Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Capitalism right for the wrong reasons?

phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:16:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:14:24 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You're spot on, dude.

Well, capitalism is also eventually going to blow us all the f*ck up.
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:17:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.

Meh. I'll give you efficiency, but a system needs more than just capitalism to be moral. What about social minimums? A common agreement that "People should not be left to starve in the streets", for instance.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:22:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:17:32 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.

Meh. I'll give you efficiency, but a system needs more than just capitalism to be moral. What about social minimums? A common agreement that "People should not be left to starve in the streets", for instance.

Are you suggesting the government should give to the poor>? I can't imagine why people under a capitalist system would not want to help the poor.
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:23:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:16:00 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:14:24 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You're spot on, dude.

Well, capitalism is also eventually going to blow us all the f*ck up.

I think you'll find that whatever is going to "blow us all the f*ck up" isn't an economic system; it's geopolitical strife and race relations.

Besides, War is a socialist effort.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:25:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:22:00 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:17:32 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.

Meh. I'll give you efficiency, but a system needs more than just capitalism to be moral. What about social minimums? A common agreement that "People should not be left to starve in the streets", for instance.

Are you suggesting the government should give to the poor>? I can't imagine why people under a capitalist system would not want to help the poor.

"They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". "I earned my keep, why can't they?"

Besides, if people really wanted to, then they could agree to it under the social contract. That's why you need democracy in order to make capitalism moral.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:30:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:25:19 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:22:00 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:17:32 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.

Meh. I'll give you efficiency, but a system needs more than just capitalism to be moral. What about social minimums? A common agreement that "People should not be left to starve in the streets", for instance.

Are you suggesting the government should give to the poor>? I can't imagine why people under a capitalist system would not want to help the poor.

"They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". "I earned my keep, why can't they?"

Besides, if people really wanted to, then they could agree to it under the social contract. That's why you need democracy in order to make capitalism moral.

I don't consider democracy to be the most morally right system. People are not obligated to help people on the streets if they don't want to .
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:31:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:30:28 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:25:19 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:22:00 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:17:32 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.

Meh. I'll give you efficiency, but a system needs more than just capitalism to be moral. What about social minimums? A common agreement that "People should not be left to starve in the streets", for instance.

Are you suggesting the government should give to the poor>? I can't imagine why people under a capitalist system would not want to help the poor.

"They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". "I earned my keep, why can't they?"

Besides, if people really wanted to, then they could agree to it under the social contract. That's why you need democracy in order to make capitalism moral.

I don't consider democracy to be the most morally right system. People are not obligated to help people on the streets if they don't want to .

Then why have a formal society at all? If it's just going to be a "winner takes all, weak at the mercy of the strong", I don't see why you don't just advocate complete anarchy.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:33:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:23:21 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:16:00 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:14:24 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You're spot on, dude.

Well, capitalism is also eventually going to blow us all the f*ck up.

I think you'll find that whatever is going to "blow us all the f*ck up" isn't an economic system; it's geopolitical strife and race relations.

Besides, War is a socialist effort.

Economic systems go deeper than just the workings of the one state, dude. Really, capitalism is just plain old competition, and then war is competition.

We have a hundred years before all nonrenewable resources are out of the ground sans wood, then it gets hairy. Capitalism works fine when its just individual's left to plod their own patch, can't take it off them anyway because we'd do it wrong and people would just end up killing each other. But sooner or later that individual's gonna be left on his patch with nothing or nobody left...and then what? Are we going to have a system of just sharing around what we have once it's all out of the ground? No. The life and breath of capitalism is in the extraction of resources from developing countries......and that's where the buck stops. Really, we're on a path to complete and utter annihilation. And there is no answer, not really.

I mean, capitalism is essentially a super complicated system of IOUs between bastards trying to screw each other over at every chance... How anyone can subscribe to that as some sensible modus operandi is beyond me tbh. "Thy KingDUMB Come," I guess.
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:33:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:30:28 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:25:19 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:22:00 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:17:32 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.

Meh. I'll give you efficiency, but a system needs more than just capitalism to be moral. What about social minimums? A common agreement that "People should not be left to starve in the streets", for instance.

Are you suggesting the government should give to the poor>? I can't imagine why people under a capitalist system would not want to help the poor.

"They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". "I earned my keep, why can't they?"

Besides, if people really wanted to, then they could agree to it under the social contract. That's why you need democracy in order to make capitalism moral.

I don't consider democracy to be the most morally right system. People are not obligated to help people on the streets if they don't want to .

I'll agree with you on the democracy front. That's why there needs to be a constitution, to make sure that no matter what, certain atrocities don't occur.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:35:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:31:54 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:30:28 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:25:19 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:22:00 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:17:32 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.

Meh. I'll give you efficiency, but a system needs more than just capitalism to be moral. What about social minimums? A common agreement that "People should not be left to starve in the streets", for instance.

Are you suggesting the government should give to the poor>? I can't imagine why people under a capitalist system would not want to help the poor.

"They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". "I earned my keep, why can't they?"

Besides, if people really wanted to, then they could agree to it under the social contract. That's why you need democracy in order to make capitalism moral.

I don't consider democracy to be the most morally right system. People are not obligated to help people on the streets if they don't want to .

Then why have a formal society at all? If it's just going to be a "winner takes all, weak at the mercy of the strong", I don't see why you don't just advocate complete anarchy.

Anarcho-Capitalism while making a good case for itself (I listen to Stefan Molyneux) has some flaws , there are some things the market simply cannot offer such as intellectual property. I personally support a republic.
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:37:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:33:37 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:30:28 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:25:19 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:22:00 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:17:32 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.

Meh. I'll give you efficiency, but a system needs more than just capitalism to be moral. What about social minimums? A common agreement that "People should not be left to starve in the streets", for instance.

Are you suggesting the government should give to the poor>? I can't imagine why people under a capitalist system would not want to help the poor.

"They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". "I earned my keep, why can't they?"

Besides, if people really wanted to, then they could agree to it under the social contract. That's why you need democracy in order to make capitalism moral.

I don't consider democracy to be the most morally right system. People are not obligated to help people on the streets if they don't want to .

I'll agree with you on the democracy front. That's why there needs to be a constitution, to make sure that no matter what, certain atrocities don't occur.

The people are not competent enough to rule.
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:38:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:33:25 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:23:21 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:16:00 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:14:24 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You're spot on, dude.

Well, capitalism is also eventually going to blow us all the f*ck up.

I think you'll find that whatever is going to "blow us all the f*ck up" isn't an economic system; it's geopolitical strife and race relations.

Besides, War is a socialist effort.

Economic systems go deeper than just the workings of the one state, dude. Really, capitalism is just plain old competition, and then war is competition.

We have a hundred years before all nonrenewable resources are out of the ground sans wood, then it gets hairy. Capitalism works fine when its just individual's left to plod their own patch, can't take it off them anyway because we'd do it wrong and people would just end up killing each other. But sooner or later that individual's gonna be left on his patch with nothing or nobody left...and then what? Are we going to have a system of just sharing around what we have once it's all out of the ground? No. The life and breath of capitalism is in the extraction of resources from developing countries......and that's where the buck stops. Really, we're on a path to complete and utter annihilation. And there is no answer, not really.

I mean, capitalism is essentially a super complicated system of IOUs between bastards trying to screw each other over at every chance... How anyone can subscribe to that as some sensible modus operandi is beyond me tbh. "Thy KingDUMB Come," I guess.

You're forgetting that in the long run, it's more profitable to replant trees than not. Companies like Shell and Exxon are already hosting competitions to find innovative ways to solve energy problems.

It's sort of like Mutually Assured Destruction. It's in nobodies profit motive to see all the resources go away.

As for the competition between resources, that's something that would happen even if all State's were communist, socialist, or anything in between.

War requires a socialist effort to carry out. It requires money, coordination, and training by one cohesive entity.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:42:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:35:06 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:31:54 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:30:28 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:25:19 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:22:00 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:17:32 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.

Meh. I'll give you efficiency, but a system needs more than just capitalism to be moral. What about social minimums? A common agreement that "People should not be left to starve in the streets", for instance.

Are you suggesting the government should give to the poor>? I can't imagine why people under a capitalist system would not want to help the poor.

"They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". "I earned my keep, why can't they?"

Besides, if people really wanted to, then they could agree to it under the social contract. That's why you need democracy in order to make capitalism moral.

I don't consider democracy to be the most morally right system. People are not obligated to help people on the streets if they don't want to .

Then why have a formal society at all? If it's just going to be a "winner takes all, weak at the mercy of the strong", I don't see why you don't just advocate complete anarchy.

Anarcho-Capitalism while making a good case for itself (I listen to Stefan Molyneux) has some flaws , there are some things the market simply cannot offer such as intellectual property. I personally support a republic.

Then it would appear that we have some common ground :)

On the helping people in the streets, capitalism is odd. You see, when a system becomes more capitalistic, unemployment rises. Just look at England after Thatcher came into power, or America leading into the Great Depression. Therefore, if we are to justify this unemployment, we have to provide benefits to them to compensate the literal stealing of their livelihoods.

You can't just look at the economy as an end in of itself. It is a means to ensure some sort of standard of living for all of a societies citizens. If people are as charitable as you say, I can't see why they would have a problem with participating in a charitable society.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:42:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:38:19 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:33:25 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:23:21 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:16:00 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:14:24 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You're spot on, dude.

Well, capitalism is also eventually going to blow us all the f*ck up.

I think you'll find that whatever is going to "blow us all the f*ck up" isn't an economic system; it's geopolitical strife and race relations.

Besides, War is a socialist effort.

Economic systems go deeper than just the workings of the one state, dude. Really, capitalism is just plain old competition, and then war is competition.

We have a hundred years before all nonrenewable resources are out of the ground sans wood, then it gets hairy. Capitalism works fine when its just individual's left to plod their own patch, can't take it off them anyway because we'd do it wrong and people would just end up killing each other. But sooner or later that individual's gonna be left on his patch with nothing or nobody left...and then what? Are we going to have a system of just sharing around what we have once it's all out of the ground? No. The life and breath of capitalism is in the extraction of resources from developing countries......and that's where the buck stops. Really, we're on a path to complete and utter annihilation. And there is no answer, not really.

I mean, capitalism is essentially a super complicated system of IOUs between bastards trying to screw each other over at every chance... How anyone can subscribe to that as some sensible modus operandi is beyond me tbh. "Thy KingDUMB Come," I guess.

You're forgetting that in the long run, it's more profitable to replant trees than not. Companies like Shell and Exxon are already hosting competitions to find innovative ways to solve energy problems.

It's sort of like Mutually Assured Destruction. It's in nobodies profit motive to see all the resources go away.

As for the competition between resources, that's something that would happen even if all State's were communist, socialist, or anything in between.

War requires a socialist effort to carry out. It requires money, coordination, and training by one cohesive entity.

We're playing a very silly blame game here dude. And what really needs to be happening is revolution on a scale that has never been seen before, stock taking and better coordination of resources. As it stands the US, China and Russia are leading the pack in a resource war. What do you think Ukraine was about? Are you happy with mutually assured destruction? You'll back that?
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:44:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:37:39 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:33:37 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:30:28 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:25:19 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:22:00 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:17:32 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.

Meh. I'll give you efficiency, but a system needs more than just capitalism to be moral. What about social minimums? A common agreement that "People should not be left to starve in the streets", for instance.

Are you suggesting the government should give to the poor>? I can't imagine why people under a capitalist system would not want to help the poor.

"They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". "I earned my keep, why can't they?"

Besides, if people really wanted to, then they could agree to it under the social contract. That's why you need democracy in order to make capitalism moral.

I don't consider democracy to be the most morally right system. People are not obligated to help people on the streets if they don't want to .

I'll agree with you on the democracy front. That's why there needs to be a constitution, to make sure that no matter what, certain atrocities don't occur.

The people are not competent enough to rule.

Right. This is why we have a constitution, so that certain things (like individual rights) can't be stripped away.

However, if the allegiance is not to a set of principles, but rather to a group of powerful men (be they businessmen or politicians), then incompetence becomes replaced with greed and corruption.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:46:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:42:17 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:38:19 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:33:25 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:23:21 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:16:00 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:14:24 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You're spot on, dude.

Well, capitalism is also eventually going to blow us all the f*ck up.

I think you'll find that whatever is going to "blow us all the f*ck up" isn't an economic system; it's geopolitical strife and race relations.

Besides, War is a socialist effort.

Economic systems go deeper than just the workings of the one state, dude. Really, capitalism is just plain old competition, and then war is competition.

We have a hundred years before all nonrenewable resources are out of the ground sans wood, then it gets hairy. Capitalism works fine when its just individual's left to plod their own patch, can't take it off them anyway because we'd do it wrong and people would just end up killing each other. But sooner or later that individual's gonna be left on his patch with nothing or nobody left...and then what? Are we going to have a system of just sharing around what we have once it's all out of the ground? No. The life and breath of capitalism is in the extraction of resources from developing countries......and that's where the buck stops. Really, we're on a path to complete and utter annihilation. And there is no answer, not really.

I mean, capitalism is essentially a super complicated system of IOUs between bastards trying to screw each other over at every chance... How anyone can subscribe to that as some sensible modus operandi is beyond me tbh. "Thy KingDUMB Come," I guess.

You're forgetting that in the long run, it's more profitable to replant trees than not. Companies like Shell and Exxon are already hosting competitions to find innovative ways to solve energy problems.

It's sort of like Mutually Assured Destruction. It's in nobodies profit motive to see all the resources go away.

As for the competition between resources, that's something that would happen even if all State's were communist, socialist, or anything in between.

War requires a socialist effort to carry out. It requires money, coordination, and training by one cohesive entity.

We're playing a very silly blame game here dude. And what really needs to be happening is revolution on a scale that has never been seen before, stock taking and better coordination of resources. As it stands the US, China and Russia are leading the pack in a resource war. What do you think Ukraine was about? Are you happy with mutually assured destruction? You'll back that?

I don't back that, however, you cannot deny the fact that it works. I personally advocate a World Government, which operates under a Capitalistic system with good benefits, compassion, and a set of principles set forth that make it certain that individual rights cannot be violated.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:49:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:46:10 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:42:17 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:38:19 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:33:25 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:23:21 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:16:00 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:14:24 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You're spot on, dude.

Well, capitalism is also eventually going to blow us all the f*ck up.

I think you'll find that whatever is going to "blow us all the f*ck up" isn't an economic system; it's geopolitical strife and race relations.

Besides, War is a socialist effort.

Economic systems go deeper than just the workings of the one state, dude. Really, capitalism is just plain old competition, and then war is competition.

We have a hundred years before all nonrenewable resources are out of the ground sans wood, then it gets hairy. Capitalism works fine when its just individual's left to plod their own patch, can't take it off them anyway because we'd do it wrong and people would just end up killing each other. But sooner or later that individual's gonna be left on his patch with nothing or nobody left...and then what? Are we going to have a system of just sharing around what we have once it's all out of the ground? No. The life and breath of capitalism is in the extraction of resources from developing countries......and that's where the buck stops. Really, we're on a path to complete and utter annihilation. And there is no answer, not really.

I mean, capitalism is essentially a super complicated system of IOUs between bastards trying to screw each other over at every chance... How anyone can subscribe to that as some sensible modus operandi is beyond me tbh. "Thy KingDUMB Come," I guess.

You're forgetting that in the long run, it's more profitable to replant trees than not. Companies like Shell and Exxon are already hosting competitions to find innovative ways to solve energy problems.

It's sort of like Mutually Assured Destruction. It's in nobodies profit motive to see all the resources go away.

As for the competition between resources, that's something that would happen even if all State's were communist, socialist, or anything in between.

War requires a socialist effort to carry out. It requires money, coordination, and training by one cohesive entity.

We're playing a very silly blame game here dude. And what really needs to be happening is revolution on a scale that has never been seen before, stock taking and better coordination of resources. As it stands the US, China and Russia are leading the pack in a resource war. What do you think Ukraine was about? Are you happy with mutually assured destruction? You'll back that?

I don't back that, however, you cannot deny the fact that it works. I personally advocate a World Government, which operates under a Capitalistic system with good benefits, compassion, and a set of principles set forth that make it certain that individual rights cannot be violated.

It doesn't work. It's fat arabs with 10 wives and a bunch of lamborghinis and ferraris seeing a pixelated number go up and world super powers take another huge chunk of what's really there, the rest of us one step closer to being left out in the cold. We're all just blinded by televisions and sex. Soon there's going to be a crash like never before, the crash where none of the little countries matter in the slightest anymore.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:52:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And the US is headed towards complete totalitarianism, as a necessity, by the very thing its citizens hold to be their own sovereignty. 1984 is coming to fruition, the masses blinded by sex and the odd terrorist that the US government parades before you.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:53:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:52:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And the US is headed towards complete totalitarianism, as a necessity, by the very thing its citizens hold to be their own sovereignty. 1984 is coming to fruition, the masses blinded by sex and the odd terrorist that the US government parades before you.

omg so deep.
Paradox420
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:53:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:13:55 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:12:24 PM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
At 12/21/2014 2:54:32 PM, SebUK wrote:
At 12/20/2014 12:46:40 AM, phiLockeraptor wrote:
I'm a capitalist. That being said, I can't help but wonder if the whole "playing on human greed" thing is really the best we can do.

If a child is selfish, do you respond by accommodating that selfishness, or by telling them to share in hopes that they will outgrow their selfish tendencies?

The profit-motive, while assuredly the most practical one, seems to be missing any real effort for the betterment of the nature of mankind.

What are some thoughts on this?

ah the nature of man kind , humanity is rather flexible on many things such as reproductive strategies . If a child is selfish you certainly don't respond by coercively stealing their property and redistrubuting it . You are acting like if Capitalism is so black and white and unadjustable , help for others in Capitalism comes from charity which surely would receive more support in a society without welfare .

Oh no I understand what you're getting at. I'm not advocating for an alternative for Capitalism, I'm merely raising a brow at one of the most common justifications (It plays on human nature!).

I don't personally use that argument . I prefer the argument from efficiency and the argument from morality.

What are those two arguments?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:54:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:53:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:52:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And the US is headed towards complete totalitarianism, as a necessity, by the very thing its citizens hold to be their own sovereignty. 1984 is coming to fruition, the masses blinded by sex and the odd terrorist that the US government parades before you.

omg so deep.

I'm not trying to be deep. What do you think we should do, dylan?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:55:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:54:14 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:53:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:52:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And the US is headed towards complete totalitarianism, as a necessity, by the very thing its citizens hold to be their own sovereignty. 1984 is coming to fruition, the masses blinded by sex and the odd terrorist that the US government parades before you.

omg so deep.

I'm not trying to be deep. What do you think we should do, dylan?

Implement a eugenics program, of course.
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:55:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:52:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And the US is headed towards complete totalitarianism, as a necessity, by the very thing its citizens hold to be their own sovereignty. 1984 is coming to fruition, the masses blinded by sex and the odd terrorist that the US government parades before you.

You're barking up the wrong tree, my friend. The EU has been heading toward Totalitarianism for a long time, and Russia is practically already there.

And what exactly is it that 'its citizens hold to be their own sovereignty'?
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com