Is Capitalism better than Socialism? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
- Local time
- Today, 14:39
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 27,188
While generally in favor of capitalism, I think there has to be some balance of wealth distribution to prevent it from accumulating all in one place. This is how kings get overthrown violently, among other things.
- Local time
- Today, 12:39
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2003
- Messages
- 36,126
Perhaps you didn't notice that this thread is in the non-Access area of the site, and started by the owner of the site, who presumably has some say in its mission?
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 05:39
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,852
Socialism promites the premise:
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
It encourages people to be needy and useless.
I know. I lived on a community with these principles many years ago. I am a very skilled person and worked hard while many contributed very little at all. The more I did the less they contributed.
One guy claimed that his "spirituality" was his contribution despite the reality being that he was a seething misanthrope.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
It encourages people to be needy and useless.
I know. I lived on a community with these principles many years ago. I am a very skilled person and worked hard while many contributed very little at all. The more I did the less they contributed.
One guy claimed that his "spirituality" was his contribution despite the reality being that he was a seething misanthrope.
Lightwave
Ad astra
- Local time
- Today, 20:39
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,521
Ensuring that all children have equal access to good education, that their is an equal basis of law and that the general populace is protected both in terms of international law (army) and local police would be my focus if I was king and good land ownership protection / basic services.
After that full blown meritocracy for me...
I'm personally of the opinion that
Denominational Education
Private Education (primary and secondary and purely private tertiary level anyway)
are devisary.
Probably most controversially I'm not sure why we need to tax the rich proportionally at higher rates than the poor.
A fair society is just that EVERYONE is treated equally.
Free speech is very important as well.
I suspect the effectiveness of the above would very much be in the detail and I also think Vassago's statement very valid.
I do not have a clear idea how Health should be managed for instance. It's obviously a money pit which could bankrupt most countries and that's only going to get worse.
I would be happy to change my views on individual subjects as better evidence comes up...
After that full blown meritocracy for me...
I'm personally of the opinion that
Denominational Education
Private Education (primary and secondary and purely private tertiary level anyway)
are devisary.
Probably most controversially I'm not sure why we need to tax the rich proportionally at higher rates than the poor.
A fair society is just that EVERYONE is treated equally.
Free speech is very important as well.
I suspect the effectiveness of the above would very much be in the detail and I also think Vassago's statement very valid.
I do not have a clear idea how Health should be managed for instance. It's obviously a money pit which could bankrupt most countries and that's only going to get worse.
I would be happy to change my views on individual subjects as better evidence comes up...
Last edited:
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 05:39
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,852
Because they have a greater ability to pay due to a higher disposable income. The poor struggle to meet daily essential needs.
If you make it the same for everyone than the poor will be asked to pay beyond their capacity.
RainLover
VIP From a land downunder
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 05:39
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 5,041
I believe it is.
Why should I pay for the upkeep of a fire truck I will never need or a bridge I will never cross.
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 05:39
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,852
So a fairer system would be for just those who houses have burned down to pay for the entire fire service?
Or just the ones whose houses they saved. It obviously wouldn't be fair to take money from those where the fire brigade just doused the embers.
Or should their neighbours pay because the fire service stopped it spreading to their house?
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 20:39
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
Rainlover's would just do his dance and the downpour would put out the fire.
Brian
Brian
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 20:39
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
In my heart I am a socialist, but people get in the way so in my head I am a capitalist.
Brian
Brian
AnthonyGerrard
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 20:39
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,069
I have no reply - other than I find that thinking depressing. Really I dont get your thinking at all.
I like to think i can see two side to every story arguement, but I 'm struggling with your idea.
- Local time
- Today, 12:39
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2003
- Messages
- 36,126
Galaxiom, I'm confused by your posts 6 & 9, as they seem to contradict each other. Isn't progressively higher taxation "from each according to his ability"? You seem to be against it in 6 but for it in 9.
In my view, and in general terms, capitalism respects individual rights, socialism does not.
In my view, and in general terms, capitalism respects individual rights, socialism does not.
Fifty2One
Legend in my own mind
- Local time
- Today, 12:39
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,412
The section will maintain traffic which generates revenue for the site. That is what it offers to the website.
MarkK
bit cruncher
- Local time
- Today, 12:39
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2004
- Messages
- 8,181
If a fire department is socialist, then I don't see how that disrespects individual rights. And this economic crunch of 2008, engineered by wall street in which no banker or trader has been charged with a crime, is that capitalism? What about a school board, or national defense?
I think people see socialism and capitalism as opposites and maybe they are not. Maybe a fire department, a socialist construct, is the most effective way to deliver that service, and in that sense it is both socialist and capitalist. Our media, certainly, prefers issues to be yes and no, black and white, left and right, and as controversial as possible, but almost certainly these issues are considerably more subtle than that.
In my tool box I have a hammer and a screw gun. Which one is better? Each one is more effective at some jobs, so the debate should not be whether socialism or capitalism is overall more effective, but which would be more effective in which context.
The United States has socialist police forces, so you pay taxes and you get police service, doesn't matter if your house gets broken into six times, the cost of policing for you doesn't go up. The United States has socialist education, so if you send one kid to school or you send five kids to school the price is the same. There is a debate in the United States about whether, and to what degree, they should socialize medicine.
I don't get why people who are so opposed to Obamacare are not also opposed to public police forces. I don't see how being the victim of cancer or the victim of crime are that different. Shouldn't previous victims of crime pay more for policing?
I think people see socialism and capitalism as opposites and maybe they are not. Maybe a fire department, a socialist construct, is the most effective way to deliver that service, and in that sense it is both socialist and capitalist. Our media, certainly, prefers issues to be yes and no, black and white, left and right, and as controversial as possible, but almost certainly these issues are considerably more subtle than that.
In my tool box I have a hammer and a screw gun. Which one is better? Each one is more effective at some jobs, so the debate should not be whether socialism or capitalism is overall more effective, but which would be more effective in which context.
The United States has socialist police forces, so you pay taxes and you get police service, doesn't matter if your house gets broken into six times, the cost of policing for you doesn't go up. The United States has socialist education, so if you send one kid to school or you send five kids to school the price is the same. There is a debate in the United States about whether, and to what degree, they should socialize medicine.
I don't get why people who are so opposed to Obamacare are not also opposed to public police forces. I don't see how being the victim of cancer or the victim of crime are that different. Shouldn't previous victims of crime pay more for policing?
Perhaps you didn't notice that this thread is in the non-Access area of the site, and started by the owner of the site, who presumably has some say in its mission?
And somewhere along the line you must have missed that I happen to part with money in an effort to sustain an Access related forum - I can find plenty of "political discussion" for free - which as about what its worth.
Steve R.
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 15:39
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,687
Very good points that I would agree with.
The issue with Obamacare is that it forces a member of the public to buy a product. This is a violation of both capitalism and socialism as concepts. The US seems to have a propensity to essentially provide social services by subsidizing private companies, a distasteful forced amalgamation of capitalism and socialism.
To go further into what is wrong with Obamacare, it will provide health care through insurance companies. That is wrong. Insurance companies are in the business of insuring risk, not providing universal health care. If you are an unhealthy person, an insurance company should be able to charge you a higher premium. And if you are in really bad health they should have the ability to reject you. That is capitalism. (Please note, I have no love for insurance companies.)
In place of Obamacare, the US should have, if the electorate approves, a universal health care program that is funded by tax dollars. The insurance companies would not be involved. The doctors would be paid directly by either the Federal or State governments.
I would not have any issue with a universal health care program funded by tax dollars. Obamacare is an abomination.
Similar threads
