posted 06-03-99 03:11 AM ET        

It is immoral to steal and plunder, that is why the use of force in retaliation or pre-emption against a socialist threatening to do that on a vast scale is not only justified, but is a moral imperative. In capitalism you are only forced not to initiate force against others, that is why it is moral. If you saw someone stealing you SMAC CD, you would at least try to put up some fight for it, right?

posted 06-03-99 05:58 AM ET            

>>Aha ! That�s so providing one sets individual rights above all other, which I don�t (as we have clearly established, I think ). I think there�s times when the rights of the individual has to be "violated" for the greater good of the community. Take the enviromental issues for instance or gun control, etc. etc.

posted 06-03-99 06:09 AM ET            

Give me a break. The governing principle of a capitalist society is Greed. Money. The desire to invest and multiply capital.

posted 06-03-99 08:23 AM ET            

Actually, capitalism doesn't seem to have anything to do with that. However, I'll agree with the initation of force issue; it's wrong to start it, it is right to use force in self-defense.

--"The governing principle of a capitalist society (and it still prevails all over the world - still) is justice."

Well, not really. Keep in mind that capitalism is an economic system. It doesn't have anything to do with justice, which is a function of government. Democracy, for example, has a founding principle of justice, but democracy and capitalism are not the same thing. This sort of confusion has been happening on both sides of the debate.

--"That�s so providing one sets individual rights above all other, which I don�t"

And why don't you? I think this would be a good topic of discussion here, since it seems to be the major difference in views.

--"The governing principle of a capitalist society is Greed. Money."

Gods, I am so bloody tired of hearing this. Are you not able to find any facts or arguments that work for your side, so you've got to go spew this same old tripe? Capitalism is based on mutual advantage. The advantage isn't always money. Many other things come into the equation.
And capitalism is not a system of morality, it was never meant to be; it is a system of economics.

posted 06-03-99 10:39 AM ET            

Wraith: "Which is why it's an economic system, rather than a system of government. It seems like a really good idea to put the resources under the system that will attempt to use them most efficiently"

Ah, but the "unfair" allocation of resources is the "problem" that Bishop is trying to rectify. I could establish a system for the allocation of resources in which I get everything and everybody else gets nothing. Since this system is purely about economics, and morality shouldn't come into play, then my economic system is just as good as capitalism, right? Or do you agree with me that my system is absurd?

Furthermore, when you say "allocates them most efficiently", you aren't exactly correct. Capitalism is a system which allocates resources most efficiently from the standpoint of maximizing profits, nothing else. Why? Because it is a Darwinian system. The unprofitable go bankrupt, the highly profitable thrive. Over time, the "average" firm becomes more profitable (because the low-profit firms no longer contribute to the average). Profits are maximized.

[octo:]"Cooperation and communication is human nature."

Wraith: "To an extent. People are still very tribal in nature, and there's a tendancy to split things into "us" and "them"."

Yes, but this is quite different from the "me vs. them" attitude that I keep hearing is "human nature". I used to be quite anti-communist, until I got a job and saw how cooperative everybody at my company is. Now I can understand the other side of the argument.

"It is, however, much harder to leave the sort of societies that have turned to socialism and communism. It's sort of inherent in the system, since unless your leaving benefits the society, "they" won't allow you to do it (they being whoever's running the place in whatever manner)."

Now it's you who are blurring the line between government and economics. Immigration/emigration controls are a government, not economic, matter. Also, your premise stems from the notion that there will be a higher standard of living in capitalist countries, and that a socialist country is a sinking ship. This may be true of some socialist countries, and I'm sure it would be true if the population was mostly people who were perversely uncooperative, but a socialist/communist society made up of volunteers who were committed to the system could be very successful.

Saras: "In capitalism you are only forced not to initiate force against others, that is why it is moral."

If there were a deadly disease which could be cured by a vaccine that only I posessed, would it be immoral of me to withhold the vaccine from others? By not giving them the vaccine I am not initiating force (the disease is doing that), but I am guaranteeing that they will die, whereas it is perfectly within my power to prevent it. This is roughly analagous to what you are saying: capitalism is moral because you have so distributed "oppression" and "unfairness" into nearly invisible concepts that you can't put a face on them any more. Is that really your definition of morality? (and don't try to read into my example, I merely used the disease to be a "disembodied force" like supply and demand, rather than a specific person).

Hugo: "The governing principle of a capitalist society is Greed. Money."

Wraith: "Gods, I am so bloody tired of hearing this. Are you not able to find any facts or arguments that work for your side, so you've got to go spew this same old tripe? Capitalism is based on mutual advantage."

posted 06-03-99 11:32 AM ET         

In Capitalism, man exploits man.
In Socialism it�s the other away around.

In the original joke it was Capitalism and Communism, but the point is the same: People will exploit people regardless of the social or political system involved. It�s just human nature.

posted 06-03-99 01:12 PM ET         

"What about the competition these two men have with the tribe that lives on the other side of the hill?
Under capitalism, the two men cooperate because for less investment of capital(energy) they have a greater chance of return(mammoth steaks) than if they went it alone.
Under socialism, the two men wait around for the other to hunt the mammoth, 'secure' in the knowledge that when the other guy hunts down the mammoth he'll get a share. Eventually they'll get hungry and be much less effective at hunting. From his standpoint it is better to sit around expending no energy and receive a share in the return, until such time as he has to hunt or starve."

First of all, Capitalism is not this brutal man vs. man system you seem to be portraying it to be. What of the lone, hardworking farmer, who toils day in and day out to get a bumber crop. When he finally does, he decides to buy more land. He gradually becomes so well off, that he can survive a bad season. The crops he sells go directly into the economy, whereas in a socialist system he simply wouldn't bother working hard. Thus, in the long run you end up maximizing profits, and living conditions.

You socialists don't seem to take account of charities. When the economy is good, like in a capitalist sense, charities fluroush, as do their causes. Don't tell me that poor people in the US are worse off than those in the Soviet Union. Living conditions have had a tenency to worsen with the decline in capitalism. Just look at my stats in the Reagan thread(God they've proved useful).

Back to the mammoth thread. Although I'm still a bit confused by what you meant, I'll try to explain. Have you ever seen one man bring down a mammoth?? Or even an elephant with sticks and stones, let alone bring enough meat back for his tribe? And cavemen rarely had the luxory of sitting around, being lazy. They should be out gathering meat. They probably have a sizeable tribe to feed, so it would be stupid to sit around and grow hungry. If they were so lazy, their living conditions would deteriarate and they would be more prone to disease. If this was how things operated back then, we would still be in the Stone Age, or extinct.

And what do you mean by the government supporting the mammoth??? The mammoth signifies the crop to reep, or the mine to dig at. No different from the farmer's bumber crop.

And what about the tribe on the other side of the hill(actually more realistically many many miles away)? That is where private property comes into play. Although its tribal property in this case. Think of it like a family run bussiness. They both respect the other's boundaries, and if one should decide to get greedy and steal the other's land, there would be a bloodbath. Sounds kinda' like what you're talking about?
If one decides there is not enough meat where they are, they will most likely pack their bags and move out.

In capitalism, where competition really comes into play, is when two companies are vying for the same market. Happens all the time. Its called price wars, and it keeps prices low. In a socialistic monopoly prices are as high as the controller wants them to be, as is the quality of the product. Thus living conditions decrease. These things are kept in check by capitalism, to run at full efficiency.

What Bishop (I'm not quite sure where you stand on this, Octopus) proposes is a pure monopoly, run by one group without checks or balances. In this system, being as it is so hard to stop this, it becomes very easy for immorality to get out of hand. Ten million murdered Russians doesn't sound very morale to me?

Oh, and don't bring Bill Gates into this. He's not a capitalist, he's a thief who's broken almost every pivotal rule of free trade there is. There are many other things, other than what the government has sued him for. I hate him like I would any Socialist(well, not hate, just the ideals of socialism). But I think this belongs in another thread, along with "Execute Clinton," who I assume you socialists love (another reason I hate socialism).

posted 06-03-99 03:04 PM ET            

It would help if you actually did.

"Here's what you said:"

No, actually that's what Spoe said. Here's what I said:

Human "fitness" has increased over the years not because we have gotten stronger, or somehow intrinsically "better", but because we have increased our ability to communicate, cooperate, and work together. Two men that can work together to take down a mammoth are far more "fit" than a pair of men who fight with another one for a single spear.

Your misunderstanding of what I am saying is because you have convinced yourself that competition with other people is the basis of life. My point is that extensive cooperation is one of the distinguishing characteristics of humans. Notice the example above can occur in complete isolation. In order to bring your "no, competition is better" system into play, you need to bring in a new element into the system. Obviously, two can play at that game. Two cooperating tribes do better than two warring tribes. It doesn't end. Don't try to twist the analogy to fit your preconcieved notions of what I am saying, try to understand what I am actually saying. Humans are very cooperative. In general, the level of cooperation increases as the "stakes" increase, i.e. two people are likely to cooperate to see that neither starve, but two people are likely to compete when little is on the line, like when playing a game. If you want to draw the line of competition between "societies" and "outsiders", then you have made the Socialists' argument for them -- they argue that cooperation within a society is paramount, and competition within that society must be minimized where it creates inneficiency.

"First of all, Capitalism is not this brutal man vs. man system you seem to be portraying it to be."

I never said it was. My argument is with people (predominantly intense capitalists) who say things like "socialism will never work, because it is against human nature", the implication being that human nature favors short-term greed over cooperation in all cases.

"You socialists don't seem to take account of charities."

I'm not a Socialist, but I certainly agree that I don't monitor the activities of charities. It is exceedingly unlikely that a charity can provide the kind of guarantees that a Socialist or Communist wants to see in a society.

"Don't tell me that poor people in the US are worse off than those in the Soviet Union."

Did I? You seem to have a curious ability to remember me saying things that I haven't really said, maybe this is another example... Don't you realize that nobody here is championing the Soviet Union?

"These things are kept in check by capitalism, to run at full efficiency."

Nothing prevents monopolies in a laissez fair capitalist system. In fact, one could argue that they are encouraged by the positive feedback mechanism.

"Oh, and don't bring Bill Gates into this. He's not a capitalist, he's a thief who's broken almost every pivotal rule of free trade there is."

Who mentioned Bill Gates? However, this seems to be a perfect example of somebody competing by any and all means at his disposal. Your rules of "fair play" are just as foreign as Bishop's, yours just aren't as invasive. Thieves are also excellent capitalists: they balance the opportunity cost of getting caught against the potential reward of any loot they get away with. They are willing to live with more risk than the average person.

DanS: "However, just because that is the difference doesn't mean that capitalism doesn't recognize or appreciate cooperation. Quite the opposite. Coopetition is alive and well, and would be in any healthy capitalist economy."

Exactly, cooperation increases productivity. This is the idea behind business mergers. A move to a communist system might be seen as one huge, simultaneous merger.

Hugo Rune: "I have yet to see office-workers in any capitalist economy "co-operate" with their bosses."

posted 06-03-99 03:04 PM ET            

True, if there were a monopoly, I'd not have a say and could not threaten to leave for better compensation. A monopoly is what socialism is -- a state monopoly. Monopolies generally don't have a place in capitalism, though they are a degenerate result of it at times, unlike socialism which starts out with a monopoly.

Perhaps you are using an odd definition of 'cooperate' that I am unfamiliar with, Hugo.

Main Entry: co�op�er�ate
Pronunciation: kO-'�-p&-"rAt
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Late Latin cooperatus, past participle of cooperari, from Latin co- + operari to work -- more at OPERATE
Date: 1582
1 : to act or work with another or others : act together
2 : to associate with another or others for mutual benefit
- co�op�er�a�tor /-"rA-t&r/ noun

posted 06-03-99 03:13 PM ET            

I would like you to cite me an example when a Capitalist (Plutocrat to you) or one of their political representatives has had any intention of implementing any political policy that would decrease their profits. Whatever the beneficial effects might be.

And capitalism is not a system of morality, it was never meant to be; it is a system of economics.

posted 06-03-99 03:16 PM ET         

You say:
"Oh? Really? I have yet to see office-workers in any capitalist economy "co-operate" with their bosses. More likely, capitalist companies work through a strict hierarchy with an owner or a few owners on top, the company leaders below them, etc. I somehow fail to see how one or two people "co-operating" and putting themselves on top of the needs of thousands of others is any good."

This shows me you are completely ignorant of the philosophy of capitalism. I happen to own a small business(in real life). We have a number of employees, some good, some not so good. Ask anyone who knows the trade. They'll tell you that a good employee is worth his or her weight in gold. By doing so well, they get job promotions, raises, etc. A former employee of my father's was so good, he now contracts to us(among others) instead of working for us. For you to say this must mean either:

1. You have been a lowsy employee,

2. You have been taken advantage of by a rotten employer, and didn't have the guts to find a new job,

3. You live in a lowsy socialistic system where the bosses are left unchecked by capitalism, or

4. You've been listening to socialist propoganda too much, and don't know what you're talking about.

In our company, we put in a reitirement investment system which puts 25% of their gross salary into a tax deferred savings plan. Originally, it was optional, the employee decided how much to put in and I would match their contributions. Only about half the employees were even in the plan, so now I put in 25% of their income for them.

I haven't always been a boss. I once worked for a large corporation, and they gave stock options. They had a very fluid hierarchy, and if you worked well, you went higher up. They were not perfect employers, either, but they used capitalism.

Socialism is a tool for those who don't save and invest to get revenge on those who do. In Socialism you are born into your position, you have no choice, while in capitalism if you work harder, you get more.

Take two employees who make the same amount of money. One saves and invests, while the other lives off his paycheck. At first the spender will seem to have more, but gradually the saver will gain more, mostly by interest on investments. Becoming as to the shrudness of the saver, he might get promoted quicker than the spender, thus getting a larger paycheck. Thirty years later, he owns his own company, creates a few more jobs, and has more cash. The spender is still where he started from. So he joins his local socialist party(not many in the US, though) and becomes an active speaker against those who saved and invested, all the while simply wanting revenge.

posted 06-03-99 03:30 PM ET            

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1916
The right opposes general work injury insurance.

1918
The right opposes universial suffrage for men.

1919
The right opposes the eight hour work day.

1921
The right opposes the abolishment of the death penalty.

1923
The right opposes the eight hour work day- Again.

1927
The right opposes public school reform.

1931
The right opposes state sponsorship for health insurance.

1931(again)
The right opposes paid maternity leave.

1933
The right opposes emergency work measures.

1934
The right opposes state sponsorship of Unemployment pay.

1935
The right opposes the public pension system.

1938
The right opposes two weeks of paid vacation.

1941
The right opposes lowered voting age.

1946
The right opposes free meals in schools.

1947
The right opposes public health insurance.

1951
The right opposes three weeks of paid vacation.

1953
The right opposes free healthcare.

1959
The right opposes Work-based pension.

1963
The right opposes four weeks of paid vacation.

1970
The right opposes four weeks of paid vacation.

1970(again)
The right opposes the right to retire early at the age of 63.

1973
The right opposes the law about worker's rights.

1976
The right opposes the fifth week of paid vacation.

1983
The Right opposes the idea of public pension funds.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, right wing politics is about making as much money as possible.
Not benefitting the people.
Not striving for a nation that is the best for all.
Not about solidarity.
It's only about money, what's best for the small number of rich people.
Everyone who opposes them they calmly oppose.
And yet is this incomplete list not done, no it will be much longer...

posted 06-03-99 03:30 PM ET            

The other point I'd like to make is that equal shares is not fair in all situations, as some of the socialists here would have you think. To go back to our primitive hunting analogy, the hunter expends much more energy that a guy that sits back at camp basket weaving, thus the hunter needs to eat more calories the replenish the energy he expended and stay healthy. In this case an equal share of the meat is not a fair share.

Hugo:
"I would like you to cite me an example when a Capitalist (Plutocrat to you) or one of their political representatives has had any intention of implementing any political policy that would decrease their profits. Whatever the beneficial effects might be."

posted 06-03-99 03:48 PM ET         

I'm interviewing for Job tomorrow morning. Said job will significantly improve my salary. I can improve my salary purely by working harder, learning new skills & Marketing my skills. None of these things includes me hurting anybody else or exploiting anyone. I do tech support for a living, IF I learn more about NT & unix I can make more money. Noone else helped me do this and I'm not a drain on the economy. I couldn't do this in a socialist system. Socialist government would tell ME would I could apply for, how much money I could make, etc. And any extra money I did manage to make would be taken away from me. I'm not rich or elitist but I do want to better myself & live a better life. I'm not hurting anybody else by doing so. Apple proved that workers can become millionaires with some hardwork & a good idea. The fact is...Socialism is an economically unviable system. You CANNOT redistribute wealth & still expect people to have incentive to work hard. Socialists have it in their heads that citizens in Capitalist economic are like instantly greedy people that only short-sighted. Some are, most aren't. YOu don't make money by being short-sighted, You make money by establishing a long-term relationship with your customers. You have a product people want, people buy it. You have money, you buy some else's product. Sure there's greedy short-sighted jerks in capitalism. But i have news for you, the same greed would exist in socialsim. The greedy people would Join Government bureacracy & make money that way. You think JUST because its socialism that makes a socialist immune to Human weaknesses. Talk about naivete.
Nukita Kruschev ex-premier of USSR was taking a trip to the US in the early 60's. He saw the vast number of Cars that everybody was driving past him. He asked who all the capitalists were that owned all these cars. They tried to tell him that everybody owned their own cars & "capitalists" don't own them. He wouldn't listen.
There was a study of all the western civilized nations. They compared economic vitality (amount of jobs, unemployment, average wages, etc) to income tax rates to the country. Guess what? The higher the countries' tax rate the worse off they were economically. America & Switzerland did the best & they had the 2nd lowest tax rates.
AS far the poor & homeless, as someone else has pointed out: Ever here of Charities? Since people have money so they want to help. In a socialist nation people are getting JUST enough to live on EVERYTHING else is taken & redistibuted "for the common good" Tell me, why should someone work hard when the harder the less they get. People won't work, In college, I have had Swedes & norwegian exchange students tell me this. I didn't make this up.

posted 06-03-99 03:49 PM ET         

You made good points, but first I can't help but notice that half your argument was in me saying you said things you didn't. If I mention some things you didn't say, I guess I'm not referring to you. As to the misquote, I apologize, but that just means I am discussing what Spoe said. At any rate, I guess that would account why it sounded so capitalist(I didn't think you were that stupid). Guess I was just agreeing with him, and adding to his point.

As to monopolies in a capitalist system, they are unwarranted, as is thievery. The idea of capitalism is that you can be as profitable as you like, but the ideas of free enterprise are that everyone has as equal chance at this, and the ideals of natural rights fit together that no one can, against your will, take away your hard earned property. Monopolies only exist in nationalised, socialistic, and non-free enterprise systems, not in perfect capitalism.

I don't see why you seem to think that I deem competion, or warring tribes, as better to cooperation. If, for instance, a territory dispute arises between tribes, it would seem they would naturally go to war in any situation. This is not economics, but law and order.

In an ideal Republic, there would be an honest system of courts to deal with this. In mob democracy or Socialism, justice is left to temporary emotions--just look at Socrates. The best way to keep the rulers in check, is by checks and balances. Called competition in business, and is why we have high quality products with little cost.

The competition you seem to think I am talking about is one more based on war and waste. Not so. Where competition would come into the caveman scenario, would be if a tribe had two hide tanners, and competed by whose hides would be bought for more venison, or in quantity. Thus both ended up making better/more hides.

And yes, the USSR was a socialist state, and was the result of what happens when you put your system to work.

All right. Octopus, I know you're gonna take some of these things as if they were directed to you only, but now that I see where you're coming from, they're mostly directed to Bishop(and all the other true socialists).

posted 06-03-99 03:51 PM ET            

Then you haven't seen much. Your vision of a hierarchical capitalist economy doesn't wash. For instance, I work in a law firm, consisting of about 50 partners (owners), 30 associates and 80 support staff (office-workers). There are no "levels" of management between the owners and the workers. I both cooperate and compete with my employers all of the time. It is a very explicit arrangement.

"A move to a communist system might be seen as one huge, simultaneous merger."

posted 06-03-99 05:20 PM ET            

Love the way you placed those quotation marks

--"Capitalism is a system which allocates resources most efficiently from the standpoint of maximizing profits, nothing else."

Yes, but take a good look at the word profits. This is not limited to money. This seems to be one of the hardest things to get through in these debates. Profits also can include things like less work hours, more vacation time, better office environment, etc. And since resources are limited, but we can come up with unlimited ways of using them, we have to have some controls on the system, which capitalism provides.

--"Now it's you who are blurring the line between government and economics."

I did say socialism and communism, which are both primarily social systems rather than economic ones. They are hard to seperate from government policy, whatever form it takes, since the government will reflect the society it governs (or the other way round).
Frankly, this is an argument for capitalism, since it is purely an economic system, nothing more. Socialism and communism are mish-mash systems that try to do everything at once and as a result do nothing very well. I'm quite happy with the idea of using two specialised systems that each work well (capitalism and democracy or republic) rather than one that does two tasks poorly.

--"Also, your premise stems from the notion that there will be a higher standard of living in capitalist countries, and that a socialist country is a sinking ship."

This may have been implied by my argument, but it is not a neccessary conclusion. Improving your standard of living is not the only reason to move to another country.

--"If there were a deadly disease which could be cured by a vaccine that only I posessed, would it be immoral of me to withhold the vaccine from others?"

Quite frankly? No, it wouldn't be immoral. If you developed this vaccine on your own, you're entitled to your work. It's nothing someone else can't do eventually if they really go after it, and if no one offers you something you want for it, that's not your fault.

--"the version of Darwinism that we call "capitalism" maximizes profitability."

Again, for varying values of "profit". The key to the capitalist system is that everyone involved can have their own definition of what's a profit for them. Some people may want nothing but money, but there's not that many people that do (and they're generally the ones with the most money, since other people are willing to get other things instead).

--"and competition within that society must be minimized where it creates inneficiency."

And yet Stalin encouraged competition among his underlings, because he felt it produced a higher quality in whatever they were doing. This tradition held all the way through the cold war, with many internal competetions active in the soviet space force.
And yes, I already know what everyone's going to say about it not being really socialist or communist or whatever.

--"I would like you to cite me an example... any intention of implementing any political policy that would decrease their profits."

If you bloody well define profits first, I will. If you're talking pure cash-flow, this shouldn't be a problem. If you're talking real profits, then of course there won't be many. No industry is going to advocate that it should be less efficient, for whatever reason, since any "benefits" would be illusary political tidbits.

--"To not add moral judgements to that would truly be madness."

Oh yah? And who's moral judgements are we supposed to be following here? Jesus? Mohammed? Buddha? Capitalism at least lets everyone decide on which moral standard they want to follow.

--"The Political Right in Sweden Opposes..."

WTF does the political right in Sweden have to do with capitalism? These are politicans, not economists. Their goal is political, and has not a bloody thing to do with good economic theory.

--"It's only about money, what's best for the small number of rich people."

Hah. I knew this damn statement would be made sooner or later. Let's look at the definition of "rich" here, eh?
In the US, Democrats make a big deal about a tax cut that benefits the "richest" ten percent of the population. They fail to point out that, under their definition of "rich", a married family with both people working at medium-level jobs is "rich". And they also fail to mention that the "poor" these "rich" people are stealing from are almost totaly the people who don't pay any taxes at all; in fact, they are given money by the government. Also, among these "poor" people, three out of four have a VCR for their color TV.
Refine your terms, sir.

posted 06-03-99 06:08 PM ET         

Question:

"If there were a deadly disease which could be cured by a vaccine that only I posessed, would it be immoral of me to withhold the vaccine from others?"

Your answer:

"Quite frankly? No, it wouldn't be immoral. If you developed this vaccine on your own, you're entitled to your work. It's nothing someone else can't do eventually if they really go after it, and if no one offers you something you want for it, that's not your fault."

I think this would definately be immoral, in the bland sense you're talking about. One thing you must remember, is that this situation is most likely never to occur. Most people who look for cures to diseases look at money as less of a profit than personal achievement and helping others.

Anyway, if they were looking for cash flow only(which is not that rare), they should definately get their full share of the profits/fame, but it would be absurd and un-capitalist to withhold it. Using this, they might start their own laboratory, etc., and become quite rich.

I guess the basic idea is that this situation would never happen, and has almost nothing to do with the socialist/capitalist debate. I do have to agree that the govt. shouldn't force them to sell.

Even then, if one were to look at this in a capitalist perspective, even if you charged an incredible amount for it, sick people have insurance enough to pay for it. Charge so much that no one can buy it, then you won't make money, and probably get a Dateline story on what a heartless bastard you are. Next thing you know, someone steals the "recipe" and begins pirating your product around for a much cheaper price, and all you gain is infamy, and no money. Plus, what jury would convict the "pirates."

Thus capitalism has ways of dealing with these types of things. Socialism on the other hand...

In socialism, profits for medical breakthroughs go to the government, and the rightful inventors would would see no profits, just look at Tetris.

Capitalism is putting money where it rightfully belongs(OK, a bit more complicated than that), Socialism is putting money where the guy on top thinks it should go.

posted 06-03-99 06:38 PM ET         

Horse****

Communism is about giving everyone a set amount of resources no matter how much they contribute to society. I wish we could open up the imperialism thread again, because I explain in there that the best type of imperialism is one that makes daughter nations into prosperous trading partners like themselves. Nothing about exploitation or imposing culture.

The prosperity that results from capitalism(resource wise) has a trickle down affect. For those injured, too old, sick, whatever who cannot work should get a pension from charities, and medical aid/living stuff from the government contractors. What you socialists seem to think is that resource production is the same in a socialist environment. Absolutely not. socialism completely lacks ambition, and it has been proven that when economies turn up, charities increase at a steady/constant rate.

Someone said that it would be easier to let the government handle charities. Horse**** as well. Look at the disasterous American Medi-Care system. The inefficiency is mind boggling. Now look at a well run charity or foundation, like Salvation Army. They do so much more than the government ever could with the same amount of cash. The govt. has also found it is much cheaper/more quality to contract out to private contractors, than to let the government itself do it.

You, Provost, said that things were much more productive in the early soviet years. First off, the right for women to vote was first passed in Wyoming in the 1880s, and in the entire country in the '20s. The reason for such boom is simple, its called a post-war boom, and happens in almost every economy, especially new ones. The reason it failed was entirely by its own devices. The nightmarish bureaucracy was socialism at work. Socialism by its nature has its own doom sealed in it, no matter how good the intentions.

posted 06-03-99 06:51 PM ET            

And freedom of religion. I notice that the Soviets had a great record with respect to the Jews.

posted 06-03-99 08:57 PM ET            

Wraith: "Yes, but take a good look at the word profits. This is not limited to money."

Actually, in true Darwinian fashion it is limited to things which will allow you to make more profits in the future. Don't you just love the circularity of Darwinism? Certain "intangibles" can be viewed as capital investments in oneself that allow one to be more profitable in the long run (for example, vacations, while seemingly foolish from a short-term "profit" perspective, keep you fresh, alert, and productive, so are a good deal for your "profitability" in the long-run). If, however, one chooses to view profits as "the ability to burn currency", or something else which will reduce competitive advantage, then they are reducing their "capitalist fitness" and will be selected against (in Darwinian terms). In the capitalist framework, profitability is defined as that which will allow you to outcompete others in the future. Money is a huge part of that, since it allows capital investments (which are obviously designed to boost productivity, and therefore profitability). Yes, this is very circular reasoning, but that is the nature of Darwinian systems.

[octo:] "If there were a deadly disease which could be cured by a vaccine that only I posessed, would it be immoral of me to withhold the vaccine from others?"

Wraith: "Quite frankly? No, it wouldn't be immoral. If you developed this vaccine on your own, you're entitled to your work. It's nothing someone else can't do eventually if they really go after it, and if no one offers you something you want for it, that's not your fault."

Say I didn't develop it. Say I stumbled upon it hidden in a cave, and it was left there by aliens with super-technology, and couldn't be replicated by anyone else. I am being a perverse bastard, and it is actually very expensive for me to keep the vaccine away from everybody else. I am doing this because I want everyone else to die. Am I still not behaving in an immoral fashion? (Note, this isn't actually a true story ). If I saw you about to eat a sandwich that I knew was poisoned (but I didn't poison it myself), I would also consider it immoral of me to fail to warn you of the danger. What is your take on that? It does not take positive action on my part to be immoral. Failing to act can be immoral as well.

High Priest: "I think this would definately be immoral.... One thing you must remember, is that this situation is most likely never to occur."

posted 06-03-99 10:04 PM ET            

I'll respectfully disagree, while noting that my sense of what's moral and ethical is not the same as, say, a Christian's would be.

If you created it, then it is yours. Bar none. Intellectual property, copyright, trade-mark, patent, all of these ideas spring from the basic assumption that if you create something, you own it. And since I think no one should force anyone to do anything, for whatever "reason", then that pretty much puts an end to it for me. It would not be right for anyone to force him to give it up.

--"to force them to give up their resources with no comeback."

These statements are coming from the same people who will be outraged if the US doesn't flood Serbia with "humanitarian aid" once we sign a peace treaty with them. This country has given more to it's former enemies than any other country on this planet. We also allow other countries all sorts of liberties with regards to trading practices (which is why our foreign deficit is still huge).

--"The money they get usually ends up being paid back in debt to Western banks."

Western banks have a very, very poor record of being paid back on these big international loans. IIRC, only one of the countries (can't remember which, sadly) we loaned money to during WWII has paid us back.

--"This is the consequence of leaving the allocation of the planets precious resources to the 'law of the jungle'."

Oh, sorry, we forgot. We should allow you to tell everyone else where to put it. (You better be able to guess where I'll suggest you put it...)

--"Many rights where granted to soviet citizens in the 1920's (womens equal rights, for example,"

LMFAO. No, the USSR presented a better image of having such equal rights, but image is not the same as reality. I happen to be reading a book about the space race right now, and some of the female cosmonauts comments on the subject are very revealing. If I get time, I'll dig back through the book and quote them here.

--"Don't you just love the circularity of Darwinism?"

It's why we're here today.

--"Say I stumbled upon it hidden in a cave,"

In that case, it's not yours by any virtue of yourself. I have no idea what international laws on salvage are, but I'd suspect they'd be the most applicable here.

--"Failing to act can be immoral as well."

Yes, but so is forcing someone against their will. Which is the lesser? A passive immorality or an active one? Personally, a simple non-act, to me, is not as bad as an active breach.

--"but doesn't think it is in the least bit immoral to force people to engage in capitalism"

And as I said, you're prefectly able to leave and try another system somewhere else.