Socialism and Absolute Moral Truths
- Thread starter Ardsgaine
- Start date
freako104
Well-Known Member
to an extent yes and to an extent no. heres where i lie on that subject. i sya yes since to me as i said any kind of sacrifice and also although i do support euthanasia and am pro-choice and for the death penalty, those are gov't sponsors(though i know you hate those gonz i hope ths doesnt make you feel ill of me cause i know full well where you stand as you have said to me that you are very heavily against gov't endorced death),but not when a person is not doing it for anything but some deity or whatever the reason. however i say no because in as much as i dont see why a person would do something like that i can relate to people who have done things like that(having been a "slasher" myself i know how it is but i never knew why i did it or enjoyed it but i did) and it helps the person maybe feel better in a masochistic way.but i am between on it though to totally be honest i still lead more towards yes.
AlladinSane
Well-Known Member
You mean you didn't starve millions inside the US. I don't want to be the bastion of socialism here, but one thing is essential. In capitalism for the rich to exist, the poor have to exist aswell.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
What a load of crap.
Wealth is not a static quantity. It's not like there is X amount of wealth in the world, and the only question is how to divide it up. Wealth has to be produced. Under a laissez-faire capitalist system, the people who produce the wealth get to keep what they produce. That is justice. The man who creates a factory has produced more wealth than the man who stands on the assembly line attaching widgets to doo-hickeys. Therefore, the man who created the factory gets more of the wealth. That's justice.
The purpose of socialism is to thwart justice, to say that each man deserves the same amount of wealth whether he has produced the same amount or not. This is done by coercion, by forcing some people to do more work for less wealth. The reason socialism fails is because the people who are being looted by the system go on strike. They cease to produce as much wealth, and the country as a whole becomes impoverished. It is much better to be poor in a capitalist country, because the poor derive a much greater benefit from those who are capapble of producing great amounts of wealth, than the wealth creators derive from the poor.
AlladinSane
Well-Known Member
Ohh and see the justice, when a megaspeculator spreads a hoax that a company is not in good situation just to devaluate it so it can buy shares for a better price. People loose their jobs, sometimes, but who cares? Bad for them, but they are only attaching widgets, they don't have any value at all
Ardsgaine
Active Member
Laissez-faire doesn't mean that fraud, theft and murder suddenly become legal. It just means that the government is limited to defending individual rights, rather than trying to manipulate the economy. Fraud is still fraud.
Bad for them, but they are only attaching widgets, they don't have any value at all
Somehow you read my post and discovered that I place no value on the lives of the poor? Ridiculous.
I believe that every single person is an end in himself, and not the means to the ends of others. I believe that every single person has the right to live for his own happiness, whether he's creating factories or attaching widgets. What I don't believe is that any person has the right to the wealth produced by someone else.
AlladinSane
Well-Known Member
I didn't discover anything about you. You said people get the wealth they deserve. I say there are people that don't deserve it. They(not you) place no value on the poorer. For them, people are just pieces of a money making machine. You're saying it's illegal, I'm saying it happens all the time. The government may not manipulate economy, but there are ones that do it.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
No, I didn't. I said that under laissez-faire capitalism each person gets to keep the wealth he has produced. Socialists like to talk about what people "deserve" as if there were a way to determine this other than by determining the value of what they produce. A man might be a cad, but he still has a right to the wealth he produces . Likewise, a man might be the nicest person in the world, but unless he produces it, he has no right to wealth.
It is certainly your right to boycott the cad and give charity to the nice guy, because those are decisions you have the right to make about the wealth you produce. It's not, however, the government's job to decide which people "deserve" to keep their wealth and which do not. It's not as if socialist governments even try to do this on an individual moral basis. It is a blanket assumption of socialism that those who produce more wealth do not deserve to keep it, and those who do not produce wealth deserve to have it given to them. One would think that there was never on earth a virtuous rich man, nor a poor man who was a cad. To the degree that a man is able to create wealth, socialism judges him evil; to the degree that he is incapable, socialism judges him good. That is the inverted morality of socialism.