With all due respect, this is quite a long rant, but these are my frustrations with living in a Capitalistic society. Oh, and I have been on here for a little more then a year now, so I know pretty well of the ideas that is passed around Mises readings.
Now, I understand that CEO's are responsible for a company's profits, and that the entrepreneur is someone who sacrifices a stable job lifestyle for risking his personal savings. However, while this is true with small business', I have no problem with CEO's of small business. Though, if someone needs to find a job, they have no choice but to employ themselves at a crappy job where they will be exploited. My definition of exploited meaning no pay for overtime, keeping you overtime, no vacation, and taking money off of your paycheck for breaks. You can't control when an employer decides to keep you overtime to get more work done, but its ****ing bullshit when you have school and a life to maintain as well. People at low-income jobs barely make enough to even be worth all this stress, where someone with a BA in even Communication gets to work for an above average salary and sit in the comfort of his cubicle on a computer. Jobs shouldn't be a privilege, and if someone has to work for low income, they shouldn't be slaving a lot more then someone with an education earning a median-above average salary. This is exploitation. You know, the only reason someone working at McDonalds is getting ****ed in the ass is because CEO's don't want to cut their erroneous salary so that they can continue golfing on their private island, while hiring less people so that they themselves, who don't even do much with the Corporation they are the head of, can get higher salaries.
Do I think the honest ones, i.e. small businessmen, do so? No. In fact those types of CEO's live it like its a lifestyle, not just a job, they DO work their asses off.
Novus Zarathustra:Because I was never able to live my life the way I wanted do, I end up at the age of 40, with kids and having to spend his entire life working at a place Wal-Mart or Target if I get lucky enough to even get the job there and be paid decently. ALl the money I'm earning will go toward paying for my bills and feeding my kids because I was never able to go to school, never able to try to make it as an artist since I couldn't afford my tools so I could be making a better salary. Instead I work my ass of, am miserable, and will never be an artist. gg.
Only in a rich, formerly free country could one, in the midst of a horrific depression, think that working in a large store, earning just enough to pay bills and feed kids, is a bad thing. Try explaining to a resident of Tanzania that you are upset that you will stand in a building full of things and earn enough to eat for pressing buttons on a computer.
The Tanzanian works harder than you do, much harder. He spends all day carrying heavy things, and he just watched two of his children starve. So he won't stand for your whining. If you want to be consistent, at least complain on his behalf, not your own.
But it's not about work, it's about what you produce. You might think it is harder to press buttons than to do what a CEO does. But anyone can do your job, and you produce very little. You're only necessary at all because we have division of labor and such massive production that we can have stores. The CEO is an organizer. Without him, your labor would produce even less, because you would not have in front of you a computer to press buttons on. What you're doing is only valuable because of a huge supply chain and the related actions of thousands of people - and the people who bring it all together.
The Tanzanian doesn't have this kind of organization. He has no capital structure, and so has to produce directly from the earth. That is hard.
Now, I agree with a lot of your points, believe it or not. I would like to see more equity, I'd be happy with a lower standard of living with less organization, smaller organizations - and in addition, I think, with Kevin Carson, that in a free society organizations would be smaller with higher production anyway, so its a moot point. But those are my preferences, and I have no right to inflict them on you - to decide for you that production should be smaller and lower so that I can have more free time, or shop at smaller stores, or whatever. I have to find a like-minded group of people and build what I want. If you want a commune, build one. That's a task as hard as what a CEO does, for less pay - but it's building the world you'd like. Just don't demand that people who don't want what you want build it for you.
Novus Zarathustra:This is the problem Socialism seems to replace. We won't have to rely on placing our destinies in the consent of others, like you do with Capitalism.
HAHAHAHAHA.Of all the things to say! Socialism doesn't place your destiny in the consent of others? Socialism means there is one guy [or a small group of guys] who decide about EVERY LAST PENNY. You need their consent to buy toilet paper. If they decide to make any, that is. I mean really, Novus.
Novus Zarathustra:It would be my ability to contribute to the arts, that would be assessed in an economic plan.
There ya go. You said it yourself in plain English. There is an economic plan that is gonna asses you. If they tell you "Sorry Charlie, we don't need art right now. We need the building and the resources, and in fact, your very body, to make palaces for the glorious leaders. Unless you want to dig ditches 12 hours a day; we could use you for that too. That is, if you want to eat."
Novus Zarathustra: I could get what I need, as long as I continued to work and devote to the arts, which I do for enjoyment.
Ya know, there is a problem. Not every job is enjoyable. Alot of them are pretty crappy indeed. Nobody wants to do them. What makes you think they will let you do what you enjoy?
There is another problem. You write "I could get what I need. No, you wouldn't. You would live like a dog after a few years, along with almost everyone else. That's where reading up here, or listening to tapes here, will educate you as to why this MUST happen under Socialism, as indeed it HAS happened in every Socialist country. the laws of economics are like the law of Gravity. They always work. And they make Socialism fail every time, just like gravity makes the apple fall every time. Educate yourself and find out why.
Novus Zarathustra: In Socialism, someone who wants to be a teacher will be because each according to his need to his ability,
In Socialism, someone who wants to be a teacher will be because each according to his need to his ability,
What if too many people want to be teachers, and indeed have the ability as well? What if not enough people want to do the dirty work?
Novus Zarathustra:HUGE difference, workers control is all about taking control of their destiny.
Well I imagine everyone will have to work, right? So everyone will be in control? How will decisions be made?
Also, let's not be naive. The ones with the guns will be in control, just like everywhere else on the planet. And how much do you think they care about you?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
In many of your post in this topic is seems (Don't want to put words in your mouth) that you deny the existence of the laws of supply and demand? In one post you suggest that oil prices are what they are so that they can bilk everyone, and especially poor countries, out of their money only to line their own pockets. If that is the case why do prices ever do down? Heck not too long ago oil was nearly $150 a barrel. Why not just keep charging that since according to you we all "need it."The truth is we don't "need it" because alternatives exist. Those alternatives become more attractive as the price of oil rises relative to the price of the alternatives. This is the same reason we need not fear "peak oil" or "catastrophic global warming." Absent intervention prices will guide us in the right direction. The markup on oil averages about 5% over production costs last I checked which is about 15% less than the average markup you pay at the grocery store. Oh, and oil companies alone paid for about 1.2% of the ENTIRE federal budget in 2006 (last figures I could find). That is a lot of social program funding right there. DAMN those greedy oil companies!
In other posts you shows symptoms of thinking like I used to think. When i had few marketable skills and worked at McD's for $5.50 an hour I used to rail to any unfortunate soul who would listen that "no person's time is worth less than $10 an hour!"What I was missing, and what you seem to be missing is the concept of productivity. Was my productivity as a burger flipper and cash register operator worth $10 an hour to society? Or would society rather do without my services than pay me that wage? (essentially trading their respective services for mine).The answer, clear to me now is that they would rather do without. If you truly feel that the voluntary contract you entered into is an exploitation of you why then do you not head to the hills and live as a sustenance farmer? My guess is that you would rather be "exploited" by those greedy capitalists than try to make it on your own.
Cheers!GML
Novus Zarathustra:I just dont think someone should have to be trapped in a recession they weren't a part of causing like a damn dog, and have to suffer from it, because they can't get out of its burdens no matter how hard they try.
The people of America did this to themselves. All governments rule with the consent of the majority. The American people thought they could get things for free, and live off of the wealth accumulated by others, and by previous generations. Now we must face the calamity we've created. We don't have capitalism, so stop using it as a scapegoat.
Novus Zarathustra:If they do, what are they rewarded with? This is the problem Socialism seems to replace.
Yes socialism totally ends this problem. It's permanent depression; you don't have to worry about stock market crashes when you don't have a stock market; you don't have to worry about unemployment in a command economy. But finding water and food is a real bitch.
Novus Zarathustra:I for one specialize in the arts, in a community, I could be a cast member in a local theater and a writer.
Ahh, and here's the root of the problem. You are some artist who is unable to produce a good which is demanded by society. Surely your art is not to blame, since it's both revolutionary and perfect. Thus, the problem must be the system, this evil capitalistic system which doesn't appreciate your one-of-a-kind artistic abilities. We must all suffer so that you can paint.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
(As I'm sure you'll prove. Assuming, of course, this isn't one of those college-student-esque "I have big ideas but I didn't think about them logically for more than five seconds" bits.)
Now, I understand that CEO's are responsible for a company's profits, and that the entrepreneur is someone who sacrifices a stable job lifestyle for risking his personal savings. However, while this is true with small business', I have no problem with CEO's of small business.
(Well, perhaps you could define the difference between a small business and a large business first. What are we going by here? Capital? Employees? IQ? I mean, if we were to make a chart of a certain factor, such as profit, how many businesses do you think would look small next to Microsoft. Probably a lot. If we were to make a chart based on French Fry production, McDonald's would be HUGE and Microsoft wouldn't even be in the playing field. So your arbitrary labeling scheme leaves a lot to be desired.)
Though, if someone needs to find a job, they have no choice but to employ themselves at a crappy job where they will be exploited.
(You mean you didn't think long enough about this to realize that ANY job is exploitation? What difference do you think it makes if you work for Microsoft or Big Ma's Burger Joint? The CEO, owner, what-have-you of any place of employment is trying to figure out how they can improve their lot. Big Ma is hiring you because she thinks your work will turn profit, not because you are putting her $250 in the hole every week. I bet Microsoft pays more. In fact, Microsoft can afford to employ people who only turn pennies in profit, because they have built up capital and reputation that they can rely on. Because they can produce more, they can provide more jobs and therefore do not need to profit off of each individual as much as Big Ma.)
My definition of exploited meaning no pay for overtime, keeping you overtime, no vacation, and taking money off of your paycheck for breaks.
(Big Ma would NEVER do that, though, right? I mean, Big Ma would hire someone with the INTENTION of working around their schedule, right? And just what kind of argument is it to bring up overtime pay when arguing FOR government intervention? Businesses created the idea of overtime as an incentive to get workers to work longer. It was government that mandated a certain number of hours as overtime. Then you complain about the "exploitation" of being kept overtime. The businessman sees a need for more production to grow, so they want you to work overtime. If you cannot meet that need, no one is holding a gun to your head. Why should the businessman forgo improving his business because workers don't want to work overtime? They can take a hike, and he can find people who want money more than they want free time. If the businessman is wrong, and nobody wants the overtime, then he loses labor because he could not meet the needs of the labor market. I fail to see how wanting to grow one's business is inherently evil. You are a commodity. You are paid for. If you do not like the amount you are paid or the time you work, then be glad you live in a country where you can walk out the door and find something else. Or don't. I don't care. Vacations, too? Same thing. Many companies offer not only vacations, but PAID vacations, as an incentive. Some don't. You don't like not having a vacation? Guess what? McDonald's has vacation packages. It's not to hard to get a job at McDonald's. As far as breaks go, do I need to bring up incentives again? Some places pay you to take a break. You get PAID to NOT WORK. I fail to see how this can be viewed as anything more than a luxury. I have no complaints about not being paid when I take breaks, especially since I would rather have a break in the middle of a ten hour shift and lose a half hour of pay than to have no break and be hungry for the rest of my shift. There might even be other people that agree with me, but I won't make that call. It's subjective. You might want to check where you're coming from with all this, since it is usually larger companies that offer vacations and paid breaks. Strange, that.)
You can't control when an employer decides to keep you overtime to get more work done, but its ****ing bullshit when you have school and a life to maintain as well.
(No, you can't control it. You aren't the employer. There are certain perks that come with that, as well as responsibilities, such as "Hm... I need to meet production and i can't do it unless my staff works overtime." It's amazing, but yes, employers have to make decisions. Decisions on actual THINGS. And this whole idea of quadastericking bullshit is describing only itself. You are working the job BECAUSE you want to enjoy time in your life. It would be great if we could have all the things we want without working, but this just isn't reality. And school? Well, we can assume you mean college, since the government tries to keep a tight noose around when we are allowed to work and where we are educated, so we'll go with college. Are you saying that you shouldn't have to decide between a job and school? I'll extend the argument to where I assume, though I don't KNOW, you are going with this. You need school to get a better job, but you need more money to go to school. So you have to make a choice here, along the lines of saving money and taking less schooling or taking more schooling and earning less money. Can I show you a similar decision that someone might have to make? Earning more money by working people overtime or earning less money and having stable business hours. Some people actually choose stable business hours, but the fact of the matter is that you can't always have both. If your situation is such that you have to sacrifice some of one for the other, is it doing you any good to say "I should work part-time hours so I can go to school but earn full-time pay"? Because when businesses both big and small start losing money from paying out more than an employ is worth, they will hire less. When they hire less, there will be less jobs to go around. When there are less jobs, less people will earn money. Less people will be able to afford things. This might even lead to less jobs. And then, of course, tuition rates will go up, because less people can afford to go to school, and suddenly your twenty dollars an hour twenty hours a week isn't getting you through college, and you have to work forty hours a week to make up for it...but then you can't go to school! Vicious circle, I know. The amazing thing is that you, as well as any friends you are describing, have convinced yourselves the only way to make money is to get a college education. There are plenty of counter-examples, if you look around. You are too busy using your head to analyze how other people are using their own heads to exploit you. Think. It helps.)
People at low-income jobs barely make enough to even be worth all this stress, where someone with a BA in even Communication gets to work for an above average salary and sit in the comfort of his cubicle on a computer.
(And? You think that complaining magically makes these low-income jobs pay more? You've kind of skipped an important piece of your own sentence. You said "Barely make enough to even be worth all this stress". So...it's worth it? You're saying it's worth it. If it wasn't, you wouldn't do it. If it isn't worth it, you're just being purposefully irrational. And how do you know the stress of the comfortable cubicle job isn't "barely worth it". My god, have you ever had to meet a deadline with a hundred pages in Excel? Son, that comfortable chair don't help one bit. And what the HELL does above-average salary matter? An above-average salary can mean anything from poverty to billionaire depending on the economic situation. You can't just throw around terms and expect a coherent point to form itself. That's like whining and expecting better things to come your way without working for it.)
Jobs shouldn't be a privilege, and if someone has to work for low income, they shouldn't be slaving a lot more then someone with an education earning a median-above average salary.
(What should jobs be, then? And you can say "a right" if you like, but you do realize the logical ends of a "right to jobs" is slavery, right? You have to enslave people who can supply jobs for jobs to be a right. And you miss yet another important point. To say shouldn't is irrelevant, because there might be some people who are willing to work harder to have some money, and they will voluntarily slave away more than someone with an education (an education IS an investment with the hope of a payoff, just so you know). The problem you describe is spurious, because those who are willing to slave away are the ones that get hired and keep their jobs. The ones who don't aren't worth it to the employer, so either you work hard and do the job that you signed up for, or you don't. You can either quit or get fired, and have plenty of time to complain about the fact that you don't have everything everyone else has. There's just no way to be nice about this. No one is killing you. You have recourse. You can't wave a wand and say "Hah! I'm educated." If you want that above-average pay, you gotta work for it, any way you can, and you gotta figure out how to get it yourself. Not everyone has the same circumstances. You're suggesting we all cut off our legs because there are people who can't walk, and we have an unfair advantage.)
This is exploitation.
(Yes. It is. When you hire someone, you exploit the fact that they want to earn money to achieve YOUR OWN ends, not theirs.)
You know, the only reason someone working at McDonalds is getting ****ed in the ass is because CEO's don't want to cut their erroneous salary so that they can continue golfing on their private island, while hiring less people so that they themselves, who don't even do much with the Corporation they are the head of, can get higher salaries.
(The only reason someone working at McDonald(')s is getting quadastericked in the ass is because they choose to continue working. They have decided that they value being quadastericked more than not working at McDonald's. The CEO salary is irrelevant. A CEO determines how much he can pay himself before it negatively impacts how many people he can hire and how much he can produce. What exactly is erroneous about this? It's actually quite calculated. I fail to see how it is "immoral" to pay yourself a boatload when your employees are willing to work for some kibble. It's common sense. You do realize they can't just say, "Hm, my company is worth 80 million. I'm just gonna pay myself 79 million." without going out of business, right? You realize that, right? Right? You've thought about that, perhaps? No? Not even a little? Let me tell you something. If that person has figured out a way to pay himself 79 out of 80 million, and STILL get people to work for him, and STILL grow his business, he or she has not only earned every penny, but I would PERSONALLY give them a medal. Hell, I would trust that person with my money ANY day.)
("All small businessmen are honest. All corporate CEO's are dishonest." I could go on to talk about just how difficult life can be for the CEO of a large company, but you actually point it out yourself down the way a bit. We'll get back to that. Suffice to say, if they have either earned or been entrusted with their position, they are probably deserving of a little more free time than the businessman that is trying to make a name for himself. In fact, one of the best ways to make a name for yourself is through hard work. Then you get to relax. What do you possibly think happens to all those "honest" small businessmen when they suddenly make it big? Are your trusted heroes now your hated enemy? Should no one be rich? Should there be no corporations? Should we forgo luxuries like iPods, which people living in what we describe as poverty in this country actually can afford? DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? We live in a country that is so rich that you can make a better meal from someone's garbage than you could BUY in many countries around the world. HOW THE HELL IS THIS A BAD THING? HOW DOES THIS MAKE US SO EVIL?)
Honestly, how could anyone disagree with any of this?
(Any of what? What point did you make? You had not ounce-one of rationale, logic, or argument. You were blabbing. Either you're having a bad day at work, or you're witling. Perhaps it is both.)
And no, thats not my question. My question is, where the hell is the rationality in any of this?
(You mean what you were saying or what I said?)
What would prevent this from happening in a market that is more free?
(Well, besides the made up bits about raping the planet and starving the third-world through inaction, nothing. In fact, what is being said is that billionaires are desirable. I can eat, because other people are rich and are willing to part with some of their riches in exchange for my labor. If I am dissatisfied with the amount I am paid, I am free to try and become rich myself. What do you think would happen in a free market? A billionaire might buy up all the gold and just sit on it and monopolize it just to be an ass. It's conceivable. But he has to forgo the luxury of having things that are made of gold, such as jewelry or electronic components, unless he is willing to part with some of his fortune in exchange for the services of people who can fashion those things for him. And he still has to pay for security unless he wants his gold stolen. Lots of gold is a good incentive for theft, especially if it is unguarded gold. You seem to think that with all their money, billionaires could control us. The government can barely control people with a far-reaching law enforcement agency. And consider that if the only real money is in security, and billionaires are hoarding all the resources for themselves, and the little guy is too bogged down to run a business, then who is producing the food? All that security has to eat, so they have to use their wages to buy food from the small businessman, and when security people are the only ones that can afford food, food becomes expensive, because the producers of food must earn more per amount produced since less people are buying. Now those food producers use their money to get nice things for themselves, and the businessman who figures out what the food producers want most earns a wallet, and he spends it on X from Z, and Z spends HIS earnings on Y from M, ad infinitum. As better opportunities open up, some of those people working security may decide to try their hand at a new trade. When it becomes less profitable to protect someone's gold than to make food, the price of security goes up. You can keep sitting on your gold and paying more for security, or you can earn a larger profit by DOING SOMETHING with the gold. And so what if you go with the former? Good for you, you have lots of gold. Now try it with water. Your security has to drink. What happens if you hoard water? Everyone dies except your security forces, and they begin to think about the fact that they are the only ones that your precious water needs to be protected from, and suddenly you have lots of water and are surrounded by lots of people with guns...Hell, I don't even feel like pointing out the full stupidity of saying that billionaires would kill us all or make us into slaves. The oppressors have always been kings and mobs and legal authorities. The businessman? Only if he's engaging in those things.)
What a fine post, Curtis. Every word of it.
Novus Zarathustra:This is a huge distortion in the market. I just dont think someone should have to be trapped in a recession they weren't a part of causing like a damn dog, and have to suffer from it, because they can't get out of its burdens no matter how hard they try.
Right, so why don't we abolish the central bank that caused this disaster?
Novus Zarathustra: In Socialism, someone who wants to be a teacher will be because each according to his need to his ability, in Capitalism, someone who wants to be a teacher, but can't will end up working at a register stand for their entire life and not earning enough to go to school, but enough to pay for their living. HUGE difference, workers control is all about taking control of their destiny.
In Socialism, someone who wants to be a teacher will be because each according to his need to his ability, in Capitalism, someone who wants to be a teacher, but can't will end up working at a register stand for their entire life and not earning enough to go to school, but enough to pay for their living.
HUGE difference, workers control is all about taking control of their destiny.
Novus Zarathustra:I could get what I need, as long as I continued to work and devote to the arts, which I do for enjoyment. If I had cancer, I wouldn't have to worry about the consent of the insurance companies as to weather I will live or not, I wont have to worry about the employer's consent of weather I will be working for him for eternity or not
I'm sorry I took you seriously. Plenty of resources are available to you on this site (you've been reading for a year? ). Esuric is right, this is a Revleft rant. Sorry I got involved in such nonsense.
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
chloe732:I'm sorry I took you seriously. Plenty of resources are available to you on this site (you've been reading for a year? ). Esuric is right, this is a Revleft rant. Sorry I got involved in such nonsense.
He's upset that this evil fascist system doesn't appreciate his artwork, and he's worried that a real capitalistic economy wouldn't either. So naturally we must kill all "capitalists" (52% of American population) and take over their capital, so that he can paint in peace!
Esuric:so that he can paint in peace!
I held views identical to his when I was young. It took reality, and many years, for the fog to clear. His comment about working in the socialist arts and then having his cancer needs "provided for" really knocked me off my chair. I was more than ready to provide whatever guidance he was open to in this thread. But I can see this is a waste of time. He is telling us the score, and that's it. Capitalist exploitation vs. Socialist utopia. I keep getting sucked into these black hole threads. Must work on that.
Esuric:Ahh, and here's the root of the problem. You are some artist who is unable to produce a good which is demanded by society. Surely your art is not to blame, since it's both revolutionary and perfect. Thus, the problem must be the system, this evil capitalistic system which doesn't appreciate your one-of-a-kind artistic abilities. We must all suffer so that you can paint.
Its not an issue wit appreciating my art, its an issue with being able to invest in capital to purchase the tools so I can produce art of better quality. Things such as being able to afford dancing lessons, music lessons, easels, a good digital camera, the education/tuition for an art school and performing arts education. The capital needed to invest to buy new musical instruments, artistic tools, ect all require employment to earn capital. If I can't get employed, I can't invest in capital, if I can't invest in capital then I'm sitting here doing nothing my destiny was supposed to be.
Because I was never able to live my life the way I wanted do, I end up at the age of 40, with kids and having to spend his entire life working at a place Wal-Mart or Target if I get lucky enough to even get the job there and be paid decently. ALl the money I'm earning will go toward paying for my bills and feeding my kids because I was never able to go to school, never able to try to make it as an artist since I couldn't afford my tools so I could be making a better salary. Instead I work my ass of, am miserable, and will never be an artist. gg.
Novus Zarathustra:Its not an issue wit appreciating my art, its an issue with being able to invest in capital to purchase the tools so I can produce art of better quality. Things such as being able to afford dancing lessons, music lessons, easels, a good digital camera, the education/tuition for an art school and performing arts education. The capital needed to invest to buy new musical instruments, artistic tools, ect all require employment to earn capital. If I can't get employed, I can't invest in capital, if I can't invest in capital then I'm sitting here doing nothing my destiny was supposed to be.
I see, so the problem here is scarcity. You hate market based economies because they don't lower the price of the goods you desire. Is this why we must kill all of the 'capitalists' and forcefully take their capital? Either way, communism will not, contrary to the proclamations of Marx, Engles, and others, eliminate scarcity. It will, in fact, take us back to barbarism. Marx was right about one thing, though, you have to eat before you can philosophize/paint.
What can I tell you? The thing to blame is in the mirror, and not out the window (to a certain extent; government intervention has definitely made your life harder, and will continuously make your life harder).
chloe732:I held views identical to his when I was young. It took reality, and many years, for the fog to clear. His comment about working in the socialist arts and then having his cancer needs "provided for" really knocked me off my chair. I was more than ready to provide whatever guidance he was open to in this thread. But I can see this is a waste of time. He is telling us the score, and that's it. Capitalist exploitation vs. Socialist utopia. I keep getting sucked into these black hole threads. Must work on that.
Well me and many other people feel the same damn way I do. You can't blame us for thinking that society should take care of everyone and us. I honestly can't see whats so illogical about not taking care of each other or socialism where all our needs and wants are provided for. I think I've said what i need to say here, feel free to message to me.
If I had a life-threatening illness, which I know someone who does, nothing you guys have said to me would matter to me. We didn't make ourselves get sick, so we shouldn't be stuck in a shitthole society that wont do anything about it but push us into a hole we didn't even want to get into deeper.
Novus Zarathustra:Well me and many other people feel the same damn way I do. You can't blame us for thinking that society should take care of everyone and us.
Well, we all want this. A shoemaker helps you every time you buy his product at a low price; a shopkeeper helps you every time you buy his products (your groceries) at low prices. Imagine how hard life would be if you had to spend all day farming just to eat. You have no time to paint. We blame you because you are ignorant and dominated by emotion.
Novus Zarathustra:I honestly can't see whats so illogical about not taking care of each other
That's an end; logic is employed as a tool which elucidates the most efficient means towards that end. The verdict is in, and socialism is not an adequate means towards this end. A great philosopher once said, "you can't always get what you want."
Esuric:That's an end; logic is employed to figure out the means towards that end. The verdict is in, and socialism is not a means towards this end. A great philosopher once said, "you can't always get what you want."
So thats it? Is that what you would say to someone if you knew they were dying of an illness? They wish they had a cure, so just tell them "You can't always get what you want". After all, living is a fucking want and a utility, not a fucking NEED. We don't need to live, why don't we all just kill ourselves?
Novus Zarathustra:You can't blame us for thinking that society should take care of everyone and us.
And how will "society" take care of you? Where will "society" get the goods to take care of you?
There is nothing illogical about taking care of each other. That is what family and charity is for, not government.
Novus Zarathustra:I honestly can't see whats so illogical about...socialism where all our needs and wants are provided for.
Why do you believe socialism provides for all your needs and wants?
Novus, you are young (only 18), you have many years in front of you. You are about ready to waste most of your youth defending a defunct political system (socialism) that masquerades as an economic system (I did exactly the same thing you are about to do). I must say, in all honesty, you are on the wrong track. Read what is freely available on this site. Then decide for yourself. From your posts on this thread, it is obvious you do not understand the economic system (capitalism) or the destruction of the economic system (socialism). But, you must find this out for yourself, as I had to.
chloe732:Novus, you are young (only 18), you have many years in front of you. You are about ready to waste most of your youth defending a defunct political system (socialism) that masquerades as an economic system (I did exactly the same thing you are about to do). I must say, in all honesty, you are on the wrong track. Read what is freely available on this site. Then decide for yourself. From your posts on this thread, it is obvious you do not understand the economic system (capitalism) or the destruction of the economic system (socialism). But, you must find this out for yourself, as I had to.
Actually, I'm 19. Whatever though, its not that big of a difference. I'll be open to hear you. You can message me or I can give you my e-mail address or whatever. Since obviously you have some more you want to say. Don't send an e-mail to my profile address, I don't use it.