• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has capitalism increased hatred in the human race?

Has capitalism increased hatred in the human race?

  • Total voters
    67
Not sure why lefties are so unhealthily ibsessed with the issue of 'equality'.

Unless it's equality brfore the law, inequality is hard-wired into nature, expecially human nature.

Equality is not worth the loss of a moment's sleep. I rather LIKE inequality, actually: that there are people smarter, fitter, richer than myself that i can compete with and measure myself against and therefore improve my condition.

Three cheers for inequality!

The proper measure of the success of an economic system is if it favours sicial and economic mobility and prevents vast numbers of the desperately poor to exist without hope of bettering themselves.

By this standard--the only sensible one--nothing in anyone's lifetime or their great-great-great grandchildren's lifetimes can ever hope to improve on capitalism.
 
hobgoblin said:
Not sure why lefties are so unhealthily ibsessed with the issue of 'equality'.

Unless it's equality brfore the law, inequality is hard-wired into nature, expecially human nature.

Equality is not worth the loss of a moment's sleep. I rather LIKE inequality, actually: that there are people smarter, fitter, richer than myself that i can compete with and measure myself against and therefore improve my condition.

Three cheers for inequality!

The proper measure of the success of an economic system is if it favours sicial and economic mobility and prevents vast numbers of the desperately poor to exist without hope of bettering themselves.

By this standard--the only sensible one--nothing in anyone's lifetime or their great-great-great grandchildren's lifetimes can ever hope to improve on capitalism.
Click to expand...
The current system in the USA is not working well enough. It needs improved.

Additionally, I'm not sure the current possibilities for social and economic mobility are anywhere near as high as they ought to be.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If one contributes an appetite then do they deserve to be rewarded with a meal?
Click to expand...

Everyone is capable of contributing productive work. Those who work hard to make sure that the environment is not filled with garbage deserve to be fed, clothed, and housed at the very least.
 
hobgoblin said:
Not sure why lefties are so unhealthily ibsessed with the issue of 'equality'.

Unless it's equality brfore the law, inequality is hard-wired into nature, expecially human nature.
Click to expand...

If that was directed at me, you are entirely off base if you think or have said here that everyone should be equal.
 
TurtleDude said:
success causes those who fail to hate those who succeed.
Click to expand...

Everyone has productive work that they can contribute. They are not failures when they do so. Of course you may need to believe that for the sake of your ego, but it is not true.
 
MildSteel said:
Everyone is capable of contributing productive work. Those who work hard to make sure that the environment is not filled with garbage deserve to be fed, clothed, and housed at the very least.
Click to expand...

Why? Please be specific.
 
VanceMack said:
Hitler to Stalin: The most murderous regimes in the world | Daily Mail Online

What is the one thing these regimes do NOT have in common?
Click to expand...

Capitalists aren't immune to human rights violations in pursuit of their greed!

Resistance evidently licensed disproportionate retaliation. When crushing opposition in Ceylon in 1818, the British killed over 1% of the population. Thirty years later not a single European on the island perished in the only insurrection worthy of the name. But 200 alleged rebels were hanged or shot, and more were flogged or imprisoned. Governor Eyre's reprisals after the Morant Bay uprising in Jamaica followed the same pattern. In the wake of their disastrous retreat from Kabul in 1842, the British meted out enough retributive homicide to earn the perpetual enmity of Afghanistan. Burma, Kenya and Iraq were subjugated with equal violence. After the Indian mutiny soldiers such as Garnet Wolseley did much to fulfil their vow to spill "barrels and barrels of the filth which flows in these niggers' veins for every drop of blood" they had shed. During the South African war the British allowed a sixth of the Boer population, mostly children, to die in concentration camps.

Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/british_empire
 
countryboy said:
Why? Please be specific.
Click to expand...

Because human beings did not create the natural resources on which prosperity is based. As such, the notion of justice requires that everyone is entitled to use them for their sustenance. If the government is going to protect property rights and the wealth of those who possess wealth, then 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.
 
MildSteel said:
Because human beings did not create the natural resources on which prosperity is based. As such, the notion of justice requires that everyone is entitled to use them for their sustenance. If the government is going to protect property rights and the wealth of those who possess wealth, then 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.
Click to expand...

Where is the government not protecting the property rights and wealth of those who clean garbage?
 
ocean515 said:
Where is the government not protecting the property rights and wealth of those who clean garbage?
Click to expand...

Where did I say that the government was not doing that?
 
sawdust said:
1. "Capitalism leverages the greed in humans to fuel productivity." This a straw man. Capitalism is an economic system which allows people to trade their capacity for production into goods and services they want or need. It's the only successful economic system which mankind has created.
Click to expand...

Straw man? Interesting. Likely an alt account.

Regardless, capitalism is based on the notion of the private ownership for the sake of profit in economic transactions. That requires getting out more in the form of capital than one puts in. Greed is based on the notion of the desire to have more than one has. As such, capitalism leverages greed. It is not a straw man.

sawdust said:
2. "However, greed is based on selfishness, which produces hatred of others." This is foolish psycobabble. Greed can be a negative force but it can also be force which drives people to succeed. It's the way the fruits of greed are applied that determines it's value.
Click to expand...

Selfishness is based on the desire to possess things to the exclusion of others. This mentality of exclusion breeds hatred of others. Therefore the assertion that selfishness produces hatred of others is not foolish.

sawdust said:
3. "As such, has the advance in capitalism resulted in an increase in hatred in the human race?" An illogical premise based on a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

It is a logical premise based on sound rational reasoning. Nothing that you have said has refuted the assertion.
 
MildSteel said:
Everyone is capable of contributing productive work. Those who work hard to make sure that the environment is not filled with garbage deserve to be fed, clothed, and housed at the very least.
Click to expand...

That works both ways - those that are fed, clothed and housed owe productive work, at the very least, in exchange for that reward.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That works both ways - those that are fed, clothed and housed owe productive work, at the very least, in exchange for that reward.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Giving people what they need for there sustenance without requiring them to work for it only encourages unnecessary dependence. That said, there may be some instances such as when someone is disabled where that might be necessary.
 
MildSteel said:
Absolutely. Giving people what they need for there sustenance without requiring them to work for it only encourages unnecessary dependence. That said, there may be some instances such as when someone is disabled where that might be necessary.
Click to expand...

The problem that I have with the current "safety net" system is that it is based on the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The FPL is based on household size while pay for productive work (aka wages) is not - often that means that the taxpayer is on the hook for the difference if even one person in that household does some "work activity" even if that is only taking a part-time class or "looking for" work.
 
MildSteel said:
Where did I say that the government was not doing that?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement.

"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.
 
MildSteel said:
Straw man? Interesting. Likely an alt account.

Regardless, capitalism is based on the notion of the private ownership for the sake of profit in economic transactions. That requires getting out more in the form of capital than one puts in. Greed is based on the notion of the desire to have more than one has. As such, capitalism leverages greed. It is not a straw man.



Selfishness is based on the desire to possess things to the exclusion of others. This mentality of exclusion breeds hatred of others. Therefore the assertion that selfishness produces hatred of others is not foolish.



It is a logical premise based on sound rational reasoning. Nothing that you have said has refuted the assertion.
Click to expand...


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.
 
MildSteel said:
More garbage.
Click to expand...

Hardly.

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.
 
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:
ocean515 said:
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement.

"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.
Click to expand...

As I recall you asked whether to government was protecting the private property rights of people who clean garbage.

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.
 
Montecresto said:
Capitalists aren't immune to human rights violations in pursuit of their greed!

Resistance evidently licensed disproportionate retaliation. When crushing opposition in Ceylon in 1818, the British killed over 1% of the population. Thirty years later not a single European on the island perished in the only insurrection worthy of the name. But 200 alleged rebels were hanged or shot, and more were flogged or imprisoned. Governor Eyre's reprisals after the Morant Bay uprising in Jamaica followed the same pattern. In the wake of their disastrous retreat from Kabul in 1842, the British meted out enough retributive homicide to earn the perpetual enmity of Afghanistan. Burma, Kenya and Iraq were subjugated with equal violence. After the Indian mutiny soldiers such as Garnet Wolseley did much to fulfil their vow to spill "barrels and barrels of the filth which flows in these niggers' veins for every drop of blood" they had shed. During the South African war the British allowed a sixth of the Boer population, mostly children, to die in concentration camps.

Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/british_empire
Click to expand...
PEOPLE...be greedy. They also be pathetic, envious, jealous, whiney, etc.
 
sawdust said:
I'm going to assume you know what a straw man is. You started with a failed premise.
Click to expand...

No the premise is not false.

sawdust said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that is where you are wrong. There is an inherent notion of greed involved in self interest, although you might not realize that. Capitalism advocates the notion of private ownership of resources for the sake of profit. It leverages greed, because the notion of private ownership involves the exclusion of others, which means that someone wants resources that he does not want others to have. Therefore because capitalism thus promotes the notion that persons can exclude others from access to resources that are in nature, i.e. the person wants something that he does not want others to have, for the sake of profit, it does indeed leverage greed and selfishness.

sawdust said:
Under your theory, selfishness is the same as the right to private property. This is a narrow-minded view of private property.
Click to expand...

No it is not the same. That is simply your distorted view of what I have said. But there is certainly an element of greed and selfishness that is inherent to the notion of the ownership of private property for the sake of profit and I have said why that is so.
 
MildSteel said:
Everyone has productive work that they can contribute. They are not failures when they do so. Of course you may need to believe that for the sake of your ego, but it is not true.
Click to expand...

ego has nothing to do with it and some people are net drains on society and those are not contributors but looters
 
eohrnberger said:
Hardly.
Click to expand...

No it was garbage. And furthermore, although I tried to avoid it, I went off topic to discuss what could be done for the sake of discussing with you. The result was a question that totally disregarded what I said. It is like discussing with a wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom