Well there is... What about... That one that was popular in...Which system has eliminated greed?
None of them have.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Well there is... What about... That one that was popular in...Which system has eliminated greed?
That was government, not capitalism.Capitalism failed to protect the rights of Japanese Americans during WWII.
No economic system protects patients & medical rights.It has long failed to protect patients and medical rights.
Again, this was government which created Jim Crow.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.
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?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?
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.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.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.
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.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?
Cake is evil.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?
Oh man! I am sorry you feel that way. Pay no attention to any clowns you may see in the next 24 hours. They are delivering...pie.Cake is evil.
Pie is good.
Lol, i was just giving you a hard time based on some of your recent posts.Too many posts....too little time to vet them.
That's my excuse.
And your generosity will not go unrewarded.Lol, i was just giving you a hard time based on some of your recent posts.
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.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?
"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.
I am not really thinking about past killings, the motivations or the morality behind them in this instance.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 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.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.
This just reeks of powerless victimhood.
Remember that one's outlook on life is merely that...not reality.
Done."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. Easy to demonize all who dare disagree.
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.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.
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.