>Ahhh, something interesting. Lets break
>this down shall we...
>
>>- I think that every human
>>being deserves a living wage
>>so that he or she
>>can feed him or herself,
>>capitalism does not allow for
>>that.
>
>"Deserves" does not equal "right".
>Noone "deserves" to go hungry,
>yet that doesn't mean that
>the ones that do have
>a right to simply take
>someone else's food, or their
>means to get it.
>
>>- Competition being the disposition of
>>man is a "theory" not
>>a truth. Man is
>>selfish according to Hobbes and
>>Smith. But many philosophies
>>of Asia, Africa, and Latin
>>America contend that man is
>>actually dependent on the community,
>>not simply for selfish gains,
>>but for his foresight that
>>an overall healthy community is
>>better for everyone.
>
>That doesn't mean that the "community"
>can lay claim to what
>the man has earned, or
>has been given. The
>man still should be given
>the CHOICE on whether or
>not to invest in his
>community/environment. Anything less than
>that is simply taking by
>force.
>
>Not to mention, who is the
>"community", and how does it
>speak and give opinion?
>The problem with collectivist politics
>is that it doesn't allow
>individuals to live free; instead,
>everything is for the "best
>of the community". The
>truth is, only community leaders,
>which consists of only a
>few people, claim to represent
>everyone's interest, as if they
>can speak for each and
>every individual, and/or the community
>thinks 100% monolisticly.
>
>>- Socialism v. Communism. Socialism
>>because I advocate equality of
>>opportunity over equality of outcome.
>> Capitalism, by its nature
>>can never allow for equal
>>opportunity, it never has.
>
>How does socialism equate opportunity?
>I don't see how a
>collectivist system allows anyone to
>gain an opportunity to move
>out of the same class,
>whether economically or socially....that is,
>unless you are part of
>the leadership within the system.
>
>
>>- The fact that Bill Gates
>>has enough money to buy
>>and sell most of the
>>Western hemisphere makes me want
>>to vomit. Especially when
>>I know that his gross
>>wealth necessitates someone else's gross
>>poverty. Capitalism demands that
>>it does.
>
>And who are you to tell
>Bill Gates, or anyone for
>that matter, how much he
>can make and how much
>he can't? Also, Capitalism
>doesn't demand that Bill Gates
>keeps any of his money.
> It is his own
>choice whether to keep it,
>volunteer it, or give it
>up completely.
>
>However, in socialism you are not
>allowed to even reach the
>potential of a Bill Gates
>because the "community" has this
>authoritarian intellect that tells them
>you dont need it as
>much as they do.
>Therefore, an argument can be
>made that under a socialist
>state the high-tech inventions and
>discoveries that were made today
>would have at least been
>postponed, due to lack of
>motivation and competition.
>
>>- Every child deserves a decent
>>education.
>
>Once again, "deserve" does not mean
>"right". And who is
>to judge what is a
>decent education? Some people
>think anything less than Ivy
>League is a waste of
>time, yet some people feel
>comfortable with an associate degree
>from community college. Oops,
>there I go with the
>contention that people have individualistic
>thought.
>
>A capitalist model
>>(i.e. vouchers) denies that and
>>states that the best schools
>>should only be for the
>>best students, and the children
>>who are left behind are
>>SOL.
>
>Meanwhile, socialist schools should be "community"-controlled,
>in which the "community" decides
>on the ciriculumn along with
>what is best for the
>child to help out the
>"community".
>
>I also believe
>>that college and vocational training
>>shoulc be a part of
>>the free public school system,
>>because the same social Darwinian
>>model that I denounce is
>>applied to college. There
>>is very little individual can
>>do with only a diploma.
>
>But if everyone can get a
>degree, how is it going
>to change things? All
>you are doing is changing
>the level of the glass
>ceiling. Not to mention
>that in a socialist state
>everyone is practically living in
>the same type of community
>making practically the same wages,
>hence what's the use?
>*shrugs*
>
>> Basically, our current system
>>assures that there will always
>>be a service class, which
>>is disproportionately occupied by people
>>of color. Capitalism demands
>>this injustice.
>
>Right. Because socialism will demand
>everyone to be part of
>a service class for the
>"community".
>
>>- Teachers should be valued as
>>much a doctors, and more
>>valued than multimillion-dollar actors, actresses,
>>and professional sports figures.
>
>should, could, and would. If
>teachers were valued as much
>as doctors, then they would
>get paid more. It's
>kinda funny how you mention
>show business and athletic sports
>with the education field, since
>both get paid off of
>revenue based on support by
>fans that pay to see
>them. It's quite possible
>that they could have used
>that same money to support
>public education just as easily
>as they went to watch
>that movie. However, that
>idea would be implying that
>individuals should have a choice
>on how they should spend
>their money, which goes against
>socialism ideals, so never mind.
>
>
>>Everyone should be valued for
>>contributing to the society period,
>>whether a janitor or a
>>CEO. If we percieved contributions
>>to the society in a
>>less stratified, less hierarchical manner,
>>this would make perfect sense.
>
>But what if I didn't want
>to contribute to society?
>What if I went up
>to Montana or Wyoming, and
>decided to live on my
>own in the wilderness (People
>indeed do this, yanno)?
>Should I still be compensated
>by the "community"?
>
>Or, what if I just dont
>give a damn, and say
>"I'mma sit around the house,
>and not work (people do
>this too, yanno.)." Should
>I still be compensated?
>
>>- Currently, CEOs make 40 times
>>as much as their average
>>employee. In the 80s,
>>it was only 5 times
>>as much. The disparity
>>between rich and poor is
>>increasing, and as such, the
>>urgency for some type of
>>equalization is apparent, because history
>>have shown us what happens
>>when that disparity becomes too
>>great.
>
>I've made this argument before.
>The rich get richer because
>they continue to do the
>things that made them rich.
> The poor get poorer
>because they continue to do
>the things that made them
>poor. However, that doesn't
>mean that there is no
>opportunity whatsoever for a poor
>person to change his ways,
>and become rich. The
>contrary is vice-versa also.
>
>>- Capitalism has failed Africans around
>>the world. In fact,
>>the primitive accumulation acquired by
>>the Western world (as capitalism
>>requires according to Adam Smith)
>>was the result of using
>>African as capital themselves.
>
>An economic system doesn't have anything
>to do with morality.
>Can capitalistic measures have something
>to do with the institution
>of slavery? Sure.
>But socialistic measures just as
>well could be included with
>genocide, triage, and the harrassment
>of political opponents.
>
>The truth is, that if you
>have immoral tendencies within you
>then it doesn't matter what
>economic system you are in,
>it will always be tainted.
>
>
>>Capitalism continues to marginalize individuals,
>>and what's worse is that
>>it wears the guise of
>>providing opportunities for all.
>>Capitalism is a lie to
>>anyone who isn't white, male,
>>and/or rich, because any one
>>of these qualities gives one
>>an unearned advantage..."unearned" is something
>>that capitalism forgets to take
>>into consideration.
>
>Yet, socialism wouldn't give anyone an
>opportunity to rise to their
>fullest potentials economically or socially
>whatsoever. In fact, the
>virtual caste system that capitalism
>has would turn into a
>real caste system under socialism,
>in which your status at
>birth determines the status you
>will keep until death.
>
>>I know there are probably many
>>flaws in my analysis, I'm
>>still trying to work all
>>this out. I just
>>don't know how a system
>>that purposely causes division for
>>the sake of "progress" can
>>ever be beneficial to those
>>who are not equipped, who
>>can never be fully equipped
>>to compete with unearned privilege.
>
>And you think socialism will "equip"
>people? With the limited
>number of resources on this
>earth in comparison to the
>growing population as the days
>go by, there will never
>be an equal amount of
>anything for everyone. At
>least with pure capitalism, you
>get the opportunity to rise
>ahead of the pack, given
>that you are willing to
>do what it takes to
>get there. Status at
>birth is a major factor,
>I agree, but it isn't
>the only factor. You
>can ask people throughout history
>that have lost fortune and
>power, along with the ones
>that had fortune and power
>only to live and die
>miserable.
>
>"A democracy cannot exist as a
>permanent form of government. It
>can only exist until the
>voters discover that they can
>vote themselves money from the
>public treasury. From that moment
>on the majority always votes
>for the candidates promising the
>most money from the public
>treasury, with the result that
>a democracy always collapses over
>loose fiscal policy followed by
>a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler
>
>
>"In general the art of government
>consists in taking as much
>money as possible from one
>class of citizens to give
>to the other." -Voltaire
>
>"The assumption that spending more of
>the taxpayer's money will make
>things better has survived all
>kinds of evidence that it
>has made things worse. The
>black family- which survived slavery,
>discrimination, poverty, wars and
>depressions- began to come apart
>as the federal government moved
>in with its well-financed programs
>to "help." - Thomas Sowell
>
>
>"Life is insensitive, and the truth
>can be highly offensive.
>To hide from either is
>to hide from the reality
>of life. Take pride
>in the fact that I
>am an equal opportunity offender.
> You today, someone else
>tomorrow. You have no
>constitutional right not to be
>offended." - Neal Boortz
>
>
>Some of you still think America's
>a
>democracy. Lemme break it down
>for
>ya...
>
>* Democracy:  Three wolves and a
>sheep
>vote on the dinner menu.
>* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
>wolves and 2 sheep vote on
>which sheep's
>for dinner. 
>* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
>
>mutton is forbidden by law, and
>the
>sheep are armed.
>
>The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
>
>REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.
>
>Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian
>Conservative.