|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
 Posted - 03/19/2002 : 07:59:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Incidentially, why should I have to live in a world where "charity" is even necessary? [NottyImp]
You want a perfect system. It ain't-a-gonna-happen. Which is why charity is necessary to to help the victims of our "worker's paradise".
"Our spinning world is a perfect creation, but for some reason, nuts and bolts keep flying off."
(:raig |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2002 : 08:06:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Your philanthropic rich don't seem to be doing too well, do they?
By the way, just so we don't get sidetracked, my contention was with this statement:
quote:
The people that run US capitalism do it for their own benefit and don't give a damn about the poor in their own country, let alone any other.
This is a sweeping generalization (akin to saying, for example, that all black people are criminals). It's bigoted and silly.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 01:31:53 [Permalink]
|
[quote] First, source please. Second, define wealth. Third, how much of the world population lives under a (more or less) capatilistic system (read: China), and in this light, how is this at all relevant to a criticism of Capitalism?
[/quote]
First: I'll quote my source for that if you'll quote your source for:
[quote]Private U.S. charitable contributions, both foreign and domestic, are huge.
[/quote]
Perhaps while you're at it you could compare those contributions to the GDP of the US as well.
Second: why nit-pick over definitions of "wealth"? Look in any social studies book and find a standard definition. What difference does this make to the debate about poor/rich?
Third: China is a State Capitlaist system. Even if you don't count it, that would still mean about 4 billion people live under a "more or less" capitalist system. I'm afraid I don't undestand the last part of your question regarding relevance, so I can't answer it.
"Specialisation is for insects." Robert A. Heinlen
Edited by - NottyImp on 03/20/2002 01:34:23 |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 02:27:06 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Well, it seems to me that the only alternative is oppression. Is that supposed to be better?
[/quote]
So with all our much vaunted human ingenuity, there's only *one* system that works, and it happens to be the one we're in? OK, I simply disagree with this, mainly becuase it seems like an argument for doing nothing.
"Specialisation is for insects." Robert A. Heinlen |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 02:48:08 [Permalink]
|
[quote]This is a sweeping generalization (akin to saying, for example, that all black people are criminals). It's bigoted and silly.
[/quote]
Apologies, can't seem to get the quote function working properly, so these posts are a bit of a mess.
Anyway, in my reading of politics, rich people generally defend their own wealth through the political process by opposing even the mildest reforming measures that might lead to redistribution. If that makes me bigoted, then frankly I don't have a problem with that.
"Specialisation is for insects." Robert A. Heinlen
Edited by - NottyImp on 03/20/2002 02:50:31 |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 02:57:48 [Permalink]
|
'You want a perfect system. It ain't-a-gonna-happen. Which is why charity is necessary to to help the victims of our "worker's paradise".'
Jeez, doesn't *anyone* here agree with me? I'm starting to feel lonely!
"worker's paradise"? Odd term, I thought that's what the old Soviet Union was called. Or are you being ironic?
"Specialisation is for insects." Robert A. Heinlen |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 03:15:20 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
You want a perfect system. It ain't-a-gonna-happen. Which is why charity is necessary to to help the victims of our "worker's paradise".
(:raig
[/quote]
Oh that is so true. It's not perfect and never will be. That idea was reinforced with me today when I went to a meeting of a committee I'm on for the Superior Court. It's a program to help people who get arrested for misdemeanors. Instead of going to jail they are offered work programs or places to get help, like for drinking or if the are homeless. Well, one of the speakers at the meeting who helps place these people told of one guy who said he'd never stop drinking. Not that he doesn't want to, but he can't help it, it's just what he does. He knows he's not going to stop until he dies(which will be sooner then later). That may not be most peoples standards but there are people who are on various levels of society and things are just not equal.
Coincendently, there was a movie on TV this weekend called 'Leaving Las Vegas' about just such a guy. It reminded me of The Stranger by Camus. It was so depressing but like watching a car crash one just can't stop looking. Ironicly I don't look at accidents on the highway. But I digress, the point is...things are what they are, deal with it.
*
Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 03:56:28 [Permalink]
|
[quote] But I digress, the point is...things are what they are, deal with it.[/quote]
OK, I'll deal with it by trying to change it, you deal with it by accepting it as it is.
"Specialisation is for insects." Robert A. Heinlen |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 05:38:41 [Permalink]
|
I'm going to guess that we could afford to support everyone that drinks that much and doesn't have a job and still not come anywhere near the cost of corporate welfare.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 05:40:38 [Permalink]
|
Those that think it's impossible to improve upon this system then must think that this is a perfect system by definition.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 07:00:19 [Permalink]
|
No apologies necessary, NottyImp. The quote system seems to have been disabled again.
[quote]
First: I'll quote my source for that if you'll quote your source for:
[quote]Private U.S. charitable contributions, both foreign and domestic, are huge.
[/quote]
Perhaps while you're at it you could compare those contributions to the GDP of the US as well.[/quote]
Alrighty, lessee here...
http://www.aafrc.org/trust/charts.html
$203.45 Billion dollars in 2000.
The estimated GDP for 2000 is $9.963 trillion, but as this is total goods and services, I don't know how to make a valid comparison.
[quote]Second: why nit-pick over definitions of "wealth"? Look in any social studies book and find a standard definition. What difference does this make to the debate about poor/rich?[/quote]
You threw out the statistic, and now you're saying "who cares"? Surely you believe your point was more important?
Are you talking about yachts and fancy sportscars? Oil? Cash? Food? Land? Internet access? It does make a difference. If I lived on a farm, grew my own food, made my own clothes and shelter, why should I care how this so-called "wealth" is divvied up around the world? How many people in how many countries do this, and does your statistic take this into account?
If you are saying the 90% of the world's population is going without food, clothing, and shelter, then I would totally agree that not enough is being done about this, and then we could debate what the best solution is.
[quote]So with all our much vaunted human ingenuity, there's only *one* system that works, and it happens to be the one we're in? OK, I simply disagree with this, mainly becuase it seems like an argument for doing nothing.[/quote]
I'm not saying that at all. You asked why you should have to live in a world where charity is necessary.
We're never going to live in a world where everyone can provide for themselves. I'm saying that the only alternative to having someone give their money to a charity, is to forceably take it from them and redistribute it. This is oppression.
Just to be straight, are we talking reality or fantasyland?
To @tomic, one incentive to promote more charity (since the government taking money at gunpoint from its citizens is a bad thing, and should be minimized) is to give tax breaks. Why is this at all wrong?
[quote]Anyway, in my reading of politics, rich people generally defend their own wealth through the political process by opposing even the mildest reforming measures that might lead to redistribution. If that makes me bigoted, then frankly I don't have a problem with that.[/quote]
Two points with this:
Redistribution is stealing. If you support this, we will should start a new thread.
Second, I think "bigoted" is the wrong term. My bad.
"Prejudice" I think nails it: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.
I'm not naive. A lot of wealthy people are complete asses who really [i]don't[/i] care about anyone. They'll walk by a starving person without a second glance. This is not, however, at all exclusive to the wealthy. This is what I have a problem with.
Wealthy people who donate their time and money, adopt orphans from other countries, start scholarships, and really do care about the wellbeing of their fellow man, don't deserve your cynical and insulting generalizations.
[spelling and grammar]
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 03/20/2002 07:04:17 |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 07:29:51 [Permalink]
|
"$203.45 Billion dollars in 2000.
The estimated GDP for 2000 is $9.963 trillion, but as this is total goods and services, I don't know how to make a valid comparison." (Tokyodreamer).
OK, neither do I as I'm not a trained economist. Is it fair to say, however, that it is a very small percentage of available capital in the US?
This site lists 2.8 billion people living on less than $2 per day in 1998:
http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/data/trends/income.htm
Although it is not the same statistic as I quoted previously, I think it makes pretty much the same point.
"If I lived on a farm, grew my own food, made my own clothes and shelter, why should I care how this so-called "wealth" is divvied up around the world? "
Well you might if you knew those things existed and you had no chance at all of ever having access to them.
"We're never going to live in a world where everyone can provide for themselves. I'm saying that the only alternative to having someone give their money to a charity, is to forceably take it from them and redistribute it. This is oppression."
And allowing billions of people to live in poverty whilst a small minority of the world are fabulously rich *isn't* oppression? What an odd value system you have.
"Just to be straight, are we talking reality or fantasyland?"
I don't understand what you mean by this.
"I'm not naive. A lot of wealthy people are complete asses who really don't care about anyone."
A lot? Is that the majority? We may agree after all...
The problem I have have is that, to the best of my knowledge, *all* wealthy people support an economic and political system that allows for these inequalities to arise, and does little to eradicate them. Sure there may be the odd individual who does something to help, but it's a drop in the ocean, really, isn't it?
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 07:34:19 [Permalink]
|
But you're talking about a system where certain people decide who owns what. To say that it's wrong for them to "redistribute" what they've decided on makes no sense.
[quote]
We're never going to live in a world where everyone can provide for themselves. I'm saying that the only alternative to having someone give their money to a charity, is to forceably take it from them and redistribute it. This is oppression.
[/quote]
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 07:45:52 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
We're never going to live in a world where everyone can provide for themselves.
[/quote]
Right!
[quote]
I'm saying that the only alternative to having someone give their money to a charity, is to forceably take it from them and redistribute it. This is oppression.
[/quote]
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here, TD. Your alternatives ignore a lot of other options -- it's an "excluded middle" fallacy.
For example, in the US, we have a representative democracy in which the legislature has the power to levy taxes and spend the revenues in various ways. Those ways can include redistributing wealth via progressive taxation, direct welfare grants, food stamps, training programs, health care reimbursement, prenatal and infant care, and so on.
Taxation may not be exactly popular, but I wouldn't call it oppression. That's because if we don't like the way our representatives are taxing us or spending the revenues, we have the collective power to remove them and replace them with others more to our liking. This has, in fact, happened on numerous occasions in American history.
Necessarily, the system is imperfect. The most needy are also (generally) the least politically powerful, so there's a tendency for the wealthy to ignore them and arrange things to their own liking. But our system does have some built-in correction mechanisms to counteract this to some degree. For example, if the wealthy ignore the poor for too long, crime may rise (threatening their posessions and life and limb) or social movements gain momentum (threatening their preveleged status).
Further, in the US, the greatest power bloc is the middle class, who are quite sensitive to any social changes that might seem threatening; this acts as a stabilizer against both extremes.
My own opinion about the original topic: Capitalism (as practised in Western Europe and North America) is a "pretty good" system that's tuned to human nature "pretty well". In a vacuum, it has no way to deal with the needs of those who cannot participate (for whatever reason); but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Government is responsible for curbing Capitalism's worst excesses and seeing to the needs of the unempowered. Its record in doing both these things is so-so. Lots of room for improvement!
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
