I apologize for my week-long delay. However, I no longer have the time to be writing out pages of responses to five different opponents. If any of you really need to respond, try to be humane about it.
Look at it like this, capitalism and the free market (no that's not what we have today, we have corporatism and state regulations of markets) in a way is democratic. People vote with their wallets. If enough people wants X flavour of pasta it will be there, no need for a clumpsy costly election process that can never take into account all the complexities of the market where some burecrat presents limited options for people to vote on.
steve jobs never invented a thing for apple, no more market manipulators for heroes. bravo! steve wozniak is our hero .... "allowed" vs "supported" we choose to support innovation without VC funding and wallstreet reaping an unfair share of the benefits. what if abolish IP, theres a debate (i guess you like those govt regulations, WE DONT)
"someone has to be put down for capitalism to work"
When the US was involved in very little foreign or economic stuff standard of living for everyone rose dramatically, who got put down?
And one point, name one time collectivism worked? Huge numbers of people died every time except Europe and with massive riots they are going there now. Not to mention quality of healthcare for example dropped dramatically when socialized.
Native American tribalism; Republican Spain; Paris Commune; the Zapatistans, the Naksalvadi, Nepal, the Soviets before unification, various religious sects like the Dukhobors or the Hutterites, the Bolivarian nationalists, even Stalinist Russia.
"Huge numbers of people died"
By reactionary capitalist intervention, ie, Great Britain/Germany invading France, Fascists attacking Spain, etc.
@unifieddynasty Worked for what purpose? Prior to captitalism, most people were desperately poor, on the edge of starvation, with occasional famines. American Indians
one step up from cavemen. And they didnt have iPods. Is that Progressive? You are willing to be enslaved to be relieved of the moral responsibility of reasoning to guide action. Sacrifice is the morality of death. Selfishness is moral.
They are not protesting against socialism; they want more of it. The protests you hear about in Ireland, Greece, Spain, are against the European Union and their demands for cutting social programs as 'austerity' measures. These people rioted because they felt their current governments were being too bureaucratic, and goose-stepping in-line with the people who would privatise everything.
Yes I know they want socialism, which is why I say they are doomed unless they pull out now. They think "the rich" can pay for everything. This has been disproved already.
watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
People come from Canada and Britain to America to get major operartions done because they can count on people who actually have a reason to give a crap.
@TeenageCapitalist "People come from Canada and Britain to America to get major operartions done"
Are you referring to medical procedures? If so, let me be the first to say that public healthcare is not perfect. There are long lineups and crowded waiting rooms. However, I am beyond confident when I tell you that any person regardless of income class or location - any person, so long as they have an illness, will get treatment based on a system of triage. Nobody is denied. Nobody is left to die.
@unifieddynasty The more capitalist EU economies, eg, Germany, should cut the more consistent welfare states loose to drown in their chosen politics of collectivism. That is justice, the enemy of sacrifice and its depravity of mercy.
@TeenageCapitalist "Not to mention quality of healthcare for example dropped dramatically when socialized."
Common American myth perpetuated by Faux News and the like. Yes, waiting times may increase dramatically, but the quality of healthcare remains constant; the system operates on triage, ensuring that serious conditions are always treated first. And unlike privatized healthcare, every person is entitled to be treated regardless of how poor they are, and a visit won't bankrupt anyone.
Ok, I missed a step on the tax-gun thing. Preventing them from punching or tazing you, THEN the gun. And punching you for charity is bad too.
And the invasions were not justified. By any standard.
"Dirt farmer rights" What about MY right to keep the property I have lawfully earned? One requires zero interference the other requires vast amounts of force.
@TeenageCapitalist "Preventing them from punching or tazing you, THEN the gun."
Will you please stop beating that dead horse? If a person is so in-compliant that they refuse all reasonable attempts at arrest, protected under supreme judiciary, then that person is either mentally insane or a natural criminal.
"And the invasions were not justified."
I'm glad you say that. The next time you eat a banana, pray that it wasn't imported.
@TeenageCapitalist "What about MY right to keep the property I have lawfully earned?"
What about it? I don't advocate stealing your property, but you must realize that many, many businesspeople exploit such 'lawful' means of acquiring property.
"When the US was involved in very little foreign or economic stuff standard of living for everyone rose dramatically, who got put down?"
No clue what you are saying here. Care elaborate and remove the absolutes out of the statement?
You do realize taxes force people to work for other people without payment or choice in the matter? I thought we went over this.
Industrial Revolution. Right up until the regulations cut in at the great depression.
People died from starvation and lack of shelter or warmth in those examples. Unlike America through the 1850-1900's. The result of economic freedom is quite clear.
@TeenageCapitalist "You do realize taxes force people to work for other people without payment or choice in the matter?"
Ah, our major conflict on this issue is that, while you believe humans do not want to help others, I believe we do. If you truly wanted freedom, why not eliminate all laws altogether? After all, if you were to cross any of them, you would be subject to the same potential violence you are so keen to label taxes as.
@TeenageCapitalist "Right up until the regulations cut in at the great depression."
No clue what you mean here, sorry.
"watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ"
Their model assumes that the US functions explicitly through taxes from the Fortune 500, and on a government budget *estimate*. Of course the American people do not expect all their taxes to be paid solely by the wealthy; they just want a more progressive, fair and equitable system of taxation. Only then can it be even considered slightly sustainable.
And where does the money for this healthcare system come from? Taxes. from the restriction of the liberty to do what you wish with your own property. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is why socialism is anti-individual right by nature. It forces a person with the threat of violence to pay someone else's bills. You want to give charity to sick people? Just fine with me. You want to force charity on others? No.
@TeenageCapitalist "Name these so called expoitations and how they manage to take money without using force (which only the government can do)?"
Again, I urge you to quote your rebuttals the way I am doing so. I do not have the time to be checking over pages of arguments addressed at me, most of which are made by incoherent turnips who accuse me of being an 'evil commie'.
Lying and violence have nothing to do with capitalism, any logically consistent capitalist understands that respecting your own individual rights (necessary for true capitalism) must apply to everyone or no one, otherwise it is illogical.
Now imagine for a second, someone doesn't pay taxes. He refuses multiple warnings sent by the government and now what? Well the police come to arrest him. What if he refuses still? He is placed under arrest. Should he still refuse to go then what? The Gun
I would fully embrace the system if it could somehow magically grant rights to the 3 billion cash crop farmers and enslaved subjects of puppet regimes across the world. If you want to advocate individual freedom, try starting at the basic freedom for income to support a liveable standard of life. Don't even try to justify why the First World deserves so much more than the serfs of the Third World.
@unifieddynasty The third world has govts that prevent wealth creation. India has moved to free up their economy and has enjoyed substantial wealth creation but remember how low a point they started from. China has loosened their economy to an extend, but again, remember where they started from. You can't go from 3rd world to 1st world in a decade regardless of what your polices are. Wealth creation isn't magic, it takes time.
@cheeseburger12 "The third world has govts that prevent wealth creation"
The third world has governments entirely subjugated by foreign corporations, either militarily, or through outsourcing.
"India"
India is a country with one of the highest millionaire and billionaire populations, yet ten million poor Indians die every year from disease and starvation, two million of which are children. If you want capitalist disparity, go to India. That's why communist movements are so strong there.
@unifieddynasty India regulates its businesses to death, it takes years to open a factory or anything of that nature, who wants to invest that kind of time or the money involved and hope you get approval??? That's why the entrepreneurs move away, and with them the possible wealth and job creation.
@drm31415 "who wants to invest that kind of time or the money involved and hope you get approval?"
Practically every major American corporation.
"capitalism"
Did you realize that free market capitalism is only one kind of capitalism? Now, I could go around saying Stalinism is not communism, but you would call bullshit on that too.
"huge opportunity for a competitor "
You must not understand what a monopoly is then. There is absolutely no opportunity within a monopoly.
@unifieddynasty Before India turned toward capitalism it had billions of people living in desperate poverty with no millionaires. I guess to you billions in poverty and no rich is far better then allowing wealth creation that will slowly and unevenly bring them up to a first world country over time. The wealth isn't going to magically appear.
@unifieddynasty Govt monoploies aren't capitalism. And India wasn't capitalism after getting their independence. They had a lot of economic reforms in the 90s. And then they started creating wealth. Score for the Invisible Hand.
State capitalism. Moreover, most capitalist monopolies are not run by the state, but rather helped into power by it.
"India wasn't capitalism after getting their independence."
Three hundred years of colonial rule for the export of India's resources by chartered companies is not capitalism? Is it not capitalism that goods are sent back to the First World to be sold at massive profits while being bought from Indians at marginal prices?
Which is why almost nine million Indians starve to death every year, while India has one of the highest populations of billionaires in the world? With your invisible hand comes enormous income disparity, and the trickle-down effect is nowhere in sight for most of India.
Consequently, perhaps you should search up the 'Red Corridor' and come up with an underlying cause for its great resurgence as of late.
@unifieddynasty Perhaps those communist movements should remember how much economic growth there was before India turned to capitalistic reforms. None. The were stuck as a 3rd world country. And if they kept those polices, they would have stayed that way. But at least no one would be wealthy. The multinationals didn't steal all this wealth that was lying around. They just used it efficiently. Which the Indian govt wasn't allowing due to its collective controls.
@cheeseburger12 "can't go from 3rd world to 1st world in a decade regardless"
It is physically impossible for every country to be First World and still function as a capitalist system. That is the beauty of capitalism; in order to sustain wealth for some, many more must be kept poor. Moreover, the more viable approach is to measure countries based on modernisation and industrialisation. While it is true that multinationals do contribute, they keep the vast majority of the wealth for themselves.
@unifieddynasty That is ridiculous. There is nothing that requires people to be poor in capitalism. However, communism and socialism do require everyone to be poor if someone is poor.Can't have wealth disparity even if some people actually create wealth. It is "unfair".
@cheeseburger12 "There is nothing that requires people to be poor in capitalism."
Because capitalists will always bid for the cheapest materials and sell them at the highest price, there must be losers in the system to sustain it. Where do you think America goes to find its cheap labour and resources? Why do you think coffee is so inexpensive? Is it fair that third world farmers must grow these cash crops for only a few pennies per kilogram of produce?
@unifieddynasty "there must be losers in [capitalism]" But they are relative losers, not absolute losers. Bill Gates's janitor has more material wealth than almost all people in history because Gates' superior productivity allows him to pay for a janitor who may have starved to death in a primitive, low-production, economy.
Capitalism has no fair or unfair. It has justice. All are paid for their production. Prices are objectively caused by cost, demand, competition.
@cheeseburger12 "However, communism and socialism do require everyone to be poor if someone is poor."
What?! Where are you getting this crap from? The stuff you hear from Fox News? Give me the empirical definition of socialism and I'll actually respond. This is not worth my time.
"Can't have wealth disparity even if some people actually create wealth."
Define your terms, because you obviously do not know them.
@unifieddynasty "in order to sustain wealth for some, many more must be kept poor."
This is the mentality produced by that morality of death called sacrifice. They dont know how to relate to other people for mutual profit. Socialists are neo-savages.
@cheeseburger12 John Stossel recently interviewed Hernando de Soto, Peruvian pro-capitalist economist who studies property rights as a need for increasing production. Many nations make deeds to one's house a big expense. Those deeds needed for business loans. De Soto believes that there are many underground capitalists creating much wealth in many 3rd world economies. Socialism is for losers.
@unifieddynasty We as human beings should practice being more selfless, but we should not allow the majority to force it on people. That is why we ended up choosing a republic over a democracy. European social democracies are NOT like the USA. They dont have armies, they dont have 300 million citizens, they dont have the largest consumption base either. If we tomorrow stopped buying German goods, Germany's economy would collapse. Same with Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.
@Asti223 "but we should not allow the majority to force it on people."
I get how Americans value individual freedom, citing their constitution and all, but think how easily manipulable the system is. How long will you wait for Wall Street to give even a nickel to your family out of compassion? Do they deserve to bankrupt their corporations, only to be bailed out and then just disband with hundreds of millions of dollars withdrawn into their own accounts?
@unifieddynasty The truth is that you are still able to work and live humbly in this country. We have just been manipulated into thinking we MUST take out huge loans and spend many years in college/university. Many then find out their diplomas are useless. Just like in Europe where everyone goes to college and graduates and cant even find a job afterwords. Italy, Greece, Spain, and Iceland are all social democracies as well. Each population and culture requires its own system.
@Asti223 "The truth is that you are still able to work and live humbly in this country."
Not really.
"Many then find out their diplomas are useless."
Truth.
"social democracies"
Not quite. Although they have a major voter base for left leaning parties, their countries are ultimately supranationalist to the European Union. If they were true social democracies, they would not have joined.
"Each population and culture requires its own system."
@Asti223 "We have just been manipulated into thinking we MUST take out huge loans and spend many years in college/university"
Liberals, with public schools and Progressive education, did this. Very few people need or want a serious, intellectual education after high school. 19th century high schools better than today's universities. Most would benefit from job or tech training. Big shortage now of tech skills at high-paying blue collar jobs. Eg, welders. Carpenters in my area have big houses.
I also dont expect wall street to give my family a nickel out of compassion. I just expect them to be treated the same way my small business gets treated. So I say end regulations to end up protecting "too big to fail" and end regulations that give people these false senses of security which allows for risky loans and investments. Also, abolish the FDIC and let banks privatize insurance so that they cant operate in a risky manner either. We need a truer capitalistic system, not this crap.
@unifieddynasty "How long will you wait for Wall Street to give even a nickel to your family out of compassion?"
Note how commies evade production for charity and theft. They assume that most people are fools who need Stalin. Man has a mind. Man does not need communism. Mind needs freedom from communism and religion. Mind needs logic to produce material values.
@Asti223 "European social democracies are NOT like the USA. "
They do have armies, but they don't go off every few years to invade another country. They don't have 300 million citizens, but the social services provided are proportional to their tax base; if there are fewer people, then naturally less money is spent on providing public services to them.
"If we tomorrow stopped buying German goods"
So turning America into a democratically socialist country will void all international trade?
@unifieddynasty What happens in democratically socialist countries is that they rarely rely on imports because the vast population is busy paying higher taxes instead of consuming things like high-end cars or the newest gadgets. Not to say that Europe isn't a big market, it's just not comparable to N. America. You let the masses decide you will obviously get low taxes, more services, and end up with debt. Do some reading on California's current fiscal issue. Has to do with direct democracy.
@Asti223 "You let the masses decide you will obviously get low taxes, more services, and end up with debt."
People can be quite content with high taxes, so long as the bureaucratic system still functions for the people. I believe it has much to do with the cultural and traditional values of these societies; some people are more inclined to think collectively, just as some people would rather have a strong dictator than a flailing democracy.
@unifieddynasty This is evidence that liberalism has destroyed minds for many decades. America tried to stay out of foreign wars until collectivism became influential. Note also his nationalism in implying that resources belong to the nation and should not be sold to foreigners.
A while ago coal was not considered a resource, neither was oil or nuclear power, now they are considered resources because we have discovered ways to make them resources. Just recently a way to profitable extract oil from shale was created: bam, new resource. Natural resources are unlimited we just need to find new ways to arrange the world around us.
@TeenageCapitalist I would appreciate it if you could reply whenever you feel like furthering this debate. Had I not periodically checked for your reply, I would have completely missed your new arguments.
"Natural resources are unlimited we just need to find new ways to arrange the world around us"
Arranging the world around us without any consideration for the world will be the cause of our extinction. There is no sustainability involved in blindly drilling holes into the ground.
@unifieddynasty The advancement that comes through the use of all resources has made the human race more able to adapt and change the future. Obviously if we never used fossil fuels the worlds air might be cleaner, but we'd probably still have people dying for now considered silly reasons. The entire OWS movement is calling for regulation, yet they want money out of politics. Every time a regulation goes through it's MONEY in POLITICS.
@Asti223 "The advancement that comes through the use of all resources "
I'm not against using natural resources; that would be hypocritical. I'm against the wastage of resources to fuel First World consumerism and materialism.
"but we'd probably still have people dying for now considered silly reasons."
I agree with this argument 100 percent. Resources should be used to better the lives of all people, not to enslave them in a completely arbitrary market of obsolete goods.
You do not need to give money to the regulated corporations for there to be regulation. Rather, it's taking the corporation's money away from the government, so as not to corrupt the government. I do not speak for all of OWS - every person participating has their own values and reasons - but I can safely assume that many protesters are against corporate handouts and bailouts, even while corporate executives earn millions more than the average person.
@unifieddynasty Sustain man. Exploit the environment. Capitalist property rights protect against pollution of property. Environmentalists say man is pollution. Individual mind, not socialism, should guide anti-pollution. Man needs more industry and less nature. Environmentalism more evil than Nazism because its anti-man.
@TeenageCapitalist Natural resources are limited but man's mind has virtual infinity of potentially new ideas. Mind is the ultimate resource. Mind is the basic cause of production. Is sand merely annoying blown in your face or material of computer chips?
@TeenageCapitalist Communists dont care that Rockefeller lowered oil price because they value equality as ideal and will destroy prosperity to achieve it. Moral defense of capitalism is more important than practical defense. _Atlas Shrugged_ and _Capitalism_
Capital is not finite. That is a common misconception. Anything of value is capital. And monopolization is a good thing. The Rockefeller family well nigh monopolized oil and they made a profit with kerosene at 26 cents per gallon (after inflation about 80 cents today), that's not so bad is it?
Look at the government. If you don't pay your taxes what happens? You will see I do not exaggerate. And how is force neccesary in capitalism? Elaborate please.
Forgive me; the raw materials needed to fuel consumerism are depleting. We have already reached peak oil, and other natural resources are depleting at dismal rates. The only solution that multinational corporations have offered us is the military intervention of resource rich countries - they have simply influenced your government to invade otherwise peaceful and democratic societies around the world whenever they demand more of a resource.
@unifieddynasty When raw materials have been depleted, do they go outside universe, maybe into Hell? Matter changes its forms, cannot cease to exist. Basically, mind finds new raw materials or new uses for old raw materials. Man has merely scratched the surface of the 8000 mile deep Earth. US is 80% undeveloped. Western US is 90% undeveloped. Man's mind is enemy of environmentalism. They want to destroy scientific-industrial civilization for commie fantasy. Fracked oil ends peak oil.
Then I may assume that with the planned obsolescence fitting so naturally within the capitalist market, capital itself is indeed depleting, and therefore finite.
"And monopolization is a good thing. "
I may need to drag you with me the next time I confront one of those 'laissez-faire' capitalists. At least then you two can debate whether monopolization is indeed capitalist.
@unifieddynasty Anyone that understands capitalism and human nature understands that an abusive monopoly(the type they claim the laws are meant to protect us from) can't last without government interference, simply because it creates a huge opportunity for a competitor to enter the market, and the customers will flock to the new biz out of rage at the old.
@drm31415 Alcoa Aluminium monopoly kept prices low and efficiency high to minimize competition. Antitrust broke Alcoa anyway because of commie ideal of equality. "Perfect competition" is pseudo-scientific rationalization of commie equality. Commies want passive, equal competition w/no losers. Capitalist competition is active rivalry w/some remaining and some bankrupt. Resources of bankrupt firms shift to profitable firms. Good for all. Equality bad for poor. See primitive tribes.
@unifieddynasty "planned obsolescence" is claim that man is not God. Even luxury goods will crumble some day. Poor people need low quality, low price goods. Capital depletes from Keynsian theft of money for unsustainable socialism. In capitalism, capital always increases. The capital "in" an iPhone is vastly more than "in" tom toms. Capital is abstraction from concrete. Not concretely obvious. Needs that enemy of socialism: mind. See _Atlas Shrugged_.
@TeenageCapitalist "Look at the government. If you don't pay your taxes what happens?"
Ah, taxes. You know, I agree with you if your case study were the United States. Taxes are so recklessly thrown away on funding foreign puppet regimes, lining the wallets of politicians and corporations alike, and instigating trillion dollar wars, even as the Americans reach their borrowing limit. But, then you have brilliant European monuments to how social democracies have indeed been far more successful.
@TeaParty1776 You sir are a master troll. Despite my attempts to wrap this 'debate' to a conclusion, you insist on replying with short bursts of insults directed at me, with absolutely no factual relevance to my arguments. As such, you have lost all credibility, and I hope fellow debaters will recognize this point and distance themselves from your repugnant self.
@unifieddynasty How do you manage to avoid daily reports of welfare state Europe's economic meltdown and riots and wealth transfers from successful more-capitalist Germany to failed more-socialist Greece? Perhaps your TV is broken? Or perhaps socialist success is measured in social unity among the poor and hopeless?
I hardly believe anyone would point a gun at your head for not paying your taxes. Just the notion of you wanting me to 'imagine' is exaggeration enough.
"And how is force neccesary in capitalism?"
Competition in itself is force. Take the most primitive forms of anarchist capitalism out there - street gangs and drug cartels. In order to gain a wider audience and increase their own territory, they use force and propagate fear.
@TeenageCapitalist Capital goods are the nonhuman means of production (producers goods), eg, land, machines, factories, materials, farm animals, etc. Capital is the monetary value of capital goods and ,wider, the money saved to buy capital goods.
Value is not in capital as wood is in a tree. Man, with his mind, values when he acts to get or keep something. Value is relation between facts and life as judged by mind. "What Is Capitalism" (_Capitalism_, Ayn Rand)
Capitalism is , as said, a voulantary web of asscociations. Is there something wrong with capitalism. When you go to a store and buy something you are engaging in capitalism. Both parties gain and everyone is happy. And don't give me shit about putting other people out of business. If you put someone out of business then your best plan is to hire them. They have experience at the job, and you will need more people to handle the business that will now go to you. Again everyone benefits.
Exactly benevolent cooperation is just fine. However imagine pointing a gun at someone and demanding their money for charity. This is robbery isn't it? No it's the government. Only the government has the ability to wield force. It. Must. Be. Very. Fucking. Careful. The moment an organization that can wield force is not respectful of all individual rights (the right to other people's money is not a right).
And capitalism has nothing to do with hurting others.
@TeenageCapitalist "However imagine pointing a gun at someone and demanding their money for charity."
The truth is, we have now reached a point in this debate where we have begun to over-exaggerate ideologies to further our own arguments. You may say that there is an excess of force in socialism; I may counter by saying that force is also necessary in capitalism. I have no desire to waste time.
However, let's look at the modern world. Can you please explain the benefits of the Third World to me?
@TeenageCapitalist "And capitalism has nothing to do with hurting others."
In order to sustain growth in capital, particularly in a system where capital is finite, it is paramount for the capitalist to compete with other capitalists to amass the most amount of capital. Through whatever means necessary. Aggression is synonymous with competition.
"If you put someone out of business then your best plan is to hire them"
-Thereby allowing yourself to monopolize the market. Not exactly capitalist, eh?
Ha. I am getting replies from people saying "Well Capitalism is only good to a point and then socialism has to take over once enough technology has been developed." You know, I have a little bit of forgiveness for people that wanted to give socialism a try in, say, 1913. They were silly and wrong and the use of a small amount of logic would have helped them realize it, but maybe they weren't evil. 100 million dead bodies in the 20th century says that anyone who believes in it today IS evil.
@cmbbroker "100 million dead bodies in the 20th century says that anyone who believes in it today IS evil."
1. Your number is so overinflated that it lacks any credibility whatsoever.
2. The vast majority of deaths were caused by natural factors, and were a result of implementing theories and new ideals into practise. It is no easy feat to modernize third world countries, that for hundreds of years, were oppressed by a very small group of oligarchs. Mistakes were made; I grant you that much.
@cmbbroker "socialism has to take over once enough technology has been developed."
Because machines maintain and create themselves, without Edison, Ford, and Jobs? Whee! Trash your minds. Marx was right. Oh, wait, Occupy Atlanta had tuberculosis and Woodstock had diseases not seen since before the Industrial Revolution. Never mind.
Under a proper philosophy the point is gaining value, not necessarily money. Although nearly anyone values money there are other forms. That is why charity is possible in an objectivist philosophy. Many people enjoy giving gifts and as long as they are not giving it because it is being demanded (i.e. a family member demanding charity because they are family) it is perfectly moral.
Ask Chris Hedges? Kevin O'Leary asked Chris Hedges the same question on CBC, check it out. Can't wait for computer implants maybe if Steve Jobs were around for the next 200 years, I'm sure he would have invented it. You only live for a second, time is short.
@unifieddynasty "are you suggesting Greed is the mother of invention" Yes it is, Greed for a better improved personal well being, greed for knowelege, greed for fame, greed for Love( a good mother does love HER children more than her neighbors). etc. yes greed, which is desire, is the motivator that moves man to astounding heights.
There is no hope for me to convince you otherwise, as you have just begun to argue semantics with me. Personally, I do not associate greed for goal.
I would like to point out however that a mother's love does not symbolise greed. That is, unless you consider the offspring to be mere possessions of the mother, to be used effectively as tools to generate a return profit for the mother upon maturity. Please don't try awfully hard to degrade selfless parenthood.
@unifieddynasty It seems to me that you're unopen to the possibility that parenting can, indeed be selfish. Because you're unopen to the idea the love can be selfish. A parents love for his/her child is selfish. The child is their value.
Selfishness and caring for others are not mutually exclusive, provided that the "others" are people you value.
@BlackWolf4830 " It seems to me that you're unopen to the possibility that parenting can, indeed be selfish."
Selfish to the smallest extent; selfish in that the parent does not want to lose their child. When a parent raises their children, they do so with a complete lack of thought towards their future betterment. Current estimates for raising a child to maturity ranges in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Real parents don't expect to turn a profit from that.
@unifieddynasty You are partially right in that Americans parents don't necessarily expect financial rewards from their children today, but this is a phenomenon that has only come about thanks to the massive wealth creation of Capitalism in the West. 100 years ago in the United States, a major reason that you had a lot of children was to have help on the farms that 97% of Americans worked on at the time. This is still the case in most other parts of the world today which is why they want sons.
Why must we bring back unnecessary traditions, when we already have the means to produce a society where future generations no longer must toil in the fields for a measly return? It was not because of capitalism that their standards of living increased; it was because of industrialization and agricultural reform.
If the modern, and thus most relevant parent is selfless, what does it matter how humans acted centuries ago?
@unifieddynasty industrialization is the result of capitalism, people came up with more efficient/effective ways to produce their product in order to make more money.
@drm31415 " industrialization is the result of capitalism"
And modern socialism is the result of capitalism's boundless exploitation of workers and the third world as a result of said industrialization. But, of course, industrialization can be achieved without capitalism.
"in order to make more money."
In order to make necessary reforms in the agricultural sector, as well as for the sake of innovation.
@unifieddynasty "It was not because of capitalism that their standards of living increased; it was because of industrialization and agricultural reform."
@cmbbroker "This is still the case in most other parts of the world today which is why they want sons."
As soon as they are provided with more efficient technology as a result of modernisation, completely non-tangent to capitalism, there would be no need for such an outdated system to be enacted. If you were to argue in favour of this 'capitalist' greed, might I also remind you that while there are people and corporations making billions, these people still must rely on large families to farm?
@unifieddynasty "Real Parents don't expect to turn a profit from that"
You mistake profit for value. Value is a gain of any kind emotionally or physically. Any REAL parent (i.e. one who deliberately chose to be a parent) decided to have children because they valued the idea of having children more than the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The same way any pet owner chooses to have a pet because they value their experience with a pet more than the money spent.
And value is not implicitly capitalist. I, for lack of association, value humanity as a whole, the right to have basic needs fulfilled, and benevolent cooperation in achieving society's goals. I don't think that makes me a 'greedy' capitalist.
"the point is gaining value"
This is inclusive to every philosophy. However, only in capitalist economics is it acceptable for one to purposely cheer at or instigate another's loss, to further one's own 'values'.
@unifieddynasty Selfless parenthood? As in "I had no personal interest in creating you, you mean nothing to me personally" (for otherwise it would be selfish, no?) Try saying that to a kid and see if he likes it.
@unifieddynasty Lol, I can play this, too. You obvioulsly do not know the definition of selfishness. If you do not judge it to be in your own best interest to care for your children, you should not decide to be a parent, and if you decide to, you're a horrible parent and I don't want anything to do with you. The one that's twisting words is obviously you.
The Nazis who ran the death camps did not try to convince their prisoners that Nazism was good. They did not try to destroy their minds. This anti-capitalist wants to destroy man's mind. He is the perfect student of liberal intellectuals. As Kant said, "I have denied knowledge therefore, in order to make room for faith." This anti-capitalist is the perfect example of the nihilism of modern culture. He is already dead and wants to drag others into his self-created Hell. See: Atlas Shrugged.
I would not rely on Atlas Shrugged as I would not rely on Animal Farm, or 1984, or the War of the Worlds for that matter. Learn to appreciate prose for what it is.
@unifieddynasty Your main points are that essentially, you wish that entrepreneurs would stop thinking about themselves and their profits while instead making things solely to benefit others. This amounts to some sort of "social duty" that the entrepreneur has not chosen but you say he must act upon. If the entrepreneur is making his product solely for the sake of others with no personal stake, how would he be able to make a good product? Without selfish values, how could he make anything good?
"Without selfish values, how could he make anything good?"
People do plenty of good as a result of selfless morality. If everyone was thinking about how they might profit off every decision they made, our world would be the most individualistic and unforgiving world in the entire universe. It is in the act of giving, that defines most religions and virtuous archetypes, is it not?
@unifieddynasty You seem to have this misconception that individualism is incompatible with benevolence and profit is incompatible without sacrifice. Tell me, how do companies make such a profit if the goods they produce are not a value to the people who buy them? Sure, the company does not need to think about the buyer in particular to offer a product, but when the buyer purchases the product, everyone gains from the transaction.
@unifieddynasty Also, I don't regard any religion as legitimate or the act of giving qua giving as virtuous. I only regard upholding one's life-sustaining values as virtuous, which can include giving gifts to friends or to charity, but neither the benefactors of the charity nor the friend can claim those gifts as a duty from me.
@unifieddynasty " If everyone was thinking about how they might profit off every decision they made, our world would be the most individualistic and unforgiving world in the entire universe. "
This is evil incarnate. This is a person whose evasion, whose hatred is so powerful, that he denies all reality with such devotion that he rationalizes the enslavement of brilliant people to his pathetic, unproductive, anti-life, existence. This is the kind of person who supported the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. He is the type who would push people into the gas chambers. If he doesn't scare the shit out of you, you need to wake up.
@2Atlantis Jobs is a moral role model, a rationally selfish ,passionate producer who was living proof of a good life. He was a living reproach to socialists and religionists. I will buy the Issacson bio. Confession: Ive owned Macs since 1992. I believe that one had a virus for a day.
@kasyapa The average age of death in hunting-gathering cultures, so beloved of liberals, is between the late teens and mid-20s. Most children die before five. Open, running sores and famines are normal. Dissidents are eaten. There are no liberals. ;<)
This guy really is talking communism. Wow. I'm shocked that such naivete still exists in America. PLEASE visit an economy with a command economy and central planning to see what an utter failure they all are... OH YEAH there AREN'T any left! THey've all gone into the dustbin of history.
@goforkt " PLEASE visit an economy with a command economy and central planning to see what an utter failure they all are."
Total command economy? No. Central planning with a private sector as well? Try all the modern democratically socialist countries around the world.
By the way, the Soviet Union was tremendously successful under their command economy. It was only after their allocation of industrial capacity towards overpriced military budgets that the country deteriorated.
@unifieddynasty In 1921-1929, the SU went back to some capitalism to avoid collapse. Communism reduced production to a life-threatening extent. Eg, before the Revolution, surplus wheat was exported. Collective farming required wheat imports. Only aid and trade from gullible foreigners kept the SU from collapse. Military costs were paid by $11B in US Lend-Lease. Communism stopped the SU from feeding and defending itself. _East Minus West = Zero_, Werner Keller.
Little this guy knows that thanks to people like Steve Jobs 7 billion people is able to be living today, the only bad thing about that is all the ignorant parasites like this guy that are also generated by an industrial society, like the waste of a nuclear plant.
Didn't Steve Jobs started Apple Computers in his parents garage. Apparently Steve Jobs did produce something.
hellofaname 1 month ago
wow.... what a guy
DavidsIllustrations 2 months ago
I apologize for my week-long delay. However, I no longer have the time to be writing out pages of responses to five different opponents. If any of you really need to respond, try to be humane about it.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
Look at it like this, capitalism and the free market (no that's not what we have today, we have corporatism and state regulations of markets) in a way is democratic. People vote with their wallets. If enough people wants X flavour of pasta it will be there, no need for a clumpsy costly election process that can never take into account all the complexities of the market where some burecrat presents limited options for people to vote on.
bradleyrimbleus 3 months ago
steve jobs never invented a thing for apple, no more market manipulators for heroes. bravo! steve wozniak is our hero .... "allowed" vs "supported" we choose to support innovation without VC funding and wallstreet reaping an unfair share of the benefits. what if abolish IP, theres a debate (i guess you like those govt regulations, WE DONT)
internetlings 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty
"someone has to be put down for capitalism to work"
When the US was involved in very little foreign or economic stuff standard of living for everyone rose dramatically, who got put down?
And one point, name one time collectivism worked? Huge numbers of people died every time except Europe and with massive riots they are going there now. Not to mention quality of healthcare for example dropped dramatically when socialized.
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "And one point, name one time collectivism worked?"
Native American tribalism; Republican Spain; Paris Commune; the Zapatistans, the Naksalvadi, Nepal, the Soviets before unification, various religious sects like the Dukhobors or the Hutterites, the Bolivarian nationalists, even Stalinist Russia.
"Huge numbers of people died"
By reactionary capitalist intervention, ie, Great Britain/Germany invading France, Fascists attacking Spain, etc.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty Worked for what purpose? Prior to captitalism, most people were desperately poor, on the edge of starvation, with occasional famines. American Indians
one step up from cavemen. And they didnt have iPods. Is that Progressive? You are willing to be enslaved to be relieved of the moral responsibility of reasoning to guide action. Sacrifice is the morality of death. Selfishness is moral.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "massive riots they are going there now"
They are not protesting against socialism; they want more of it. The protests you hear about in Ireland, Greece, Spain, are against the European Union and their demands for cutting social programs as 'austerity' measures. These people rioted because they felt their current governments were being too bureaucratic, and goose-stepping in-line with the people who would privatise everything.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty
Yes I know they want socialism, which is why I say they are doomed unless they pull out now. They think "the rich" can pay for everything. This has been disproved already.
watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
People come from Canada and Britain to America to get major operartions done because they can count on people who actually have a reason to give a crap.
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "People come from Canada and Britain to America to get major operartions done"
Are you referring to medical procedures? If so, let me be the first to say that public healthcare is not perfect. There are long lineups and crowded waiting rooms. However, I am beyond confident when I tell you that any person regardless of income class or location - any person, so long as they have an illness, will get treatment based on a system of triage. Nobody is denied. Nobody is left to die.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty The more capitalist EU economies, eg, Germany, should cut the more consistent welfare states loose to drown in their chosen politics of collectivism. That is justice, the enemy of sacrifice and its depravity of mercy.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "Not to mention quality of healthcare for example dropped dramatically when socialized."
Common American myth perpetuated by Faux News and the like. Yes, waiting times may increase dramatically, but the quality of healthcare remains constant; the system operates on triage, ensuring that serious conditions are always treated first. And unlike privatized healthcare, every person is entitled to be treated regardless of how poor they are, and a visit won't bankrupt anyone.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty Everyone in socialized med is treated equally poorly. Except for those w/political pull which has replaced productive competence.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
Ok, I missed a step on the tax-gun thing. Preventing them from punching or tazing you, THEN the gun. And punching you for charity is bad too.
And the invasions were not justified. By any standard.
"Dirt farmer rights" What about MY right to keep the property I have lawfully earned? One requires zero interference the other requires vast amounts of force.
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TeenageCapitalist "Preventing them from punching or tazing you, THEN the gun."
Will you please stop beating that dead horse? If a person is so in-compliant that they refuse all reasonable attempts at arrest, protected under supreme judiciary, then that person is either mentally insane or a natural criminal.
"And the invasions were not justified."
I'm glad you say that. The next time you eat a banana, pray that it wasn't imported.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "What about MY right to keep the property I have lawfully earned?"
What about it? I don't advocate stealing your property, but you must realize that many, many businesspeople exploit such 'lawful' means of acquiring property.
"When the US was involved in very little foreign or economic stuff standard of living for everyone rose dramatically, who got put down?"
No clue what you are saying here. Care elaborate and remove the absolutes out of the statement?
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty
(points replied to in order of posting)
You do realize taxes force people to work for other people without payment or choice in the matter? I thought we went over this.
Industrial Revolution. Right up until the regulations cut in at the great depression.
People died from starvation and lack of shelter or warmth in those examples. Unlike America through the 1850-1900's. The result of economic freedom is quite clear.
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TeenageCapitalist "You do realize taxes force people to work for other people without payment or choice in the matter?"
Ah, our major conflict on this issue is that, while you believe humans do not want to help others, I believe we do. If you truly wanted freedom, why not eliminate all laws altogether? After all, if you were to cross any of them, you would be subject to the same potential violence you are so keen to label taxes as.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "Right up until the regulations cut in at the great depression."
No clue what you mean here, sorry.
"watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ"
Their model assumes that the US functions explicitly through taxes from the Fortune 500, and on a government budget *estimate*. Of course the American people do not expect all their taxes to be paid solely by the wealthy; they just want a more progressive, fair and equitable system of taxation. Only then can it be even considered slightly sustainable.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty
Anti-Trust Laws. Heard of them?
And where does the money for this healthcare system come from? Taxes. from the restriction of the liberty to do what you wish with your own property. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is why socialism is anti-individual right by nature. It forces a person with the threat of violence to pay someone else's bills. You want to give charity to sick people? Just fine with me. You want to force charity on others? No.
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty
Name these so called expoitations and how they manage to take money without using force (which only the government can do)?
If someone uses political favors to gain economic power then the power to give those favors must be eliminated, not the businesses.
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TeenageCapitalist "Name these so called expoitations and how they manage to take money without using force (which only the government can do)?"
Again, I urge you to quote your rebuttals the way I am doing so. I do not have the time to be checking over pages of arguments addressed at me, most of which are made by incoherent turnips who accuse me of being an 'evil commie'.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty Socialism depends on vague and ambiguous defense because the facts dont support it.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
steve jobs didnt make anything though, he's just an investor
Orhorhorhorh 3 months ago
'they should produce for the good of the people'?
Wow. This bloke disgusts me.
BruceCamblzChin 3 months ago
So many friggin' idiots, proving daily that you can't fix stupid.
TheBuddyLama 3 months ago
This video should be played in every Apple Store around the world.
That way people will be informed of exactly who wanted to destroy them.
CRAPCANNONS 3 months ago
@CRAPCANNONS Or they can read Atlas Shrugged, which greatly influenced Jobs.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
Lying and violence have nothing to do with capitalism, any logically consistent capitalist understands that respecting your own individual rights (necessary for true capitalism) must apply to everyone or no one, otherwise it is illogical.
Now imagine for a second, someone doesn't pay taxes. He refuses multiple warnings sent by the government and now what? Well the police come to arrest him. What if he refuses still? He is placed under arrest. Should he still refuse to go then what? The Gun
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "any logically consistent capitalist understands"
Tell that to the capitalists.
I would fully embrace the system if it could somehow magically grant rights to the 3 billion cash crop farmers and enslaved subjects of puppet regimes across the world. If you want to advocate individual freedom, try starting at the basic freedom for income to support a liveable standard of life. Don't even try to justify why the First World deserves so much more than the serfs of the Third World.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty The third world has govts that prevent wealth creation. India has moved to free up their economy and has enjoyed substantial wealth creation but remember how low a point they started from. China has loosened their economy to an extend, but again, remember where they started from. You can't go from 3rd world to 1st world in a decade regardless of what your polices are. Wealth creation isn't magic, it takes time.
cheeseburger12 3 months ago
@cheeseburger12 "The third world has govts that prevent wealth creation"
The third world has governments entirely subjugated by foreign corporations, either militarily, or through outsourcing.
"India"
India is a country with one of the highest millionaire and billionaire populations, yet ten million poor Indians die every year from disease and starvation, two million of which are children. If you want capitalist disparity, go to India. That's why communist movements are so strong there.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty India regulates its businesses to death, it takes years to open a factory or anything of that nature, who wants to invest that kind of time or the money involved and hope you get approval??? That's why the entrepreneurs move away, and with them the possible wealth and job creation.
drm31415 3 months ago
@drm31415 "who wants to invest that kind of time or the money involved and hope you get approval?"
Practically every major American corporation.
"capitalism"
Did you realize that free market capitalism is only one kind of capitalism? Now, I could go around saying Stalinism is not communism, but you would call bullshit on that too.
"huge opportunity for a competitor "
You must not understand what a monopoly is then. There is absolutely no opportunity within a monopoly.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty Before India turned toward capitalism it had billions of people living in desperate poverty with no millionaires. I guess to you billions in poverty and no rich is far better then allowing wealth creation that will slowly and unevenly bring them up to a first world country over time. The wealth isn't going to magically appear.
cheeseburger12 3 months ago
@cheeseburger12 "Before India turned toward capitalism"
It was always capitalist, even under colonial rule. The territory was managed by a British monopoly at one point for a hundred years.
"it had billions of people living in desperate poverty with no millionaires"
Logical fallacy. Need I point it out? Moreover, when combined with my aforementioned statement, this actually supports my position.
"The wealth isn't going to magically appear"
A magical, invisible hand won't make it appear either.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty Govt monoploies aren't capitalism. And India wasn't capitalism after getting their independence. They had a lot of economic reforms in the 90s. And then they started creating wealth. Score for the Invisible Hand.
cheeseburger12 3 months ago
@cheeseburger12 "Govt monoploies aren't capitalism."
State capitalism. Moreover, most capitalist monopolies are not run by the state, but rather helped into power by it.
"India wasn't capitalism after getting their independence."
Three hundred years of colonial rule for the export of India's resources by chartered companies is not capitalism? Is it not capitalism that goods are sent back to the First World to be sold at massive profits while being bought from Indians at marginal prices?
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@cheeseburger12 "Score for the Invisible Hand."
Which is why almost nine million Indians starve to death every year, while India has one of the highest populations of billionaires in the world? With your invisible hand comes enormous income disparity, and the trickle-down effect is nowhere in sight for most of India.
Consequently, perhaps you should search up the 'Red Corridor' and come up with an underlying cause for its great resurgence as of late.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@cheeseburger12 If wealth wont magically appear, then how can socialism work? Somebody tell the Occupy Whatever mobs.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty Perhaps those communist movements should remember how much economic growth there was before India turned to capitalistic reforms. None. The were stuck as a 3rd world country. And if they kept those polices, they would have stayed that way. But at least no one would be wealthy. The multinationals didn't steal all this wealth that was lying around. They just used it efficiently. Which the Indian govt wasn't allowing due to its collective controls.
cheeseburger12 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty Can anyone identify the errors here? My mind boggles and I'm tired.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@cheeseburger12 "can't go from 3rd world to 1st world in a decade regardless"
It is physically impossible for every country to be First World and still function as a capitalist system. That is the beauty of capitalism; in order to sustain wealth for some, many more must be kept poor. Moreover, the more viable approach is to measure countries based on modernisation and industrialisation. While it is true that multinationals do contribute, they keep the vast majority of the wealth for themselves.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty That is ridiculous. There is nothing that requires people to be poor in capitalism. However, communism and socialism do require everyone to be poor if someone is poor.Can't have wealth disparity even if some people actually create wealth. It is "unfair".
cheeseburger12 3 months ago
@cheeseburger12 "There is nothing that requires people to be poor in capitalism."
Because capitalists will always bid for the cheapest materials and sell them at the highest price, there must be losers in the system to sustain it. Where do you think America goes to find its cheap labour and resources? Why do you think coffee is so inexpensive? Is it fair that third world farmers must grow these cash crops for only a few pennies per kilogram of produce?
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty "there must be losers in [capitalism]" But they are relative losers, not absolute losers. Bill Gates's janitor has more material wealth than almost all people in history because Gates' superior productivity allows him to pay for a janitor who may have starved to death in a primitive, low-production, economy.
Capitalism has no fair or unfair. It has justice. All are paid for their production. Prices are objectively caused by cost, demand, competition.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
Third world countries aren't known for a rule of law and free markets.
cheeseburger12 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cheeseburger12 "However, communism and socialism do require everyone to be poor if someone is poor."
What?! Where are you getting this crap from? The stuff you hear from Fox News? Give me the empirical definition of socialism and I'll actually respond. This is not worth my time.
"Can't have wealth disparity even if some people actually create wealth."
Define your terms, because you obviously do not know them.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty "in order to sustain wealth for some, many more must be kept poor."
This is the mentality produced by that morality of death called sacrifice. They dont know how to relate to other people for mutual profit. Socialists are neo-savages.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@cheeseburger12 John Stossel recently interviewed Hernando de Soto, Peruvian pro-capitalist economist who studies property rights as a need for increasing production. Many nations make deeds to one's house a big expense. Those deeds needed for business loans. De Soto believes that there are many underground capitalists creating much wealth in many 3rd world economies. Socialism is for losers.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeaParty1776 You appear to have addressed me by accident? I wasn't the socialism supporter.
cheeseburger12 3 months ago
@cheeseburger12 I believe that I was supporting your view with an example.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "Now imagine for a second, someone doesn't pay taxes."
Short memory span?
"Should he still refuse to go then what? "
The cuffs. The nonlethal detainment and pacification devices.
My point on exaggeration is proven as shown. Now let me show you how I could exaggerate.
Should a country refuse to sell their resources to American multinationals, then what? The invasion.
Oh, wait; that's not exaggerated. That's pretty much every country the United States has ever invaded.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty We as human beings should practice being more selfless, but we should not allow the majority to force it on people. That is why we ended up choosing a republic over a democracy. European social democracies are NOT like the USA. They dont have armies, they dont have 300 million citizens, they dont have the largest consumption base either. If we tomorrow stopped buying German goods, Germany's economy would collapse. Same with Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.
Asti223 3 months ago
@Asti223 "but we should not allow the majority to force it on people."
I get how Americans value individual freedom, citing their constitution and all, but think how easily manipulable the system is. How long will you wait for Wall Street to give even a nickel to your family out of compassion? Do they deserve to bankrupt their corporations, only to be bailed out and then just disband with hundreds of millions of dollars withdrawn into their own accounts?
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty NO, bailouts aren't capitalism, they are buy their nature anti-free-market.
drm31415 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty The truth is that you are still able to work and live humbly in this country. We have just been manipulated into thinking we MUST take out huge loans and spend many years in college/university. Many then find out their diplomas are useless. Just like in Europe where everyone goes to college and graduates and cant even find a job afterwords. Italy, Greece, Spain, and Iceland are all social democracies as well. Each population and culture requires its own system.
Asti223 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asti223 "The truth is that you are still able to work and live humbly in this country."
Not really.
"Many then find out their diplomas are useless."
Truth.
"social democracies"
Not quite. Although they have a major voter base for left leaning parties, their countries are ultimately supranationalist to the European Union. If they were true social democracies, they would not have joined.
"Each population and culture requires its own system."
Again, wise words.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@Asti223 "We have just been manipulated into thinking we MUST take out huge loans and spend many years in college/university"
Liberals, with public schools and Progressive education, did this. Very few people need or want a serious, intellectual education after high school. 19th century high schools better than today's universities. Most would benefit from job or tech training. Big shortage now of tech skills at high-paying blue collar jobs. Eg, welders. Carpenters in my area have big houses.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeaParty1776 I agree. We need to slow down a moment and think about what the best approaches are.
Asti223 3 months ago
I also dont expect wall street to give my family a nickel out of compassion. I just expect them to be treated the same way my small business gets treated. So I say end regulations to end up protecting "too big to fail" and end regulations that give people these false senses of security which allows for risky loans and investments. Also, abolish the FDIC and let banks privatize insurance so that they cant operate in a risky manner either. We need a truer capitalistic system, not this crap.
Asti223 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty "How long will you wait for Wall Street to give even a nickel to your family out of compassion?"
Note how commies evade production for charity and theft. They assume that most people are fools who need Stalin. Man has a mind. Man does not need communism. Mind needs freedom from communism and religion. Mind needs logic to produce material values.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@Asti223 "European social democracies are NOT like the USA. "
They do have armies, but they don't go off every few years to invade another country. They don't have 300 million citizens, but the social services provided are proportional to their tax base; if there are fewer people, then naturally less money is spent on providing public services to them.
"If we tomorrow stopped buying German goods"
So turning America into a democratically socialist country will void all international trade?
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty What happens in democratically socialist countries is that they rarely rely on imports because the vast population is busy paying higher taxes instead of consuming things like high-end cars or the newest gadgets. Not to say that Europe isn't a big market, it's just not comparable to N. America. You let the masses decide you will obviously get low taxes, more services, and end up with debt. Do some reading on California's current fiscal issue. Has to do with direct democracy.
Asti223 3 months ago
@Asti223 "You let the masses decide you will obviously get low taxes, more services, and end up with debt."
People can be quite content with high taxes, so long as the bureaucratic system still functions for the people. I believe it has much to do with the cultural and traditional values of these societies; some people are more inclined to think collectively, just as some people would rather have a strong dictator than a flailing democracy.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty Slaves can be quite content w/slavery. This was properly condemned by liberals who now say socialist slaves are content.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty Europe has a huge army ,the US army. We are altruist saps.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty This is evidence that liberalism has destroyed minds for many decades. America tried to stay out of foreign wars until collectivism became influential. Note also his nationalism in implying that resources belong to the nation and should not be sold to foreigners.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
A while ago coal was not considered a resource, neither was oil or nuclear power, now they are considered resources because we have discovered ways to make them resources. Just recently a way to profitable extract oil from shale was created: bam, new resource. Natural resources are unlimited we just need to find new ways to arrange the world around us.
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist I would appreciate it if you could reply whenever you feel like furthering this debate. Had I not periodically checked for your reply, I would have completely missed your new arguments.
"Natural resources are unlimited we just need to find new ways to arrange the world around us"
Arranging the world around us without any consideration for the world will be the cause of our extinction. There is no sustainability involved in blindly drilling holes into the ground.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty The advancement that comes through the use of all resources has made the human race more able to adapt and change the future. Obviously if we never used fossil fuels the worlds air might be cleaner, but we'd probably still have people dying for now considered silly reasons. The entire OWS movement is calling for regulation, yet they want money out of politics. Every time a regulation goes through it's MONEY in POLITICS.
Asti223 3 months ago
@Asti223 "The advancement that comes through the use of all resources "
I'm not against using natural resources; that would be hypocritical. I'm against the wastage of resources to fuel First World consumerism and materialism.
"but we'd probably still have people dying for now considered silly reasons."
I agree with this argument 100 percent. Resources should be used to better the lives of all people, not to enslave them in a completely arbitrary market of obsolete goods.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@Asti223 "regulation"
You do not need to give money to the regulated corporations for there to be regulation. Rather, it's taking the corporation's money away from the government, so as not to corrupt the government. I do not speak for all of OWS - every person participating has their own values and reasons - but I can safely assume that many protesters are against corporate handouts and bailouts, even while corporate executives earn millions more than the average person.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty Sustain man. Exploit the environment. Capitalist property rights protect against pollution of property. Environmentalists say man is pollution. Individual mind, not socialism, should guide anti-pollution. Man needs more industry and less nature. Environmentalism more evil than Nazism because its anti-man.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist Natural resources are limited but man's mind has virtual infinity of potentially new ideas. Mind is the ultimate resource. Mind is the basic cause of production. Is sand merely annoying blown in your face or material of computer chips?
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeaParty1776 I agree completely.
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
Oh and I made a slight mistake on my numbers there. Rockefeller lowered it FROM 26 cents to 9 cents. My point remains valid.
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist Communists dont care that Rockefeller lowered oil price because they value equality as ideal and will destroy prosperity to achieve it. Moral defense of capitalism is more important than practical defense. _Atlas Shrugged_ and _Capitalism_
by Ayn Rand.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
P.S. what does the third world have to do with anything?
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty
Capital is not finite. That is a common misconception. Anything of value is capital. And monopolization is a good thing. The Rockefeller family well nigh monopolized oil and they made a profit with kerosene at 26 cents per gallon (after inflation about 80 cents today), that's not so bad is it?
Look at the government. If you don't pay your taxes what happens? You will see I do not exaggerate. And how is force neccesary in capitalism? Elaborate please.
TeenageCapitalist 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "Capital is not finite"
Forgive me; the raw materials needed to fuel consumerism are depleting. We have already reached peak oil, and other natural resources are depleting at dismal rates. The only solution that multinational corporations have offered us is the military intervention of resource rich countries - they have simply influenced your government to invade otherwise peaceful and democratic societies around the world whenever they demand more of a resource.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty When raw materials have been depleted, do they go outside universe, maybe into Hell? Matter changes its forms, cannot cease to exist. Basically, mind finds new raw materials or new uses for old raw materials. Man has merely scratched the surface of the 8000 mile deep Earth. US is 80% undeveloped. Western US is 90% undeveloped. Man's mind is enemy of environmentalism. They want to destroy scientific-industrial civilization for commie fantasy. Fracked oil ends peak oil.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "Anything of value is capital. "
Then I may assume that with the planned obsolescence fitting so naturally within the capitalist market, capital itself is indeed depleting, and therefore finite.
"And monopolization is a good thing. "
I may need to drag you with me the next time I confront one of those 'laissez-faire' capitalists. At least then you two can debate whether monopolization is indeed capitalist.
"Rockefeller"
Enron.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty Anyone that understands capitalism and human nature understands that an abusive monopoly(the type they claim the laws are meant to protect us from) can't last without government interference, simply because it creates a huge opportunity for a competitor to enter the market, and the customers will flock to the new biz out of rage at the old.
drm31415 3 months ago
@drm31415 Alcoa Aluminium monopoly kept prices low and efficiency high to minimize competition. Antitrust broke Alcoa anyway because of commie ideal of equality. "Perfect competition" is pseudo-scientific rationalization of commie equality. Commies want passive, equal competition w/no losers. Capitalist competition is active rivalry w/some remaining and some bankrupt. Resources of bankrupt firms shift to profitable firms. Good for all. Equality bad for poor. See primitive tribes.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty "planned obsolescence" is claim that man is not God. Even luxury goods will crumble some day. Poor people need low quality, low price goods. Capital depletes from Keynsian theft of money for unsustainable socialism. In capitalism, capital always increases. The capital "in" an iPhone is vastly more than "in" tom toms. Capital is abstraction from concrete. Not concretely obvious. Needs that enemy of socialism: mind. See _Atlas Shrugged_.
Market monopoly attracts competition.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "Look at the government. If you don't pay your taxes what happens?"
Ah, taxes. You know, I agree with you if your case study were the United States. Taxes are so recklessly thrown away on funding foreign puppet regimes, lining the wallets of politicians and corporations alike, and instigating trillion dollar wars, even as the Americans reach their borrowing limit. But, then you have brilliant European monuments to how social democracies have indeed been far more successful.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty "brilliant European monuments to how social democracies have indeed been far more successful"
Serious or sarcasm?
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeaParty1776 You sir are a master troll. Despite my attempts to wrap this 'debate' to a conclusion, you insist on replying with short bursts of insults directed at me, with absolutely no factual relevance to my arguments. As such, you have lost all credibility, and I hope fellow debaters will recognize this point and distance themselves from your repugnant self.
Have a nice day.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty How do you manage to avoid daily reports of welfare state Europe's economic meltdown and riots and wealth transfers from successful more-capitalist Germany to failed more-socialist Greece? Perhaps your TV is broken? Or perhaps socialist success is measured in social unity among the poor and hopeless?
TeaParty1776 3 months ago 2
@TeenageCapitalist "You will see I do not exaggerate."
I hardly believe anyone would point a gun at your head for not paying your taxes. Just the notion of you wanting me to 'imagine' is exaggeration enough.
"And how is force neccesary in capitalism?"
Competition in itself is force. Take the most primitive forms of anarchist capitalism out there - street gangs and drug cartels. In order to gain a wider audience and increase their own territory, they use force and propagate fear.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty "I hardly believe anyone would point a gun at your head for not paying your taxes."
So I can remove my car's license plate and ignore the flashing light and siren? Hooray! You commies are willfully stupid.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist Capital goods are the nonhuman means of production (producers goods), eg, land, machines, factories, materials, farm animals, etc. Capital is the monetary value of capital goods and ,wider, the money saved to buy capital goods.
Value is not in capital as wood is in a tree. Man, with his mind, values when he acts to get or keep something. Value is relation between facts and life as judged by mind. "What Is Capitalism" (_Capitalism_, Ayn Rand)
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
Capitalism is , as said, a voulantary web of asscociations. Is there something wrong with capitalism. When you go to a store and buy something you are engaging in capitalism. Both parties gain and everyone is happy. And don't give me shit about putting other people out of business. If you put someone out of business then your best plan is to hire them. They have experience at the job, and you will need more people to handle the business that will now go to you. Again everyone benefits.
TeenageCapitalist 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty
Exactly benevolent cooperation is just fine. However imagine pointing a gun at someone and demanding their money for charity. This is robbery isn't it? No it's the government. Only the government has the ability to wield force. It. Must. Be. Very. Fucking. Careful. The moment an organization that can wield force is not respectful of all individual rights (the right to other people's money is not a right).
And capitalism has nothing to do with hurting others.
TeenageCapitalist 4 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "However imagine pointing a gun at someone and demanding their money for charity."
The truth is, we have now reached a point in this debate where we have begun to over-exaggerate ideologies to further our own arguments. You may say that there is an excess of force in socialism; I may counter by saying that force is also necessary in capitalism. I have no desire to waste time.
However, let's look at the modern world. Can you please explain the benefits of the Third World to me?
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@unifieddynasty force is also necessary in capitalism"
To keep commie thugs in jail.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "And capitalism has nothing to do with hurting others."
In order to sustain growth in capital, particularly in a system where capital is finite, it is paramount for the capitalist to compete with other capitalists to amass the most amount of capital. Through whatever means necessary. Aggression is synonymous with competition.
"If you put someone out of business then your best plan is to hire them"
-Thereby allowing yourself to monopolize the market. Not exactly capitalist, eh?
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
Ha. I am getting replies from people saying "Well Capitalism is only good to a point and then socialism has to take over once enough technology has been developed." You know, I have a little bit of forgiveness for people that wanted to give socialism a try in, say, 1913. They were silly and wrong and the use of a small amount of logic would have helped them realize it, but maybe they weren't evil. 100 million dead bodies in the 20th century says that anyone who believes in it today IS evil.
cmbbroker 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmbbroker "100 million dead bodies in the 20th century says that anyone who believes in it today IS evil."
1. Your number is so overinflated that it lacks any credibility whatsoever.
2. The vast majority of deaths were caused by natural factors, and were a result of implementing theories and new ideals into practise. It is no easy feat to modernize third world countries, that for hundreds of years, were oppressed by a very small group of oligarchs. Mistakes were made; I grant you that much.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
@cmbbroker "socialism has to take over once enough technology has been developed."
Because machines maintain and create themselves, without Edison, Ford, and Jobs? Whee! Trash your minds. Marx was right. Oh, wait, Occupy Atlanta had tuberculosis and Woodstock had diseases not seen since before the Industrial Revolution. Never mind.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
Under a proper philosophy the point is gaining value, not necessarily money. Although nearly anyone values money there are other forms. That is why charity is possible in an objectivist philosophy. Many people enjoy giving gifts and as long as they are not giving it because it is being demanded (i.e. a family member demanding charity because they are family) it is perfectly moral.
TeenageCapitalist 4 months ago
Ask Chris Hedges? Kevin O'Leary asked Chris Hedges the same question on CBC, check it out. Can't wait for computer implants maybe if Steve Jobs were around for the next 200 years, I'm sure he would have invented it. You only live for a second, time is short.
cutejoker69 4 months ago
Jesus christ, it's like watching a page of Atlas Shrugged.
seanthedonconsidine 4 months ago
On of the purest examples of the idea that the man-made is a natural resource. "Someone else would have invented it" - oh boy.....
fab006 4 months ago
YEAH! FUCK STEVE JOB! FUCK HIS SHITTY STUFF! FUCK HIS LIFE! MOHAHAHAHAHA
Sure, poor gay he died, but who tha hell cares?
He made the shittiest things with the most overpriced fucking shit ive ever seen, fuck him
Every body is happy cuz he's dead!
xXDeViLRape 4 months ago
@xXDeViLRape Liberalism created Nazism.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
I hate to sound like an altruist, but I almost feel sorry for the guy. He's just getting owned badly
BlackWolf4830 4 months ago
His answers were so lame, I just cringed every ten seconds. I had to pause it to take a cringe break
BlackWolf4830 4 months ago
"Without Steve Jobs the world would have been down one laborer".
Beautiful.
g0ssage 4 months ago
Comment removed
nubcakken01 4 months ago
There is Nothing More Patriotic than Becoming Rich. Fuck This Dude, Fuck anyone who says otherwise.
radnor80 4 months ago
он говорит правду, тупые американцы...
Antarktikali 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty "are you suggesting Greed is the mother of invention" Yes it is, Greed for a better improved personal well being, greed for knowelege, greed for fame, greed for Love( a good mother does love HER children more than her neighbors). etc. yes greed, which is desire, is the motivator that moves man to astounding heights.
NewScholar9 4 months ago
@NewScholar9 "Yes it is, Greed"
There is no hope for me to convince you otherwise, as you have just begun to argue semantics with me. Personally, I do not associate greed for goal.
I would like to point out however that a mother's love does not symbolise greed. That is, unless you consider the offspring to be mere possessions of the mother, to be used effectively as tools to generate a return profit for the mother upon maturity. Please don't try awfully hard to degrade selfless parenthood.
unifieddynasty 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty It seems to me that you're unopen to the possibility that parenting can, indeed be selfish. Because you're unopen to the idea the love can be selfish. A parents love for his/her child is selfish. The child is their value.
Selfishness and caring for others are not mutually exclusive, provided that the "others" are people you value.
BlackWolf4830 4 months ago
@BlackWolf4830 " It seems to me that you're unopen to the possibility that parenting can, indeed be selfish."
Selfish to the smallest extent; selfish in that the parent does not want to lose their child. When a parent raises their children, they do so with a complete lack of thought towards their future betterment. Current estimates for raising a child to maturity ranges in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Real parents don't expect to turn a profit from that.
unifieddynasty 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty You are partially right in that Americans parents don't necessarily expect financial rewards from their children today, but this is a phenomenon that has only come about thanks to the massive wealth creation of Capitalism in the West. 100 years ago in the United States, a major reason that you had a lot of children was to have help on the farms that 97% of Americans worked on at the time. This is still the case in most other parts of the world today which is why they want sons.
cmbbroker 4 months ago
@cmbbroker "100 years ago in the United States"
Why must we bring back unnecessary traditions, when we already have the means to produce a society where future generations no longer must toil in the fields for a measly return? It was not because of capitalism that their standards of living increased; it was because of industrialization and agricultural reform.
If the modern, and thus most relevant parent is selfless, what does it matter how humans acted centuries ago?
unifieddynasty 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty industrialization is the result of capitalism, people came up with more efficient/effective ways to produce their product in order to make more money.
drm31415 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drm31415 " industrialization is the result of capitalism"
And modern socialism is the result of capitalism's boundless exploitation of workers and the third world as a result of said industrialization. But, of course, industrialization can be achieved without capitalism.
"in order to make more money."
In order to make necessary reforms in the agricultural sector, as well as for the sake of innovation.
unifieddynasty 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unifieddynasty "It was not because of capitalism that their standards of living increased; it was because of industrialization and agricultural reform."
And gremlins caused these?
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
@cmbbroker "This is still the case in most other parts of the world today which is why they want sons."
As soon as they are provided with more efficient technology as a result of modernisation, completely non-tangent to capitalism, there would be no need for such an outdated system to be enacted. If you were to argue in favour of this 'capitalist' greed, might I also remind you that while there are people and corporations making billions, these people still must rely on large families to farm?
unifieddynasty 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty "Real Parents don't expect to turn a profit from that"
You mistake profit for value. Value is a gain of any kind emotionally or physically. Any REAL parent (i.e. one who deliberately chose to be a parent) decided to have children because they valued the idea of having children more than the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The same way any pet owner chooses to have a pet because they value their experience with a pet more than the money spent.
TeenageCapitalist 4 months ago
@TeenageCapitalist "profit for value"
And value is not implicitly capitalist. I, for lack of association, value humanity as a whole, the right to have basic needs fulfilled, and benevolent cooperation in achieving society's goals. I don't think that makes me a 'greedy' capitalist.
"the point is gaining value"
This is inclusive to every philosophy. However, only in capitalist economics is it acceptable for one to purposely cheer at or instigate another's loss, to further one's own 'values'.
unifieddynasty 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty Selfless parenthood? As in "I had no personal interest in creating you, you mean nothing to me personally" (for otherwise it would be selfish, no?) Try saying that to a kid and see if he likes it.
fab006 4 months ago
@fab006 "for otherwise it would be selfish, no?"
You obviously do not know the definition of 'selflessness'.
- 'The quality of not putting yourself first but being willing to give your time or money or effort etc. for others.'
- 'Devoted to others' welfare or interest and not one's own.'
- 'Having little or no concern for oneself, especially with regard to fame, position, money, etc.; unselfish.'
Twisting words out of context holds no power in debate. Please refrain from such petty arguments.
unifieddynasty 4 months ago
Comment removed
fab006 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unifieddynasty Lol, I can play this, too. You obvioulsly do not know the definition of selfishness. If you do not judge it to be in your own best interest to care for your children, you should not decide to be a parent, and if you decide to, you're a horrible parent and I don't want anything to do with you. The one that's twisting words is obviously you.
fab006 4 months ago
What an idiot. Sounds like a real college prof. The hell with tenure!
ThePhys2001 4 months ago
The Nazis who ran the death camps did not try to convince their prisoners that Nazism was good. They did not try to destroy their minds. This anti-capitalist wants to destroy man's mind. He is the perfect student of liberal intellectuals. As Kant said, "I have denied knowledge therefore, in order to make room for faith." This anti-capitalist is the perfect example of the nihilism of modern culture. He is already dead and wants to drag others into his self-created Hell. See: Atlas Shrugged.
TeaParty1776 4 months ago
@TeaParty1776 "See: Atlas Shrugged."
I would not rely on Atlas Shrugged as I would not rely on Animal Farm, or 1984, or the War of the Worlds for that matter. Learn to appreciate prose for what it is.
unifieddynasty 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty Your main points are that essentially, you wish that entrepreneurs would stop thinking about themselves and their profits while instead making things solely to benefit others. This amounts to some sort of "social duty" that the entrepreneur has not chosen but you say he must act upon. If the entrepreneur is making his product solely for the sake of others with no personal stake, how would he be able to make a good product? Without selfish values, how could he make anything good?
Popeman 4 months ago
@Popeman "social duty"
Nailed it.
"Without selfish values, how could he make anything good?"
People do plenty of good as a result of selfless morality. If everyone was thinking about how they might profit off every decision they made, our world would be the most individualistic and unforgiving world in the entire universe. It is in the act of giving, that defines most religions and virtuous archetypes, is it not?
Please search up 'the Free Culture Movement'.
unifieddynasty 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty You seem to have this misconception that individualism is incompatible with benevolence and profit is incompatible without sacrifice. Tell me, how do companies make such a profit if the goods they produce are not a value to the people who buy them? Sure, the company does not need to think about the buyer in particular to offer a product, but when the buyer purchases the product, everyone gains from the transaction.
Popeman 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty Also, I don't regard any religion as legitimate or the act of giving qua giving as virtuous. I only regard upholding one's life-sustaining values as virtuous, which can include giving gifts to friends or to charity, but neither the benefactors of the charity nor the friend can claim those gifts as a duty from me.
Popeman 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty " If everyone was thinking about how they might profit off every decision they made, our world would be the most individualistic and unforgiving world in the entire universe. "
I dont forgive commies.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
This guy is so lost.
QuantifiedSelf 4 months ago
industriel progress vs human progress...
mattbell555 4 months ago
@mattbell555 "Human" progress toward a culture of mindless goobers.
TeaParty1776 4 months ago
@TeaParty1776 ok then,peace vs darkness
mattbell555 4 months ago
This is evil incarnate. This is a person whose evasion, whose hatred is so powerful, that he denies all reality with such devotion that he rationalizes the enslavement of brilliant people to his pathetic, unproductive, anti-life, existence. This is the kind of person who supported the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. He is the type who would push people into the gas chambers. If he doesn't scare the shit out of you, you need to wake up.
chipjoyce 4 months ago 30
This has been flagged as spam show
@chipjoyce This man needs to be killed, now.
pigeatinginfidel 4 months ago
@chipjoyce
Were coming for you
-Cenk Uygur
cutejoker69 4 months ago
This man doesn't offer any solutions to his alleged problems. He just doesn't want anyone to be wealthy.
HotSo0P 4 months ago
God Bless You Steve Jobs for being so productive in your life.
2Atlantis 4 months ago 15
@2Atlantis Jobs is a moral role model, a rationally selfish ,passionate producer who was living proof of a good life. He was a living reproach to socialists and religionists. I will buy the Issacson bio. Confession: Ive owned Macs since 1992. I believe that one had a virus for a day.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
Let them do without the benefits of capitalism for a generation and see how much they are not overpopulating the world any longer.
kasyapa 4 months ago
@kasyapa The average age of death in hunting-gathering cultures, so beloved of liberals, is between the late teens and mid-20s. Most children die before five. Open, running sores and famines are normal. Dissidents are eaten. There are no liberals. ;<)
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
I say "to Hell" with this brainless douche bag.
kiesersozay 4 months ago 3
This guy really is talking communism. Wow. I'm shocked that such naivete still exists in America. PLEASE visit an economy with a command economy and central planning to see what an utter failure they all are... OH YEAH there AREN'T any left! THey've all gone into the dustbin of history.
goforkt 4 months ago
@goforkt " PLEASE visit an economy with a command economy and central planning to see what an utter failure they all are."
Total command economy? No. Central planning with a private sector as well? Try all the modern democratically socialist countries around the world.
By the way, the Soviet Union was tremendously successful under their command economy. It was only after their allocation of industrial capacity towards overpriced military budgets that the country deteriorated.
unifieddynasty 4 months ago
@unifieddynasty In 1921-1929, the SU went back to some capitalism to avoid collapse. Communism reduced production to a life-threatening extent. Eg, before the Revolution, surplus wheat was exported. Collective farming required wheat imports. Only aid and trade from gullible foreigners kept the SU from collapse. Military costs were paid by $11B in US Lend-Lease. Communism stopped the SU from feeding and defending itself. _East Minus West = Zero_, Werner Keller.
TeaParty1776 3 months ago
Little this guy knows that thanks to people like Steve Jobs 7 billion people is able to be living today, the only bad thing about that is all the ignorant parasites like this guy that are also generated by an industrial society, like the waste of a nuclear plant.
cikatrizmusic 4 months ago
Comment removed
cikatrizmusic 4 months ago
The only thing "retrograde" about our system, my little Trotskyite, is that somehow your sperm won the race.
hoskinson2003 4 months ago 2
The democrats killed Socrates? This guy is just funny.
DumbAgent 4 months ago
@DumbAgent Socrates? Wasn't he a radical long-haired perfessor from Berkeley?
TeaParty1776 3 months ago