Question for rtwng

[crazy canadian]

Originally posted by JohnGalt
There you have it ladies and gentlemen!
The reason why socialists and capitalists won't combine is because capitalists refuse to combine and conform their beliefs. While socialists are all too willing to give up and conform.

This is one of my previous posts (in fact, it was my first...):
"America has faced a magnificent number of enemies in its short history. The greatest of enemies was communism, but since the 50's it has been slandered enough to ensure that it will never again hold a foothold with the goal of unifying the world. However, the world seems to have turned to communism's little brother, socialism, which has been tried on every continent in the world. The advocates of socialism argue that they do their work for the progress of man-kind, and this is their weapon. The first sign is famine such as in Cuba. And the true difference between capitalism and socialism has been answered once and for all, just look at east and west Berlin of the late eighties. The socialist leaders are power lusted and search for the unearned always. They are full of indefinable altruist slogans for the advancement of collectivism all for the purpose of supporting their self-deception. One sure way to spot a dangerous socialist leader is to look at the monuments he builds, for the purpose of his prestige. In the days of the pharaohs' thousands of men died so that their leader will be able to rest in a senseless structure so that he may have prestige in the eyes of the unborn future generations. America's greatness lies in the fact that her monuments aren't public. The skyline of New York is a far greater monument then the pyramids will ever be.
So remember, there will always be a no contest between humanrights and property-rights, No human rights can exist without property rights. Since the material goods that an individual man works for are produced by mind and effort, and are needed to continue to live, if the producer doesn't own the payment of his effort, then he doesn't own his life. Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming he right to treat human beings as nothing more than a herd of mindless cattle. When you think of socialism, think of the mindless mediocrity that was spawned not of effort, but of unearned prestige, and then think of the public park, public houses, public theaters, and then remember the New York skyline, and think of what made America.
Clearly America is under attack, not from the soundness of mind, but from the sickness of heart, and only the individual man with reason as his weapon could ever defeat the enemy."

I don't think all capitalists are greedy, or anything like that, but how do you let capitalism rule a nation and not feel bad for the poor of the world? Tell me where capitalism cares for those who can't care for themselves. Or gives enough to society to give everyone a fair chance starting off? I just think capitalism isn't good enough on its own, can you enlighten me?

 

[Annie]

but how do you let capitalism rule a nation and not feel bad for the poor of the world?

Sorry but easy. We send aid when we know it, but truth to tell we work hard and play hard. No apologies.

 

[crazy canadian]

That just doesn't seem like enough help to me. But I'm not convinced socialism is the solution, at any rate. How long would it take for third world nations to reach an acceptable standard of living with America being governed under capitalism vs. socialism?

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by crazy canadian
I don't think all capitalists are greedy, or anything like that, but how do you let capitalism rule a nation and not feel bad for the poor of the world? Tell me where capitalism cares for those who can't care for themselves. Or gives enough to society to give everyone a fair chance starting off? I just think capitalism isn't good enough on its own, can you enlighten me?

Capitalism trusts that people naturally care about others. I think you DO believe that capitalism results in greed

 

[crazy canadian]

I grew up in a socialist family, married into a capitalist one. Without ever deciding what I thought. I guess I just can see the good socialists try to do for others, but the good capitalists do for others is a little more hidden from view.

 

[crazy canadian]

So if capitalism took over, but there was some sort of computer program set up by the gov't to accept donations and distribute 'donated wealth', would that satisfy the socialists? Or do they assume donated wealth would not amount to enough?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by crazy canadian
So if capitalism took over, but there was some sort of computer program set up by the gov't to accept donations and distribute 'donated wealth', would that satisfy the socialists? Or do they assume donated wealth would not amount to enough?

I don't want to disabuse you or anything, but your plan is um flawed. Tell you what, why don't you take a look at the income tax statements of those that profess to be 'liberal', meaning generous and good hearted and for the disadvantaged and compare them to the 'conservatives' meaning capitalist pigs with no hearts.

9 out of 10 times you'll find that the 'conservatives' give a much higher PERCENTAGE of the gross income. Truth is, they know there are people that need a hand. They know the best judges of what is needed are the local charities, public or private. Different perspective.

The liberals want the government to care for, enslaving the needy for generations. The conservatives know everyone needs food and a roof, but need to suck it up and get on with it.

 

[crazy canadian]

Ok, what does capitalism do for the rest of the world? The charities take care of that?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by crazy canadian
Ok, what does capitalism do for the rest of the world? The charities take care of that?

Too much to list, though I did yesterday with foreign aid for starts, but when you come right down to it

 

[crazy canadian]

Also, do liberals donate less because they make less? Or because they spend more of their time helping others? Or because they just give less? And conservatives give more because they can? Or they have more gravy left over on a paycheck in general? Or because they don't spend as much time doing things, so they give more money instead? Or you're saying they're just more generous.

 

[crazy canadian]

I'll look it up. Thanks.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by crazy canadian
Also, do liberals donate less because they make less? Or because they spend more of their time helping others? Or because they just give less? And conservatives give more because they can? Or they have more gravy left over on a paycheck in general? Or because they don't spend as much time doing things, so they give more money instead? Or you're saying they're just more generous.

Ahem, I said percentage.

 

[crazy canadian]

But everyone needs x amount of dollars to live, and the rest is gravy. So if conservatives are richer to begin with, that's me assuming something, they have more left over to give, and since they're not the social activists who run the booth, they do their part by writing a bigger check, no?
Perhaps I've generalized incorrectly.

 

[Annie]

Perhaps you should check it out?

 

[crazy canadian]

All right then. I hate to say it out loud, because I like looking at both sides from the middle, but capitalism just won a piece of me today. Most of me is still in the middle, because capitalism won't work unless you take away all the socialists.

 

[Annie]

Welcome to the piece.

 

[crazy canadian]

Socialism has some of me too. I don't think capitalism considers people's sensitivities, but socialism does. It's seems like a more nurturing ideology. But I like the motivation capitalism encourages. I'm just not convinced a degree of socialism would take away motivation from Americans.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by crazy canadian
Socialism has some of me too. I don't think capitalism considers people's sensitivities, but socialism does. It's seems like a more nurturing ideology. But I like the motivation capitalism encourages. I'm just not convinced a degree of socialism would take away motivation from Americans.

This might help:

ISMS
Ann Landers - St. Louis Post Dispatch, Jan 18, 1997 - p.3d,c.2.


Socialism: You have two cows. Give one cow to your neighbor.

Communism: You have two cows. Give both cowas to the government, and they may give you some of the milk.

Fascism: You have two cows. You give all of the milk to the government, and the government sells it.

Nazism: You have two cows. The government shoots you and takes both cows.

Anarchism: You have two cows. Keep both cows, shoot the government agent, and steal another cow.

Capitalism: You have two cows. Sell one cow and buy a bull.



Sent in by reader from Tekoa, WA., who report that these definitions come from his history class in 1942.

 

[crazy canadian]

Haha. I've read that before.
I needed the laugh. Thanks.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by crazy canadian
But everyone needs x amount of dollars to live, and the rest is gravy. So if conservatives are richer to begin with, that's me assuming something, they have more left over to give, and since they're not the social activists who run the booth, they do their part by writing a bigger check, no?
Perhaps I've generalized incorrectly.

Everyone does need X amount of dollars to live. Everyones x is different. And everyone can obtain x ammount by working hard for it like everyone else.

There are times when people need assistance. That assistance should not be given by the government. It should be given by people through private organizations, charities and churches. There are reasons for this.

When government steals money from those who earn it and give it to those who dont it creates bitterness by those who the money is stolen from and ingratitude and a sense of entitlement from those who receieve the gift. If its given freely and directly, it does not.

Not only that, but by taxing those who earn money it protects the power of those who already have it. if fewer people can make that kind of money they stay in power longer. Why else do you think John Kerry and the wealthy democrats support tax increases. it protects their power base. if they are the only ones with money no one can outspend them to oppose it.

We rebelled against Great Britian because of high taxes. and someday the people will be fed up with taxes and rebel again if we are not careful. We should free the American people of this burden as much as possible. Allow men and women to be free and you will be amazed what they can do with their own money much more effectively than the government.