CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why in the USA does Capitalism seem unappealing to some?
If we were to get rid of the government intervention in capitalism it would work better but politics and corruption are always a major factor in the evils of the corporate world. With that said only in capitalist societies can an innovative ambitious poor person become a wealthy person. Capitalism creates a society where you can choose your level of financial success or failure, better if we limit government interference.
Clearly you're oh so right. All those people that are in slums chose to be at that level. All those child-marriages to escape poverty were entirely chosen circumstances.
Clearly you're oh so right. All those people that are in slums chose to be at that level. All those child marriages to escape poverty were entirely chosen circumstances.
Don't you DARE use sarcasm, Mingipoowoo.
As Amarel rightly pointed out just days ago, these are all "voluntary transactions".
Technically named the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom shipped US$484 billion worth of goods around the globe in 2018. That dollar amount reflects a -5.3% slowdown since 2014 but a 9.5% expansion from one year earlier in 2017.
Based on estimates from the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook, United Kingdom’s exported goods plus services represent 30.2% of total UK economic output or Gross Domestic Product. The analysis below focuses on exported products only.
From a continental perspective, 54.2% of UK exports by value were delivered to other European trade partners with 46.6% going to European Union members. Another 23.1% was sold to Asian importers while the United Kingdom shipped 15.2% worth to North America. Smaller percentages arrived in Africa (2.3%), Oceania (1.5%) led by Australia and New Zealand then Latin America (1.3%) excluding Mexico but including the Caribbean.
Given United Kingdom’s population of 65.1 million people, its total $484 billion in 2018 exports translates to roughly 7,400 for every resident in the western European country.
The United Kingdom’s unemployment rate was 4% as of December 2018. That UK jobless rate is the lowest level since the 1970s according to Trading Economics.
The Limey's must be slaves to the Capitalist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And he uses a UN-endorsed more accurate understanding of freedom that is named Economic Freedom scale but ranks those nations lower as they know how negatively the Economic Freedom affects them and which still ignores that even in those nations of New Zealand, Hong Kong and Ireland that the ability to work freely comes still at a price and is why those nations don't score as high on happiness ratings as Denmark, Sweden and other full-on social democracies.
It's just sad how small hos scope of understanding is but you're just as bad in a different way. You still think MJ wasn't a paedohpile because a corrupt course case resulted in that. Research Leaving Neverland and learn how wrong you are. Same with your views on Israel vs Palestine. You refuse to ever be open-minded or accept alternate outlooks.
That's what most people on this site do. I'm weaning myself off of online debating. Maximum gonna a be doing it one to 1.5 hours per day avg. If you know how addicted I was before, this is serious weaning and I'm genuinely feeling both benefits and mental withdrawal symptoms all at once. You should try it. It's harder than you think at first, but has a very fast reward. I'm experiencing a sense of calm and patience-threshold that was definitely inhibited by interacting so harshly and frequently with people here and on DA.
For the record, the day I lashed out at you was the day where I truly realised the effect it was having on me and my blood pressure. So, yeah you are to thank for inspiring me to finally cut down on this toxic habit.
I will never fully quit, this definitely has helped my brain in ways no other hobby can or will. Debating is such a unique brain-stimulating habit that I truly will do it to my grave but less than I used to, is all.
And he uses a UN-invented more accurate understanding of freedom that is named Economic Freedom scale
The "economic freedom scale" has nothing to do with the UN you pig-thick twit. It's the product of a right wing Conservative think tank called Heritage.
You still think MJ wasn't a paedohpile
No, what I think is that I'm not going to accuse a man who was cleared at trial simply because I read an article in a women's magazine and want to believe he was guilty.
Research Leaving Neverland and learn how wrong you are.
You know literally nothing about Michael Jackson's past relationship with his father, or how it affected him later in life. He was a child in a man's body, and as such he was a perfect target for internet bullies like you, throwing accusations around completely absent any actual evidence. He was openly weird, clearly mentally ill, and you use these facts against him when you espouse these theories of yours.
Have you ever sat down and had a think about how much your life would be destroyed if you were famous and someone accused you of being a child molester? It was wankers like you that drove him to his death in the first place. I honestly have no idea whether he was innocent or not, but I'm not going to ignore the fact he was cleared at trial just because you've got a conspiracy theory you want me to believe in. You -- in typical fashion among idiots who don't understand what they are talking about -- tell me to go off and "research", but obviously if you want me to believe your conspiracy theories about Michael Jackson you should simply show me some evidence.
Witness intimidation primarily but also, two fathers having committed suicide prior to it out of shame and frustration at the scenario.
This isn't even evidence of a correlation, let alone a causation. You can't arbitrarily determine for us after the fact why people have taken their own life. Not even if they write a note explaining it, because the possibility always exists that the note is not an accurate representation of the facts. Liars are not precluded from killing themselves.
Also, in specific reference to this, witness intimidation doesn't prove guilt, even if it happened. If you're a multi-billionaire and someone is telling lies about you, would you not be tempted to pay someone to scare them off? It isn't your only option, but it certainly is one of them.
I'm weaning myself off of online debating. Maximum gonna a be doing it one to 1.5 hours per day avg. If you know how addicted I was before, this is serious weaning and I'm genuinely feeling both benefits and mental withdrawal symptoms all at once. You should try it. It's harder than you think at first, but has a very fast reward. I'm experiencing a sense of calm and patience-threshold that was definitely inhibited by interacting so harshly and frequently with people here and on DA.
For the record, the day I lashed out at you was the day where I truly realised the effect it was having on me and my blood pressure. So, yeah you are to thank for inspiring me to finally cut down on this toxic habit.
I agree with you here and am glad I have inspired you to change. This is not a healthy hobby to have, for anybody. I honestly wish you the best of luck.
It's just sad how small hos scope of understanding is but you're just as bad in a different way. You still think MJ wasn't a paedohpile because a corrupt course case resulted in that.
Maybe you're right and it was corrupt. But even if it was, that still doesn't prove he was guilty. It isn't even that I'm arguing he was innocent. You're literally annoyed because I won't prematurely believe he was guilty.
They are chosen outcomes. everyone has choices in life not all of our choices are good but they are ours. I come from poverty and I have chosen to live at a certain income level, stress level, location, in a certain type of relationship, ect. I could have chosen drugs, public assistance, homelessness, ect. People have to stop blaming everyone and everything else and be responsible for your own destiny.
You are either a very stupid person or a very ignorant one. I am not sure which. There is something called 'born into poverty' where no matter how hard you study or work, your qualifications and career prospects stay narrow and shit and one year of bad harvest for your farm will starve you so badly you can barely focus at school with yoru stomach rumbling and no vital minerals and such to your brain and body. You speak so much for a guy who hasn't spent a day in Kenya or Bangladesh and if you can't afford to see real poverty due to the cost of such journey(s) then at least watch documentaries on the matter.
People born into poverty such as Abraham Lincoln can choose to live moral responsible lives as they grow up and become anything they want. Your ignorant Liberal no fault mentality is so wrong, it's truly sickening.
First I clearly stated capitalism in the USA because Kenya and Bangladesh are not in the USA they are irrelevant to the discussion. I was born into poverty but you are wrong about ambition and learning not being a major factor in your outcome. They are what will determine your outcome in a capitalist society. My mom is proof of that, she had me at 16 years old. She was single with two children at 18 (poor choices) She dropped out of school and worked two min wage jobs to pay the bills. Once us children were out of the house she furthered her education went to work for a securities company and now has financial security a nice house in NY and one in Florida. (ambition was the determining factor)
But since you are unwilling to have an honest discussion, capitalists like yourself invariably attempt to circumvent this economic reality by claiming these people are not really hungry. Are you aware that one million families lost their homes as a direct result of the excesses of the rich, and then the subsequent "belt-tightening" following the onset of the 2008 economic downturn?
you are wrong about ambition and learning not being a major factor in your outcome.
He is not wrong. As a matter of fundamental logic, learning must stop for capitalists before they have sufficient knowledge to comprehend the deceit upon which it is based. It must stop before they become learned enough to critique the inadequacies of capitalism, otherwise they would never want to be capitalists in the first place!
But, you're using two different accounts at the same time, how is that honest?
But you have precisely zero material evidence to support your accusation (otherwise you obviously would have shown it), and therefore you are obviously the one of us who is being dishonest. You are throwing accusations around which you cannot support with any evidence in a deliberate and underhanded attempt to defame and smear my good reputation. I may consider legal action in fact, such is the heinous nature of your slander.
Except for the very obvious fact your posts are all identical style in a variety of accounts you have here. Of course, the admins can confirm all this, perhaps we should take it to them?
Except for the very obvious fact your posts are all identical style
No they aren't. This is very basic stuff. When liars are asked to prove their lies they inevitably tell other lies to explain why they can't prove their initial lies, just as you are doing right now.
Indeed, by your very own logic, you are using an identical style. Hence, I must also secretly be you.
Yeah, they are, it's so blatantly obvious because you can't control your anger so you spew out all the same profanities in all the same places. Like I said before, you are sooooo fucking predictable.
But you have precisely zero material evidence to support your accusation (otherwise you obviously would have shown it), and therefore you are obviously the one of us who is being dishonest.
So, each and every time, and there are many, where you accuse others of multiple accounts without showing any evidence, you are being dishonest. Glad we cleared that up.
There is something called 'born into poverty' where no matter how hard you study or work, your qualifications and career prospects stay narrow and shit and one year of bad harvest for your farm will starve you so badly you can barely focus at school with yoru stomach rumbling and no vital minerals and such to your brain and body.
The most hilarious thing about your account abuse is the fact you accuse everyone else of multiple accounts, where some may have other accounts while others don't. To you, it doesn't matter, it's merely a lame excuse for you to not add any intelligent content.
And, the fact that you're far too stupid to see the blatant differences in posting styles, syntax and in addition to your case, the continuous stream of insane shit talk, you wind up not being able to control yourself and at the very least are incapalbe of trying to make each account different in some way. But, you can't even do that and then actually pretend it's not you. It's stuningly pathetic.
The most hilarious thing about you is that you're a completely stupid, friendless, wifeless, childless, venomous retard who literally uses the internet to attack people.
It's truly amazing that every time you accuse someone of something, you have already committed it yourself tenfold. Is that a mirror on your computer screen?
Let me just clarify this a moment, so I can be sure I understand the question. You are asking me whether the occupation of Gaza by Israeli forces is due to Hamas or Israel? Yes?
Yes, this is genuinely correct no matter how hilarious it sounds on a surface-level reading.
It sounds hilarious because you are blaming victims for the actions of their abusers, which is precisely what I banned you for yesterday evening.
Israel openly admits it doesn't have Palestine's interests at heart and wants very much to split the two up and end the war.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Israel who the Palestinian people elect as their representatives. Do you even read the stuff you type back to yourself? Would Putin have been the good guy if he'd bombed America to get rid of Obama and/or Hillary? Obviously no, so it's stupid of you to insist Israel are the good guys for bombing Gaza because they don't like Hamas.
Pure rubbish. Obama and Hillary aren't a terrorist group that throws acid in womens' faces and kills gays. Hamas is. Obama and Hillary didn't attack Russia to be retaliated against. Your entire argument is that of a bloody child.
The condition of our lives is most times dependent on the choices we make in life. Unless there are health problems (not stemming from drugs or alcohol), the quality of our lives falls squarely on our shoulders.
No one forces people to have those one night hook ups, or having premarital unprotected sex, or taking hard drugs, or abusing alcohol, etc. etc. etc.
The choices people make determine their quality of life. How do you think people end up in the slums? I'm not speaking about children raised in the slums by dead beat parents.
Those children are victims of the irresponsible lifestyles I'm speaking to.
I realize the Left hates any such notions of personal responsibility and accountability for one's choices in life. The Left believes in a no fault anything goes culture whereby people are bailed out from their irresponsibility for their entire lives.
This socialistic commune type culture does nothing but create more poverty and broken lives. Just look at the record numbers of people living off food stamps after eight years of Obama's bleeding heart socialistic ideology.
BOB you mean Capitalism is unappealing to the Leftist Jeff Bezos ?????????
Jeff Bezos/Net worth
138.1 billion USD
2019
With a net worth of $134.5 billion as of Friday, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is the world's richest person. But due to his pending divorce from his wife, MacKenzie, his net worth could soon be cut in half -- to $67 billion.Feb 5, 2019
When people are forsaken for profits, it's not a mystery why capitalism is unappealing. For example, The healthcare industry is inefficient and costly. People die just because they can't afford medicine or surgery when if we switched to a universal healthcare system, we would save money and raise life expectancy. Then when you think about the people that live paycheck to paycheck with little to no leisure spending, they're basically slaves. A good summary of slavery is "A portion of the population produces a surplus for a separate portion which they don't have control over". That is effectively what is happening in capitalism. Private prisons are a good example of the wrongness of capitalism. Prisons make money by having more prisoners which leads to exactly what the US is today. More prisoners per capita than any nation in history. They have to send a minimum amount of people to jail each year which means that people who don't deserve to go to jail, do anyway because it makes money. Another simple example is dirty energy. People will poison the planet, which will kill us all if we don't change it, for the sake of short term profit which obviously is incentiveized by capitalism. You leave the choice of poisioning the planet up to average everyday people, they won't do it unlike dirty capitalists. Then the fact that WAR is good for capitalism which is why the US is constantly at war. War can make a shit ton of money. We will literally go kill other people who are foreign to us for the sake of money. Civilians too not just "Militiants" or whatever the bullshit US is calling them
A lot of this really isn't a mystery. Capitalism works for a small portion of people. Propaganda has led people to believe otherwise. It fundamentally doesn't change the dynamic of the Lord and the serfs as seen in Fuedalism. Now you have the capitalist and the proletariat. In summary capitalism is fundamentally un-democratic and goes against actual freedom.
Socialism, as it is actually defined,(not the typical american definition of socialism) would fix a lot of the issues that capitalism has. When the workers actually control the means of production and democratically vote on how to run the business they work for, many of these issues will go away because people are not gonna vote against their interests, unlike how it works in capitalism where the executives do whatever makes them the most money and says "fuck you" to those that are negatively affected by their business decisions.
You mention war as being the product of capitalism but again war is the product of government. Socialist economies also welcome war more so than capitalist economies. War to government (socialist) accomplishes a number of important functions. Population decrease which = better economy. The need for materials of war = better economy. Unifies the statist nationalism and pride which = obedience. Capitalist societies can benefit from war but don't need it. Politicians who invest in war related industries like Dick Cheney and countless other politicians are the real problem
You mention war as being the product of capitalism but again war is the product of government.
You keep pretending that government is a separate entity from the capitalist state so that you can use it as a red herring to shift blame upon every time you are faced with a reasonable point.
Capitalism is an economic system without government intervention Socialism is the control of business by government. So when you are discussing the "capitalist state" as you call it you are discussing the socialist end of our economic atmosphere. The further we go down the socialist rabbit hole the more of this you will see.
Politicians who invest in war related industries like Dick Cheney and countless other politicians are the real problem
I'm certainly not going to argue with you that Dick Cheney is a problem, but you are vastly underselling the point. There is considerable mobility between high level politics and high level jobs in the private sector. Besides which, the entire American political system is funded by capitalist donors. You keep blaming a government which capitalists have specifically chosen with their own wealth and power.
Again I say Capitalism is the lack of government involvement in business. You are clearly indicating what is true about the socialist part of our economic situation. As as in all socialist economies big business is entwined in government interchangeable you might say.
I happen to know a great deal about healthcare as I work in healthcare. Here are some truths that you can fact check if you doubt my word. Health care is so costly because of government not capitalism. Healthcare is so over regulated that it cost a fortune to meet all of the government imposed criteria. An example of this is the fact that 20 years ago health insurance premiums were a small percentage of the current cost. Our hospital to meet all of the regulatory requirements employs about 800 people to take care of an average 30 patients daily. The government keeps requiring all kinds of positions where people are checking on the people who are checking on the other people. None of these people have anything to do with the health of the patient. They send inspection teams annually to find minor deficiencies then they fine the hospital for each of them. Better yet they are normally things which have been the same way for many years without issue and cost thousands to fix. Our most recent was the replacement of many fully functional doors at the cost of $180,000 plus 11,000 in fines. These are why health care is in the state it is in. Then the governments solution is not to have public owned hospitals and reduce regulation. The government answer is to make it more costly then steal more tax money to give to the insurance companies (Banking institutions) along with increasing the cost of health insurance for all.
I happen to know a great deal about healthcare as I work in healthcare. Here are some truths that you can fact check if you doubt my word. Health care is so costly because of government not capitalism.
I think you need to formulate a better understanding of the function of government, my friend. Government is there to protect capitalists in nations which use capitalism as their main economic system. Capitalists simply point their finger at the government whenever they are caught doing anything wrong because it's a great method of deflecting blame onto a party which pretty much can do whatever it wants anyway, so it's never really a big deal. When people think banks did something wrong they rally and protest. When they think the government did something wrong they usually just shrug their shoulders and curse. The only time the government and the capitalist parasites are ever truly, genuinely at odds with one another is over tax.
you should study more about political relationships with big business and banking. We are socialist enough now that the politicians are big business and politicians are the banking industry. The politicians are big oil and big Pharma. research it you will be amazed. That is the socialist end of things in the USA. In capitalism government is not suppose to control business the free market is. That is not what we have.
You obviously don't know what socialism actually is. You're reciting the american definition which is twisted by propaganda. Socialism is not the government controlling the means of production. It's THE WORKERS controlling the means of production democratically.
Can you give examples of places where this takes place? This is one of the difference between theoretical vs practical. In theory good when actually implemented doesn't work do to the nature of humans.
How does it not? It eliminates the conflict of interest that is between the capitalist and employee, or government and employee. They already exist and in fact work better than typical capitalist businesses on average. Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
If you're going to make a claim, at least try to verbally defend it, particularly on website designed for debating.
Yes, I know about mondragon. It’s a favorite that’s been brought up on this site before. There are other examples of employee owned businesses that work perfectly well for those businesses. Capitalists are not concerned about private individuals freely associating in whatever manner they choose, including socialistic associations. The problem is when those people begin to use the government to force others, who would not otherwise do so, to associate in a socialistic manner. Government force is something socialists use more often than not. If that’s not actually socialism, take t up with the so called socialists, because the capitalists don’t care about your so called “actual” socialism.
Regards Mondragon one needs to look at the whole picture to get a fair evaluation.......
In an April 2012 interview Noam Chomsky said that while Mondragon offers an alternative to capitalism, it was still embedded in a capitalist system which limits Mondragon's decisions:
“ Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others. ”
Vincent Navarro wrote that from a business perspective, Mondragon is successful in matching efficiency with solidarity and democracy. However, he writes that the number of employees who are not owners have increased more rapidly than worker-owners, to a point that in some companies, for example in the supermarket chains owned by Mondragon, the first are a much larger group than the second. In Navarro's view, this establishes a two-tier system - for example, in terms of whom to save in the case the company collapses. In the collapse of Fagor, the relocation of employees to other companies belonging to Mondragon favored those who were worker-owners, which may affect labor relations:[24]
Again with prisons, capitalism is not the problem with the prison system it is government. The US government is the largest organized illegal drug syndicate in the world. This was confirmed with the 80's cocaine trade Barry Seals, the Iran Contra case, ect. Now it's the Opium trade (hence the reason we invaded Afghanistan) If you look at the UN poppy production stats you will see that in 2000-2001 the Taliban had burned the poppy fields and threatened the poppy farmers. The US military was sent in to protect the existing poppy fields and now poppy production is at an all time high. If you keep up on current events you would know there is a heroin epidemic. The US government also has a war on drugs so they can use the prison industrial complex to cash in on more money. For politicians it's a win win. Capitalism is not the problem there it's government.
Again with prisons, capitalism is not the problem with the prison system it is government.
Buddy, if the society is capitalist then people go to jail because they break the laws of the capitalist state. For example, under capitalism you are not permitted to just take stuff that you need. You go to jail for that, even if you need it because you will die without it. Hence, capitalism is the problem if it is putting people in jail because they need stuff and have taken it, and that wording also applies to the drugs I mentioned in my last post.
So in your world you would have theft as a legal practice? There would be no need to contribute to your own wealth you would just take it. What happens when all of the contributors exit the horrible world which you have created so that they could keep the wealth that they earned?
This was confirmed with the 80's cocaine trade Barry Seals, the Iran Contra case, ect. Now it's the Opium trade (hence the reason we invaded Afghanistan) If you look at the UN poppy production stats you will see that in 2000-2001 the Taliban had burned the poppy fields and threatened the poppy farmers.
The Iran-Contra case obviously confirms nothing except the Iran-Contra case. The entire reason people sell drugs is because of capitalism. It makes them rich, and they are taught that being rich is what they need to be. They are taught that is what being successful means. Hence, of course drugs are going to be a problem in capitalist society. It's inevitable, because they are a very marketable product.
The USSR and now the Ukraine, and Russia are not capitalist economies and have the same drug problems. Capitalism is not the cause of drug abuse. I would argue that most drug addicted people are not the people who are ambitious and aspire to live a good life.
the Ukraine, and Russia are not capitalist economies and have the same drug problems.
I'm afraid they are both capitalist economies. I'm sorry buddy, but you are not going to find a way to excuse the fact that capitalism has literally gifted us a generation of drug dealers. In fact, ALL crime is financially motivated, with the exception of sexual crime and/or personal vendetta, so obviously this is conclusive proof of the damage capitalism has done to society.
Pure rubbish again. There were and are drug cartels in any and every system. If we went full blown Communist tomorrow, the drugs would still spread like wildfire just as they did between ancient tribes. You are a bloody wank with the mind of an infant.
Socialism creates poverty, and a lack of incentive to be productive. This creates the drug abusers who are not productive in socialist economies there is no need for them to be productive. Drug dealers are exempt from the socialist economics as an illegal activity the government is not stealing their wealth. Dealing drugs is only a crime because the Government is heavily involved in big pharma where they make money from drugs and they don't want competition.
You're literally writing nonsense. Socialism alleviates the poverty caused by capitalism. I've already illustrated to you that there are presently 41 million people who are hungry in your capitalist country, so trying to blame socialism for that is absurd.
Bullshit. There are plenty of incentives to be productive outside of acquiring personal wealth, but they unfortunately all require a person to be intelligent. For example, one must understand that the future of the human species depends on cooperation, not competition.
Drug dealers are exempt from the socialist economics as an illegal activity the government is not stealing their wealth.
Socialism is not about the government "stealing your wealth". How do you expect to have a conversation about socialism if you do not even understand what it is? I am tired of capitalists turning the truth upside down. The truth is that, when you work, the profit your labour generates benefits someone else and in return you are given compensation (i.e. a wage) which must necessarily be less than the profit your labour generates, otherwise there is no incentive in employing you in the first place. In other words, capitalists are robbing you, me, and everybody else. Socialism on the other hand stipulates that people should get back what they actually put in. All of what they put in. Not a small percentage of it, with the rest being stolen by people they do not even know.
I really don't think you understand how much of a trap capitalism is. All the money in circulation under capitalism has interest attached to it, and potentially multiple different forms of interest. Hence, if the banks were to claw back all the money which exists at any point either now or in the future, society would still be in debt to the banks. That's how fucked capitalism is. It literally is a form of slavery. People are not exaggerating when they tell you this.
That's how fucked capitalism is. It literally is a form of slavery. People are not exaggerating when they tell you this.
What people are telling you this?
Do you only accept what people say if it agrees with your narrative?
If capitalism is a “form of slavery “ please explain how the average slave owned his own house , vehicle and savings account with plenty of leisure time and holidays abroad ......was slavery really that good?
Wrong, in capitalism you are not forced to purchase anything you don't wish to purchase. So if you go into debt by purchasing things on credit you should be responsible for paying it back and the people willing to lend you their wealth need some incentive to lend it to you interest is that incentive.
What makes you think socialism is not a form of slavery you are forced to pay for things which you may not use like health care and furthered education.
Wrong, in capitalism you are not forced to purchase anything you don't wish to purchase
By that same "logic", nobody forced Hitler to gas the Jews, therefore Nazism is good.
So if you go into debt by purchasing things on credit you should be responsible for paying it back
You have to purchase things you moron because capitalism has practically eradicated self-sufficiency from society. Where are you going to get food and water from? Where are you going to get shelter, education and transport if you don't take out loans to pay for them? Basic, fundamental human needs which are exploited by banks to put you into a lifetime of debt and make a slave out of you.
First Hitler gassing Jews is a completely different topic and one that you may find very unexpectedly disturbing if you researched it to it's fullest extent. hint (more fiction than truth)
The modern education system and society have convince you in a socialist manner that you need to be in debt, False, I have been in debt for 15 years of my 54 when I bought my home. It is the only loan I have ever needed. It was my choice to go into debt and I paid it off responsibly. All of my other needs I worked for and lived within a budget as I do now.
First Hitler gassing Jews is a completely different topic
It's a completely relevant analogy to your belief that capitalism must be great because you aren't physically forced to buy stuff.
The modern education system and society have convince you in a socialist manner that you need to be in debt, False
Not false. You have to take on debt merely to compete. If you don't have a car for example, and your competition does, then they are going to find it much easier to acquire a job than you are. Capitalism doesn't work without debt. That's the entire premise upon which it is founded. The lower classes are permanently in debt to the ruling class, which is why they work: to pay it off. Unfortunately, as I have already mentioned, they can never pay it off, even if they work from now until eternity. Capitalism is a glorified pyramid scheme which takes advantage of the gullible, the naive and the greedy. That's simply just the way it is. Nothing you have so far written has contradicted a single point I have made.
I have been in debt for 15 years of my 54 when I bought my home. It is the only loan I have ever needed.
The million American families who lost their homes in the aftermath of 2008 presumably thought the same thing, until the companies they worked for began getting rid of them to save money and they were forced to default on their mortgages. You are not just controlled through debt in capitalism, but also through the immense power your employer has over your ability to meet your financial responsibilities. Contrary to the propaganda, capitalism offers you no control over your own welfare, because if the climate changes and companies begin downsizing -- as they did in 2008 -- you face losing your home, your transport and even your ability to meet your basic day to day needs.
So you clearly feel as though you are entitled to a good life at the expense of others It's not the job of your bankers, or employers to make your way through life. That is your responsibility no one is forced to default on their mortgage. They may have to change their lifestyle or work harder than they want but ultimately it will be their choice to do what it takes to keep their home or to just keep doing what they are doing and fail. This the kind of mindset that instills the parasitic behavior of socialists
Why in the USA does Capitalism seem unappealing to some?
Hello Smiley:
Under Trump, capitalism is left unfettered.. Under that scenario, money moves to the TOP. It works great for the rich - not so much for the middle class and the poor.. But, that's NOT the fault of capitalism.. It's the fault of congress.. If capitalism is going to work for everybody, there needs to be RULES.
Here's a GOOD example.. Left unfettered, lenders charge the poor upwards of 400% to borrow money.. The rich pay about 12%.. That's NOT good for the poor. If capitalism is to work for EVERYBODY, the rich need to STOP ripping us off.
Capitalism CANNOT work for everybody. That's a total logical contradiction of itself. Capitalism is premised upon there being an economic hierarchy, which means there are always going to be poor twats at the bottom with less than everybody else. Socialism can -- in theory at least -- work for everybody. Capitalism cannot do this even in theory.
Under Trump, capitalism is left unfettered.. Under that scenario, money moves to the TOP.
Money always moves to the top. That's the very basis of capitalism you fool. Twits like you were simply conned by the no true Scotsman fallacy offered by capitalists in the wake of the 2008 disaster. It wasn't REAL capitalism. That was some abhorrent other system we are going to create a different name for. How about UNFETTERED CAPITALISM? Is that catchy enough? It is? Great. Now, where's that idiot, Excon?
When you have 1,000,000 dollars and you decide to lend it out to make money you can set your own rate on lending. You can lend it to the poor at 12% and hopefully it works out for you. My guess is that it won't. You will most likely lose on some of your investments. If you lend it to the wealthy they will either pay it back or you will take it using the law out of their wealth (which they have being wealthy) It's not a matter of fair it's just reality. The thing about reality and truth is that it's not always fair.
Who do you think caused the economic collapse of 2008? It was government and it's rulers
Hello again, smiley:
Nahhh... It was the banks.. They ran amuck. You've played Monopoly, haven't you? That's how UNFETTERED capitalism works.. The game is over when ONE guy owns EVERYTHING.
When libs were in charge, there was a REGULATION that said saving and loan banks could ONLY lend to home buyers.. That's because we didn't want these banks to invest YOUR money into all sorts of WILD and CRAZY investments.. Historically, that was the role of commercial banks. When you put your money in them, you KNEW they would gamble with it.. That's WHY you put your money in there.. But, when you put your money in a savings bank, you didn't want them to gamble with it.. You wanted them to invest in very safe home mortgages.
But, when right wingers took over, they REMOVED that REGULATION. And, guess what happened??? Your savings and loan invested YOUR MONEY into all sorts of wild and crazy schemes. Not surprisingly, they LOST it all, and almost bankrupted the WORLD.
I don't know if I mean that or not.. I'm not into dissembling.
I'm a liberal. I know what it means to me. Not sure if it means the same to you..
Most of the arguments on this board are about WHAT word means WHAT ideology.. I'm not sufficiently educated into what distinguishes classic liberalism from my liberalism.
Liberalism used to mean an ideology based around the following principles:
1. Proclaiming individual freedom as an absoulute value that superseeds collective interests.
2. Only strong individuals can form a strong and functional state.
3. Individuals have god-given innate rights ("human rights", the theological argument was later forgotten). These rights include freedom of speach, freedom of peacful assembly, the right to defend yourself in court, freedom of religion, freedom of trade, freedom of enterprise, right to fair trial by law.
4. Everyone is equal before the law and laws should give everyone equal opportunities.
5. The excercise of rights by an individual should not violate the rights of other individuals.
This is an approximate list but gives the idea of what the term means.
Modern day "liberalism", or neoliberalism is an ideology that inclides many features which directly contradict those principles, like:
- equality of outcome
- identity politics
- affirmative action
- positive discriminaiton
- restricting freedom of speach
- subverting due process
and many others.
That's why it's very important to specify what you mean exactly when you call yourself a liberal. I consider myself a classical liberal.
Modern day "liberalism", or neoliberalism is an ideology that inclides many features which directly contradict those principles
But modern day "Conservatism" or neo-conservatism contradicts those listed principles in measurably more dramatic fashion than "modern day liberalism", hence undercutting your entire argument. One does not even need to travel past your very first point to exemplify the hypocrisy of what you are writing:-
Proclaiming individual freedom as an absoulute value that superseeds collective interests.
America has the highest rate of incarceration on the entire planet (September 2013). And a huge percentage of that prison population is resultant from the Republican "war on drugs" policy which inhibits directly an individual's right to put certain substances into their own body. Individual freedom? I don't think so. This is just bullshit which you -- or those like you -- have been selling to people for hundreds of years. Gradually the public is waking up to it. Children are becoming younger and younger at the point they first see through its transparency, and sooner or later it will be called out by everybody as the bullshit it so clearly is. Liberalism wasn't even a particularly great theory when it was invented, let alone hundreds of years later.
But modern day "Conservatism" or neo-conservatism contradicts those listed principles in measurably more dramatic fashion than "modern day liberalism
Yes, neocons are also not liberals. I'm not really sure which of these pseudo-ideologies is more antiliberal.
hence undercutting your entire argument
The arfument I was making is that the term "liberalism" has become ambiguous and can refer to two different ideologies, so one has to be careful when using that term. What you said does not in any way"undercut" my argument. But it does undercut your argument from that other debate, where you were trying to prove that "conservatism" and "liberalism" mean the same thing.
America has the highest rate of incarceration on the entire planet (September 2013). And a huge percentage of that prison population is resultant from the Republican "war on drugs" policy which inhibits directly an individual's right to put certain substances into their own body. Individual freedom? I don't think so
I never said I was a fan of the Republican party. Both parties have in the past introduced legislation that goes against the principles of classical liberalism.
Where you're wrong is in your implicit statement that conservative is opposite of liberal. Both the neolibs are anti-liberal, neolibs being closer to Marxism in many ways. And I would think the best term for neocons would be fuedalists. Both communism and feudalism go against liberal principles.
I'm not really sure how your sentence is grammatically coherent.
Let me rephrase it this way: "I'm not really sure which of these pseudo-ideologies is more antiliberal." Perhaps after I've corrected the obvious typo, you will be able to understand what I said.
It seemed more like the argument you were making is that liberalism has become hypocritical.
Even if for some strange reason you understood it that way, your post did not "undercut" that imaginary argument. What I actually said was:
"Modern day "liberalism", or neoliberalism is an ideology that inclides many features which directly contradict those principles....That's why it's very important to specify what you mean exactly when you call yourself a liberal"
This is in no way undermined by pointing out to the hypocrisy of neocons and/or republicans.
Who do you think caused the economic collapse of 2008?
Deregulating capitalism is what caused the economic collapse. In particular, deregulating the mortgage industry.
It was government and it's rulers
It was if you agree that the capitalist junta rules the government. Nobody forced the banks to sell bad mortgages. They did it because they didn't think they could lose. Customers who default on secured loans have their properties taken away and the bank resells them.
I defend a little capitalism- just with strict rules. I also defend socialism to some extent. If you understood dualities, u would understand that extremes are never good. Extreme left (sticklers creativity and innovation. Extreme right, allows a class system to develop until the working class breaks down and revolts. What we have now in America is an EXPERIMENT . 1st time in human history we didn’t live in little Tribes that were lil socialist tribes. Man has not lived without small socialist tribe
I defend a little capitalism- just with strict rules. I also defend socialism to some extent. If you understood dualities, u would understand that extremes are never good.
This is why I laugh when you identify as a nationalist socialist, because you're probably the most sensible centrist here.
Socialism only works in small groups like a family where the supporting members voluntarily contribute to the group wealth. This is done because the supporting members feel an obligation to care for the non contributing members.
If socialism contributions are involuntary (this is theft) this creates an atmosphere of dissent. This is where socialism fails because the contributors and non-contributors are essentially equal. Why would you want to be a contributor?
In capitalism your worth is determined by your contribution and with ambition you can achieve any reasonable desired wealth. If you offer no contribution it is your choice but you should not expect others to support you.
