• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Oh, that poor "deprived" and "abused" Walmart corporation!

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Capitalism failed to protect the rights of Japanese Americans during WWII.
That was government, not capitalism.
But how did socialism protect all those who died of famine in USSR & PRC?
That was economics.
But the government required to enforce their socialism also killed millions of their own citizens.
It has long failed to protect patients and medical rights.
No economic system protects patients & medical rights.
If that's what we want, then tis up to government to ensure it.
It was utterly unconcerned about the rights of black people, and it gave no damn if women could vote or not. It seems especially weak where a theocracy seems to be the goal.
Again, this was government which created Jim Crow.
But if the rights of blacks in Ameristan were poor, even worse are
the rights of dissidents in N Korea, the socialist workers' paradise.
And try being a Muslim in China, where government decides what
your religion should be.


Instead of complaining about the worst things which happen
under capitalism, compare the best offered by both systems.
What are the best capitalist countries?
What are the best socialist countries?
Let the real world show how things play out, ie, observe emergent properties.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Greed is not rational or reasonable. But it is highly contagious, and extremely toxic. So how do you suggest we deal with it, now that it has poisoned our culture to the point of totally corrupting our government, much of our media, many of our churches, and is driving an ever-increasing number of us into poverty and despair?
Totalitarianism is not rational or reasonable. But it is highly contagious, and extremely toxic. So how do you suggest we deal with it, now that it has poisoned our culture to the point of totally corrupting our government, much of our media, many of our churches, and is driving an ever-increasing number of us into poverty and despair?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
That was government, not capitalism.
But how did socialism protect all those who died of famine in USSR & PRC?
That was economics.
But the government required to enforce their socialism also killed millions of their own citizens.
No economic system protects patients & medical rights.
If that's what we want, then tis up to government to ensure it.

Again, this was government which created Jim Crow.
But if the rights of blacks in Ameristan were poor, even worse are
the rights of dissidents in N Korea, the socialist workers' paradise.
And try being a Muslim in China, where government decides what
your religion should be.
Socialism that may have started with the good intentions of slaughtering greedy people that made a lot of money, but just turned out to be a door that let in dictators.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
That was government, not capitalism.
But how did socialism protect all those who died of famine in USSR & PRC?
That was economics.
But the government required to enforce their socialism also killed millions of their own citizens.
No economic system protects patients & medical rights.
If that's what we want, then tis up to government to ensure it.

Again, this was government which created Jim Crow.
But if the rights of blacks in Ameristan were poor, even worse are
the rights of dissidents in N Korea, the socialist workers' paradise.
And try being a Muslim in China, where government decides what
your religion should be.
Here is another one of those strange situations that always develops when I engage someone that is so extreme that any support that I may have for the cause still makes me a dog that is part of the problem and should be slaughtered.

Maybe we should all align against extremism of any kind. Even if it is about cake. Did mention I like cake?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Greed is not rational or reasonable. But it is highly contagious, and extremely toxic. So how do you suggest we deal with it, now that it has poisoned our culture to the point of totally corrupting our government, much of our media, many of our churches, and is driving an ever-increasing number of us into poverty and despair?
What do you think guy? You could be in the paramilitary, militant wing of my anti-extremist extremist group. It would be a gravy job. You wouldn't even have to leave your office. Just slaughter everyone that got sent back to see you.

Oh crap. I just waved in a delivery guy with a package for you. Hold on...too late. Somebody got a mop to clean up that hard working greedy capitalist delivery guy?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Here is another one of those strange situations that always develops when I engage someone that is so extreme that any support that I may have for the cause still makes me a dog that is part of the problem and should be slaughtered.

Maybe we should all align against extremism of any kind. Even if it is about cake. Did mention I like cake?
Cake is evil.
Pie is good.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
That is an issue I have been debating with myself over for a while now. As it stands, I believe we are as free in this system as we can be in any. We have legal and regulatory limitations, resource limitations, connection limitations and these vary with the person, but there are examples of people still coming to this country with nothing and succeeding.

How free would we be in a system that was established by killing off an arbitrarily select group of citizens? When your leaders will use those means on the victims, what reassurances are there that they will not turn their eyes to you with some made up justification?
I am not so sure that it is anymore arbitrary than past killings that have occurred in our history. Yet, you seem to want to juxtapose this hypothetical system with our current system based on the atrocities at the origin of the hypothetical. If we do that then we would need to examine the atrocities at the origin of our current system.

I think the two should be distinguished, and can be distinguished, on principle alone. The most effective means of wealth distribution is capitalism with socially selected regulation and social welfare programs. That alone is a reason not to go off and try to overthrow the current system. Any real discussion about this needs to focus on the proposed systems means of wealth distribution both in theory and in reality.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
"Criterion" is the singular form.

The people & government already have partial control.
Government regulates.
The people control with their spending.
What you propose is total government control because
it is politicians running it who take the owner's power,
& grant it to themselves & others....to the extent they
deign to allow it.

If the workers really want to share in the risks & benefits
of ownership, they may buy stock. They could even
start their own company. This is power they already have.

What you /we are arguing against is whiners.
Good
freaking grief, the opportunities a healthy
American has! People are not crowding
against the borders because there is no chance
here!

ETA-Mark Twain wrote of how in the Nevada
mining camps, if the mine played out,
the Americans would lie about and
tell eachother how bad things were,
while the Chinese were busy scrounging
cans from the dump to melt out the tin,
taking in laundry, cooking, and generally
making a better go of it even in hard times
than they ever did at home!

Leave it to me and I will trade all of
our clueless lazy whiners for the same
number of eager, hungry Latinos or Asians.

Let them philosophize about who done them
so badly while they cut weeds along a road in
Indonesia. It would be both groovy, and,
educational.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I am not so sure that it is anymore arbitrary than past killings that have occurred in our history. Yet, you seem to want to juxtapose this hypothetical system with our current system based on the atrocities at the origin of the hypothetical. If we do that then we would need to examine the atrocities at the origin of our current system.
I am not really thinking about past killings, the motivations or the morality behind them in this instance.

My point is, if a group uses those methods to take control of the system, what would prevent them from using the same methods on the people they are claiming to save by using those methods? How are they claiming to sweep socialism in, if it has to be forced in with violence and leaving very real threats of violence to continue sweeping with? For me, this says that these rebel leaders are really authoritarian extremists using socialism as the excuse to take power, but are really using violence to take control and force their will on everyone.
I think the two should be distinguished, and can be distinguished, on principle alone. The most effective means of wealth distribution is capitalism with socially selected regulation and social welfare programs. That alone is a reason not to go off and try to overthrow the current system. Any real discussion about this needs to focus on the proposed systems means of wealth distribution both in theory and in reality.
I agree with you. All systems have problems. People should be spending energy identifying and fixing those instead of creating new problems or threatening violence when they do not get there personal favorite way.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
This just reeks of powerless victimhood.
Remember that one's outlook on life is merely that...not reality.

"Triumphantly the victim of all he surveys" as one author put it.

Shall we list the advantages first, then do the disadvantages?

1. Easy shortcut to the moral high ground

2. Demonise the disagreers

3. Excuses all failures

4. (What else? Dan the Entomologist?)
 
Last edited:

SugarOcean

¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS
You are placing the ideal of ownership above the lives and well-being of humanity. I think you really ought to rethink your moral imperatives.
A moral imperative would be someone who is poor seeking help through proper channels. If they have a home they have possessions they can sell or pawn.
The man in this story wasn't said to be homeless, therefore he had a home. And he had possessions. But he had no immediate cash.
Rather than sell what he valued to keep over eating, he thought a major corporation owed him. Why should they that have so much be surprised when those that have nothing, but the thief in this story did have something, he just wasn't willing to sell or pawn it so as to survive himself, be surprised the "needy" take something.
And so he tried. When he could have sold his computer, or pawned it, and had more than enough $ to feed himself.
But he didn't.

I'm thinking now that the thief in this story is you.
Walmart will prosecute someone if they steal the eraser off a #2 pencil.
So what did you get? Probation? Community service? Or with a prior record was it jail time?
No thing anyone here says changes what happened to the thief in this story.

Someone who thinks Walmart is to blame, or incredibly enough, Red State politics , is to blame for the thief becoming a thief is devoid of morality. And when that thief seeks to be applauded for his actions, when he could have found remedy in any number of other ethical, moral and legal ways, that thief can't be trusted at all.
His friends should be conscious of that and inventory their possessions once that thief leaves their home.
His boss, if he's employed, should be equally wary.

This thread isn't about the masses. This thread is the confession of one thief begging for support for his thievery, while hating on those who have more. And when confronted with his immorality and selfishness, being he thought a store owed him when he didn't think he owed himself not to have a criminal record, he calls those who do not agree with thievery, immoral.
One thing though. I don't have a criminal record.
If I fall on hard times I have plenty to sell or pawn. Because I know people who work hard to make a living deserve to keep what they earn. Even a corporation.
No one owes me, because they're richer than I am.

Thinking they do, thinking it's a Republican fault that causes a person to become a thief, is a weaklings excuse.
And nothing changes that criminal record from recording that fact.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I have known investors. Their work is of such importance we would find ways to manage without if they all quit (and in a post jobs world, we will have to figure that out by then). We were better off when we told the church we dont actually need it, despite their claims just as we'll be better off after we tell WallStreet to bugger off, despite what they tell us.

I dont intend this as rude or a put down but-

I kind of dont think you have real world experience
in investing.

I dont mean mutual funds or bonds.

I mean the people who conceive of a project,
bust their butt working out the thousand details
and get it done!

They wont do that for "equal pay" and nocommittee
of non professional will get it done either.
 
Top