Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
It is quite rational to lose respect for someone because of their beliefs.
|
Not when their beliefs are humanistic and in the spirit of peace and equality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
It's cute that you think that development would happen in an evenhanded way with regular people not being kicked out of the area under socialism. Is that what happened in any country where socialism has been utilized as a system? No. In every single country that has adopted or tried to adopt socialism, the masses have faired much worse and have been forcibly relocated to ensure "development" and "progress" and if they didn't leave they were mass murdered.
|
Like Sweden and Norway, right? Those brutal, totalitarian regimes where cops walk around without guns, no one serves a prison sentence greater than 21 years, and everyone has free health care, college education, and even massages! Sounds terrifying! Someone should fight back against these oppressors in the name of true liberty and justice.
Oh wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
As for ecological repercussions of capitalism that you mention: there are ways you can structure the system to avoid, mitigate, or militate against these problems (e.g. using the law to require individuals to take certain precautions on their property - we do this all the time in the form of zoning laws).
|
Do you really not understand that the problem is the division of land into individually-owed parcels? How can a herd of elk or elephants freely migrate the land when they're constantly running into fences?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
Supply and demand pressures present only in capitalist systems prevent overdevelopment, while democratic governments can be used to prevent underdevelopment as well and to ensure development in a fair way. Unfortunately, because poor people in this country don't bother to vote we haven't been seeing the kind of push back we'd need to ensure that development be better tailored to the needs of that community.
|
Is that why so much of Cuba is such pristine ecology? Because of socialist overdevelopment? Gimme a break. It's only government action that can designate vast areas of the Earth off limits to development. Look at Google Maps. The only undeveloped fertile parts are national parks and reserves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
Also, I want to point out that you said two mutually exclusive things in your comment: that you hate both over-development and that you think development is happening too slow.
|
I'm not surprised that went over your head. I'm in favor of development in the right places and no development in the wrong places.
In hierarchical industrial civilization (of which capitalism is a predominant feature), cities require the importation of resources from rural areas. It causes cities to become more expensive, thus leading poorer citizens to move to the outskirts. Supply and demand coupled with privatized land ensures that housing will be built out there. Short of economic collapse or widespread crime, it's impossible for these citizens to move back into the city. So, it's never-ending. Cities just sprawl and sprawl under capitalism. It's unsustainable. Unregulated capitalism is unsustainable on this planet. It just doesn't work. It's not a coherent system.
People like you get scared when someone utters the word 'socialism'. But it's not scary. You just don't know the definition. You're thinking of communism. Socialism is just the general principle that all people should be protected from the deleterious effects of the market and that wage labor is fundamentally unfair. The poor stay poor and the rich get richer. They bleed us dry then throw us out with the waste.
This isn't a debate you can win. I've debated thousand of capitalists and, from what I can tell, you've never even encountered a real socialist before.
Threaded Mode