Capitalism...

Forums: Philosophy, Capitalism, Greed
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Obvious: its not the theory of an economic structure in which people trade 'money' or property for goods and services which causes the death famine and destruction we see today.. its the greed inside the human that causes the overwhelming need-greed complex that corrupts and blinds the masses to any ability to look at life from others perspective - to care about oneself first and only.

To pose a possible alternative which would unhinge this current evolutionary plateau we are stuck on (speaking biologically of course.) And please do not get off on a tangent of evolution please speak in this post about capitalism or alternatives there of. my alternative I pose is what I call an Intellectual Anarchy. the term is rather self defining of a civilization which humanity's (over all humanity not just the individual) needs are looked at. Also, a 'ruling' class or hierarchy is revealed to be as ineffective and uneeded as it actually is. Of course this is only true if everyone stuck to the 'intellectual' side of the whole theory.

Please do not label this as a communism.. communes according to any human practice of the theory has always had a ruling party communism is still a government thats why i chose the theory line of 'anarchy'.

anyone who feels the need to reply with anything hasty and idiotic along the lines of but not limited to "you anti-american get out of america love it or leave it' or any other crap like that please dont post.. only be constructive dont be idiotic.. dont assume i think my intellectual anarchy would ever be attempted let alone ever work and just discuss please.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 5,001 • Replies: 42

No top replies

I refuse, on principle, to participate in a thread that does not permit me to post idiotic crap.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I refuse, on principle, to participate in a thread that does not permit me to post idiotic crap.

well if you were to post idiotic crap i'd be happy you didnt post however i feel that you were not going to... idiotic crap is not productive and hinders actual real thought.. so please post your real thought...

0 Replies

I'm not sure what option 4 has to do with capitalism. But anyway.

Option 1 seems logical enough to me - if the government is going to give money to anyone, it should give money to everyone.

Option 2 is a rather typical situation in a communistic system such as ours.

Communism is not a government, it is an economic system in which the government is involved.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the government is not involved. There's nothing confusing about that.

If you have issues with the American political system, post them in an appropriate thread. If you have issues with the American economic system, learn what you're talking about first.

Have a nice day.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the government is not involved. There's nothing confusing about that.

thats the problem - the line where the economic system ends and the government starts has become so hazy that the government that ISNT suppose to step into the economic structure has and does.

rufio wrote:

I'm not sure what option 4 has to do with capitalism. But anyway.

Speaking about voting for the president is necessary because doesnt it seem to you that the economic system of the 'most money wins' has pushed our demoncracy asunder? no longer does the intellegent or the 'strongest' win.. its the person who is willing to be the most immoral, the one willing to do anything to win. This causes situations such as the kennedy assasination.. the one who has the most money and the one who will do anything to win... NOT the one who is best suited for the job wins. one could say that the person most successful at being a capitalist should be the head of a capitalist government i suppose.

rufio wrote:

Option 1 seems logical enough to me - if the government is going to give money to anyone, it should give money to everyone.

sure to inner city schools, helping teachers in inner citys to stay there and help our children there. Into helping patch up the social security system. Into repairing the CONTINUAL denial of (non politically correct phrase coming up) native american's treaties. Into investigating into things like did the government and US intellegence have prior knowledge about the september 11 attacks if not then perhaps to investigate more rigorously into just why we went into iraq.. money should not be given to BOTH SIDES of a problem which wastes money so very much.. its like going to south america and helping the drug trade yet still wage a 'war' against drugs. does that not seem wasteful to you?

rufio wrote:

Communism is not a government, it is an economic system in which the government is involved.

heh.. sure

0 Replies

It's not that capitalism is becoming hazy, it's that America isn't capitalist.

"Most money wins" would work in a capitalist society. It would be the same as getting votes. Most campaign money is donated - a very small percentage comes from the politician's own pocket. So popular politicians get donated to more than unpopular ones. The problem now is that we have committees and interest groups and organizations, which are all communal groups funding politicians instead of the general population. Sort of like we have an electoral college voting for the president and not the people.

Of course it wastes money. Any expendature of government money on social programs other than health care and education is a waste of money because the funds should be charitable donations by private citizens, not government rations. But anything is better than the government behaving as a special interest group and furthering the ends of one valued group of people over those of another. The tobbacco industry is an industry just like any other and the anti-tobbacco canpaign is a communal organization just like any other and I don't see why they should be treated any differently, at least where the government is concerned.

Didn't you learn anything in school? You don't run a government based only on an economic system.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

It's not that capitalism is becoming hazy, it's that America isn't capitalist.
Didn't you learn anything in school? You don't run a government based only on an economic system.

interesting.. you and i are arguing the same side as far as in these two respects.. (for the most part anyways)

speaking about the capitalism in the political campeigns.. how it is run today is what you said the person with the most money (gets most donations) wins.. that means who ever the rich folk of either the democratic or republican (rarely any other party wins) want to win.. wins.. what is the percentage of the american population that makes enough money to give large sums to candidates?

with that answered, answer this: how does that represent the majority of the U.S. population like a democracy is suppose to..

0 Replies

If America were capitalist, than the people with the most money would be the ones who contributed the most to the country, not the ones who inherited it. In that case, than it would be the people who contribute the most anyway who donate. Plus, there are a few million people in the country. If one million people each donate $10 to the same candidate, that's $10 million. How many private citizens, no matter how rich, are going to have donations that size, to a single candidate? Popularity with the people is going to matter more in the long run than friendship with a few elites.

But now we have PACs, which throws a monkey wrench into everything. PACs should be outlawed.

0 Replies

Re: Capitalism...
So can you tell us, visavis, why you should have a monopoly on posting "crap" here? Although I must admit that you have done an outstanding job of it! :wink:

The choices in your poll, for instance. Where did you get the idea that the US government is, or should be, a purely capitalistic one?

1. Laws are passed to meet the demands of various interest groups, including tobacco farmers and anti-smoking groups. After 2 centuries of lawmaking, of course we end up with a hodgepodge of inconsistent regulations that reflect conflicting philosophies and needs.

2. Social security DOES help those it is supposed to, whether or not you agree with who or how much it aids them.

3. We have socialistic (not communistic) government programs because we can afford to temper capitalism with humanity.

4. Anyone who meets the minimum qualifications can run for political office, and in this state we usually have at least half a dozen choices for president. No one is forced to vote for the candidate with the most money "regardless of intellect." If most people are lazy or stupid enough to vote for whoever runs the most ads, they get the government they deserve. Regrettably, the rest of us are also stuck with the government they deserve. That's democracy for you. Sad

0 Replies

visavis wrote:

Obvious: its not the theory of an economic structure in which people trade 'money' or property for goods and services which causes the death famine and destruction we see today.. its the greed inside the human that causes the overwhelming need-greed complex that corrupts and blinds the masses to any ability to look at life from others perspective - to care about oneself first and only.

Greed is a survival instinct but so is tit-for-tat cooperation and sharing resources with kin. Government/culture takes this further by enforcing complex rules for sharing under whatever social contract is currently accepted by the group.

The ability to look at life from another's perspective is a survival trait that allows us to predict their responses to our actions so that we can choose the best way to screw them and get away with it. Twisted Evil

Quote:

To pose a possible alternative which would unhinge this current evolutionary plateau we are stuck on (speaking biologically of course.) And please do not get off on a tangent of evolution please speak in this post about capitalism or alternatives there of.

Wherever did you get the ridiculous notion that we are "stuck" on an evolutionary plateau? Talk about posting crap!

Quote:

my alternative I pose is what I call an Intellectual Anarchy. the term is rather self defining of a civilization which humanity's (over all humanity not just the individual) needs are looked at. Also, a 'ruling' class or hierarchy is revealed to be as ineffective and uneeded as it actually is. Of course this is only true if everyone stuck to the 'intellectual' side of the whole theory.

Who decides what humanity's needs are? If humanity does not agree with the intellectual elite about its needs, who enforces the rules necessary for society to function?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Quote:
To pose a possible alternative which would unhinge this current evolutionary plateau we are stuck on (speaking biologically of course.) And please do not get off on a tangent of evolution please speak in this post about capitalism or alternatives there of.

Wherever did you get the ridiculous notion that we are "stuck" on an evolutionary plateau? Talk about posting crap!

nature has set in ways that 'clean up' the gene pool.. speaking in reference to birds: If a robin lays eggs nurtures them then they hatch and one of the birds is blind or in other ways 'lame' it will push the baby out of the nest for it to die.
Humans - and do not confuse this with a hitleristic view this is objective. but humans save babies which were otherwise going to be miscarried. Researchers for years have observed that human females bodies have many checks in place to miscarry a fetus if there is a harmful diformity yet with modern medical advances we can save these children and they will survive and reproduce themselves further causing deformity. many feel this is how cancer and AIDS has come about.

I dont like saying this and i dont like this reference but its objective (im gona get hell for saying this) but look at a relatively quick set of 'artificial selection' which had obvious results. African Slaves brought to america were selected based on their body structure and ability to work and the diabolic slave owners 'bred' them to make even 'better' slaves. They would regularly take strong males and strong females and force them to copulate.

over 3 generations or so of slaves they would have very strong slaves and well the case study drops off because thats around where slavery was nixed in america (thank God) but looking at the opposite. Current society in many ways allows 'the weak to survive' instead of 'the strong survive' and that has brought us to a grinding halt of evolution, as a species. Individual cases of course still continue. go ahead call me raciest and ignorant and posting 'crap' but counter argue me dont cop out

Terry wrote:

Who decides what humanity's needs are? If humanity does not agree with the intellectual elite about its needs, who enforces the rules necessary for society to function?

humanities needs are self decisive in that whatever helps to perpetuate the species and helps the survival of the species and the earth is a basel 'need'

0 Replies

visavis, miscarriages occur for a lot of reasons, about half of which have nothing to do with genetic defects in the fetus. (My great aunt miscarried due to incompetent cervix, which is now easy to fix but was not possible at the time.) Given the number of babies who are born with genetic defects, your theory that our bodies have a way of weeding them out is obviously false. Our bodies cannot analyze the fetus' genes but will expel those which fail (due to fetal death, defect, or other problem) to produce the necessary signals (hormones) to keep the pregnancy going. If the genes for those hormones function, it doesn't matter to the body how "deformed" the baby is.

Your premise that cancer and AIDS are the result of allowing babies with physical deformities to survive is false and demonstrates your ignorance of the origins of those diseases. AIDS is a viral disease that mutated, jumped species and does not discriminate on the basis of body type. Cancer has been around for thousands of years. There are hundreds of kinds of cancer, many due to environmental exposure to smoking, natural toxins in food, various chemicals, and radiation. A few such as certain kinds of breast cancer are more prevalent in people who have a genetic predisposition, but there is absolutely no way to visually determine who has those genes because they do not produce any physical deformity.

Yes, we could breed a race of supermen through eugenics as was tried in Nazi Germany, but that would not improve the species' chances of survival and continued evolution. Our best bet for improvement turns out to be to continue to allow the "weak" survive since they may be carrying mutations other than physical strength which will be of greater benefit to the human race in the long run.

Survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean survival of the strongest.

When the needs of one culture conflict with the needs of another culture, who decides which group is most important to survival of the species? Who decides in the case of individual conflicts?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

visavis, miscarriages occur for a lot of reasons, about half of which have nothing to do with genetic defects in the fetus. (My great aunt miscarried due to incompetent cervix, which is now easy to fix but was not possible at the time.) Given the number of babies who are born with genetic defects, your theory that our bodies have a way of weeding them out is obviously false.

wow.. just.. oh my goodness wow.. have you a knack for MISSING THE COMPLETE F***ING POINT lol and not paying attention.. that post was more of research i have read about.. 'some feel this is how aids and cancer have come about' much more than own opinion jeez your dense. that was the first burst that came out as i read your horrific reply.

second.... after i stopped the laughter.. this shows YOUR ignorance (about the whole thing of the female being able to miscarry based on the fetus being 'defective') there is ALOT of research showing that the female body has MANY natural defenses set up to allow only the strongest to reproduce.

one being psychological.. women (as do men) seek out the 'best suited' and others psyiologically, in apes and lions its prominant from this one reasearchers studies (of course you may just want to denounce everything i say because i rarely remember names of authors etc.. i should start to take notes but i didnt so go ahead ignore all this ok? feel comfortable in your little world) females will over all succumb to a male's advance but their bodies will not allow fertalization.

this researcher had done research finding that the female body has many checks to make sure that the strong.. the 'best suited' only survive, however, in our current level of technological interference they are repealed. But if nothing else... the reference to Robins which will push 'runt' chicks out of the nest is still valid as in that is somthing that humans do not do.

and ill mention.. charlottes web. Great childrens book about interference in natural selection.

to reply to your last three questions.. well all ill do is reinterate.. I am talking about non interference.. as in NON INTERFERENCE were as right now we ARE INTERFERING..

i knew you'd make comments about 'super race' crap again i applaud your lack of wit *clap

0 Replies

wanted to add something i forgot to put in my previous post... the thing about aids and cancer some believe that there are unlooked at causes for the propensity of humans to be able to contract aids and for cancer to be able to form in humans. much more involved there don't look just on the surface man

0 Replies

Terry: It appears that the ban on posting idiotic crap does not apply to the person who instituted the ban. I think that qualifies as "irony."

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Terry: It appears that the ban on posting idiotic crap does not apply to the person who instituted the ban. I think that qualifies as "irony."

cute

0 Replies

you showed you can reply with nothing.. please show that you can actually respond.. tell me how what i am saying about this research is idiotic?

0 Replies

It is idiotic to equate anything in American to any kind of true capitalism.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

It is idiotic to equate anything in American to any kind of true capitalism.

equate? no.. i am simply holding it to the popular standard of what's 'suppose' to happen.. and you much like many other people on here just say these little 'catch phrases' that dont say much.. try adding alittle more to it.. like somthing with knowledge attached or somthing intuitive or innovative..

0 Replies

Quote:

the term is rather self defining of a civilization which humanity's (over all humanity not just the individual) needs are looked at.

I normally reject any principle that places the individual as a subordinate to some undefined common group's unspecified good. You can't determine what is right for humaity by dismissing the rights of the individual. What is right for the individual IS right for humanity.

Quote:

Also, a 'ruling' class or hierarchy is revealed to be as ineffective and uneeded as it actually is.

When was this revealed? Despite the existence of rights, there are those that will seek the cheap road in life by violating the rights of others. The government is in place to protect people from those who would violate their rights.

Quote:

doesnt it seem to you that the economic system of the 'most money wins' has pushed our demoncracy asunder?

All the paid for TV ads in the world will not help the candidate win if he doesn't have the votes. It's not he with the most money wins, it's he with the most votes win. Now a good follow up question here would be, aren't people more likely to vote for the candidate with the most number of flashy, opponent-insulting ads? Yes of course, but that is not a fault of capitalism, but of the gullibility of the voting body.

Quote:

how does that represent the majority of the U.S. population like a democracy is suppose to..

We're not a democracy, and for that I am eternally grateful. No where in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution will you find any mention of the word "democracy".

0 Replies

Capitalism...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know