Thread: The US Government and Disinformation

Originally Posted by Awakening

Everyone have right to have food and furniture equally to their work (on the proportion they aid, like you said of capitalism) along with free education and health care.::On the contrary, I totally believe this. Suppose that there's two men living in a isolated house. One is sick and the other is healthy. The healthy have the ability to get food for the two with ease; while the sick cannot get for himself without suffering too much. Likewise, capitalism would let the sick man all by himself; while socialism, help him with the most basic needs.

Then don't claim that you want people to be entitled to their own production or deserve resources according to the proportion they aid- not if you believe from each according to their ability, to all according to their need. A magical happy system with unicorns may allow for people to recieve the resources they produce but then those who don't produce much automatically get lots of resources anyway, like property and health care and education. For people who produce little, the only way for them to get an adedquate amount of resources is for them to be given those resources by someone who produces more, (which the rich are very welcome to do,) OR, as in compulsory communism or in a society where there is no alternative to communism since the concept of wealth does not exist, the more productive person is stolen from to help the less productive person.

Those are your options. I do not pretend that in a system of privatized government it is very possible that private charities and government aid programs created as an incentive to raise a governments public image will not be enough. A true capitalist may prefer that a rich person helps those in need, but will defend the rich person's right to use their own money however they choose, (assuming it does not violate another's rights,) even if someone in need is totally negleted. I cannot deny that as part of my value system since value systems should be consistent. So a global communist or a state commnist should be prepared to admit that, yes, it is based on thievery but the benefits of everyone getting what they need and the moral society that comes from the new system far outweighs any immorality that comes from the taking of resorces from the productive.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You said Adam Smith is the "father of capitalism." But Richard Cantillon wrote his Essay on the Nature of Trade in General in, probably, the 1730's. That's roughly 40 or so years before Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations. Not only did Cantillon influence Smith and other classical economists, he wrote of entrepreneurial risk and monetary theories. So I would contend that Cantillon is the "father of capitalism."



Why assume that the healthy man would not help the sick man? It is not as if, once capitalism becomes dominant, people will throw away their values and morals.

The first quite didn't even try to have morals to be called a father;

Capitalism is already dominant. People can be born without any land at all, relying on the people who have the magic paper to command their lives.

[QUOTE=spockman;1555444]Then don't claim that you want people to be entitled to their own production or deserve resources according to the proportion they aid- not if you believe from each according to their ability, to all according to their need.%2

Originally Posted by spockman

Then don't claim that you want people to be entitled to their own production or deserve resources according to the proportion they aid- not if you believe from each according to their ability, to all according to their need.%2

What?

EDIT: I didn't see response to this other than a 2 percent added on to the end. I am not sure what you are getting at or if you forgot to respond.

Originally Posted by Awakening

The first quite didn't even try to have morals to be called a father;

What does this mean?

Capitalism is already dominant.

Depends on your definition. How do you define capitalism?

People can be born without any land at all, relying on the people who have the magic paper to command their lives.

It's funny how most anti-capitalist criticism of capitalism always assumes that for one person to benefit, another must be exploited.