“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
"government also has a responsibility to see to it that those who engage in productive work, such as cleaning garbage, are able to provide themselves with the basic necessities."
It seems to me the government has been doing this. I asked the question because it appeared you were suggesting the government is not doing this.
To her Wall Street owners: Hillary Clinton: “But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. so, you need both a public and a private position.” - Hillary Clinton: "I'm kind of far removed from the struggles of the Middle Class"
I'm going to assume you know what a straw man is. You started with a failed premise. You are correct about the structures that capitalism is founded on and also that it encourages productivity. That's why we live in a prosperous nation and it's also the reason that all communist and socialist systems now include degrees of capitalism. Simply put, capitalism works and the rest of the economic systems have come to rely on it for sustainability. Capitalism does rely on self interest, which is different than greed. Greed is an emotive term and not applicable to your premise. Under your theory, selfishness is the same as the right to private property. This is a narrow-minded view of private property.
Upon reading your original post I am reminded of a particular word that I haven't heard in a long time. Hooey.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler
You pose a question with your preconceived notion of the answer you want to heard to have your opinion reaffirmed.
There are others who don't share that opinion, challenge your and your question, and you dismiss out of hand, because it's not the answer that you want, yet continue to dress this up as a 'discussion' rather than a mere demand for reaffirmation of your opinion.
Not my fault that the truth aren't the answers that you want them to be.
Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it.” A Doctor called to a radio show & said: "That's the definition of a stool sample"
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Barack Obama January 2008
An irony is most people have never actually had any substantive encounter with actual rich people. I have a lot of rich family and they're not even really accessible to the general public. Most people think if you wear more than a few Polo Brand shirts you're rich, or some other idiocy. What most people fail to realize is actual rich people don't wear brands that are financially accessible to you and me. They wear $85 plain white T-shirts and that's the stuff they expect to get stained. A Polo Brand shirt is pure crap to them. They burn that stuff after age 12 and graduate to much more expensive brands that, ironically, the average person doesn't even know exist and wouldn't know what they were looking at. Most people don't know the brands that rich people wear because they've never heard of them and never will. So they classify some poor guy in a $35 on sale Polo Brand shirt as a "rich guy" (which would absolutely appall and ignite hilarity among actual rich guys).
The sad truth is the people your average person thinks are rich aren't rich, they're upper class wearing upper class brands. Upper class is not rich. That's another problem. People don't know the class system and structures of their own country. To your average person any notion that there are actual "tiers" and "classes" is simply too much mental work for them and they get offended yet still think they're experts on who's rich and who isn't via clothing even though they're clueless on class structure.
Last edited by Ryan5; 03-03-15 at 09:43 AM.
But regardless, to the point. yes the do it to a certain extent. I think more can be done in that regard, specifically providing a greater quality education among other things.