Immorality and the Free Market

Libertarian socialist, that sounds impossible. That's like a giant midget.

Capitalism is the only economic system that can work... because is based on human will.... when you design something that depends on not-human instincts like solidarity top survive, it's doomed... I think capitalism should not be without some checks (regulation) but central estatism has never worked and will never work. Some areas like health should be public (the fatal flaw in the US) but other than that and a few more, it's the human being the one that can promote himself and therefore society. Besides, if capitalism promotes inmorality, communism does it 100 TIMES MULTIPLIED. remember all the "politburos, angka, communist party of here and there".... if there has been a system that created BEASTS is communism. About the war, it always was about control of oil in the region, which even though it will sound bad, could be seen as a logic (if not legitimate) intent from the US to assure its place in thw world and save americans first. Now, who is the idiot? the one who wants to save himself first doing anything or the one who supports him? Or even worse, the one who always complains about somebody bigger stealing what's his?

IVNORD wrote: Does any other country?

Not really.

INVORD wrote: I am afraid to even mention the human cost as our casualties are horrific already.

I feel compelled to mention the human costs to them, as I feel it is a little disturbing that, in conflicts involving the US (though by no means limited to that country), US casualties are known down to the nearest man and regularly cited first.

Over 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the 2003 invasion, with around another 5,000,000 made refugees.

INVORD wrote: man has always exploited man, and always will.

I disagree. Someone in the 18th century could have made the argument that slavery has always existed and always will, but that institution has been greatly decreased since then. Also, as a flipside to your argument, solidarity and mutual aid have always existed. I see no reason why the latter shouldn't triumph over the former.


Edited by Forgotten Son - February 12 2008 at 12:56

IVNORD wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: IVNORD wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: el böthy wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Well another position I've always maintained is that capitalism works best when tempered by socialism and vise versa, though this is probably just another way to say what I just said already. Probably true. I think that what the USA goverment is trying to make by the latter wars they have been starting is looking for a new USSR type of enemy, something that is so against everything USA stands for that patriotism blossoms akk around... of course what I have just said isnt jarbreaking, nor is it very revealing... but I said it... I said it   "I think that what the USA goverment is trying to make by the latter wars they have been starting is looking for a new USSR type of enemy"   I don't mean to go off topic but please name one war that the US instigated BESIDES the Iraqi conflict.And we really didn't have to "look" for a new enemy,we found that in Al-Queda and terrorism.And they started that,by killing almost 5,000 of my countrymen in one day.They should have taken a lesson from Japan's book and studied the chapter called "Don't Kick a Hornets Nest".   Sorry man,your post bothered me.We rarely start wars,but have a good track record on finishing them(until recently,I'm sad to say). I respectfully disagree with your use of the word "instigate." It implies something bad. I still maintain that the Iraq war was a necessity. A right idea with a poorly executed plan.   Sorry.....Bad choice of words,because I am a firm supporter of the war in Iraq and definitely think it was necessary. No need to apologize. I was a strong supporter of the war too up until about a year ago.... it will bankrupt us if it goes on for a few more years. I am afraid to even mention the human cost as our casualties are horrific already.

TheProgtologist wrote: IVNORD wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: el böthy wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Well another position I've always maintained is that capitalism works best when tempered by socialism and vise versa, though this is probably just another way to say what I just said already. Probably true. I think that what the USA goverment is trying to make by the latter wars they have been starting is looking for a new USSR type of enemy, something that is so against everything USA stands for that patriotism blossoms akk around... of course what I have just said isnt jarbreaking, nor is it very revealing... but I said it... I said it   "I think that what the USA goverment is trying to make by the latter wars they have been starting is looking for a new USSR type of enemy"   I don't mean to go off topic but please name one war that the US instigated BESIDES the Iraqi conflict.And we really didn't have to "look" for a new enemy,we found that in Al-Queda and terrorism.And they started that,by killing almost 5,000 of my countrymen in one day.They should have taken a lesson from Japan's book and studied the chapter called "Don't Kick a Hornets Nest".   Sorry man,your post bothered me.We rarely start wars,but have a good track record on finishing them(until recently,I'm sad to say). I respectfully disagree with your use of the word "instigate." It implies something bad. I still maintain that the Iraq war was a necessity. A right idea with a poorly executed plan.   Sorry.....Bad choice of words,because I am a firm supporter of the war in Iraq and definitely think it was necessary.

No need to apologize. I was a strong supporter of the war too up until about a year ago.... it will bankrupt us if it goes on for a few more years. I am afraid to even mention the human cost as our casualties are horrific already.

Edited by IVNORD - February 11 2008 at 23:52

IVNORD wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: el böthy wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Well another position I've always maintained is that capitalism works best when tempered by socialism and vise versa, though this is probably just another way to say what I just said already. Probably true. I think that what the USA goverment is trying to make by the latter wars they have been starting is looking for a new USSR type of enemy, something that is so against everything USA stands for that patriotism blossoms akk around... of course what I have just said isnt jarbreaking, nor is it very revealing... but I said it... I said it   "I think that what the USA goverment is trying to make by the latter wars they have been starting is looking for a new USSR type of enemy"   I don't mean to go off topic but please name one war that the US instigated BESIDES the Iraqi conflict.And we really didn't have to "look" for a new enemy,we found that in Al-Queda and terrorism.And they started that,by killing almost 5,000 of my countrymen in one day.They should have taken a lesson from Japan's book and studied the chapter called "Don't Kick a Hornets Nest".   Sorry man,your post bothered me.We rarely start wars,but have a good track record on finishing them(until recently,I'm sad to say). I respectfully disagree with your use of the word "instigate." It implies something bad. I still maintain that the Iraq war was a necessity. A right idea with a poorly executed plan.

stonebeard wrote: Is there a definite, universal moral code, or is it all subjective? I think when you look in as a skeptical person at history, you see certain common threads, but no definitive commonalities throughout every culture. Excessive consumerism is detrimental to society (as I think we'll soon see, if it's not already obvious), and the free market encourages that, certainly more than communism. But is it better to take from the people who are able and give to the people who are unable? Is that moral? You define it.

Consumerism has been promoted because the mass markets produce super profits. It became a natural process whether we like it or not. It will be restrained only when the mankind depletes most of the resourses and completely destroys the environment.

I tend to fall somewhere between the first and last option, but voted for the first considering the last is intended as a joke. I believe strongly that capitalism is flawed and is a huge crime against humanity. When the US was founded it was set up as a way to prevent despotism in polotics, why is it that we allow despotism to thrive in our economy with the rich feeding off the poor. If our political leaders are elected our economic ones should be as well.

jimmy_row wrote:    Why do we have wars? Why did white men rape the planet from 1500 until today?  Why is it so difficult to get mainstream society to pay attention to global problems?

Judging by the tone of your questions, you know the answers. So why?

Is there a definite, universal moral code, or is it all subjective? I think when you look in as a skeptical person at history, you see certain common threads, but no definitive commonalities throughout every culture.

Excessive consumerism is detrimental to society (as I think we'll soon see, if it's not already obvious), and the free market encourages that, certainly more than communism. But is it better to take from the people who are able and give to the people who are unable? Is that moral? You define it.