This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Boron- with all due respect, would you please show me what statistics you have that show that people have a lower standard of living and a higher mortality rate, and overall have a general higher poverty rate, in capitalist countries than in non-capitalist countries? Because, if you believe that his purpose is to pay for something "horrible" that happened, and you blame that on capitalism, then your supposition would only work if capitalism led to a larger percentage of people not having the money for basic necessities. I'd like to see the evidence of those assumptions.
Otherwise, your argument makes no sense, and is almost willfully disregarding all of my attempts to find out HOW you think capitalism led to this.
Post by
MyTie
Well, I have nothing better to do. I will evict my mother." He is either horrible person or he desperately needs money.
Where you and I differ is that "needing money" is no reason to evict his 98 year old mother. Under "needing money" it would still make him a horrible person. It isn't an "either or" scenario. Capitalism has nothing to do with this. Money has nothing to do with this. His heart is what is at fault here. Him. Nothing else.
Imagine if this man lived in a Communist nation, and evicted his mother because he needed the money. Would it be communism's fault that he is such a horrible example of a human?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Imagine if this man lived in a Communist nation, and evicted his mother because he needed the money. Would it be communism's fault that he is such a horrible example of a human?
You don't have to imagine- Rank told us that exact story a few months ago.
Post by
Orranis
Imagine if this man lived in a Communist nation, and evicted his mother because he needed the money. Would it be communism's fault that he is such a horrible example of a human?
The point is that in an IDEAL Communist society nobody would evict his mother because he needed the money, because he wouldn't 'need the money' in the first place.
On the other hand, I think for the sake of "horrible example of a human" you need to define what we mean by needing the money. If it's between feeding your nighty eight year old mother or your children, I at least wouldn't say he was a horrible example of a human. That's a properly gray area. Rank's wasn't so much of a person who truly 'needed the money' as much as an &*!@#$%.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
In either case, the man's excuse was "She should be living with people her own age," and not "My family is starving."
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Problem with your theory, Boron, is that social services exist that pretty much guarantee he can feed his kids and get basic medical care, even if he can't afford it. Worst comes to worst, his kids would be remanded by the state until he could feed them again. Hospitals are not allowed to turn away a patient based on lack of ability to pay- they legally HAVE to treat the child, and worry about collecting payment afterwards. You don't seem to have a very strong grasp on the economic, legal and social realities functioning in the US.
The problem with sweeping "It's because of capitalism" statements, is that you have to show some kind of cause and effect in order for it be anything other than rhetoric. Show me statistics. Give me a theory about "this thing in capitalism is causing this kind of behavior because of this." All you're saying is that "Maybe he did it because he couldn't afford something crucial," which has nothing to do with capitalism, since a lot of people can't afford medical care or basics in non-capitalist countries. All of your examples about disease show that you don't actually understand how much of a safety net there is for situations like that in the US.
Again- there's no logic to "why" capitalism could cause this- you just think "capitalists are greedy, so clearly it's capitalism's fault when someone did something greedy."
Also, for three posts now you've ignored the example I gave about almost the same thing happening in Venezuela. In fact, in your last post you said you never heard of such a thing happening, despite the fact that I told you about it twice ON THIS PAGE. How much research are you doing about the economics and politics you're commenting on, if you're not even going to bother reading the whole post you're responding to?
Post by
MyTie
As for Ted Bundy, you are getting pissed over nothing. If you needed psychopath pick Jack the Ripper, more well known and same thing in spirit. I am not saying that you are ignorant it makes debating easier if you refer to more internationally known examples. If you had no other example then it is fine, but I listed more obvious one. It is not me being brassy for sake of being brassy, I am just asking you politely (I said "please") not to do that again.
I don't buy this. First of all, I'm not pissed. Second of all, Ted Bundy is very well known. Even if you don't know who he is, he is easily found on google. Third of all, my citing Ted Bundy is fine, even if there are better examples. It has nothing to do with me thinking there are no people outside the US. You are wrong to say so, even if you preface it with please.
It would be like me saying:
Boronidze, would you please stop killing children?
And then when you protested that you don't kill children, I'm like "but I said please". Yes, you asked me nicely to stop doing something that I wasn't doing in the first place.
Post by
gamerunknown
I was going to stay out of this conversation, but I think there's an important aspect that's not being discussed. Namely that the rights of property are given precedence in Capitalist economics and conception. If decisions are made by a community on the physical elements of the means of subsistence for the benefit of its constituents rather than by individuals for their own private gain, then something like this is unlikely to happen. I rarely question Rankorr's posts. My own bias based on the news sources that I peruse (such as John Pilger) is that Chavez's reforms are positive. However, it'd be silly to contradict first hand accounts based on second hand ones, especially in a country with one of the highest homicide rates in the world and that likely has endemic corruption.
That said, I maintain that this is an example where property rights are being considered above human rights, even if it also occurs in a nominally Socialistic country. Funnily enough, the reasoning that one may sacrifice the health of one's parents to aid one's children matches the Selfish Gene conception of altruism.
Also, I usually have
these
three
articles
to reference when discussing anarchocapitalism. As one can see, it's usually countries with a mixture of institutions* (Social Democracies) that have the highest quality of life indicators (notable exception may be Singapore, which has an unusual form of healthcare and high quality obstetrics). The HDI takes into account stuff like Union membership, average PPP and Church attendance and pegs the US/Ireland as top, but I think that's not an adequately Utilitarian view of things.
* Even quite far-left people advocate this over authoritarian progressivism nowadays (as far as I can tell), thanks to the data showing that the USSR shut down Unions and skimped on healthcare in order to pursue military development. People like Chomsky still advocate worker control of the means of production since capital hasn't really yielded enough to obtain experimental data on the subject.
Edit: Oh, I remember Squish saying that Norway only had high quality of life indicators due to the fact that they were neatly situated on top of natural resources. That's also the case in Nigeria, which is in the bottom quartile for quality of life indicators, but the oil there has been US nationalised. Not to mention that Chilé has a nationalised oil industry and is considered a beacon of Capitalism. There's also an argument from both Aviva Chomsky and Noam Chomsky that the only free market capitalist countries are the ones that have been deliberately underdeveloped: stripped of their natural resources for colonial benefit and once that system was exhausted (or perhaps even maintained), forced to adhere to a free market system to benefit US companies.
Post by
MyTie
gamer - I don't think it is necessary to go that deep into an examination of economic models. The only point that needs to be understood here is that no economic model on earth forces someone to evict their 98 year old mother. Capitalism is in no way responsible for that man's actions.
Post by
Azazel
Personally, I'm skeptical about capitalism.
But tying this to a man evicting his own mom? That has nothing to do with politics whatsoever.
Post by
MyTie
NJ gov Chris Christie
vetoes a bill
that would make same sex marriage legal in NJ. He has been advocating a direct vote referendum from the citizens. His words:I continue to encourage the Legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change," Christie said in a statement. "I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples, as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits
Post by
buzz3070
I do like the fact that he stuck to his guns and followed through on his word to veto the bill should it ever reach his desk, shows he actually has a backbone. I agree with his stance that this should be left up to the people of new jersey.
Post by
Squishalot
Oh, I remember Squish saying that Norway only had high quality of life indicators due to the fact that they were neatly situated on top of natural resources.
Wasn't me, just FYI.
Relatively positive news story, for a change.
(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
Sorry, may have been pezz.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
So many levels of crazy.
Post by
Adamsm
So many levels of crazy.
The judge said she will have a competency hearing.Crazy as a froot loop she is. Seriously, and I thought the PETA people were nuts.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
buzz3070
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/georgia-democrats-to-propose-limitations-on-vasectomies-for-men/?hpt=hp_bn1
Makes me wonder how far will the government go to control sex.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Did you read the whole article? They're not intending for it to pass. It's a tongue in cheek response by Democrats to the Republican's bill about abortion that is being considered right now. Personally, regardless of how you feel on the abortion issue, I think it's completely inappropriate to use legislative resources and draft a bill as a "parody." We don't pay congressmen to spend resources making fun of each other.
Personally, I think that many people who are pro-choice still believe that there is a point at which a fetus has developed to the point that an abortion would be wrong (based on various arguments I've seen about a central nervous system, survivability outside the womb, etc.), and comparing people deciding about when a child is a child (which is the Republican bill is about) to people deciding to regulate vasectomies is in poor taste and only relevant if you think that an abortion is appropriate regardless of how far along the fetus is.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.