View Single Post
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2008, 08:29 PM
Raharu Haruha's Avatar
Raharu Haruha Raharu Haruha is online now
Analyst
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,317
Raharu Haruha is a name known to allRaharu Haruha is a name known to allRaharu Haruha is a name known to allRaharu Haruha is a name known to allRaharu Haruha is a name known to allRaharu Haruha is a name known to all
Credits: 9,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaBlack View Post
I have mixed feelings on that notion. It only works if the stockmarket is only seen as part of what people count on... In recent years it seems like people are beginning to think it's everything.

If people think the stock market is everything, it means that they will see it as part of government's job to make sure the stock market never fails (I think we're seeing this already) rather than to help keep order when it does.
And it will also lead to a country with far less regard for human rights around the world. If people's livelihood is 100% connected to "The Bottom Line" then they will allow any kind of behavior that keeps "The Bottom Line" up. Say goodbye to any claims of moral standing in the country.
The interesting thing is, that's what socialism is supposed to prevent. Socialism tries to create a group of people called workers, then gives those workers a part of the company - or so I understand. This is much like a corporate pension plan that invests all of the money into that corporations stock (which is extremely retarded btw).

However, what of the people who do not fit in? The people who don't work and are lazy just because they want to be? Well in capitalism we let'em rot. But in socialism, they're taken care of. However, that's looking at it from an extreme perception. Not everyone who doesn't work is lazy.

The real flaw with socialism is that since the government does so much for the people (I mean excessive subsidiaries and every corporation is helped to some degree by the government, which is not unrealistic) they begin to depend on the government. No government has ever been able to keep up with consumer's wants. Sure, the government has had its hands in the phones, trains and other things, but there are a million other products out there that exist because there is demand for them. In a socialist society, all means of production rely on some form of government help, if the government does not see the need for progress then they will not progress, and if the government does not see the need for new technology, then there will be no new technology. Therefore, socialism resists progress because any progression has to face the challenge of 1.) fitting in with what the collective society wants, and 2.) getting government support.

For example, many of you probably know someone who does not like computers. Hell, if you owned a computer 20 years ago you were a geek, a social outcast. It was obvious, at that time, that no one liked computers, but they progressed into personal computers and people began to use them outside of work, now they are popular. If this were a socialist society, you would not be having this discussion right now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by catawba View Post
I never claimed that 100,000 civilians died by American hands. I merely state the fact that our invasion and occupation has resulted in 100,000 civilian deaths.

This is figure approximates the numbers from Iraq Body Count, the most well documented, and highly regarded, source of civilian Iraq deaths from violence during our war with Iraq.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
So your logic is that if we are not there, the number will go down... That makes perfect sense... not.

Last edited by Raharu Haruha; 05-05-2008 at 08:31 PM.
Reply With Quote