Canadians, Euros....

[Vatican Assassin]

500k into 30 or so million canadians that's like a few dollars a year. Ya I say let the bitch die, fuck jesus!

Do you think its a surprise Israel is pro us? You though maybe they would be upset at our attacking Muslim countries? Thank god Denmark is on our side still, go bush go!

[Jerome Scuggs]

I'm someone who takes a lot of pride in the welfare system that my country provides so I'll give you an insight to where I stand.

Firstly, if your lucky enough not to have had to use your health service or had family members use it then fair enough to you. My guess is that you've probably used it, as has your family - perhaps offering life saving treatment. So you've probably recieved free treatment and you're probably quite well off.

Secondly, The premise of a state run health service is that it offers that service to the best of it's capabilities to everyone. By denying one person (a very extreme example if I may say so) you are contradicting the very premise on which this system is based. To take a capitalist approach in such an inherently ethical debate is dangerous.

Lastly, the alternative free market approach is unfair and favours the rich. You live in a country which is lucky enough to be affluent and economically prosperous. The capitalist market structure necessitates that some people will be poor and a few rich. This intrinsic disparity in a capitalistm means that it requires Government correction of some sort i.e. you tax the rich more than you tax the poor. The rich will remain rich and the poor will remain poor but atleast a bit of that disposable wealth will be pushed into the economy and used to tackle social costs. If your most powerful argument is that there will be 'free riders' (people who reap the benefits of the service and pay no taxes) to this system then it's pretty insignificant.

The problem is, you're taking an ethical approach in such an inherently capitalist world. That, my friend, is dangerous.

Resources are scarce. Time is finite. These two axioms have defined our world, and all action is merely a choice, an idea of how to best arrange these limited resources to better one's own environment.

The "capitalist" made your world possible. The man who put himself above others, the man who simply wanted to make shit better for himself - that's the man who built everything you see.

You'll be hard-pressed to find one life-changing, society-changing, world-changing concept, idea, invention or product that was created in the best interests of "everyone", or to provide "fairness".

Ethics? Capitalism is the ultimate ethic. The capitalist truly understands human action. The capitalist does not see people and demand they help him. The capitalist does not demand profits, the capitalist does not legislate success. The capitalist does not want people to be forced to do anything - the capitalist merely offers a product, and if it's good, it will be sought.

Capitalism is the rejection of the "state of nature", the world that the first sentient human capable of non-instinctive, non-reflective, purposeful thought found himself in. In the 'state of nature', it was kill or be killed. To survive meant someone else would have to die.

Man was the first animal to not see violence as an acceptable means to an end. He was the first ethical animal, and his first ethical choice was the rejection of that violence. Man replaced the State of Nature with his own, the State of Man. Coercion and violence were replaced by cooperation and exchange - you scratch my back, I scratch yours.

The first "states", the first "governments", were expressive of this ideal - government was a contract, a mutual agreement. Men offered security, but it was at a price - their complete sovereignty. Thus, the concept of government itself was nothing more than a capitalist decision - the product was security, and the payment was freedom. In economic terms, there was a large demand for protection, and the only available market product was government.

And like every other market, new products and ideas will change the nature of what is supplied and demanded. The problem, though, was that government didn't demand money, it demanded you as payment for its services. And so, instead of consumers moving towards a new market product or system, government became pervasive and embedded.

So, in this system, there is still an "economy", it's still "Capitalism". Except instead of dollars as money, it is people as money. Money provides a universal, objective standard of value - but what is objective and universal about humans? The very implication of subjectivity destroys the possibility of using humans as a medium of exchange. Instead, people barter and trade using their need as claim on something. Is this what you view as "good" and "right"? When I see Bill Gates, I see a man with alot of money - and he made that money without forcing anyone to do anything. Wealth is considered something to respect because the acquisition of wealth implies brilliance, cunning, innovation. To make money is to be human, to fully exercise the faculties that seperate us from our world. What is the socialists' hero? A leper? To a socialist, he is very wealthy - he has more needs than many a man. How brilliant, cunning and innovative do you have to be to get leprosy? What ideals does the Man of Need espouse, and how do you accept a system with such a negative, self-defeating outlook on the value of humanity? A world where the leper is valued more than Bill Gates is a world devoid of human love and compassion.

Socialized medicine aims to provide "fairness", but what is "fair"? What if the legislator believes that "fair" healthcare is a few sessions of bloodletting with leeches - or he believes it should be a full-paid three month vacation to the Hamptons with access to the world's best doctors? What if they believe that healthcare should be exactly what it is now? In any and every case, there will be someone who thinks that the status quo is 'unfair'. According to your logic, this is the one person that presents the contradiction of state-run health care.

Humans evolved in nature, our sentience was an evolutionary accident. Individuality is a purely human notion, at least as far as we can tell. Nature created the perfect end-all biological creature, a creature who was not at the whims of his conditions - a creature who could think independently and make decisions for himself. It's quite obvious that this independence has its problems, and its flaws. We're a completely and insanely unique instance of existence, and we're still trying to grapple with it. But, if anything, is that not an ethical justification against government? It's obvious that Man is capable of infinitely more than anything else we find in nature. Even more awesome is the fact that ANY man is capable of it. Any man has the potential to invent a wheel, it's just a matter of the time, place, and conditions.

tl;dr version:
1) socialism is incompatible with nature, as well as human nature. it can't be ethical if it rejects the basics of ethics.
2) socialism is capitalism, the only difference is the medium of exchange is not money, but "need".
3) money is the moral medium of exchange. it embodies the ideals of compassion towards your fellow man.
4) subjectivity destroys the concept of "need" as a viable currency of exchange.
5) "fairness" is imaginary... life isn't fair. deal.
6) individuality and subjectivity negate the need for government.

[RednaZ]

Hello Alex P. Keaton (in this rare instance not a compliment)

[Kolar]

While wealth can denote those attributes you can not take such a static view of it. The ability for people to move between the different social and economic standings in our society is extremely limiting. Google, Facebook, Amazon all became what they are today because their founders had great ideas and knew how to implement them. Can you really say that someone of equal great ideas and situation can bring a product to market given the way the Internet is today, the way Google could a couple years ago? It's a terrible measure to judge people on.

This shouldn't be a ideological issue. It should be simply an issue of best service, best quality of service provided to the most amount of people and lastly best return on investment. This is an ethical issue, a person dying because a product is over-priced or denied to them is an ethical issue.

[Fluffz]

Resources are scarce. Time is finite.

resources are infinite thanks to recycling and time is not limited to this generation

The "capitalist" made your world possible. The man who put himself above others

putting himself above others is anarchy

You'll be hard-pressed to find one life-changing, society-changing, world-changing concept, idea, invention or product that was created in the best interests of "everyone", or to provide "fairness"

Goverments

Ethics? Capitalism is the ultimate ethic.

Capitalism is free of ethic and intelligence. Without regulations it results in the destruction of environment, globalization, crime and genocide. Without leading element of intelligence and morale capitalism is just a form of anarchy.

Capitalism is the rejection of the "state of nature" [...]. In the 'state of nature', it was kill or be killed.

since when is there no crime and since when are there no wars

Man was the first animal to not see violence as an acceptable means to an end

violence is not rejected because of captitalism. for example hostile acquisitions

the concept of government itself was nothing more than a capitalist decision

capitalism would have destroyed itself, thats why we have families and later goverments. people who grouped together under a bigger goal then their own wealth were superior to others. individual wealth failed long ago.

A world where the leper is valued more than Bill Gates is a world devoid of human love and compassion

bill gates did not have the superior product. life can not be expressed trough value. any other attempt results in a world devoid of human love and compassion.

contradiction of state-run health care

there is no contradiction in social healthcare. you get what the doctor orders thus it is objective and fair.

[Galleleo]

resources are infinite thanks to recycling and time is not limited to this generation

Cool, we recycle oil nowadays? And Gas? Why is everyone whining about sun energy then! We can recycle it all!!

[Fluffz]

no because we are capitalists. we destory our environment. this however does not proove resources are finite but that capitalism lacks morale and intelligence contraty to the Jeromes point. in an ideal world we would either use a sustainable resource "Energy" or find a way to recycle it. this would however not be as cost effective in the short run, while maybe it would be more cost efficient in the long run because of climate change.

[Galleleo]

Then again, the first Hydrogen Fuelcel car is coming out from Honda, which is a capitalist company.

[Zerzera]

Such a coincidence that I had a discussion like this last night with my friends, and I hadn't read this discussion.

What Jerome said seemed to make sense for me at first, but I don't agree.

You started off right.

Capitalism is an innovator, but once a path is picked, a strategy is made, a technology is embraced and investments are put in, capitalism becomes a gridlock for innovation. Suddenly everything new would be too costly.

We could have made the switch from fossil fuel as energy supply a lot earlier and a lot faster, but that would mean we would lose the investments we put in the oil industry. These companies we made are an entity bigger than any human, and they fight for their own existence.
You say man is capable of infinitely more than anything else we find in nature, but we are as much slaves of these structures we made as the ants are to their nests. There is nothing big about that.
I think your view on Man is induced by the the overuse of certain types of inhalants. :P

[Fluffz]

Then again, the first Hydrogen Fuelcel car is coming out from Honda, which is a capitalist company.

realy, what is your point? is it that capitalism acts on a high ethic level? because mine is it doesnt. there is the need for such a car which equals money thats why it is built (if it is a pure capitalist decission). this need is not created by capitalism itself but by people who think bigger terms than their own wealth. Those are the men who built this world, leaders, scientists, artists and lovers. Those create the morale.

[Vatican Assassin]

the movie "who killed the electric car" explains capitalism pretty well. we had better technology, 3000 prototype electric cars were leased in california, and they worked great and all the owners loved them. Then (was it honda) recalled them all against the owners will and trashed them. capitalism is only ethical when its profitable to be ethical. sometimes its profitable to make a bunch of old ladies freeze to death, hi enron.

[Jerome Scuggs]

We could have made the switch from fossil fuel as energy supply a lot earlier and a lot faster, but that would mean we would lose the investments we put in the oil industry. These companies we made are an entity bigger than any human, and they fight for their own existence.

If someone has a choice where it's easier to coerce to get their way instead of mutual cooperation, it's human nature that Man will take the former path of action.

That being said, Companies see two options.

The first option is innovation and progress - the natural market process. In a free market, they would find it economically beneficial to leap forward - as soon as it was economically (and therefore, pragmatically) feasible.

The American government has been legislating this "shift" for years, but the government has ZERO say in the physical implications. It wasn't until it was actually, physically possible to create a hybrid car, that the hybrid car took off. No amount of government regulation could change that. The industry's shift to the production and selling of energy-efficient vehicles was a reaction to consumer demand and application of new technologies.

The second option that companies have is violence and coercion. People like Fluffz maintain that there is some inherent moral code, and we should have an arbitrary group of people have power over others' lives in order to enforce what they consider "right" or "wrong". In theory, this sounds ideal. But in reality, what someone considers "right" or "wrong" varies greatly. And in reality, this "government" that was created for all the best purposes, becomes its own greatest demise.

Because governments do not have agreements with the people who deal with it - they claim ownership and power over these people.

So if you're a company, and you want to make profit, but you can't FORCE people to buy your shit - why not simply bribe the people who CAN force people? The best example of this is Enron, whose executives used government bribes and red-tape to cover their tracks and make a fat profit. I wholeheartedly agree that what those men did was wrong and I pray for their sweet deaths (fuck Ken Lay), and what they did would have been impossible in a free market.

Humans are the only beings on this earth who possess the faculty of "morality". Capitalism itself is not "moral" or "immoral". The actors within the capitalist system - and any system - are what can be considered "moral or "immoral". People will be good, and people will be bad, and honestly, there's no fucking way to tell them apart.

Seriously... guys. George Walker Bush. Look what happens when an immoral man gets the arbitrary power to declare what he considers 'right' and 'wrong', and he can force it on the masses under the guise of "the best interests of the people".

For the record, the CEO of Honda is against homosexuality. How many homosexuals have suffered as a result of this man's personal beliefs? None, because homosexuals buy his cars. Homosexuals are a source of profit. It's in his interests to at least tolerate them.

Bush hates homosexuals. I think you get my point.

You guys are not arguing against capitalism, you are arguing against corporatism, which is what America is - when corrupt businessmen use corrupt politicians to profit at the expense of everyone else. It doesn't mean businessmen are evil... it's human fucking nature. If they didn't have a means to be evil - ie government - then they'd have to make profits the good old fashioned way, instead of shady deals and exploitative regulation.

[Fluffz]

if there would be no regulation there would be no police. a physically stronger but poorer person would go the easy way and take what he is able to take. so clever as he is the richer person would buy the poorer, stronger person as protection. lets assume this person made his money by cooking and there is a new cook in town that cooks better and healtlier. the consequent way would be to send the bully and kill the new guy while he can not jet afford protection. long story short the capitalist approach failed because you can use need to create more need when it is supposed to be created by the market.

[Jerome Scuggs]

if there would be no regulation there would be no police. a physically stronger but poorer person would go the easy way and take what he is able to take. so clever as he is the richer person would buy the poorer, stronger person as protection. lets assume this person made his money by cooking and there is a new cook in town that cooks better and healtlier. the consequent way would be to send the bully and kill the new guy while he can not jet afford protection. long story short the capitalist approach failed because you can use need to create more need when it is supposed to be created by the market.

So one guy dies. Hitler killed 6 million. Capitalism still has the better record.

This is, of course, assuming that your scenario is "capitalism", which is isn't. This is also assuming that what you say will happen, happens. What if the cooks find they have enough customers to be able to both own restaurants? In that case, they compete, prices lower, and even more people can enjoy better food. But what if one goes out of business? He can work for the previous cook, or get another job.

The future is impossible to predict. But in a free society, the inclination to commit a violent intervention against someone's property (including the person himself) will be checked back by the dynamic and responsive nature. Because, like I said, humans are fairly unpredictable when you get right down to it - though we can say that humans in general will do this or that, when it comes down to saying what your single, individual Cook will ACTUALLY do is something noone will ever know but the Cook himself. But, by that same logic, the Cook will be less inclined to commit violence - because he knows that as easy as he did it, it could come right back 'round and he could be killed.

Read this article. It's about an area that is considered the safest and best place to live in Africa. Oh, and did I mention they didn't have a government?

[Jerome Scuggs]

The rich will remain rich and the poor will remain poor but atleast a bit of that disposable wealth will be pushed into the economy and used to tackle social costs.

BTW, what do you think the rich do with their money? Not spend it?

When wealth is centralized into the hands of a rich person, they then invest it back into the economy - a natural, government-free way to redistribute.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122601485.html

McDonald's exemplifies the role of small businesses in Americans' upward mobility. The company is largely a confederation of small businesses: 85 percent of its U.S. restaurants -- average annual sales, $2.2 million -- are owned by franchisees. McDonald's has made more millionaires, and especially black and Hispanic millionaires, than any other economic entity ever, anywhere.

Government minimum wage, by the way, has statistically increased unemployment - especially the unemployment rates for Hispanics and Blacks.