Memo to Sadistic Saviour. When you deny that a theses is wrong and don't say why its wrong, I don't take you seriously. Also, when you ask to define certain terms as "neo-colonial" and "collapse" it suggests that you don't have any thing to say. Lastly, when you bring up socialism and how it is evil, again it suggests that you can't defend capitalism on that point.

__________________
"In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

http://www.communalknighthood.blogspot.com/

just don't read his posts. No biggie!

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Good advice.
Actually, it doesn't.


But while you're on the subject, socialism is evil. Socialism in a nut shell...

Theory: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Practice: The bulk of society's rewards are distributed to the neediest, instead of the most able.

Consequence: People hide their ability because it is only rewarded with more toil. Instead, a competition ensues to become the neediest.

Result: A nation of beggars where the only ability that is rewarded is the ability to manipulate the system, facilitating the need for a totalitarian control structure.

Conclusion: Socialism is evil.

We must create a better individual before we can create a better society. Honestly ask yourself what kind of individual socialism will create.

because it leads to everyone suffering on the same scale. In capitalism some will suffer. Such is the way when you are forced to produce for gain. In socialism most will suffer because few are stupid enough to work their tails off so others can collect the reward. I wouldn't do squat.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Is socialism evil, or just stupid?

Now, truly socialist states often have to rely on evil, coercive methods to force compliance, so they may become evil.

But socialism itself, in its pure form, just doesn't make sense except in small family groups. I wouldn't call that evil so much as pathetic.

I'm sure there are alien species out there where species-based altruism is so ingrained that socialism works, and works well. But it's a poor fit for humans.

__________________
Man up.

But if a person caused scores of other people to become poor we would call him evil. Ken Lay?

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

But only if he did it with full knowledge of what he was doing. If he just screwed up, I'd call him stupid or unfortunate, not evil.

Otherwise every entrepreneur who ever squandered his investors' money could be called evil.

With Ken, it might be both....

__________________
Man up.

... let me add that I consider untrammeled capitalism pretty evil.

Socialism and Communism I consider utopian fantasies -- a nice ideal, perhaps, but prone to outrageous abuse in real life and totally incompatible with human nature.

Capitalism is effective and realistic, but left to itself is brutal and nasty and doesn't serve the needs of society.

Well-regulated capitalism, with a decent safety net to both encourage entrepreneurial risk and take care of our least fortunate and most vulnerable, harnesses humanity's most selfish and harmful instincts for the greater good, while fulfilling our obligation to care for our fellow humans.

The details wherein the devil resides is "How much regulation (too little is every bit as bad as too much)? How big a safety net (too small is every bit as bad as too big)? At what cost, both direct and indirect?"

__________________
Man up.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

First of all let's make a distinction between real socialism (The socialism of Marx and Scandanavian Socialism) and Soviet Socialism. The 1917 Bolshevik revolution was actually against socialist dogma but everyone seems to think that socialism is evil because of Soviet Policy. Well, it wasn't real socialism. Socialism was suppose to eliminate inequality in our society, while capitalism's basis is inequality. It is content on keeping people unequal. Now, which one sounds evil.

Also, capitalism ignores human nature too, because capitalism expects that the market will create social justice. Well, since human being have a tendency to look out for their best interest this is quite unrealistic. But we can't blame everything on human nature. Socialism was designed to change society from a money-driven capitalist society to a cooperative one. It's debatable whether this is even possible.

The problem with capitalism is that people get wealthy off the labour of one another. And in the interest of maximizing profit employees don't often want to give their workers raises. If not for democracy, capitalism would have continued its destructive prowess. But democracy was able to curve some of its bad habits.

In addition, capitalism is a fragile and unstable system. The market is chaotic and it has proven in the past that if it is left alone it will self-destruct. Lastly, capitalism seems to cause violence and war as well. Capitalism causes poverty which breeds crime. While every war since the advent of democracy has been motivated by economics. From the First World War, to teh European colonial wars, to the Iraq Wars.

__________________
"In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

http://www.communalknighthood.blogspot.com/