The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Can't take personally what does not apply to me, Revolting. Additionally it is logistically impossible to "think outside the box" when the box is economically and financially sealed shut for many people.
-
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!
Restaurants now charging 30 dollars for a regular size pizza in NY.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
- Status
Soon USA will ditch capitalism, & become the
worker's paradise that other socialist countries
are, eg, N Korea, Cuba, or the old USSR, eh.
Of course, there's a big issue about exactly
what these whippersnappers believe "socialism"
actually is. It appears that many only think it's
getting generous social services.
You sure do appear to be taking it personally.
(Lots'o redacted words.)
And all this dwelling on all the possibilities to
fail at making any positive change...that helps
no one. When failure is the focus, it's inevitable.
BTW, it's good form to alert someone when
responding or referring to them. Otherwise,
the post could be missed.
You don't understand capitalists.
We serve ourselves by serving others.
(That's how business & customers interact.)
But you socialists....you serve the hive.
The individual matters not, as we've seen
whenever your nightmare has been implemented.
Capitalism is rightful. But a socialist state is needed whenever capitalists cross certain line they shouldn't cross, like misbehaving or create social injustice. Or exploit workers.
Just that.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Kind of like vaguely referencing me in a post? Ah, but don't tell me; how do I know your quite contextually specific examples were about me? Cue eyeroll.
As for the "possibilities", I suppose you can lead a horse to empathy but you can't force it to partake.
Capitalism is needed whenever socialism exists.Capitalism is rightful. But a socialist state is needed whenever capitalists cross certain line they shouldn't cross, like misbehaving or create social injustice. Or exploit workers.
Just that.
Capitalism - noun
An economic system wherein people are free to start
& run businesses with reasonable regulation to protect
life, limb, environment, & liberty (which includes freedom
from monopolies). With so little need for control of society,
its form of government is democratic. It's so productive
that it incorporates generous social services. People
thrive in an environment of free association, ie, relationships
cooperative & voluntary rather than coerced.
In short, capitalism is economic liberty, prosperity, peace,
cooperation, & social freedom.
I strive to quote & use the alert prefix, "@".
It's only a suggestion.
It seems that you feel referred to
more often than actually happens.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Is this the actual definition, or is this your Revolting's Rebranded Capitalism 2.0 definition that you made because you keep conflating Socialism with Communism?
Alien826
No religious beliefs
In the USA, public transport in general has become quite limited, largely due I think to our dependence on the automobile. Added to that the availability of public transport tends to be in proportion to the population density, so New Yorkers can easily live without a car, but try that in a rural area. So, moving to an area that has better transport tends to involve moving to somewhere with a higher cost of living.
Added to that, and the practical problems mentioned above, it may be relatively easy for a young single person to uproot to find work, but for most people work is just one part of their lives. Their children are in school, they have family near, they have friends. This rugged individualistic model may sound attractive, but we only tend to hear stories about those who succeed. What about those who are knocked down by the system and never recover? Maybe they tried just as hard, but just didn't get the breaks. Should we arrange the rewards we get from society based on the average person, rather than the brightest and best (or luckiest)?
Another thing that has occurred to me as I read this thread. If you measure success by advancement in society (typically measured financially, but it doesn't have to be) then bear in mind that the playing field looks like a pyramid. The higher you get, the fewer positions there are to occupy. If you start a business, there's one of you but soon you need maybe ten employees. You also need 1000 (numbers just for illustration) customers, who also need to be employed to be able to buy your product. Two things follow. First, the entrepreneur needs a lot of non entrepreneurs to succeed. Second, everyone, all at once, can't start a business and succeed. So? Saying something like "If you can't find a job, start a business. look at me , I did it!" is a bit silly.
The business example is just one part of it. For every 10 workers one supervisor is needed. For every 10 supervisors, one first level manager and on up to the CEO where there is only one.
Freedom can be negative.
I give you a practical example.
In a school there is anarchy. School bullies can bully fellow students, they can harass them, they can steal their lunch...etc...etc...
And since there is freedom, nobody will ever prevent these school bullies from doing what they enjoy doing.
Or do you think the principal and the other teacher should prevent these school bullies from doing what they usually do?
But in that case, there would be no freedom. That is, the school bullies wouldn't be free to do what they love to do.
Please answer.
In this post-dictionary age....socialism now incudes capitalism,
capitalism now includes socialism, Marxism includes socialism,
Marxism includes capitalism (per RF formal definition),
and capitalist countries (eg, Denmark) are now socialist.
So I'm re-defining "capitalism" from the typical mischievous
definitions proffered by the opposition.
The one I posted was sent up as a trial balloon earlier.
It received massive approval from both other posters.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
And what about insurance, which is compulsory, and not cheap even at the most basic level. Oh yes, if the move is out of state you will have to pay tax and a fee to register your car in the new state. And you'll need a new drivers license, also not free. Then there's what happens when the ancient car breaks down half way to your new home. Do you have the money to repair it? Or it won't start on your first day at your new job. Not only do you need money to repair it but you just lost your job because you didn't turn up on the first day. There really is no such thing as a free car.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Yeah, as I thought. So if "Socialism now includes Capitalism" then one would assume you would not be so vehemently opposed to it, yes? We can expect to see you cease bemoaning us becoming North Korea or Cuba?
I've never liked the terms "negative" & "positive" as applied
to "liberty". The plus & minus concepts don't work that way.
To make liberty negative should mean its opposite, ie,
oppression.
Better it would be to have something like "active liberty"
to mean providing benefits, & "passive liberty" to mean
prohibiting government from infringing upon liberty.
Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Your use of "freedom" differs from mine.In a school there is anarchy. School bullies can bully fellow students, they can harass them, they can steal their lunch...etc...etc...
And since there is freedom, nobody will ever prevent these school bullies from doing what they enjoy doing.
Or do you think the principal and the other teacher should prevent these school bullies from doing what they usually do?
But in that case, there would be no freedom. That is, the school bullies wouldn't be free to do what they love to do.
Please answer.
I don't see it as a lack of any control over people's
behavior. It doesn't address optimizing liberty within
a continuum ranging between totalitarianism &
anarchy.
As for schools & bullies, it's the same as with society
as a whole, ie, liberty is optimized by an appropriate
level of laws & enforcement.
PureX
Veteran Member
But you serve yourselves best when you serve others least. Less for them means more for you, and more for you is always the goal, isn't it. It's the only goal, really. So you're really just pretending to serve others when in fact you're only trying to serve yourself. What you capitalists really want to do is exploit others for as much as you can get from them, while giving them as little as possible in return. And if that harms them, well too bad for them. It's buyer beware, baby! Get smart or get robbed! This is Darwinian economics 101.
Much of the argument is over personal vs dictionary
definitions, & evolution of either. I oppose "socialism"
that replaces capitalism with the people owning the
"means of production". By the definitions used by
many self-proclaimed "socialists" here, I am one of them.
I'll continue criticizing real socialist countries, just as
you'll continue complaining about your pet peeves.
This is how RF works.
That's the difference between the US and most European countries. The latter are socialist because Capitalists here aren't free.
They aren't free to dismiss an employee without just cause. They aren't free to open a business that doesn't respect the Public Administration Law standards. They aren't free to make a contract which isn't admitted by the law.
See the difference? They aren't free.
Spoken like a true victim.
You're doomed to failure if you ever
try to run a business with that attitude.
You have a mish mash of definitions there.
Perhaps you should address systems & policies
instead of labels with too many personal meanings.
- Status