By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Better for all, Capitalism or Socialism?

TheRealMafoo on 12 April 2009
vlad321 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
vlad321 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
vlad321 said:
Kept it short in the other thread and I will keep it short here:

Health, Security, and Infrastructure (roads, electricity, internet, etc.) Should be socialized and should fall squarely on the government's shoulders so that I can pursue my happiness in peace.

Why?

Do you feel this because you want better services for all, or because if some ideological feeling towards it?

Meaning is someone could come up with a better solution though Capitalism then Socialism, would you be for it?

 

If you can come up with a better solution in capitalism where I can always know that no matter what happens I'll be able to walk into a hospial and be treated, my place to live would have everything necessary for basic living and my business would too, and that I'm safe being in this country. Then yeah let it do so. Curently only the Security works in the US. The Infrastructure, and ESPECIALLY the Health part is so pathetic words can't describe it.

 

Well, thanks to the advancements in medical science due to capitalism, people live longer without ever walking into a hospital, if you get things that used to kill you, you can now go to the grocery store and spend 7 dollars on a box of medication that saves your life. Those things only exist because of Capitalism.

Also, today you can walk into any hospital, and get treatment (if it's life threatening).

I am not sure what part of the US doesn't work like you would like it to.

Yes I can walk into a hospital and then I will have a bill in the thousands for the simplest thing (a simple X-Ray on my arm). That isn't working, that isn't being able to go in and get treated at all. Also, Just because the US was utterly untouched by WWII while all the other powers were ruined doesn't make Capitalism work by itself alone. Following your logic I can prove you that a Monarchy system is by far the best for everyone considering how much ehadway there was under it.

 

 

Then pay for insurance.

http://www.healthinsurancefinders.com/personal-health-insurance.html

As far as a Monarchy, that's not apposed to Capitalism.

A Monarchy is a form of government, like a Democracy. Capitalism is an economic system, and can thrive in both systems (and does).

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 12 April 2009
NintendoMan said:
@therealmafoo - I wasn't kidding actually, i firmly believe in what i say, everyone should have everything or everyone should have everything and those who don't contribute are obviously useless to society, what do we do with useless things - throw them away, why should humans be any different.

Hey i make people smile with my general awesomeness.  Why should i have to have a job when i make people happy more often then not. That's a contribution, though small... and therefore I deserve as much as everybody else.

I mean... that's more then a lot of old people do.  Should the old be killed for not contributing to society anymore?

Point be... "contribution to society" isn't a statistical point.  It's an opinion... a variable one at that.



NintendoMan on 12 April 2009

You don't make anyone happy. Happiness is a lie, one of those words that doesn't really mean anything. Being happy is useless, it doesn't help.



Manchester United 2008-09 Season - Trophies & Records

Barclays Premier League 2008-09: 1st // UEFA Champions League 2008-09: Finals (Yet To Play) // FIFA Club World Cup: Winners // UEFA Super Cup: Runners-up // FA Cup: Semi-Finals // League (Carling) Cup: Winners // FA (Charity) Community Shield: Winners
Records: First British Team To Win FIFA Club World Cup, New Record for No. Of Consecutive Clean Sheets In Premier League, New English & British League Records for Minutes Without Conceding, New Record For Going Undeafeated In Champions League (25 games ongoing), First British Team To Beat FC Porto In Portugal, First Club To Defeat Arsenal At The Emirates In European Competition, First Team In English League Football History To Win 3 Titles Back To Back On Two Seperate Ocassions
NintendoMan on 12 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:

 

Then pay for insurance.

http://www.healthinsurancefinders.com/personal-health-insurance.html

As far as a Monarchy, that's not apposed to Capitalism.

A Monarchy is a form of government, like a Democracy. Capitalism is an economic system, and can thrive in both systems (and does).

 

Not everyone can afford insurance genius.

 



Manchester United 2008-09 Season - Trophies & Records

Barclays Premier League 2008-09: 1st // UEFA Champions League 2008-09: Finals (Yet To Play) // FIFA Club World Cup: Winners // UEFA Super Cup: Runners-up // FA Cup: Semi-Finals // League (Carling) Cup: Winners // FA (Charity) Community Shield: Winners
Records: First British Team To Win FIFA Club World Cup, New Record for No. Of Consecutive Clean Sheets In Premier League, New English & British League Records for Minutes Without Conceding, New Record For Going Undeafeated In Champions League (25 games ongoing), First British Team To Beat FC Porto In Portugal, First Club To Defeat Arsenal At The Emirates In European Competition, First Team In English League Football History To Win 3 Titles Back To Back On Two Seperate Ocassions
vlad321 on 12 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
vlad321 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
vlad321 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
vlad321 said:
Kept it short in the other thread and I will keep it short here:

Health, Security, and Infrastructure (roads, electricity, internet, etc.) Should be socialized and should fall squarely on the government's shoulders so that I can pursue my happiness in peace.

Why?

Do you feel this because you want better services for all, or because if some ideological feeling towards it?

Meaning is someone could come up with a better solution though Capitalism then Socialism, would you be for it?

 

If you can come up with a better solution in capitalism where I can always know that no matter what happens I'll be able to walk into a hospial and be treated, my place to live would have everything necessary for basic living and my business would too, and that I'm safe being in this country. Then yeah let it do so. Curently only the Security works in the US. The Infrastructure, and ESPECIALLY the Health part is so pathetic words can't describe it.

 

Well, thanks to the advancements in medical science due to capitalism, people live longer without ever walking into a hospital, if you get things that used to kill you, you can now go to the grocery store and spend 7 dollars on a box of medication that saves your life. Those things only exist because of Capitalism.

Also, today you can walk into any hospital, and get treatment (if it's life threatening).

I am not sure what part of the US doesn't work like you would like it to.

Yes I can walk into a hospital and then I will have a bill in the thousands for the simplest thing (a simple X-Ray on my arm). That isn't working, that isn't being able to go in and get treated at all. Also, Just because the US was utterly untouched by WWII while all the other powers were ruined doesn't make Capitalism work by itself alone. Following your logic I can prove you that a Monarchy system is by far the best for everyone considering how much ehadway there was under it.

 

 

Then pay for insurance.

http://www.healthinsurancefinders.com/personal-health-insurance.html

As far as a Monarchy, that's not apposed to Capitalism.

A Monarchy is a form of government, like a Democracy. Capitalism is an economic system, and can thrive in both systems (and does).

 

So, if I have even the slightest disability my insurance would skyrocket. Or the smallest disease, or possibility of something happening. All because it's a business and they don't want to lose money on you..... That means the system fails completely.

 

And fine, then bullionism. Cause under bullionism the human race made more discoveries overall than it did under Capitalism.

 



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
NintendoMan on 12 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
NintendoMan said:
@therealmafoo - I wasn't kidding actually, i firmly believe in what i say, everyone should have everything or everyone should have everything and those who don't contribute are obviously useless to society, what do we do with useless things - throw them away, why should humans be any different.

Wow, so based on this logic, if you're on a ship thats sinking, and the lifeboats can only hold 80% of the people, you think they should all drowned.

Not really how I think.

 

So how do you decide how lives and who dies. By race, gender, age, job, criminal record? Why should those 20% die?



Manchester United 2008-09 Season - Trophies & Records

Barclays Premier League 2008-09: 1st // UEFA Champions League 2008-09: Finals (Yet To Play) // FIFA Club World Cup: Winners // UEFA Super Cup: Runners-up // FA Cup: Semi-Finals // League (Carling) Cup: Winners // FA (Charity) Community Shield: Winners
Records: First British Team To Win FIFA Club World Cup, New Record for No. Of Consecutive Clean Sheets In Premier League, New English & British League Records for Minutes Without Conceding, New Record For Going Undeafeated In Champions League (25 games ongoing), First British Team To Beat FC Porto In Portugal, First Club To Defeat Arsenal At The Emirates In European Competition, First Team In English League Football History To Win 3 Titles Back To Back On Two Seperate Ocassions
Kasz216 on 12 April 2009
NintendoMan said:
You don't make anyone happy. Happiness is a lie, one of those words that doesn't really mean anything. Being happy is useless, it doesn't help.

All research done in regards to productivity would prove you wrong there.

Improving happiness is one of the biggest ways to improve productivity.

 



tombi123 on 12 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
"A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival."

 

Just out of curiosity, in this system, how would anything get done, and who would do it?

What's the motivation to work?

 

The majority of work is done by robots. Money isn't the only motivator. (Proper) Scientists don't work for the money, its finding out the unknown that motivates them.



TheRealMafoo on 12 April 2009
NintendoMan said:
TheRealMafoo said:
NintendoMan said:
@therealmafoo - I wasn't kidding actually, i firmly believe in what i say, everyone should have everything or everyone should have everything and those who don't contribute are obviously useless to society, what do we do with useless things - throw them away, why should humans be any different.

Wow, so based on this logic, if you're on a ship thats sinking, and the lifeboats can only hold 80% of the people, you think they should all drowned.

Not really how I think.

 

So how do you decide how lives and who dies. By race, gender, age, job, criminal record? Why should those 20% die?

 

I don't really care how you pick them. Not picking them is worse.



Kasz216 on 12 April 2009
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
"A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival."

 

Just out of curiosity, in this system, how would anything get done, and who would do it?

What's the motivation to work?

 

The majority of work is done by robots. Money isn't the only motivator. (Proper) Scientists don't work for the money, its finding out the unknown that motivates them.

That used to be the case.

Nowadays i'd highly disagree with you.  The monetary gains of science have far outweighed the scientific discovery aspects in most scientists today.

Very few scientists work in theoretical unprofitable fields compared to the ones that produce money making stuff.