Hello again Angel and anyone else who is reading this, I'm back to complete the rant that I was working on, I hope I can get back into my train of thought and hopefully maybe write something that someone will enjoy. Here we go....
"The perfect example has to be the former East and West Germany. One was semi-capitalistic, the other more or less communistic. Germans in general are hard working ppl and both sides of The Wall started off from the same basic work ethic. One side made it to decent living standard for all its citizens; the other side gave its ppl all they needed to survive- but no more. Why would that be? Why would it not work? Only because ppl are greedy and do not want to share, or is it that making sharing a LAW is unfair and unjust?"
I don't think it's because the people were forced to share, I think it was because they had a gov't that did not work for the people. The Eastern German gov't didn't really practise communism, nor did the people. I will state again for the record, I don't think current communist practises are the answer, nor do I think current capitalist practises are either. And maybe the pure form of each aren't the answer to societies problems as well. Maybe the answer is that we all have to begin to realize we are all in it together, we are all on the same planet and should act resposible for our actions, for ourselves and for each other.
You say that making a sharing law is unfair and unjust, what about a law that promotes greed? is greed fair? Do you know what would happen in a true capitalist society? You'd probably be living in Microsoft's Europe right now. I'd be living in MacDonald's Canada. Brad would be living in Sony's Korea. There'd be signs that say "Welcome to MacDonald's Canada, smiles are free"...you are now entering the town of "Ronald". Let's face it with out restrictions on the practises of big business things would run amok. Do you think Bill Gates gives because he is a charitable man? Do you think he would help pay for a hospital if he wasn't getting a tax break? Do you think a man like Bill Gates deserves 500 billion dollars in assests(I believe that is what he is worth now, not 100 percent sure). Has he really changed the world that much? If no one bought his operating system and went with another one, do you think society would be worse off? Under the current operating system of the American gov't one person can be more valuable then an entire country. Is that what you call fair? Say someone saved his life while he was growing up, say a stranger grabbed his arm and stopped him from walking in front of a car thereby preventing his death, does that mean she is worth 500 billion because without her intervention there would have been no Bill Gates? Is it fair that Bill Gates has enough money to bribe the devil while some people who work just as hard as he does scrape by? How long would he survive if there was no one to collect garbage, no one to harvest the food he eats, no one to fix the electricity that powers his little gadgets? How long would they survive without Bill Gates? Don't get me wrong, a person like Bill Gates has contributed to society, as much as a lot of people and he does deserve to live well, but then again doesn't everyone? So with that in mind how can someone defend a system where one may live like a king and the other a slave and call them equal and call this fair? Now you may say that everyone would be able to pay their own way if taxes were cut, everyone would and could pay what they owe to maintain a healthy society.
You've talked briefly about give and take and the fairness of such a system. You said in an earlier comment,
"I write a book, you buy the book to learn what I know and I get the money for it. I sell and get the money and you buy and get the info I can share. We both benefitted and that is how it should be in all things."
Yes but can one benifit more than another. Say it's a book you need, it is a book that is vital to your education. The manufacturers know this and decide to set the price at a high level. But you must have it in order to complete your studies so you buy it. Is this what fair is? Haven't you ever bought something you needed or felt you needed, like food for instance and said something like, "This price is ridiculous." Why is that? Is it because the company, suppling the goods you need or want, are giving you a fair exchange or is it because you are paying more than it's worth. Is someone capitalising on your needs? This is what capitalism is, is this a healthy way of life? Should not the exchange be more equal? Should someone have to work all week to be able to afford what one can buy with a minute's worth of work? Are some people really that more superior and more necessary than others? I don't ever remember one person dying and the world changing all that much (maybe Jesus if He actually was the Son of God is an exception). If Bill Gates had died at birth do you not think that another computer operating system would have taken Window's place, invented by someone else? So with that in mind has he contributed enough to warrant being the richest man in the world, that is to say is it fair the majority of one country starves while one person in another country could buy and burn a million dollars of grain a day until death and never be cold? I do however believe that a person with a good idea should be allowed to benefit from it especially if it impacts society positively, but where does it stop? In capitalism, it never does until all is owned by one. Should Mother Theresa have made 500 billion dollars? Could she have? I don't think she even raised half that amount to help with the poor. Is this fair? Was Mother Theresa worth less than Bill Gates or do people just value the wrong things? What about the cop who dies in the line of duty protecting a wealthy man's wealth? How much is he worth? 50,000 dollars a year? Less, more. Is the 100 000 dollar life insurance a good enough comfort for his widow and fatherless children? Is that what fair is? God doesn't even deserve 500 billion for His idea of creation.
If people are charitable enough to maintain a healthy society then why are there so many problems? Is it because we are forced to share? Is that why the space between the rich and the poor begin to once again widen. Do you think with more capitalism this will change for the better or worse. Will the poor once again become the slaves to the rich? Should a profitable company be allowed to pay a worker less than the poverty line for a forty hour work week? Or is it the workers fault, not being able to make ends meet, for not working an 80 hr work week? If taxes were cut, and this worker had more money, would he still be able to afford helath care, education and other necessities? Would companies raise their prices if they knew people could afford to pay more?
There is a cruel philosophy that is practised by both gov'ts and businesses, that philosophy is "keep them hungry". Pay them (the majority) enough to get by and have a couple of extras but not enough to not need the company anymore. That way you ensure they have no other choice but to work and do as you say in fear of losing their job.
"As for downsizing a company. I wonder what you would do if you owned a middle-sized company (cause it's these that get hit hardest) and a socialistic government put the thumbscrews on you so tightly in form of taxes that you will lose your business if you do not let some ppl go? Will you stay the same size and not relocate to a tax-wise cheaper neighbourhood and in the end lose the whole business, make all your employees lose their jobs? I think not."
Of course I'd relocate to a cheaper neighborhood or lay off people. It would be ridiculous not to. If one did not then all of the company would be unemployed. It would make no sense to not relocate. But why do you think mid-sized companies are taxed so high,( mid-sized companies in total pay more than the large corporations yet their total combined profits are less, kinda like the social classes, the top five percent of the world make more and pay less taxes then the total combined forces of the middle and poor classes combined) , could it be because the larger companies pay little to no taxes so the smaller sized companies, who don't have the power and clout like the big-guys, have to pick up the slack. Capitalist gov'ts bow to the will of very successful companies and not hard working people.
"Besides a company is not a charity organisation. You get your salary because you do work in exchange."
Is it a fair exchange? In today's society do a lot of people have the option of not working if they don't feel they are being paid what they are worth? Does the individual usually dictate what he is worth or does a company? Do we now value a comapany over an individual? If it was a fair exchange, would profitable companies be paying a worker less than the poverty line? In Canada the minimum wage on a forty hour work week is less than the gov't standard poverty line. Is this a fair exchange? MacDonald's restaurant boasts over "x" amount of billions served, I guess that means that MacDonald's restaurant has become somewhat of an important thing if so many people have used it. If it's important then the people who work there must be as well. How come then the people who work there barely make enough to stay alive? Perhaps wages are often dictated by how many jobs people need and not the profit of a company. Perhaps because a company knows that there are enough desperate people who need jobs they can lower the wages because there will be someone who is desperate enough to take the job. Has McDonald's really made the world a better place to justify their profits and lack of decent wages? Look at Western civilization before unions, before companies had to be accountable for the communities they were based in and got their labor from and made their money from. During those times there was companies, and the company's town. Was the standard of living better or worse? It was worse. At the end of one's life, which they had to work up until they died, they still ended up with nothing and got to leave behind nothing for their family. Was this because they didn't work hard enough? Were they really, really lazy back then and didn't deserve much money? Not until enforced pension contributions and enforced holidays and holiday pays, and enforced wage levels, and enforced working conditions and enforced working hours did the standard of living increase to a decent level. Would the rich people who owned and controled the company have changed without an uprising? Why would they have, they never did before, they saw nothing wrong with keeping people poor if they were wealthy. Would it have been fair to keep things the way they were? The workers were still getting paid, there was still money paid for work done, an exchange taking place.
"Or do you think that just because someone made it on lets say the stock-market, he or she should have employees who do un-needed work just cause they can afford to keep them on?"
Sure why not if it benefits society, thereby benifiting him or her. If they were a billionaire, would it really hurt to dish out an extra million a year (that's not even the interest they make on that money) to employ another 40 people? I mean you did say these people were working, they may not be completely necessary but they are working for their money which helps give a person a sense of purpose. Why do you think he or she shouldn't? Is it just because you think they don't have to so they shouldn't bother?
Do you think it's fair that a profitable company downsizes for the sake of a few extra dollars and forces the workers to now work twice as hard in the same period of time and for the same wage? I read in the paper that a place was looking for a person who was efficient in carpentry, plumbing, and electrical work and would pay 10 to 12 dollars an hour (that's roughly about 4.5 to 5.5 pounds). Is that a fair wage? Maybe the company can not afford to pay more? Fair enough (can't pay what you don't have) but if the company becomes successful do you think that worker's wage will reflect the work he or she did and compensate them for the low wage? Maybe the company can pay more but doesn't because they know someone will fill the job because someone is desperate enough? Does that still mean there was a fair wage paid for work provided? Was it a good exchange?
"Any kind of wealth is made by productivity and not through charity."
I'm sorry that you don't see charity as wealth or as helping productivity. Lets say a Man A owns a bread shop and Man B owns nothing. Man B is starving and asks A if he has work for him. Man A says no he doesn't need anyone. Man B says "no one needs work done right now. Could I have some bread because I'm starving." Man A says, "No, wealth is created through productivity and not charity." Man B says, "I agree." and picks up a stick and beats Man A to death then has a loaf of bread to supress starvation. Of course this is an exageration, but it doesn't mean this nor similar things don't happen now (but probably not in first world countries) or didn't happen before charity was enforced and social programs were created....There really still are people in the world who would kill you for a bowl of rice and a piece of fish....do you think they do it because they want to or because they have to? Tell you what, how about you go over there, eat a steak dinner in front of them and explain the benefits of a few having too much and many having too little? I'm sure they'll be fascinated Because poverty is not only created from people doing nothing but also by a few people having too much.
"Do you really think that someone who has an idea for a company should pay all their employees the same salary as she or he gets from their invention?"
No I don't think they should pay all their employess the same salary as he or she gets. The inventor has taken the risks, got together the money, come up with the idea and organized it all, that's a lot of work. I think a person should benifit greatly from setting up their own company and be allowed to make more money than those he/she employs. But do you think an employer should be allowed to set a wage at whatever he or she feels like? Do you think minimum wage was set up on a whim or because people weren't getting paid enough when the responsibility was left up to company owners? Do you think enforcing such laws breaks the rights of the owner or do you think not enforcing these laws breaks the rights of the worker? Are the workers being exploited through their productivity by feeling they're not being paid enough or is the owner being exploited through his/her invention by feeling he/she is paying too much ? Should one persons rights super-ceed the rights of many? Is not the many just individuals who happen to agree on an issue at a certain time? With that in mind should the rights of one be more important than the rights of many? Should many die so that one may live? None of us agree completely with one another. Everyone has a different take on life. Should there be laws to which govern every individual so that no ones rights are ever compromised? Are people responsible enough to make fair laws for themselves and enforce these laws? Or should your neighboor do that?
"And btw, only wealth is man-made. The keyword being: MADE. Poverty is the natural state in which you are if you do nothing."
Oh is this why there is so much poverty in the world? I guess I'll tell all the poor people they are poor because you said they do nothing. They'll be glad to finally know the reason why they live so poorly. Wealth and poverty are the effects of a competative barter system. Were North American Indians poor before or after Europeans came to their country? They did practise socialism or a form of communism where everyone in the tribe was taken care of.
"And yes some can be millionaires and some can't. But what is so bad in not being a millionaire? "
So then what's wrong with "forced tax". Is that the only thing preventing you from being a millionaire? Is that what is really supressing you from making a fortune, or is your stance against forced tax solely based upon that the principle of people being forced to be responsible for the society they've created is wrong because even without this forcing, people would still pay? Is it really wrong to ensure that people pay for what they've created? Individuals created society and society creates the individual because society is nothing more than individuals creating each other.
"Do you realise that you can work your hiney off in a socialistic society and make LESS than someone who doesn't work at all? And that you will NEVER EVER "make it" in such a society cause the law prohibits individual wealth?"
Yes the current socialistic societies are not fair but not because it prohibits individual wealth but because it prohibits most individuals from becoming wealthy. Do the leaders of a socialist country make the same wage as a factory worker and have the same standard of living? If all of a sudden the people in power in a socialist country, were forced to live the same as everyone else, then you can be assured everyone else would have a higher standard of living then they are used to.
"So I take (true) capitalism any day. At least there you have the legal chance at least to try and make it."
And at least in a true capitalistic society people have the legal chance to stop you from "making it" so that they can make more and more. Tell ya what, in a true capitalistic society try and set up a company that competes against Microsoft, then try to stop monopolies (they're ok in true capitalism), then try and stop the monopolies from controling the gov't (like big business doesn't pull strings already ), then try and stop the monopolies from owning you. The world did try true capitalism, that was when it was called monarchy and feudalism, where by your own effort or by birth you could become a king or queen and you decided how much you wanted to make and how much you wanted to give because you were the governing body, you were your own conscience. You could "capitalize" fully on any situation within your realm. We progressed past that, it didn't seem to work or sit to well with the general population.
"Communism cannot work cause again it forces ppl to put the needs of unknown ppl before their own. I do not believe that altruism is noble. I think it is a sin and perverse. You only have one life and to live it primarily for someone else is as sad as to throw it away."
Why is it sad to live for someone else if that someone else is living for you? Would that not make for a happy mariage? Both working for each other and happy when you both strive ahead? Is not a marriage a mini-society? Would you say the "marriage" would be a healthy one if both couples were to compete who made the most money and keep it all for themselves? Or do you think a "marriage" would be healthier if both sides shared what was earned by both? Should they pay equal shares of all expenses even if one could not afford to? If one could not afford to should they get a divorce? Would you rather have a million people working for you or one person working against you? Perhaps you do not love society like I do, perhaps that's where the disagreement lies. For I do love society, though some of it's faults I could live without and I am, in a sense, in a marriage with society. I love the people I don't know because I might have a chance of meeting them and learning from them some day. I love the fact that a person can try there best and fail and still be caught before they hit the ground. And I love the fact that some people still care enough about society to not mind giving up a little, to give something to those with less and in return only ask that they keep on trying. I still have this notion that you think all the poor people are poor because they are lazy and only want your money so they can continue to do nothing and that you don't think everyone has played some part in it.
"Do you really want a whole state to have a legal claim on your life and soul??"
I don't mind if I can have legal claim to the state's life and soul.
"Your point on taxes. Of course I benefit from schooling and education of children. And that is actually the only payment point I can gladly live with."
So you don't care that you haven't been murdered for your purse because there are social "nets" like welfare and unemployment insurance (at least there is unemployment insurance in Canada...what about over there) giving people an alternative to crime in order to stay alive. Are 10 percent of Canadians out of work because they are lazy or because there isn't enough work? What would 10 percent of Canadians do if they had no way of providing for themselves or their families? Would the majority turn to crime? Could the top 10 percent of the wealthiest companies that make their home in Canada, without going bankrupt or cause a huge change in their owners standard of living, afford to employ all those who wanted to work, thereby giving them a chance to at least earn their living? Could this only be done by "force"? I agree that people do need to feel like they are providing for themselves, they need to feel they have a purpose, without available work, how can this be done?
One suggestion that someone had for Canada was "Work-fare". This is where an able bodied person on welfare would be forced to do some kind of community work a few times a week. Small but loud groups screamed and yelled and kicked saying it was degrading and forced work was against their constitutional rights, they won and "Work-fare" unfortunately was quashed? Was the rights of the individual protected by the constitution? Should they have been forced to work just like we are forced to pay? Is sometimes forcing someone a good thing?
"I have a private health insurance, cause I want to pay for my own treatment rather than have someone pay for me. Plus I want to be allowed to choose my own doctor, which I may not under NH. But this coincidentally means I can give my place at the NH to some one who cannot afford private insurance and making services that little bit faster for them. But do I get a NH tax reduction for paying for myself? No."
You probably should get a tax break and I think that there is an injustice going on. But lets face it, the poor can not afford to pay for the poor. There are more poor than there are rich and there is more money with the rich then there is with the poor. They need your "forced tax" dollars to help keep them alive. If you don't want to be part of paying for a stranger's health then I'll do my best to cut you NH taxes if you'll go to the hospital and pick out the ones you want to live and you want to die. Yeah, I know, you'd still give even if it wasn't forced (I honestly do believe that you practise charity), but would you have the time, energy or inclination to give to the things that needed funds the most if it wasn't already organized for you? How would you feel if everyday you got 20 letters in the mail saying we were wondering if you could help out the hospital, we are trying to collect 2 dollars from everyone to keep our doors open, anther would be addressed from another hospital, a few from schools, some from the welfare, from shelters, etc...and everyday you keep sending them a dollar...or whatever they ask for....would you just eventually stop because of the sheer aggravation of having to deal with charities all the time on top of everything else that goes on in your life? What do you think most would do? How often do you think people think about the funding of schools and police and firemen and health care and so on? A system is not only set up to maintain a system but also to ease the burden on the hard working taxable class so they don't have to burden themselves with constant worring about the state of social programs within their society.
"Don't get me wrong, I do not earn much money. I can give you the exact figure if you like and you will see that I am no where near wealthy. In fact I could claim help from the government. That I do not however doesn't make things easier for me as far as council tax goes."
Do you think this is because of forced tax used for social programs or because or irresponsible use of tax dollars by the gov't? Do you think a true capitalist society would make your situation better or worse? Do you think you would have the same standard of living if those who were money hungry were to be let off their leashes, do you honestly think you'd be making more money? Do you think you could compete with the people who could walk into a hospital room and choose the ones to die if there was a profit to be made legally or would you become a slave to them? Most can't, and those that could are one in the same and that's why we "leash" them and give them set boundaries. And they are just as important to society as everyone else and that's why we give them a long leash.
"Let me tell you a little story as to that. Last year I got my new council tax bill (that is for firemen, police, road works, public library etc in my area) and they had come significantly up in price. I went to the community hall and asked if there was anyway I could possibly get a reduction, as I only earn a certain sum every month. The nice lady behind the counter explained to me that with that salary I could ask for income support. When I told her that I don't want any support, she looked up my files and saw that I own my apartment. She said that as I own the apartment I live in I had to pay the full sum unfortunately. When I explained to her that just cause I own my apartment doesn't make me have that kind of money loose to spend every month on council tax, she said that I had two options open to me. Either claim income support OR sell my apartment and move into a smaller apartment in a cheaper area so that I would be able to afford the taxes! So in other words they were willing to give me income support but they would not give me a lower tax rate, even though the tax reduction would have cost them less than the income support. I declined and now I just grit my teeth and pay."
Yeah I'd have to say that is a little mixed up. I wonder how gov'ts decide on which stupid law they should use first?
"Under socialistic policies your are punished for doing well enough to not claim support and rewarded for living off the state. This is what it boils down to for the individual. Now tell me again that the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the many."
If welfare is such a reward then why isn't everyone trying to get on it? I do agree with you that the law you explained is a little unfair and kinda of just "plain old stupid". I don't think the individual should be crushed to protect the many nor the many to be crushed to protect the individual but in certain cases both sides must compromise. However like I said earlier that law makes no sense, it seems a misuse of tax money and doesn't benefit either society as a whole nor the individual in the long run (misuse of tax dollars is harmful to everyone, except maybe to those who are misusing it). But please don't tell me you can't honestly say that there are no scenarios where the good of the many should not come before the good of the one. Would you kill off all of society or sacrafice one innocent person? I'm guessing one, especially if that one was not you. Why, because to destroy a lot for a little would make no sense. And I'd sacrafice all the rapists and murderers that live in the world today instead of one new born baby. Perhaps sometimes the society is more important than any particular individual but not more important than individualism. Perhaps it was an individuals who created society thereby creating individualism which is needed for the survival of both the individual and society. Perhaps you can be an individual and not think diversely enough (individualism) to seperate you from the majority. To be honest I don't know the true definition of individualism so I should probably shut my big yapper until I get the facts straight on it
"You say if there was a dying person in the street should one not help? Of course one should! I did say that I am all for helping! I just don't see how a government may throw me in jail if I refuse to give to someone who I never saw and never will see."
Yeah I have to admit that maybe my person dying scenario wasn't a very good...umm let me correct myself, was a very bad analogy. But how can a gov't throw you in jail if you refuse to give to someone who you will never see, easy, the same way they'd throw someone in jail that you will never see for not helping you (P.s. it isn't just your tax dollars that built the hospital where one day you may have to be rushed to for an emergency, a lot of people you don't know chipped in too, they're were probably just as unwilling ).
"Paying taxes and helping a beggar in the street are no where near the same! One I help out of the kindness and compassion of my heart; the other one I am forced to pay because I do not want to go to jail!"
Well I do both out of the kindness of my heart. I do however not enjoy being forced to pay for the misuse(not benefiting society) of tax dollars because I do not want to go to jail.
"I earn my money and I think that should give me the right to decide who is to have a share in it and who not."
Do you really have enough time on your hands to go and figure out who really deserves and needs it the most?
"As for pensions: do you think it is right that soon it will be one pensioner to every 2 working adults? I don't. Do I want to let them starve? Of course not. But I do say that we should let pensions die out with the old ppl now claiming it. Besides, what foolery is it to not have a private pension plan! How can you possibly rely on society doing well by the time you get old? Ppl should look out for them-selves and not rely on the state to look out for them. If we all did, we would all be MUCH better off and all our living standards would increase dramatically."
Yes pensions are in trouble and you are a fool if you do not contribute to a private fund if possible. But is it or would it be possible for everyone to fund their own retirement? Would there still be a need for welfare? Even with pensions a lot of elderly people live in poverty. Could pensions be better if there wasn't so much misuse and waste of tax dollars? Or has the retired elderly so greatly surpassed the working class and will continue this trend? Should we not work for those who worked for us? Do we not owe something to those who came before us?....well maybe we owe some of them....the person/s who invented the Atomic bomb shouldn't have gotten a pension. Is it fair that the rich are allowed to collect a pension when their standard of living is not affected by having or not having a pension?
"As for your final point on the individual having more rights than society? Eh? How is that even possible? Do you mean to say that if one individual is doing well and ten million aren't, the individual is treating the ten million unfairly?"
So you don't think a dictator such as Pinochet had more rights than the society he controlled. You don't think monopolies favor the individual, I guess the price fixing of the few who control the oil supplies is fair especially since oil has become a necessity in our society?
"Consider this: let us say there was only one person who invented the computer. That person would by now be super rich."
How could I consider this when that is completely untrue. The person/s who invented the modern computer used mathematic formulas that were invented by someone else and taught to him by a society, they also used materials that were invented by someone else....etc. without the help, both intentionally and unintentionally the people involved in making the computer would have never succeeded. Do you think the Wright brothers invented human flight all by themselves? Were there not other people working on the same things? Would flight not be discovered eventually if the Wright brothers hadn't done so? Would it have made any real difference if someone figured it out a month later?
"All of us would not have earned a bean from his initial invention. BUT don't forget what other ppl have earned by USING his invention?! One man's genius might not bring society as a whole the same wealth as him personally and initially but he does give you something for the money you pay for his invention. And usually the advantages to society that come with any invention of this magnitude far outweigh the money he earned for inventing it. People all too often measure success by money and never see what a difference one successful man can make in the upping of general living standards."
I agree that sometimes people do invent things that effect society grateful. Whether or not these things would have still been invented, or better things would have been invented if such a person didn't create it, I believe is open for debate and is possibly unprovable. I also agree that a person should benefit financially from such inventions but to what extent? I also agree that too many people do base success on money but in a true capitalistic society that is exactly what success is based on. I also agree that often people don't realize the contributions of the individual to society but I also feel that often the individuals don't realize the contributions of society to individualism. One builds the other.
"Capitalism as we know it is all about is inequality, I agree. But the scale is tipped away from the wealthy man. Society too wins every time some person gets rich by coming up with a new idea. But does the inventor get applauded? No. He gets hounded for getting rich on the fruit of his mind."
If you can tell me how the invention of say something like, G.I. Joe has furthered the human race I will applaud for the man who got rich from that idea. You are basing your statement on the idea that every invention is a great benefit to society or every invention is original. And does a rich person solely get rich from the fruit of his mind or did the sweat of others help him? Sometimes the rich get rich by exploiting the workers and by having ridiculous tax right offs....if you don't believe me please fly down to Indonesia and check out the sweat shop factories that major label supply clothing and other products such as Nike shoes and Television parts. They barely pay enough for the workers to survive there (many stories resembling slave labour have surfaced) and the work conditions are horrendous? Is this part of the beauty of capitalism? If so I want no part, I'd rather be forced to give up some of my salary to live with a cleaner conscience. Nike shoe company two years ago, spent 400 million dollars on advertising and the total sum of it's overseas labor overhead was one percent of that. Not a single Nike shoe is manufactured in a Western society. Is it because Nike is sooo socially conscience that it wants to give Third World countries jobs or is it because they can do what they please and act how they please and pay what they please in these countries? Would Nike crumble if they were to triple the workers salary? Would they even notice? Is that the beauty of capitalism? Is the beauty of capitalism where the company comes before society and the company comes before the individual and society caters the company and the individual lives for the company? Yeah I guess that is a beautiful thing if you are at the top of one of these pyramids. Lets go ask the workers in Indonesia who are occasionally beaten for not working hard enough and see if this is the beauty of capitalism. Yes many aspects of capitalism is unfair, but do the injustices equal the results? You keep mentioning the rights of the individual yet in capitalism the individual has no rights, the company does, the company becomes the governing body based on monetary issues of a few rather than the issues of the many or is it when you talk of the individual and the violation of individual rights you just are talking about yourself?
"As for your signature: 1) tell me, what right of one individual violates the rights of many individuals?"
See somewhere above for that answer.
"2) Do you really want the state and any and all persons to have a legal claim on your life? Do you really want any beggar to have a legal claim on the contents of your pocket? Do you really want to go to jail if you want to keep your pennies to yourself?"
Well in a true communist society it wouldn't really matter then because we'd all be beggars so neither of us would have anything in our pockets to claim. I don't want to rise above anyone, I want to rise with, I am in competition with no one but myself. I can't stand to see everything suffer just because of foolish greed and everyone claiming that they're individuals, so it becomes a me, me, me society. I'd like to invent things and share them with people and I'd like to have a decent standard of living but I don't want a billion dollars nor do I think that no matter what I invented would I deserve such a reward. Don't you think people could clean up the environment? They don't because there is no money to be made? The wealth of a healthy environment is pushed aside by the wealth of MONEY. Perhaps that really is the root of all evil....in a true communist society would money even exist? Communism is just a country practising equal profit sharing, if the country does good then so do the people, if the country does bad, so do the people (at least in theory that's what it's supposed to be). If you want a company to do good, why can't you want a country to do good? If you can work for a company, why can't you work for a country if you still can have a good standard of living? If gov'ts are not already controlled by corporations, would they be if true capitalism was practised? Is it fair that a few, with only interest in themselves, control the many?
Now I'm not screaming hooray! for communism, it does have it's flaws, especially where human nature is concerned and also in regards to work versus rewards but I also feel that capitalism doesn't work for the same reasons. Greed usually is the downfall for both and the cause of work hard and recieve nothing, one's rewards are set by a company and the other a gov't. Oh well, I never claimed to have the answers only the curiousity for them. Congrats to anyone who actually read this, and congrats to anyone who made any sense of this cause I sure as hell didn't. Thanks again for all the thoughts that this discussion has inspired and I look forward to reading your comments Angel, or anyone else's for that matter. Take care everyone,
an exhausted Trevor