Politics...
03 Jul 2011, 1:05 pm
Same goes for unrestrained capitalism. At some point the wealthy hoarders, given absolute free reign, will have to resort to forcefully defending their walled-in existence from the starving masses.
If A did not cause B to be hungry why should A be compelled to feed B?
If need is a sufficient criterion to demand satisfaction, why bother to work? Just demand what you need from someone who has what you need.
ruveyn
You still seem to be under the impression that pure capitalistic society is a meritocracy. The flawed assumption is that those who don't have access to the resources to survive are simply not working hard enough. In reality they may be ripped off by the owner class that doesn't produce anything but simply uses it's ownership status to lord over the peasent masses. In this case the owner class either needs government to physically defend it's existence or to have it's own means of defense.
In any case the societal notion that property is an absolute right breaks down at some point. Without keeping the peasents illiterate and doped on religion, there's nothing to stop the peasants from waking up to the injustice of the aristocracy.
and now that people are waking up(maybe I am being too optimistic) what are they going to do about it? probably run away or hide while the whole world goes to sh*t. a little extreme but it would not suprise me of that is exactly what happens.
I don't think we're quite at that point now. Just pointing out that this does describe how things were in the past and it often took violence to correct the problem. Reveyn's desire to turn the clock back is disturbing.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
03 Jul 2011, 1:29 pm
Same goes for unrestrained capitalism. At some point the wealthy hoarders, given absolute free reign, will have to resort to forcefully defending their walled-in existence from the starving masses.
If A did not cause B to be hungry why should A be compelled to feed B?
If need is a sufficient criterion to demand satisfaction, why bother to work? Just demand what you need from someone who has what you need.
ruveyn
You still seem to be under the impression that pure capitalistic society is a meritocracy. The flawed assumption is that those who don't have access to the resources to survive are simply not working hard enough. In reality they may be ripped off by the owner class that doesn't produce anything but simply uses it's ownership status to lord over the peasent masses. In this case the owner class either needs government to physically defend it's existence or to have it's own means of defense.
In any case the societal notion that property is an absolute right breaks down at some point. Without keeping the peasents illiterate and doped on religion, there's nothing to stop the peasants from waking up to the injustice of the aristocracy.
and now that people are waking up(maybe I am being too optimistic) what are they going to do about it? probably run away or hide while the whole world goes to sh*t. a little extreme but it would not suprise me of that is exactly what happens.
I don't think we're quite at that point now. Just pointing out that this does describe how things were in the past and it often took violence to correct the problem. Reveyn's desire to turn the clock back is disturbing.
What do you think it will take exactly this time around? I think as little violence as possible should be used....but chances are it will come down to that. I mean is 1% of the population really going to give up their power because they are asked nicely to? just throwing this out there, I mean in history when things become this way it does not stay that way for long because everyone gets fed up with the BS and history repeats itself in a sense.
03 Jul 2011, 3:10 pm
I tend to read articles online and get stymied by the hate posted in comments. People don't tend to back up their viewpoint with facts, just opinion. Not that opinions aren't valuable to an individual, they just lack merit in debates. "Because I said so" and "Yer awl dumb" really doesn't make me want to agree with anyone.
That said - All parties that I've seen do this. People have the capacity to be complete idiots regardless of affiliation. I think both parties have merit in their arguments. The main disagreements seem to stem from ideological differences. These differences are unlikely to be changed by mere debate. However, some level of compromise can be met by recognizing the issues most important to each party. Well, sort of.
I will not budge on womens reproductive rights, for instance, but am willing to find ways to give men more reproductive rights. I will not ever support a motion restricting the rights of another based on religion, but I will work to protect religion from anyone who would seek to destroy it. Meh... I'm tired and done now.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Oath Keeper's Son Enters Politics |
25 Mar 2024, 1:53 am |
| Work politics and “playing the game” |
10 Mar 2024, 4:18 pm |
