One thing in life I have learned, is 99% of the time, there is a large difference between homeless people in America, and homeless in places like Russia. American homeless choose to be homeless(for the most part), Russian homeless people lost there jobs because of a inflated full employment economy. And we never will, there will always be a black market based in capitalism. Also bureaucracies will never shut down once created, much like government will never dissolve, which is needed for a true socialist system. So there is always going to be the 1% noble class. I would put Kings a Queens actually more into a communal society. Serfs need protection and food. Kings and Queens provide and is a mutual relationship. Sure kings and queens fucked it up and got power hungry, just like most communist officials. Somebody mentioned Cuba, and I always found it interesting because of a lecture I had on it. Basically the lecture went that in a island nation such as Cuba the best thing for the people would be communism/socialism. This conclusion was reached because if you relate the percentages of people here that have money/power/noble class, to the percentage of total people in cuba. The the noble class that would be created in Cuba under capitalism would be a minority. My explanation cites CIA fact book and wikipedia USA population = 307,212,123 1%= 3,012,121 Cuba=11,451,652 1%=114,516 Ok hope I made sense cause woooooooo
Yeah but GOD runs heaven. Earthly governments are run by SINNERS. God gives us the CHOICE to live our lives however we want. So does Capitalism. The whole idea of sin and repentance is lost if you aren't given a choice.
You know jesus was basically communist, and the disciples live in a commune. "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." Leviticus 25:35-38:"If one [...] becomes poor [...] help him [...] so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God [...] You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit." Acts 4:32-35, "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [...] there were no needy persons among them [...] the money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need." "all the believers were together and had everything in common [...] they gave to anyone as he had need. " All sounds pretty communist to me.
i still have to work in a capitalist society. i do not want to work. what choice am i given to live life the way i want? i feel like there's such little difference between the two when it comes down to it. everyone is still bound by the limits of their health, the limits of the 40 hour work week. life is laborious, and no system will change that.
Well think about it. Communism and Socialism would WORK if everything was in perfect, flawless order.... as we believe it will be in heaven. If you get rid of human SIN (i.e. corruption, greed, ect. etc.) than ANY system of government would work. But that's the problem. We don't live in heaven YET. We have to survive and at the same time it's nice to be able to enjoy the pleasures that human life has to offer....
I hope we haven't resorted to using religion as a justification for using a specific economic model. God isn't part of the equation when we're trying to figure out which economic system is best for people who aren't necessarily religious.
God is a justification if religion is threatend by socalist secularism as often happens in communist states.
I don't think we're saying that. It's just the Religious people are more likely to have the opinion that there is a lot more to life than having lots of money and possessions....
I think that's an unfair assessment. As a non-religious person, I find just as much joy in life beyond material possessions as any other person, I think. Using this as a justification for sticking to capitalism might have a small degree of accuracy, but I don't think it's a very strong reason for it. An economic system should be used based on how it improves the quality of life for all of it's members, and it's impact on the rest of the globe. Also, lets be clear: Capitalism is not in any was associated with religion, and to that end, neither is secularism associated with communism. That's a correlation that's completely fabricated.
Well just so you know the laissez-faire capitalist state I advocate would certainly be a secular one. More secular than the United States is now.....you do know he United States is technically a secular country right?
if you don't want to work, don't even consider universal healthcare if you can't even contribute minimum wage to the economy/taxes. go live in the woods, i don't care, just don't expect anyone to take care of you if you feel the system owes you just for being born. Humans always act in there own best self-interest, i go to school to get a good job, so i'm smarter and more acceptable to promotions then the next guy, therefore i promote the business with more knowledge and more dedication, therefore i'm in the companies best self-interest. In return i'm making myself irreplaceable to the company, unlike the high school dropouts/graduates who work the conveyer line and think they deserve the same wage as me, even though i paid $50,000 for a higher education, spent 4 years of my life for higher learning and provide 50x the amount of resources, expertise, and experience, but you think you deserve same wage/paycheck?
Technically yes in practice no, the US is a bastion of christianity in an increasingly secular world.
i think you misunderstood me. i understand the necessity of work. i even feel that it builds character. but i don't actually WANT to work. if i had the choice between work and not work, i would choose not work. there are so many other things i could be doing, like exploring the world and immersing myself in culture and nature. that's what i would do if i were completely free. but i'm not. i'm in school right now, and i plan on getting my phd in physics. i hope to teach eventually. but i could care less about the money i'll be making. i'm studying physics because i find it genuinely interesting, and i'm passionate about it. it makes the work i'll be doing less of a labour. and i would hope that as a professor, i'll be able to contribute to society. all i meant was that either system will require some amount of work to be done by the populace. unless the need to do that work is eliminated, people will always be bound by the need to work, and they will not be free from it.
i've always found it strange how much emphasis the u.s. puts on the religion of a candidate. i have no idea what any of the religions are of any of the candidates who run in canada. unless i happen to see on their wikipedia page or something.
oh okay, thanks for clearing this up. but where do you honestly think physics will be in 50 years under socialism? who is going to be so passionate about coming into work when at home there lifestyle/living situation is no better than the plumbers? I wouldn't want to be working 18 hour days like Edison and Tesla if i'm still only compensated for the 10 hours under the governments thumb w/ same benefits as everyone else, no motivation to advance society, myself, or physics at the least.
how many people do you know that are passionate about what they do? if everyone enjoyed working, we wouldn't have weekends. work is work. people don't like to do work. people in america hate work just as much as people in china hate work. maybe i am generalizing, but i really feel like we ALL have better things to do then be at work. physics is DIFFICULT. the amount of time and effort i put into school would really not be worth it if it weren't for the feeling i get that i'm actually learning something. people will be passionate about what they do as long as they are inclined to do so. the soviet union still managed to put the first man into space. what can you say about that? all that being said, i'm not a socialist lol. but i do believe that we all have the rights to the key advancements of human society, like adequate healthcare. my point is that it is the individual who makes their quality of life, more so than the state or the system.
i'd tell you that is totally irrelevant, that was government spending vs government spending, not private engineering or entrepreneurship like the invention of electricity, radio waves, telecommunication, or the automobile. I'd say all of those inventions prosper the average human being 100x more than the first man on the moon race.
Nobody has a right to any type of commodity. "If some men are entitled by right to the products of the works of others it means those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave. Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right tothe pursuit of happiness - NOT the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does NOT mean that others must make him happy" -Ayn Rand- Man's Rights, The Virtue of Selfishness