Jump to content

Capitalism versus Socialism


Jamie_B

Recommended Posts

Guest bengalrick

i can't take it anymore... i tap out... communism is obviously better than capitalism :unsure: it just appears the opposite way, b/c we are making them all poor... :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[quote]can't take it anymore... i tap out...[/quote]

[img]http://www.canyonisd.net/rhs/sports/wrestling/tapout.jpg[/img]

[b]Bout time...... B) [/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of things,

Rick, BJ is talking about your local Electric Company, and he's right there is no competition in the past, this isn’t the case now and is changing...

[url="http://www.odec.com/about/index.htm"]http://www.odec.com/about/index.htm[/url]
[quote]  As competition and customer choice are introduced in the electric industry, most utilities are rapidly unbundling their different business segments and identifying cost centers, as well as frantically scrambling to build relationships with customers, relationships they saw as untouchable in the regulated franchise they ran for most of the 20th Century.

But electric cooperatives are different. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative and its 12 member electric distribution cooperatives are VERY different. They don't have to unbundle because they were never bundled to begin with. Having separate cost centers for generation, transmission and distribution of electricity has always been the way they've operated.

And relationships with customers? Old Dominion's systems have relationships of proven reliability and earned trust that go back 60 plus years. In fact, those served by these 12 local cooperatives are more than customers; they're also owners of the cooperative. They've got a vested interest in the business.
Local service, proven reliability, competitive rates, strong customer relationships, and some of the most popular areas on the East Coast to live, work and play constitute some of the reasons why Old Dominion and its 12 systems are excited as the dawn of customer choice draws near.

Old Dominion's systems are eager to bring their legendary service quality to new and different customers, as well as continuing to deliver quality service to existing customers.[/quote]

But its also not changing in other areas, recently a court decision passed in saying that cable companies did not have to share their lines and that they exclusivly owned them.

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700415.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062700415.html[/url]

[quote]Cable Firms Don't Have to Share Networks, Court Rules

By Yuki Noguchi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Page D01

The Supreme Court upheld cable companies' right to restrict rival Internet service providers from their networks, prompting telephone companies yesterday to argue that they should be relieved of a similar regulatory obligation.

Phone companies are required to share their lines with Internet providers, an outgrowth of an era when such rules were deemed necessary to foster competition. But the phone companies argue that the rules put them at a disadvantage compared with the largely unregulated cable industry.

The high court's 6 to 3 ruling affirmed the Federal Communications Commission's authority to decide which services it needs to regulate.

Sources familiar with FCC discussions said the agency is likely to consider whether to ease the regulatory burden on phone companies in the coming months, a move supported by new FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because the agency has not yet decided to formally take up the issue.

Companies such as EarthLink Inc. and Brand X Internet Services -- the Santa Monica, Calif.-based company that brought the original suit against the FCC -- do not own their own networks and depend on network operators to provide the connection to their customers. They argued that the FCC was misclassifying cable service as a data service, making it exempt from rules that apply to telecommunication providers, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed.

The Supreme Court overturned that ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the FCC originally regulated Internet service over phone lines as a telecommunications service because that is the way people primarily accessed the Internet, by dialing their provider over the phone companies' lines. By contrast, cable-modem service grew up in different market conditions, with plenty of competitors offering high-speed access, he wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenting justices, said cable-modem service includes a telecommunications component and therefore should be regulated. "When all is said and done, after all the regulatory cant has been translated, and the smoke of regulatory expertise has blown away, it remains perfectly clear that someone who sells cable-modem service is 'offering' telecommunications," Scalia wrote.

In their response to the case, the regional telephone giants yesterday made their pitch for changes that could extend the National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services decision to their benefit.

The "FCC and Congress should act promptly to finish the job. The Commission should update its rules to ensure that all broadband services, including those offered by Verizon and other telephone companies, are not subject to old policies," Thomas J. Tauke, executive vice president of public affairs and policy for Verizon Communications Inc., said in a statement.

In that vein, phone companies already successfully argued that new fiber-optic networks should not have to be shared with rival network operators that do not own their own lines.

Phone companies such as Verizon and SBC Communications Inc., which are planning to offer Internet-based television service, also are hoping to win exemption from local franchise agreements that cable companies must obtain.

Giving the network owners such great control over what rides over their networks could set technology on a dangerous course, opponents of the court's decision said.

"If [the phone companies] are successful, Brand X will stand as the trigger that reverses a century of communications policy and undermines the bedrock principle of democratic media, which is nondiscriminatory access for all," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, a nonpartisan media policy group.

A key concern is that phone and cable companies could potentially use their power over the network to act as gatekeepers of the Internet, discriminating and limiting consumers' access to certain services so that some Web sites and online services are favored. Opponents of yesterday's ruling said they would push the FCC and Capitol Hill to codify rules ensuring the "network neutrality" on the Internet.

"The ballgame becomes now how each of the two industries that controls a wire can determine what content, what access, at what speed consumers and technologists can offer and retrieve services over those networks," said Gene Kimmelman, senior director of Consumers Union.

Newer services such as Internet-based telephone service, for example, could suffer if cable companies are able to degrade the quality of Internet service or deny service altogether, he said.

An industry controlled by two big players cannot be trusted to police itself without clear rules, said Jason D. Oxman, senior vice president of legal affairs of Comptel/ALTS, the industry association that represents competitive telephone carriers and Internet service providers. "Network neutrality without regulation to back it up is an empty promise."

Cable companies, however, denied they have any incentive to control what their customers can access on the Internet.

"There is no problem today -- the customer can go anywhere they want on the Web," said Kyle E. McSlarrow, president and chief executive of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.[/quote]

Each industry is different in how its being run, and if its regulated.

BJ, admittedly I’ve never read Marx, is he a proponent of equal wealth distribution? If so how does he address the flaw in that theory in so much as there is no reword system for hard work? Everyone gets the same and society doesn’t progress because there is no need to reward those who [i]have[/i] worked hard.

Bill Gates is a mediocre example, his parents were Rich enough for him to drop out of Harvard, (However he is also one of the biggest donators to charity in the country and has stated on numerous occasions when he passes his kids will get .001 percent of his wealth and the rest will be donated)

A better example is my friend's father (the guy who you actually remind me of). His parents we not wealthy yet through his hard work (and admittedly some luck of being a VP of a company that had one of their subsidiaries go public and make him a lot of money from it, but he wasn’t a VP because that job was handed to him) he became pretty well off.

Like I said I don’t think purely, either system is a good one however.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand BJ because we share this in common: the personal observation of absolute, grinding poverty beyond the imagination of people who have never left this country.

I understand why Marx appeals to him because there was a time in which his thought appealed to me, because I was seeking answers to questions raised by my travels in the Navy, especially with respect to poverty, inequity and unjustice.

That said, I am now going to disagree a little with BJ, and perhaps some of you "capitalists," too.

There is not that much difference between Marx's economics and classical economics, in fundamental premise. Marx does draw some radical conclusions, but his premises are much the same as those of Ricardo, J.S. Mill, et al. Read enough Marx and you'll discover where he "buys in" to the utilitarian underpinnings of classical economics. What Marx rejects is not utilitarianism per se, but the [i]hedonistic[/i] utilitarianism of Bentham.

The best way, in my mind, to demonstrate this as a matter of axiomatics, is to suggest to you what a professor suggested to me at that time: find and read Marx's dissertation on Epicurean physics. (I may still have a copy of this somewhere in my file cabinets, if anyone is interested, I'll look for it and scan it. Be forewarned, it's dense, it's philosophy and if you don't have some background in ancient philosophy, it's a tough row to hoe.)

Epicurus was an atomist, like Democritus and Lucretius, and yes, it is the same fellow whom you associate with "good eatin"! Epicurus was troubled by one aspect of Democritus' physics, which claimed the universe, as well as its individual constituents, were composed of atoms falling through a void and that what we perceive as distinct objects (and as Epicurus amends Democritus, including insensate specifications of this universal mechanism, e.g. gravity, although Epicurus does not use this example) are the result of collisions of these atoms as they fall through the void. Democritus had posited that the atoms collide, but Epicurus had problems with that, he wanted to know how and why the atoms collide. Thus followed long and elaborate investigations into this aspect of atomism. Epicurus ended up claiming that atoms swerved, lawfully according to nature but unpredictably to human observation, and thus this is how we end up with different "things." Long story short: Marx claims that Epicurus is concerned with the human soul in relation to this doctrine of physics and that Democritus was focused on the purely physical aspects.

I hope that is somewhat comprehensible. It's tough stuff and I'm pulling this out of the dim recesses of my memory. Here is what is important about all this:

1) Marx is clearly influenced in his later writings by the concepts he elaborates in his dissertation. He accepts the atomistic perspective and when he does economics, he asserts an individualistic, atomistic character [i]as ontologically primary[/i] in his description of economic relations.

2) Marx shows early signs of his later, more refined views about theology, the nature of the soul, and the quest for individual immortality. Unfortunately for him, he doesn't go far enough in his investigation, imo, as he rejects commonplace notions of individual immortality as chimeral, and this leads eventually to his famous "opiate of the masses" conception. He asks damn good questions, but his answers fall a little short, it seems to me. What he is dwelling upon is the relation of the particular to the universal.

3) Much is made of Marx's "materialism". You can find the roots of it in the dissertation. His atomistic and somewhat mechanical outlook leaves little or no room for the immaterial, i.e. theology and the human soul. He doesn't exactly deny their existence, but his outlook on physics constrains his worldview.

Now, to economics as such. Marx accepts the individual, atomistic element as the primary existence in economic relations. If my memory serves me right, he calls it the "cell form" very early on in Capital. Thus, economics is the relation between individual interactions, kind of a human version of atoms falling through the void according to lawful but unpredictable swerves. (I'm not so sure he'd say it that way, but I'm trying to get the basic idea across.)

If you look at classical economics, the fundamental premise is more or less the same, although the road taken to get there is different. For Smith, Malthus, Mandeville, Bentham, Ricardo, J.S. Mill, et al... the basis of economics is also the cell form, i.e. relations among individuals combining upwards towards a general set of practices and theories about society as a whole. In the case of Mandeville and Bentham, how they get there is virtually evil, imo. But that's another story.

Further, Marx accepted the basic premises of Ricardo et al and argued against them, but from within the same kind of axiomatic matrix: atomistic individualism. His acceptance of these ideas as premises led him to critique "capitalism", especially as it manifested itself in England, because he thought that economic theory and practice had its furthest historical expression (at that time) in England. He also lived in London much of his life. He underestimated, imo, the feudal aspects which lay at the basis of this particular expression of "capitalism" and, as BJ alluded, one example of this is in the concept of "rent", especially as it was developed by Ricardo.

Now for my opinion: I think that historians will, in a couple of centuries, view "capitalism v communism" as a tempest in a teapot. Granted, it is a big tempest and a big teapot, but conceptually, it's like two brothers duking it out. In addition, it simply is not possible to isolate the economics (as theory) without considering social relations, politics, and the actual history in which these ideas were developed and expressed. There are too many variables to make any such theory bear a strong resemblance to actual reality, and those other variables have to be taken into account, even if that means that our "theories" are a tad less clear in some respects.

I said "poop on the Austrian economists" because their break with classical economics went in precisely the wrong direction, in my opinion. Instead of trying to account for all the muddy variables I alluded to, that school of thought tends to abstract from reality even further. The trouble is, imo, their ideas are far too influential today in the here and now. Ironically, they are also pretty damn feudal, too. Back at the turn of the last century, they had a methodological dispute with the "historicists" (Gustav Schmoller) which was a school of thought which tried to take social relations etc... into account.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]good shit Homer.... I accept the criticisms that you make of Marx, and I would not offer him up as the "perfect" economist with all the right answers, ....but I would say that he is for my money the most concrete, analytical, and comprehensive economist and one that in mind is prophetic in his predictions.... especially as they relate to our future

his concept of "Fetishism of Commodities" which is alive and well in America and is the concept that drives 99% of Americans lives.

Another prophetic message of Marxs that is now ringing true is the "beautiful" (I use this loosely) efficency of exploitation now taking place with American firms in Asia. For instance Wal Mart is now exploding in China. Most of the products they sell in the Wal Marts worldwide are made in China. But here is the beauty of it, now WalMart is making products in China and paying shit wages, then driving the goods down the street and selling them at Western Prices in China to the same people that make them. The workers then become obsessed with aquiring their own goods that they produce that the shirt maker has to make 100 shirts to earn enough to buy one of his own shirts back.... it is diabolically brilliant on the side of the producer, and ultimately revulting to a conscious observer like myself. [/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i]found this cartoon from an Iraqi Newspaper.... seems they equate our occupation to Capitalism as well as Oil [/i]

[img]http://www.infoshop.org/graphics/latuff/KilledinAction.gif[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
considering that they are also making fun of their own gov't (being they are striving for democracy as we speak)... i am glad that they CAN express their views... even if i don't agree w/ them, its nice to know that they can express their true feelings now...

what would have happened to them, if they made fun of their gov't 3 years ago?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steggyD

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 10 2005, 01:34 PM'][b]I edited your statement to be more accurate

A couple of things here. If I inherit millions of dollars and make millions of dollars off of interest or by doing nothing, I would definitely want to hand my money down to my children so that they could disproportionatley also be parasites and have yachts while not working. I would want them to go to the same IVy league colleges that all billionaire kids go to so that they could meet fellow rich who also stay rich for not working, and hell if they are C students they could even be President. That's my right as a rich white guy. My money, I was handed it. I would still have hired nannies raise them the best that I could and hope that they learned something from me and use the money they receive to make them even more money off of so called investing, where I call some guy, and buy fictional stocks, and then walla they have more money. If they don't, I don't see how it's the workers right to take it away from them, just because they will pay off a senator to make shitty work regulations .[/b]
[right][post="128012"][/post][/right][/quote]
That's not fair. Obviously you don't know everyone. My wife's family is what you would call a "wealthy" family. There are no billionaires or anything like that. They have money that is passed down through the family. My father-in-law owned three different farms (owns 2 now) and farmed them while owning and working at his own veterinary practice. He also worked for the state, administering drugs to the race horses, even though he feels strongly against drinking and gambling. One of his sons makes and sells maple syrup and cream from one of the farms while working his way through college. He is in law school now in Albany, NY. The other son farms one of the farms now, making all organic milk. My wife, well, she married me, so I get to use her money for my advancements... ;) There is money and land that can be sold for money, investments in stocks, and whatever else that is for the family. Now this is a hard working "wealthy" family... Why should they have to give it up because some crackhead needs a new sink in his apartment. I'm sure there are people like the ones you stated, but you cannot lump all people with money to be handed down to their family as the snobs that you have painted them out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have suggested, I tend towards a historicist perspective when it comes to economics. The analytical tools developed by Marx, the classicists, and others are useful up to a point. Yet, the process of abstraction with some economic concepts sometimes makes understanding the empirics of a situation worse. Back when Milton Friedman had his 15 minutes, there was a joke that went around that suggests what I mean:

A fellow at the University of Chicago was studying economics. He fell soundly asleep one day during a seminar led by Milton Friedman. Friedman asked a question, and noticing that this fellow was asleep, woke him up and called on him to answer it. "Young man, what is the answer?" said Friedman. The fellow shook himself awake and mumbled, "The quantity theory of money." "That's right," said Friedman.

For some economists all the answers boil down to their one pet theory, even if that means distorting reality and evidence. Often, when those theories are put into practice, very bad things happen. Consider post-Allende Chile and Friedman's ideas, for example.

I'm no expert, but I think I am an informed layman. I do think that Marx advanced and refined some important economic ideas, particularly his method of discussing how societies reproduce themselves. This is why I cited his doctoral dissertation. In my view, he instinctively tried to get "out of the box" with his discussions of simple social reproduction, extended social reproduction, and expanded social reproduction. BUT, because he accepted certain premises and a "from the bottom up" kind of methodology, he only gets so far.

Marx's ideas about fetishism are very interesting and hold some water. This preoccupation with material goods and especially the social values associated with them by the "common" person, is a worthwhile perspective. Yet, Marx, in his critique on the basic human impulse towards theology, denigrates that impulse and while he does try to offer an alternative, it is a materialist one, too. Marx's materialist view is simply more deeply embedded in his attitude towards physics. In other words, he points out the problem but cannot offer a solution.

That in itself is not necessarily bad. Lots of problems get worked on by generations before they get solved.

So, in my opinion, where are we now? It would be wise to take as a starting point the basic question asked by Marx (and others): "How do we reproduce our society?" What preconditions are necessary? What conditions are just and equitable? How do we preserve innovation and reward in a fair manner while, at the same time, we refuse to allow a single family to perish from starvation, or deprive them of basic human needs that are at the foundation of a human existence?

The "bottom up" mentality is not exclusive to Marx. Most attacks on welfare stem from this perspective, too. And contrary to Marx, a lot of that criticism is based on individual selfishness. "Why should my money go to support a bunch of lousy, good for nothings who are too lazy to...etc...?" Generally, when I hear that argument framed in that fashion, it tells me more about the person pronouncing it than it does about the conditions being described.

Why should Steggy's family be allowed to obtain the rewards of their hard work in a particular set of circumstances? Because, within reason, it is the right thing to do.

Why should we tax people to bind together and improve a society which holds certain values about mankind and mankind's place in the universe? Because it is the right thing to do, not so much for those of us who live now, but to pay homage to those who, in the past, worked hard to bring such a vision to fruition, and especially to those who are yet to be born, who ought to be given a world which is less riven by the kind of strife we grapple with.

Why should people be kept from starving, even if they are not the most stellar representatives of the species? Because, once again, it is the right thing to do. How we act respond to such challenges tells us more about our own souls than it does about those who are less fortunate.

Historically speaking, and I do know a fair share of history, the great irony of the period in which we live is that, right at the moment in which we can really conquer some of these fundamental human challenges with respect to the basic material preconditions for a normal and fruitful human life, we have gone greedy and by doing so, are sowing the seeds of our own downfall. This is not the first time in history such a dichotomy has existed, and because it is a battle, with free will involved, it is not foreordained that the whole thing goes down the tubes. But we better wake up, and soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steggyD
Yeah, that's fine, taxes are being taken out of all this every year anyways. But to take 50% or more of my father-in-law's earnings when he dies, as BJ suggests, is ridiculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steggyD
[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 11 2005, 12:48 PM'][i][b]The future barrage of Mushroom clouds... will make us all Communists [/b][/i]
[right][post="128746"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Or cavemen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]cavemen and communists are not mutually exclusive.....[/b][/i]


[i]"I don not know the weapons that world war 3 will be fought with, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones"[/i]
[b]--- Albert Einstein [/b]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick

[b][i]The "bottom up" mentality is not exclusive to Marx. Most attacks on welfare stem from this perspective, too. And contrary to Marx, a lot of that criticism is based on individual selfishness. "Why should my money go to support a bunch of lousy, good for nothings who are too lazy to...etc...?" Generally, when I hear that argument framed in that fashion, it tells me more about the person pronouncing it than it does about the conditions being described.

Why should Steggy's family be allowed to obtain the rewards of their hard work in a particular set of circumstances? Because, within reason, it is the right thing to do.

Why should we tax people to bind together and improve a society which holds certain values about mankind and mankind's place in the universe? Because it is the right thing to do, not so much for those of us who live now, but to pay homage to those who, in the past, worked hard to bring such a vision to fruition, and especially to those who are yet to be born, who ought to be given a world which is less riven by the kind of strife we grapple with.

Why should people be kept from starving, even if they are not the most stellar representatives of the species? Because, once again, it is the right thing to do. How we act respond to such challenges tells us more about our own souls than it does about those who are less fortunate.[/i][/b] - homer rice

these are great points homer... you really opened up some minds w/ these types of comments... BUT (you didn't thnk i'd leave it at that did ya :D ) i think we need to go a step further, in reguards to the welfare issue and taxing people higher to better society... you know what, your right... it is the "right" thing to do, but does it solve the problem...

what i mean is, does giving a decent person w/ good intentions who are having hard times money, really solving the problem... a good percent of these good natured people will still strive to get their own job, but a good percentage will decide that its easier to be a parasite, than to help society theirselves...

i used the "good" person as an example for a reason though... they are few and far between (realistically) when looking at the welfare problem... the majority that thrive from welfare are not people that are looking to better themselves... they are looking to get by... i feel that paying these people for simply being americans, and b/c it is the moral thing to do, is a cop out imo... it doesn't solve the problem, only masks it... it will always be a problem, unless we tackle the real solution...

as long as they can live like parasites, they will continue too... i bet if we dropped welfare altogther, two things would happen... alot of those people on welfare, would get jobs... the unfortinate thing would be alot of people would starve or have to live in the streets... the latter is why cutting welfare altogether is a terrible idea... but we can't keep funding them, b/c funding them is exactly why they aren't progressing...

i wish i was a better writer, b/c i don't feel i quite got my point acrossed the way i wish, but i hope that you guys at least see where i'm going... as long as we fund the scum you mention briefly, the longer they will be scum... if we hand them the means to get by, why would they try to get by on their own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steggyD
Honestly, I think this planet needs about 10 to 20 years of pure anarchy. That way we can cut down on the population and get some of that survival of the fittest in motion. Right now, we, as humans, are beating evolution. This cannot be good for the future of mankind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
[quote name='steggyD' date='Aug 11 2005, 12:11 PM']Honestly, I think this planet needs about 10 to 20 years of pure anarchy. That way we can cut down on the population and get some of that survival of the fittest in motion. Right now, we, as humans, are beating evolution. This cannot be good for the future of mankind.
[right][post="128772"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

i think that "survival of the fittest" is somewhat true, but not b/c they were born that way... i think that what people go through makes them stronger or weaker... some start w/ a better hand, but ALL people (imo) can be "strong" if they strive to be that way...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steggyD
But as we get more civilized, and technology gets better, everyone has a chance not only to survive, but live and reproduce. This goes against nature, and the genes are passed down to their offspring. Eventually, mankind can become weakened by this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus

[quote]Honestly, I think this planet needs about 10 to 20 years of pure anarchy. That way we can cut down on the population and get some of that survival of the fittest in motion. Right now, we, as humans, are beating evolution. This cannot be good for the future of mankind.[/quote]

[i][b]And I preseume you think you would survive this purge.... <_< [/b][/i]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Aug 11 2005, 01:08 PM'][b][i]The "bottom up" mentality is not exclusive to Marx. Most attacks on welfare stem from this perspective, too. And contrary to Marx, a lot of that criticism is based on individual selfishness. "Why should my money go to support a bunch of lousy, good for nothings who are too lazy to...etc...?" Generally, when I hear that argument framed in that fashion, it tells me more about the person pronouncing it than it does about the conditions being described.

Why should Steggy's family be allowed to obtain the rewards of their hard work in a particular set of circumstances? Because, within reason, it is the right thing to do.

Why should we tax people to bind together and improve a society which holds certain values about mankind and mankind's place in the universe? Because it is the right thing to do, not so much for those of us who live now, but to pay homage to those who, in the past, worked hard to bring such a vision to fruition, and especially to those who are yet to be born, who ought to be given a world which is less riven by the kind of strife we grapple with.

Why should people be kept from starving, even if they are not the most stellar representatives of the species? Because, once again, it is the right thing to do. How we act respond to such challenges tells us more about our own souls than it does about those who are less fortunate.[/i][/b] - homer rice

these are great points homer... you really opened up some minds w/ these types of comments... BUT (you didn't thnk i'd leave it at that did ya :D ) i think we need to go a step further, in reguards to the welfare issue and taxing people higher to better society... you know what, your right... it is the "right" thing to do, but does it solve the problem...

what i mean is, does giving a decent person w/ good intentions who are having hard times money, really solving the problem... a good percent of these good natured people will still strive to get their own job, but a good percentage will decide that its easier to be a parasite, than to help society theirselves...

i used the "good" person as an example for a reason though... they are few and far between (realistically) when looking at the welfare problem... the majority that thrive from welfare are not people that are looking to better themselves... they are looking to get by... i feel that paying these people for simply being americans, and b/c it is the moral thing to do, is a cop out imo... it doesn't solve the problem, only masks it... it will always be a problem, unless we tackle the real solution...

as long as they can live like parasites, they will continue too... i bet if we dropped welfare altogther, two things would happen... alot of those people on welfare, would get jobs... the unfortinate thing would be alot of people would starve or have to live in the streets... the latter is why cutting welfare altogether is a terrible idea... but we can't keep funding them, b/c funding them is exactly why they aren't progressing...

i wish i was a better writer, b/c i don't feel i quite got my point acrossed the way i wish, but i hope that you guys at least see where i'm going... as long as we fund the scum you mention briefly, the longer they will be scum... if we hand them the means to get by, why would they try to get by on their own?
[right][post="128766"][/post][/right][/quote]


A hand-up instead of a hand-out egh Rick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steggyD

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 11 2005, 01:18 PM'][i][b]And I preseume you think you would survive this purge.... <_< [/b][/i]
[right][post="128781"][/post][/right][/quote]
No, I would be dead within minutes. But I'm willing to take that chance for mankind. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
[quote name='steggyD' date='Aug 11 2005, 12:16 PM']But as we get more civilized, and technology gets better, everyone has a chance not only to survive, but live and reproduce. This goes against nature, and the genes are passed down to their offspring. Eventually, mankind can become weakened by this.
[right][post="128777"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

i see your point now... you are right... but like i said, i don't think that certain genes are "weak" b/c of heredity... they are made weak b/c of a number of things... paris hilton is weak imo, but it's b/c she hasn't had to work a day in her life, for her fortune... her father (or grandfather, whoever made all the money) was extremely strong... otherwise, he wouldnt' have made it so far in life and wealth...

i think that the same person can go in two directions... if their parents make them (for instance) pay for their own car when they are 16, they will appreciate things much better... if they are given the car, they will have a harder time in life, to appreciate what they get...

i know my first car was always sparkling, b/c i had to pay for that damn piece of shit...

sorry, got a little off topic...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Aug 11 2005, 12:18 PM']A hand-up instead of a hand-out egh Rick?
[right][post="128783"][/post][/right][/quote]

yeah... i think thats what i was saying... in a much shorter and sweeter fashion :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus

[quote]No, I would be dead within minutes. But I'm willing to take that chance for mankind. [/quote]

[i][b]I hope your family could understand your "sacrifice" as large masked men came into their homes and decided to light their bodies on fire [/b][/i] -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...