The Void
hiiiii
- 1,416
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- MOTHA RUSSIA
- Seen May 29, 2019
Do you agree with it? Or do you believe it is inherently broken?
I'm ok with it. Not perfect but at least it is a lot better than the evil principle of communism.
To me, it's certainly the most stable system currently around, simply because it takes the fact that humans are greedy and runs with it.
So the concept of wanting something is morally reprehensible?You're right in that it surpasses socialism in that respect. But the fact that it exploits human greediness is precisely why I think capitalism is just morally flawed. So is capitalism really a necessary evil? I don't think so.
So the concept of wanting something is morally reprehensible?
I want the new Pokemon Gen III remakes. That right there is greed. So I guess that means I'm a terrible person.
This is why I hate big business as much as I hate big government.This is why capitalism worked well when the country was full of small businesses; the people-to-people connection reduced the tendency of capitalism to push people towards their most self-centered personalities. But when we work with massive corporations who with a wave of their hand can dismiss thousands of people, harming them for a million bucks in profit and never see a single face, we have a very different situation.
This is why I hate big business as much as I hate big government.
Personally, if I had it my way, it would all burn down.
This quote by Herbert Hoover sums up my view on capitalism quite nicely.
"The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism."
In other words, in capitalism there's always going to be people who game the system to gain an unfair advantage over others, but that's not a problem with capitalism itself. Socialism, on the other hand (note: I'm not trying to make a false dichotomy, I know there's more systems than just capitalism and socialism but I think all other systems fall somewhere on a spectrum between the two) is an inherently flawed concept. Capitalism doesn't work for everybody, but socialism by its very design can't work for anybody.
This quote by Herbert Hoover sums up my view on capitalism quite nicely.
"The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism."
In other words, in capitalism there's always going to be people who game the system to gain an unfair advantage over others, but that's not a problem with capitalism itself. Socialism, on the other hand (note: I'm not trying to make a false dichotomy, I know there's more systems than just capitalism and socialism but I think all other systems fall somewhere on a spectrum between the two) is an inherently flawed concept. Capitalism doesn't work for everybody, but socialism by its very design can't work for anybody.
The idea of economic justice as a paradox in itself has always enticed me. The problem with this is that it is old and outdated, and would need reforms to fit modern mass consumerism.
All systems need to be reformed to fit the changing times. It doesn't matter what system that is. Society changes as it matures, and what was once acceptable one day could be completely not the next.
Yes, but I'm talking about an almost 200-year old system that has never been put into use.
Yes, but that's not entirely accurate is it? I say this because these days governments really operate using a mix of different systems, some of which include capitalism, communism, and even dictatorship. And quite surprisingly, they actually mesh together quite well. Where things go wrong is when one group within the government attempts to assert a certain ideology, elevating one sub-system over the others and thus creating an imbalance. The system can only work when all the parts within it are working in harmony with each other rather than competing with the others.
So for example, if a conservative leaning government attempts to enhance conservative ideals within the system, it creates an imbalance. Likewise if a liberal leaning government attempts to enhance liberal ideals within the system, that creates an imbalance too.
In order for government to run smoothly, fairly, everything has to run harmoniously with the other. No one system can take precedence over another.
The problem is, a conservative government will almost always push for conservative ideals and a liberal government will almost always push for liberal ideals. This is where we run into problems and why people are so frustrated with government. There is no stability. If there was, if everything was kept in harmony, people would know exactly what they can expect of their government and plan their lives accordingly. It's this instability that causes such resentment because from one day to the next, people have no idea which way the government is going to turn.
The perfect kind of government, in my opinion, it not one that stands on fragile legs, failing if any one person pushes too hard; it's a robust government that had checks and balances that keeps any one group from taking too much power. The problem is, everyone in a government belongs to a group, and since they're all basically always vying for power they'll never push for a government that's meant to check them from getting too much power. When a conservative or liberal group is in power, their goal is to take advantage of it, not try to restructure so the parties can't be "in control" of the government any longer.
When the American government was made from the ground up, because no one filled these positions and therefore no one wanted one position to inherently be more powerful, the system of checks and balances was worked out well. That would be the best way to do it now - start over. I'm not sure it's possible at the moment though.
I don't think you can accurately make that argument though. Because to some degree there are socialist programs in every government program in every government in the world. Food assistance programs, welfare, medical care programs, etc. for those less fortunate are primary examples. And make no mistake, these are all socialist ideals. But they are also ideals shared by other systems as well.
I think the best system is one that incorporates the best of all systems, dictatorship, socialism, nationalism, capitalism, etc., and discards the ugly parts.
Now there are some who would argue that Canada, the country in which I live, is a very socialist country. We, after all, do have a single payer healthcare system and very generous welfare and food assistance programs. But it would be very short-sighted of them to think that that is all Canada is and does.