In defense of capitalism

[Sacul15]

It's sad that you honestly believe that if someone is born into poverty they deserve absolutely zero chance of rising out. After all, you have said again and again, they have a choice between slavery and death--they should be happy for that choice

I have shown you that it is possible to rise up out of society, but you rejected my examples because they accepted the slightest influence of socialism in their lives. I never said that it would be easy, but it certainly is possible. And besides, history has shown that even if there is still a wealth gap, the poor still get better off, and because of innovation, not because of handouts.

Business' ARE endangering people. Through monopolistic practices they have cornered markets and taken over all forms of jobs--providing no choice for people except to toil under ludicrously low wages or die. Everyone has a right to opportunity, and without access to basic support system, that has been taken away from them.

That is where you are wrong. If I remember correctly, it was you who brought up Jefferson, so why don't you point me to the part in the Declaration of Independence where it says people have the inalienable right to opportunities provided by the efforts of other people, or where it says people are obliged to create a support system for those who, or whose parents, made bad choices. And since those businesses are endangering people, they should obviously be destroyed. So now people don't have a choice. Death is their only option. At least we got rid of those evil corporations, right?

Anyone that believes that any pure system can exist is simply delusional. I'm sorry, but there has never, ever existed a pure system and the only thing that has come close has been genocidal dictatorships.

You're right, never has one existed. So how can you say that it would fail? All you have are speculations (and faulty ones at that). Exactly what genocidal dictatorships are you referring to? Stalin, whose nation was based around Marxism and Leninism? Hitler, whose party was for universal health care and guaranteed jobs? Exactly whom are you referring to? The closest time I can remember a society being close to capitalism, the life expectancy dramatically increased, people invented new ways to create new products, people had more leisure time, and were far better off than they were before.

Yes, basic human empathy WAS exactly what Ayn Rand was against. That you are completely unable to feel empathy is a pitiful thing. Emotion is one of the most powerful things that make us human.

But let's talk about your argument. Go back to your little how much of the GDP people are spending on health care. Look again at the more socialist countries. OH MY GOD, THEY'RE SPENDING LESS! That is correct sir. The hospitals are making money, the people are living safe, happy lives and EVERYONE IS DOING IT WITH LESS WASTE. Where are these closed hospitals? Where are these bankrupt nations? Please inform the entire European Union that even though its people are happy, healthy, living long lives and their economy is booming that they're in danger of imminent collapse. You see, all of the facts support the idea that HELPING PEOPLE IS ECONOMICALLY SOUND. Honestly: look at what you just said, now look at the information I've laid out for you. Do you see the disconnect? The more socialist systems are doing BETTER. Try again to find something wrong with it.

But let's go to another point that there is no practicality in having emotion and keeping people from dying senseless deaths: PEOPLE are the greatest resource. Intelligent, inspiring, important people are constantly rising from poverty through social mechanisms-schools and health care particularly-to revolutionize the world. By educating everyone, then everyone has the opportunity to rise up and succeed. If you let people just die because you don't feel like paying for their flu-shot, then you lose them. You'll dismiss this argument, but then again, you believe that it's better to let people die than help them and that emotions are apparently bad.

It's not emotion that is bad. I certainly feel sorry for those (especially children) who have to die because of circumstances beyond their control. What I'm against is that your whole argument was based around emotion. But now we're back to reason, so that's ok. Alright, let's take it piece by piece. "Hospitals are making money"- only because they are reimbursed through the government (through the theft of wealth). "The people are living safe, happy lives"- Yeah, I guess I would be happy too if somebody else was paying for the things I want in life. "Everyone is doing it with less waste"- what about the wasted wealth that is being stolen from the taxpayers, which could be used to create new and better ways to treat people, or could be invested in another part of the economy, but instead is being used on people whom the taxpayers might not even care about, because they failed or their parents failed to make good choices that would allow them to pay for it themselves. "The more socialist systems are doing better"- again that depends on your idea of quality. If quality of health care means everyone gets it, then yes. If it means that you have a better chance of surviving any given illness, and you do so quickly and comfortably, then you are wrong. "People are the greatest resource, etc."-Yes, I completely agree. Which is why, under a capitalist society, employers want their employees to have health care- so they don't have to waste time or money on training another person. It isn't emotion that should keep them alive, though, but this reason.

Your argument falls apart when you say that no one should receive any medical aid if they can't immediately pay for it.

I don't follow you. When did I say that? If a hospital allows payments or allows the patient to pay for it at a later time, fine. I said that no hospital should be forced to accept a patient (read: customer) that cannot ever pay for the service it is providing. And what does that have to do with my quote, exactly?

Let me be a little more blunt: responsiveness, while important, has the absolute LEAST effect on quality. Level of health is.

Level of health of whom? If money wasn't a factor (which it isn't in the category of quality- you are measuring the best), I would rather be treated in the US than in any other country.

My apologies for not linking that article, but that was what I was referring to. I noticed that it is growing, but what I DIDN'T see was the paper from the future which showed the overall health of the people of Hong Kong getting better and cheaper. You see, when you look at a system and say: hey! Look how healthy they are! You have to look at what system is IN PLACE, NOT what is in the future. As it stood at the writing of that paper, the people of Hong Kong were very healthy and long living with a very publicly funded system. Show me that the system has gotten better, more private and cheaper AFTERWARD and you'll have an argument.

I never denied that socialized medicine increases these statistics. I just said that it has a far less effect than you are attributing to it, which is obvious in how it is better off than countries which are far more socialist.

I'm not saying the market is bad, but how many drugs are being produced and how much money is being spent (your previous point) is an inane and worthless statistic. What does it matter if people have patented 20 different hay fever medicines- all with about the same level of non-effectiveness? That's simply more competition, not more improvement. The point remains (STILL) that the more government funded a health care system is, the better it is. It is simple fact and you haven't found a single measure to say otherwise.

If there are 20 different medicines for one sickness, it's in a business's best interest to research a different one. And besides, competition is good- lowers the price. All of your socialized countries are getting these lower prices because of us- the producers ("I'm gonna be a producer!" Sorry). Say every country goes to a system like they have in European nations. Then every country is going to have the same problems with the pharmaceutical industry that Europe has (another correlation you conveniently ignored), and the system will stagnate, which is what is happening in those countries anyway.

Tell me: who discovered that DDT was dangerous? How was that funded? Tell me: How did the latest Salmonella scare get detected? How was that funded? You see, you make these (completely erroneous) assumptions that there is a magical system that is going to spring up out of nowhere to monitor effects of something 10 years down the road, but these sorts of programs are so massive and so expensive that they are not going to be profitable as far as capital goes, but they are INVALUABLE as far as human life goes. But then, you have already mentioned that human life matters so little to you.

But a majority of people want these programs, right? How about the people who are for it put their money where their mouths are and contribute some funds? I'm sure that 51% percent of the population, combined with nearly every related business who wants it because it could be used as a marketing tool, could afford it. There's no magic involved, just logic. If such a service is so invaluable, then people wouldn't dare give it up. And again, you have moved the topic of discussion. What does that have to do with choices?

But I've wasted enough of my time on a 16 year old who: was educated on the public system, who's parents are teachers--teaching in the public system with government sponsored health care--who will go to a state university and heed warnings from the FDA, etc.; and yet persists that education isn't needed, there are no people being essentially enslaved because of monopolistic practices, that statistics proving his arguments wrong should be ignored and that human life has no value and shouldn't be preserved without a cash reward. Let me know if I missed anything there.

I am a 17 year old college freshman, educated on the (mediocre) public system- because there is no other alternative because it doesn't allow for competition. With parents who are on the public system- for the same reasons. Who will go to a state university, and pay almost $100,000 for an education, with no government grants or aid whatsoever. Heed warnings from the FDA, which I pay for through taxes, for them to ban products that could one day save my life, and which a private alternative could do cheaper and with a better result. Who realizes the value of education, which is why he is for a competitive system that lowers the price and increases the quality of it, and would not mind donating to help less fortunate people attend school, who realizes that the lives of countless people around the world are made better by these evil corporations, who realizes that CEOs have rights as well, who realizes that human life is of huge value, which is why he advocates a system that will make it cheaper and easier to preserve.

You missed a lot.

[Hollow]

I've been reading this intently and i'm on the side of dragonfliet.

I regard myself as a liberal/socialist and believe that anybody, regardless of their background deserves the chance to lead a successful life and should be allowed access to basic neccessities such as healthcare and education.

Though I'm not as well informed on the backgrounds of these systems, i've taken on board points from either side.

Another point I tried to make with that story was that some people succeed and some don't. Because my grandparents made it damn important for my parents to get good educations, they did. Often, poor people fail to do this or make similar mistakes, such as having too many kids to send to school, and as a result can't rise economically.

This actaully offended me, as I come from a working class background. Even though I was lucky enough to be born into a western democracy (I'm from England) it doesnt mean life has been easy for me. Poverty still exists in countries like the U.K, maybe not to the extent of third world countries, but it is still apparent. My parents havent' the best of backgrounds. Both never obtained a good education whilst growing up and that has gone on to effect their job prospects. None of this benefitted me either. Coming from the low end of working class, most would label my future outcome to be bleak. your accusation that poorer people dont deserve the chance to make their own life better rattled me, and that your comment made them and me sound insignifcant to those who are previleged in a stable environment. It is BECAUSE of socialist systems I have been able to achieve everything I have in my life so far. If it weren't for free education and other similiar systems I would not of had the opportunity to make the best of what I have. I believe everyone deserves these rights. If private schools were the norm, millions of people would not be able to afford it and be uneducated (which leads to a decrease in job opportunities, which leads to the overall economy falling because they arent enough people qualified to have jobs to sustain it). From the sound of things it sounds like you've had things handed to you on a plate (I might be wrong) because you come from a financially stable background. I don't think you can ever fully understand the other side of what people experience, because you've never experienced it yourself. People who believe they know about what's best for everyone else end up becoming a patronizing mess and ultimately going against the argument they first brought up.

For example, I am all for equality and human rights...BUT, there are people who make it their campaign to 'do the right thing'. Like people who campaign for race rights. Now we all know this is a good thing and that they are trying to do the right thing, but i've seen it so many times where people end up twisting their initial objective against themselves and becoming more racist than the people they are fighting against. its usually white, middle-class MPs or established individuals suggesting they know whats right for these people. 'Oh they need our help', 'They NEED our support', they are not as privileged as me'
Fuck off, people dont understand how patronising that is. That you are subjecting a group of people as a lower class who you have to help because you're understanding of the situation is warped by the fact that you dont really care or take into account of the group in question want or need or how they feel. And they then go even further by limiting the opportunities when a person does want to rise up out of a bad situation by reverting back to their old ignorant ways by fuelling their fears of an ill-conceived stereotype.

People don't want hand outs, they want a platform to be able to support themselves. I would be extremely offended if someone came up to me and said 'oh, you okay? you from a bad neighbourhood? parents not doing so well? well, I'm a rich man, you NEED my help.'

It probably sounds like i've gone off track, but thats because this is a rant of emotion rather than statistics and facts. but i want im trying to state is views like-

'Often, poor people fail to do this or make similar mistakes, such as having too many kids to send to school, and as a result can't rise economically'

is incredibly shallow and slightly worrying as an outlook for your view of humanity when you've never gone through it yourself.

people deserve the right to have access to the systems I also depended on to be educated, healthy and qualified, because we all know you can be just as successful from a poor background if you have those systems to rely on...take them away and for millions of people, their prospects become extremely bleak because their options have been shut.

[Sacul15]

Firstly, let me make clear that I did not mean to offend you or anyone by my posts. I don't want to give the impression that I think you or your parents are worthless parasites or anything of the sort. I never said I don't think poor people should have the chance to rise up. I said that they have no right to demand that other people pull them up. You say that you hate it when people who are better off patronize and belittle the poor, and that is extremely admirable. But you fail to realize that the congressmen who pass laws with socialist ideas are doing exactly that. Every bill passed was passed because <insert group here> "needs the government's help". If you are unwilling to accept help in the form of charity, why are you willing to accept it in the form of theft? You say that you don't want handouts, only a platform to help yourself, which is commendable (as many people do just want free money), but you also fail to realize that platforms are handouts as well. Education, before it can be given to the poor, must be paid for through the taxes of other people, regardless if they think it important or not. I never said that rising from bad economic circumstances was easy, but it is possible, even if it is not immediate. I assume that you have it better, if only slightly, than your parents did when they were young. And I assume that you will make sure that your children, should you choose to have them, have much better beginnings than you have. Often, economic improvement must happen generationally, which is certainly possible through pure capitalism.