Posted by whipassmt (14024 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Too much authority in capitalism. I think it all should just get torn down.RushKing

Authority is a necessary thing to keep order and make sure that people act appropriately towards one another. Plus some people rightfully have authority (for instance the authority of a parent over a child).

Plus the systems that have "torn down" capitalism have usually replaced it with something more authoritarian.

Anarchism has worked many times in history. The paris commune and anarchist catalonia were not very authoritarian.

Either way, the Paris Comune kidnapped and killed the Archbishop of Paris and other clerics.

#184 Posted by dkdk999 (6738 posts) -

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Authority is a necessary thing to keep order and make sure that people act appropriately towards one another. Plus some people rightfully have authority (for instance the authority of a parent over a child).

Plus the systems that have "torn down" capitalism have usually replaced it with something more authoritarian.

whipassmt

Anarchism has worked many times in history. The paris commune and anarchist catalonia were not very authoritarian.

Either way, the Paris Comune kidnapped and killed the Archbishop of Paris and other clerics.

Governments have killed 250,000 people in the 20th century alone. And that's not even including wars.
#185 Posted by whipassmt (14024 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] Anarchism has worked many times in history. The paris commune and anarchist catalonia were not very authoritarian.dkdk999

Either way, the Paris Comune kidnapped and killed the Archbishop of Paris and other clerics.

Governments have killed 250,000 people in the 20th century alone. And that's not even including wars.

I'm just saying, we shouldn't be naive about anarchists and act like they have not committed violence.

#186 Posted by EntropyWins (1209 posts) -

Capitalism needs a large pool of cheap labor to support an upper class of non laborers. In America, we use our legal, education , and economic system to ensure that failure is built in the system for most people to ensure that it works. I do find that depressing. The biggest threat to this, the labor union, has been under attack for decades in America and it is taking its toll as we watch more and more people on each extreme of the haves and have nots.

#187 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I have doubts that there was no "bosses" or otherwise people holding disproportionately powerful social or economic influence within those societies either. If that by definition conflicts with Anarchy, then I'm nary too certain that said societies beyond small ones in short-lasting intervals have ever really existed.

coolbeans90

Well, of course not all of those societies were the same. Some of them, for instance, had widespread, institutionalized violence against women. Others did not. And then there were societies based on gift economies and societies that were based on more authoritarian systems. What matters to me is not whether most of those societies were egalitarian, but whether the existence of those truly egalitarian societies says something about the feasibility of anarchy.

My initial point had to do with the notion that people can necessarily do whatever the fvck they want in anarchy, and more specifically, parameters of what they can and cannot do will likely have something to do with people. I'm not too familiar with a system of the sort that has ever existed. I'm all ears, however.

To some extent, it might be feasible to implement anarchy, but it hasn't seemed to prove itself on a large scale, yet, unlike modern Western social democracies which do a kinda okay-ish job at ensuring people have access to necessities like safety, food, water, shelter, education, health care and some degree of personal autonomy - moreover, they have for the past several decades been improving on most of these fronts. I'm nary too convinced to agree with implementing a political structure which would necessitate the removal of the on in place, particularly when the current system is reasonable and - more importantly, the trend within the system is positive, Slow, but positive.

i disagree with what you consider "reasonable", i also disagree that western systems are moving in a positive direction. hell when the fed says the US people have lost 40% of their wealth in the last 4 years, i hardly call that reasonable or positive. similar political theft is found all over europe.

#188 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

Capitalism needs a large pool of cheap labor to support an upper class of non laborers. In America, we use our legal, education , and economic system to ensure that failure is built in the system for most people to ensure that it works. I do find that depressing. The biggest threat to this, the labor union, has been under attack for decades in America and it is taking its toll as we watch more and more people on each extreme of the haves and have nots.

EntropyWins

More like in America and Europe they third-party that cheap labour to African and Asian countries.

#189 Posted by thegerg (15099 posts) -

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

iHarlequin

So educatos, farmers, and doctors shouldn't be paid for their labor?

#190 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

thegerg

So educatos, farmers, and doctors shouldn't be paid for their labor?

What?

#191 Posted by thegerg (15099 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

iHarlequin

So educatos, farmers, and doctors shouldn't be paid for their labor?

What?

It seems that you don't think people should pay for food, education, medical care, etc..
#192 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

So educatos, farmers, and doctors shouldn't be paid for their labor?

thegerg

What?

It seems that you don't think people should pay for food, education, medical care, etc..

No, it doesn't. I don't think the people should pay for that - not directly -, I think the state should.

#193 Posted by thegerg (15099 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

What?

iHarlequin

It seems that you don't think people should pay for food, education, medical care, etc..

No, it doesn't. I don't think the people should pay for that - not directly -, I think the state should.

In other words, you DO think that people should pay for those tings. It seems that you do support a system in which people pay for those tings.
#194 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] It seems that you don't think people should pay for food, education, medical care, etc.. thegerg

No, it doesn't. I don't think the people should pay for that - not directly -, I think the state should.

In other words, you DO think that people should pay for those tings. It seems that you do support a system in which people pay for those tings.

There's a difference between paying an absolute price and paying a relative price. I'm limitting my reasoning to Capitalist states, obviously.

#195 Posted by thegerg (15099 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

No, it doesn't. I don't think the people should pay for that - not directly -, I think the state should.

iHarlequin

In other words, you DO think that people should pay for those tings. It seems that you do support a system in which people pay for those tings.

There's a difference between paying an absolute price and paying a relative price. I'm limitting my reasoning to Capitalist states, obviously.

And there's a difference between people not paying for things (which would mean that farmers, educators, and doctors not be paid for their labor) and paying for things.
#196 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] In other words, you DO think that people should pay for those tings. It seems that you do support a system in which people pay for those tings. thegerg

There's a difference between paying an absolute price and paying a relative price. I'm limitting my reasoning to Capitalist states, obviously.

And there's a difference between people not paying for things (which would mean that farmers, educators, and doctors not be paid for their labor) and paying for things.

Well, no f***ing s***. Sorry, but if you're going to go semantics on me, at least make sense. I argued that it was bad to have to pay for an essential service when there's the possibility of not having money to do so. If it's relative, in the sense that the State collects a cut from what you make, even the unemployed, children and people who have no conditions to pay the current (absolute) price of things would receive the necessary.

#197 Posted by junglist101 (5460 posts) -

When you get born, every squre foot of land around you is owned by someone. So you end up taking orders from your parents for the first 18 years of your life. You go to college and explode with debt. And after you need to get a job to pay it off and end up taking even more orders from the land owners. Capitalism is punishing people for existing.RushKing
Not if your the land owner.