-->
@Danielle
Those arguments seem pretty pertinent to me. Government subsidies are among the factors that can effect capitalist economies. It seems worth addressing.
The fundamental problem with capitalism (as described by Bo Burnham
Posts
Total:
282
-->
@secularmerlin
I said: People get heart disease from sugar - are bakers evil for selling you delicious cakes?
He replied with: It might be "evil" for our tax dollars to be leveraged in order to subsidize the sugar industry.
I wasn't talking about subsidies. I was talking about whether or not sellers were responsible for providing things that people could abuse or be harmed from. If he wanted to make the point that bakers weren't evil for supplying sugar, but government was evil for incentivizing the mass consumption of it, then he could have made that point and I would have discussed it. But he didn't.
My point was that if you start applying this standard for one provider (cigarette sellers) you might have to start applying it to others. Are bartenders evil? After all a lot of alcoholics beat their wives, drive drunk and harm their kids and workplace. Are distillery owners evil? Liquor store owners? I was going down THAT road and he brought up a whole different point about the role of government which is arguably a red herring.
And furthermore when government subsidizes the market it is less of a "capitalist" market and more of a regulated one. Protectionism through tariffs, incentives through tax breaks and other government influences are certainly worthy of consideration, but they do not answer my question about whether bakers are evil for selling delicious cakes.
-->
@secularmerlin
Oil is the cheapest way to provide heat but it's not the only way. Furthermore transportation is arguably a necessity, so if necessities justify oil subsidies you could make a case for why people need to move around.Do you believe it's more efficient to give subsidies to international mega-corporations (MOBSTER CON-ARTISTS), or would it perhaps be a more efficient use of resources to instead give that exact same subsidy to, let's say, the bottom 50% of income earners?
And this was another straw man. My point was that there are cost-benefits to everything and people often have to weigh difficult choices. For instance, oil is not the most ideal way to provide heat in terms of environmental concerns, but it is currently the cheapest and easiest way. I asked if the government was evil for going the cheapest and easiest route to provide heat to poor people.
3RU7AL replied by asking if I was conflating luxuries with necessities. I said no, but if he's suggesting that it's okay for people to go the cheap and easy route for the necessity of heating, then why not the necessity of transportation? I did not get an answer. Instead I got an irrelevant question about what I think is the best way to distribute money. I'm not talking about distributing money bro. I specifically asked about whether or not he's saying it's okay to do things that may cause harm if it is deemed a "necessity." Like I said there are cost-benefits to everything and he seems to be agreeing with my point.
Please wish me patience in this conversation instead of "luck" lol I don't need luck. I'm not impressed.
-->
@Danielle
I'm not much for the word evil. The food industry as a whole is unethical for encouraging over consumption of all kinds and especially the overconsumption of sugar. They got into it with the best of intentions (arguably) but unhealthy eating habits are the cornerstone of their buisness.
Same with oil. Perhaps oil saves lives with heat and power they got into it with the best of intentions (arguably). Perhaps there is a better way to produce power or cut down on power consumption but the energy industry as a whole is run somewhat unethically and whith little concern for environmental issues and sustainability when measured against quarterly profits.
These aren't straw men they are very real issues.
Individuals male up the whole. Is a Baker not participating willingly in an unethical system where he profits from sugar subsidies effects on the cost of the sugar he uses to bake with?
In fact the further you pull back your focus the more interconnected the flawed system becomes and the more flaws there are being perpetuated by more people.
Without sugar subsidies is there a baker?
-->
@Danielle
For instance, oil is not the most ideal way to provide heat in terms of environmental concerns, but it is currently the cheapest and easiest way.
You might think so. But the "price" that is paid by you and me does not fully account for the zillions of dollars spent on military equipment and subsidies and tax-breaks and regulatory loop-holes enjoyed by a rather small club of multinational corporations.
-->
@Danielle
I specifically asked about whether or not he's saying it's okay to do things that may cause harm if it is deemed a "necessity."
I'm not making prescriptions.
It may be "permissible" (if not inevitable) to "cause harm" for something you personally consider a "necessity".
But before that question can be answered, certain primary axioms must be made explicit.
-->
@Danielle
I wasn't talking about subsidies. I was talking about whether or not sellers were responsible for providing things that people could abuse or be harmed from.
(IFF) a drug dealer is "responsible" for the health impacts of their product (THEN) a baker is "responsible" for the health impacts of their product.
-->
@Danielle
And furthermore when government subsidizes the market it is less of a "capitalist" market and more of a regulated one.
I'm pretty sure it's the captains of industry that are lobbying for the subsidies.
Isn't "capitalism" the pursuit of capital by any and all means available?
Isn't a government who pours favor on a few special campaign contributors really acting as an extension of those corporations?
Isn't a "pro-business" government really an ideal capitalist playground?
CAPITALISM =/= FAIR PLAY
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps there is a better way to produce power or cut down on power consumption but the energy industry as a whole is run somewhat unethically and whith little concern for environmental issues and sustainability when measured against quarterly profits.
WE MUST DEMAND THORIUM REACTORS.
-->
@Danielle
He's just replied to me with a bunch of fallacies for reasons that remain unclear.
I'm pretty certain that questions are not, and cannot qualify as logical fallacies.
I haven't even attempted to guess at, much less purposefully mischaracterize YOUR "argument".
17 days later
-->
@fauxlaw
But would arguing for one system completely independent of the other even work? There are clear examples of socialism in America (Food banks and the like), and a lot of people like those in isolation but not it as a whole (which is understandable) Similar to my last question, when does there get to be too much of capitalism or socialism? Is there even a balance? Should we prefer only one side?
-->
@Theweakeredge
There cannot be a balance of capitalism and socialism; they seek entirely separate objectives, one a construct of private industry, the other a construct of government ownership of industry. One problem with government involvement is that government types know little about successful operation of private industry, and generally seek to control it, budget it, and ultimately manage and own it. That has never worked successfully in thousands of years of attempt of like systems. The modern Marxist socialism has never survived even 100 years [the record is USSR, with 70+ years before collapse. The average is 40 years. By contrast, capitalism promotes the individual and that individual's personal ambition to succeed. He does, and they do because, contrary to misguided belief, like Oba'a, there is not ceiling to the money supply.
-->
@fauxlaw
Socialism sees to grant the group of individuals equal rights - seeing as we are called the United States of America and not the Separated States of America, our massive patriotic pride towards our country, etc etc, I'd say the collective matters at least a little bit. Saying there is no balance is false, we already have examples of Socialism within our current Capitalism, and yet there is too much capitalism.
Also - Just because things have different goals, doesn't mean that they can't be incorporated together, because you can always just change those goals, you're not required to keep them.
57 days later
Good point, necessity is the mother of invention; but what will happen when it's no longer a necessity? 🤔
276 days later
Communist bullshit
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
You couldn't elaborate could you? Also and just because it seems to be such a seriously recurring problem when discussing this issue, you aren't accidentally conflating socialism/communism with totalitarianism/authoritarianism/fascism? It is important to he clear that socialism is more or less completely diametrically opposed to any authoritarian regime. Indeed communism is anti hierarchical in general.
-->
@secularmerlin
YOUR REVEALING STATEMENT: "Indeed communism is anti hierarchical in general."
BAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH
HOW could you make such a statement if you look at every instance of communism all yo will see is totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
Look at
China
cuba
USSR
venezuela
etc etc
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Many of these examples are of totalitarian regimes which claim to be socialist in much the same way western capitalist society calls itself a democracy.
-->
@secularmerlin
YOUR IDIOTIC QUOTE: "Many of these examples are of totalitarian regimes which claim to be socialist in much the same way western capitalist society calls itself a democracy."
BAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I would like you to kindly elaborate on your idiotic statements.
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Ad hominem attacks are poor substitutes for solid logical arguments.
You have still not elaborated yourself but I shall oblige. China has a political party which self identifies as communist but upon closer examination you will see that the power does bot belong to the people nor do they own the means of production. Any economic system that concentrates all wealth/power into the fewest possible hands in anathema to socialism which is categorized by the workers ownership of the means of production and egalitarianism.
In the same way western capitalism claims to be democratic when in fact profits, not the will of the people, determine policy.
-->
@secularmerlin
If only socialism could actually work.
No one cares about your utopian dreams.
Your folk need to wake up
LIFE ISNT FAIR STOP WHINING
It always turns into an authoritarian regime.
YOUR BULLSHIT QUOTE: "In the same way western capitalism claims to be democratic when in fact profits, not the will of the people, determine policy. "
I would think money...... would be important to progress......right?
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
I would think money...... would be important to progress......right?
No. Progress is important to progress. Money is not necessary to progress or we could never have progressed to the point of developing substitutionary economies. Please think about what you are saying before you say it.
Also progress is not synonymous with the greater good. The "progress" we are now "enjoying" will soon render our planet uninhabitable to humans.
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
LIFE ISNT FAIR
This is not under dispute. I am aware life us unfair. That is no reason not to promote human wellbeing whenever possible, including prioritizing human wellbeing over profit or political power.
-->
@secularmerlin
I like how you liberals blame everything on capitalism
Climate change=capitalism
poverty=capitalism
anything bad in the world=capitalism
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Why do you keep changing the subject? You still have not qualified your very first post.
-->
@Theweakeredge
But would arguing for one system completely independent of the other even work? There are clear examples of socialism in America (Food banks and the like), and a lot of people like those in isolation but not it as a whole (which is understandable) Similar to my last question, when does there get to be too much of capitalism or socialism? Is there even a balance? Should we prefer only one side?
I know this was not directed at me but capitalism and socialism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Capitalism is too much when it begins to become compulsory. When it begins adversely affecting who gets to eat and who gets a house and who deserves life saving medicine and who should be incarcerated. It should not be responsible for our infrastructure or for generating executive policy. Also there is no free market absent government regulation. Government regulation is what guarantees private ownership of the means of production by a few wealthy individuals and without the threat of homelessness and destitution enforced by police violence (whether this threat is implicit or explicit) no such ownership would be enforceable. No one chooses to starve or be subjected to exposure.
We must stop locking up the food and abolish the land lord class. Free market can squeeze in wherever else it isn't hurting anything once we accomplish that.
-->
@secularmerlin
what would your alternative be??????
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Alternative to what?
-->
@secularmerlin
Capitalism