If you had read anything that I'd said at all you'd know that my argument has nothing to do with capitalism.Originally Posted by paulyt
If I recall correctly, he said something about the government issuing credits to people for the privatized education, which is fine by me. If he didn't mention that, then scratch my support of it.
While you may not think it, your way of thinking is the capitalist way.
Your arrogance and ego are quite astounding.
I also find it quite ironic how you preach that those who are poor are pool at, essentially, their own fault (or at least remain so that way) but yet YOUR friends are in unfortunate situations because of circumstances beyond their control right?
While I would say that many situations are self-inflicted, it is completely ignorant and absolutely ridiculous to assume that ALL people in bad situations are their because of lack of initiative etc. You say how you were poor and still managed to change all that doesn't mean this same situation applies to everyone, you display egocentrism at its finest. You also display a nice use of the self-serving bias, everything good is due to your own good but yet bad things (such as being poor previously or your unfortunate friends) are beyond personal control.
For someone who claims themselves so intelligent your logic could use some work. While I could sit here and debate whether capitalism or socialism is better for our society (which would be a neverending debate), it is much more pertinent to tell you that it what you suggest (in terms of "survival of the fittest") is completely flawed. You cannot attribute everything to innate attributes, that is completely ignorant...anyone with even a basic introductory course in Psychology could tell you this. Nothing is ever a product of 100% environment OR genetics/biology...there is an interaction between the two. You could be the most intelligent person in the world with absolutely NO opportunity to develop this innate ability just as easily as you could be the most retarded person in the world with access to as many resources as you could imagine. Man is becoming less dependent of instincts, as we develop technology the natural world is further distanced from us...NATURAL selection occurs in the natural world, which we are distancing ourselves from at an increasing rate. Survival of the Fittest is a concept that people like to hold onto because they happen to be in a fortunate position in life and want to hold this position at all costs no matter who else suffers in the process (well they are poor people, I guess they are just weak and don't deserve to live right?).
Fuck survival of the fittest, inclusive fitness is much more reasonable.
Capitalism, at its root, is merely the wealthy trying to hold on to their wealth. Another lame version of survival of the fittest which is pretty much irrelevant in todays age
Telling stupid people they are idiots since 1987
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaB...nceVsFaith.png
paulyt how much money do your top doctors make?
The cost of education is significantly higher in America than in other countries. The standards for medicine are prohibitively high. The cost of insurance for American doctors is horrible. You're acting like this is the perfect system, but all it does is force members of a highly skilled and specialized trade to practice their craft under market value. While it is true that all patients get to have their cake and eat it too, doctors in America will be afforded no such luxury. Doctors will begin leaving the market until we end up with waitlists that rival Canada. That's the system I want... I'll pay up front in my taxes and then pay out the ass for private treatment as well. How fantastic.
I can see why you think this, but my rationale isn't economic. I do believe in capitalism, but that's not where my argument against universal health care is coming from. I realize that you can socialize medicine and leave everything else the way that it is (unlike most conservatives), I just don't think we should.
Pretty much, I learned early in life that life wasn't fair and will only be what we make of it. Therefore, I think making life fair to some while burdening others is backwards thinking and an affront to the natural order of things.
EDIT: Oh, and Kozzle, I never said that poor people aren't sometimes poor because of circumstances beyond their control. I just think they should deal with it.
And I am far from egocentric. I am well aware of my faults, and anyone who knows me knows that one of them isn't arrogance. I am not an outstanding person. I lack diligence, I'm lazy, I'm impatient, I self-victimize, I'm overemotional, I'm ADHD, manic-depressive, and I'm apprehensive in social situations. However, I dealt with all that and fought it so that I could better myself and I succeeded, so if being proud of overcoming all the obstacles I've overcome makes me arrogant, then color me arrogant, but what I'm basically saying is, 'if I can do it, anyone can,' and I fail to see the arrogance in that.
Man becoming less dependent on instinct and man's destruction of survival of the fittest will lead to the doom of the species.
I'm done arguing.
Last edited by Mr. E; 11-18-2008 at 12:56 AM.
Our doctors make as much as they want to make. They can choose whether to accept Medicare or make people pay. A fair few charge more than what Medicare pays which means patients have to pay the difference.
We ARE less dependent of our instincts...civilization dulls certain instincts down simply through evolution. Unnecessary traits are eventually lost. And it isn't your attitude towards yourself per se that I said was arrogant but mostly your attitude about rich and poor people. Just because you had the circumstances of being raised decently (even if you were poor) doesn't mean everyone has that luxury. Did you know the QUALITY of care you receive as an infant directly affects your cognitive development (and subsequently, intelligence?). Not every child has the luxury of being raised by ANY parent that actually loves them.
Survival of the fittest is not a concept that should be taken 100% literally. SOME situations are at people's fault and they should not be able to leach off society as they do but you also have to realize that SOME of these situations ARE legitimate (outside mental health as well) and deserve to be helped by those that can.
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaB...nceVsFaith.png
Oh, for fuck's sake. All you assholes who talk about survival of the fittest in relation to society apparently lack a basic understanding of evolution and evolutionary psychology. "Survival of the fittest" should really be "reproduction of the fittest" because survival is completely irrelevant to your species unless you mix gametes with another person. So. Live long enough to fuck, and then it doesn't matter anymore. Bodies are sinking ships to genes.
Poor people reproduce in staggering numbers and on an evolutionary scale they are totally fucking winning because rich academia-tainted yuppies do not want baby vomit on their sweaters, or they want only one child to spoil just positively rotten.
In conclusion I support killing the poor because they should not dominate the gene pool.
Some sacrifices must be made for the good of the species. The weakening of the genome by extending health care to everyone will lead to our eventual destruction. That's all I'm saying. But I'm going to bed for real this time, so I guess I'll just say we'll have to agree to disagree since neither one of us is budging.
You have a point about the nurture thing, but in America that usually isn't the problem. Notice I said usually isn't, not never is. I realize there are some cases where this is true, but most of the people who would be taking advantage of socialized medicine are people like this guy I know Cameron. He's in an assload of debt, but the creditors can't find him because he got kicked out of the address he gave them. He lives off of his mom because he got fired from a place that a trained monkey could work at. His grandmother gave him $2000 to pay off his debt, but instead he went on a two week vacation to Europe and asked one of my friends to call unemployment every week and say that it was him so he wouldn't lose his unemployment (my friend didn't comply thank god).
It is the people like him who are much more abundant and who deserve nothing.
Ok, now I'm going to bed for real for real.
Also, lol sole.
The world will be fucked because of climate change before this "weakening of the species" you think will happen has any time to destroy us. Also, as I mentioned earlier the USA is the only wealthy, industralised nation without universal health care. I don't see all the countries with universal health care dying out. Lat time I checked Australia is enjoying a baby boom.
Genomes don't weaken over night, it takes generations
and global warming is overrated
damn it, I really want to go to bed. I have no will power at all.
Amen brother! I can't believe that in this day and age people still cling to that idealism, especially here in the states. We need to help our fellow man, which doesn't mean feeding them the crumbs of the rich.
Oh man. A guy at my work who was a skin-head said the same exact thing, word for word. Only then he claimed that we should kill all handicaps at birth, so that eventually the handicap genes will be bled out of mankind and thus, take the human race one step closer towards perfection.
And since he also claimed to be a firm believer in the good lord's will, I quoted Jesus.
“What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul.”
This is why rationality does a good job of removing itself from the gene pool.
I'm not from the states but sure why not
Mr. E, sorry if I came out a little rash on my earlier post, sometimes it gets the best of me.
But see the whole dilemma (on the healthcare issue) here is, essentially, this: Provide healthcare for everyone so those that truely need it and deserve it are able to get it or provide it for no one (in terms of public HC) so neither those that deserve it (but cant afford it) and those that don't do not get it.
Survival of the Fittest comes in many different forms. Though it is highly irrelevant in today's society (like Sole pointed out) it CANNOT be taken in the literal terms of "The strongest survive". Think of this as an analogy:
Humans once had to survive off of hunting/gathering. Now, not EVERYONE can have the best physical strenght just the same as not EVERYONE can have the best intelligence. You need people from the whole spectrum for the SPECIES to survive as a whole. Inclusive fitness is the idea that the species must survive as a whole, not the individual.
The idea that the capitalist paradigm thinking those that are poor deserve to die is utterly flawed. IF YOU WERE TO ELIMINATE ALL POOR PEOPLE OUR WAY OF LIVING WOULD EFFECTIVELY END.
Who makes all the clothes you wear? Most of the coffees and teas you drink etc? The capitalist way THRIVES off of the poor people who are essentially made slaves to sustain OUR way of life. Do you think people in africa/asia REALLY have a choice? Do you think they just "lack initiative" to get out of that life? What about people who are forced to mine diamonds out in Africa so we can wear fancy jewelry? I suppose they simply aren't intelligent enough to get away with their family from literal private ARMIES.
You can't just go ahead and apply the survival of the fittest rule (which is laughable at best because if you applied the rule like most of you interpret it as we would be fucked) but cherry pick it and apply it ONLY to the western society. Man should be helping man, help those less fortunate. At the cost of what? Materialistic things we DONT NEED? Luxuries are useless at the end of the day.
Fight Club, Lord of War, Blood Diamond, Zeitgeist: Addendum...all great movies that illustrate these points
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaB...nceVsFaith.png
Well, I'm not saying that what I think society should be is the best thing for everywhere in the world. This thread is about being president of America (I presumed), not emperor of the world. You're right about other countries, and I don't think the poor should die anywhere. I just think they should be given the tools they need to succeed instead of the tools they need to keep on doing exactly what they are doing now (in America). The rest of the world is in such dire need of reform it isn't even funny, but I don't intend to tackle that thought right now.
PS: and luxuries aren't useless, they both provide utility and stand as potential opportunity costs in any economic system. That's just basic thugonomics.
Unfortunately luxuries come, generally, at the cost of the poor people of the world.
American (and subsequently, Canada) is in dire need of reform. Our very way of life in the west is completely dependent on, essentially, the poor people in other countries and the destruction of our environment (pollution, waste of paper etc.). Our way of life is not sustainable and is definitely not ethically right.
Luxuries are not needed, they are just that...luxuries. Luxuries DO create incentive, which is a basis for technological advancement, however.
Capitalism is a necessity to advance technologically, but there will come a point (and I believe it is rapidly approaching) where Capitalism would only lead to the detriment of our species, a significant paradigm shift will eventually have to take place. Only when the technology is fitting can a true socialist society work.
People should be given the tools, I agree, rather than simply be let to continue their way of life. However the best alternative is for everyone to have equal rights to everything where such situations as being poor effectively would not exist.
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaB...nceVsFaith.png
The reason third world countries fail to industrialize is very simple: they lack security in property rights
China refutes every possible example you could give.
China is not a 3rd world country...I've actually seen the technical term "2nd world country" which would describe China perfectly.
What about continents with extremely poor and enslaved countries such as Africa? Or other Asian countries that are not Chinese?
Slavery is not something you can just get up and get away from. And the slavery in Africa is, in all probability, "worse" than any slavery found in China.
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaB...nceVsFaith.png
*facepalm* "2nd world" isn't a technical term. The proper term is developing nation.
And how do you think China got where they are? The Communist dictatorship began strictly enforcing property rights. How can you cite African slavery as a counterexample when slavery is about the ultimate violation of property rights?]
You can talk all you want about poverty, imperialism, and the horrors of capitalism, but there is not a single country in the world that can be considered successful in any economic sense that does not viciously protect property rights.
Thank you for bumperstickering. If you really think that's the reason they fail to industrialize, just start looking into sociology. It's really interesting, we created this whole field to study people in large groups, and it might explain some things and stop your oversimplification of people.
Also, I decided there was too much resistance to my ideas for when I became president, so I have revised them to something I would find more interesting:
1. Vote to end democracy (It worked in the Third Reich)
2. Create anarchy
3. Start a revolution to make a government because anarchy isn't working
4. Rise to power
5. Become a dictator and crush those who oppose me.
6. Re-write history so I seem like a progressive world leader.
Find me the most advanced economy at any stage in history and I will show you the economy that most vehemently protected property rights.
Attempting the study to advance any economic system without faithfully secured property rights is like attempting to study physics whilst rejecting Newton's First Law.
A couple points I would like to make:
Australia is incredibly socialist and its citizens pay through the nose for it. I can't speak for many Americans living in Australia, but I can say that I know one who does and it is very hard to live in Aussie land.
Universal Health care has it's ups and downs. A major down will be the brain drain of Pharmaceutical research companies.
As much as you would love to tout your Darwinist theory, I would like to see you deny yourself medication when you become an old decrepit man or when your parents develop some sort of cancer if you aren't trying to get them all they help you can.
Having the ability to obtain what is necessary to continue to survive is what survival of the fittest is all about (in my interpretation of it, which isn't exactly Darwin's). If I can afford the medicine then I deserve to use it. I mean, I may be crazy, but I'm no christian scientist or anything.
That's not even in the realm of Darwin.
My point about Africa is how we exploit the shit out of them to bring ourselves luxuries. Do you think the government in most countries there actually hold the power to release people of the slavery that we DIRECTLY contribute to them? Power is hardly established in most countries there let alone human rights actually being respected. Their situation will never change with our current, outdated, selfish system. We are currently operating a system that is not sustainable, at which the very core is greed. Why isn't there an electrical car? Why doesn't we all use clean, renewable energy sources? The greed of humanity is both a blessing and a curse and at the current rate it will not be long before we completely deteriorate the environment we live in.
There are ways to prevent the slavery we throw at others but it requires a collective effort and it also makes people have to spend a bit extra money (OH NOES right?). Fair-trad coffee, fair-trade diamonds (I forget the exact term for this), clothes not made in countries that is known to keep for slavery, save energy/attempt to use only clean energy.
There are many things that can help the state of things but greed (ie. the general capitalist way, free market norms I suppose?) only holds us back. For example a giant in this aspect is Wal-Mart...they make their business by selling everything dirt cheap, why the hell do you think its dirt cheap? If everyone boycotted wal-mart and spent that extra dollar somewhere else things would actually change but unfortunately most people are way too caught up in our current monetary system to see outside the box (that we are living comfortably at other people's expense).
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaB...nceVsFaith.png
I make it a law that Nadia must marry me...and have hot, nasty sex at least three times a day.
I hear the voices inside my head. They counsel me. They understand. They talk to me.
Thank you sir, for breaking the almost AI caliber conversation that was going on here.
Lols.
All the people who are talking about "Fuck the health care", to my knowledge, have no life long diseases.
And on the Mental Health note, I've been diagnosed with a plethora of disorders, and had many pills thrown at me, I'd just rather not become an emotionless Zombie.
But my health care situation, BEFORE I made it back onto an insurance policy. I worked. I worked my fucking balls off, typically coming in at a little over 35-50 hours a week. I payed for an Apartment, and I had to pay for Insulin(type 1 diabetic), I couldn't afford to go see a doctor, because with over 50% of my pay check going to rent, 20% going to Insulin, and gas (at the time in the 3.50-4.50 a gallon area) I came out with a cool 100 or so dollars to eat on a month. 20% of my paycheck a month went to keep me alive for about 20 days, so I was paying about $10 a day to live, not to not feel pain or something like that, but to live. Yes I think healthcare should be Universal, but no I don't think everything should be covered. If you do not have a life threatening disease/illness you should have to pay for your prescription, if not the treatment.
Be 20 and on your own without parental help before you say Universal Healthcare is a shit Idea, I don't see most of the money I make anyways, so being taxed more wouldn't bother me a bit.
And I've noticed, It's the top 10%-20% wealthiest in a nation who bitch about socialism. It works suprisingly well for other countries, what's your problem with it?
And before I'm told to GTFO of america, I will finish my education here, then promptly move, because I've see the idiocy this country manufactures by the hand full.
lik dis if u cry evertim
That's what I do.
I hear the voices inside my head. They counsel me. They understand. They talk to me.
This is a terrible sob story and if I were a politician I would empathize with your hardship.
Unfortunately, you're missing some of the major points here. First of all, how much drug development are we seeing from countries with universal healthcare? UHC destroys the market for healthcare. With UHC, you can kiss these advancements goodbye (or finance them from the public fund which is even worse.)
Second, you said it perfectly: I don't mind using taxpayer dollars for this because I don't pay many taxes. It's the free-rider dilemma. Why wouldn't you support something that will be free for you to use? Fortunately, that's not the purpose of the US Government and we can only hope the judicial has the balls to strike down any plan that would implement such a widespread policy on the redistribution of wealth.
The vision of America is a land of opportunity, not guaranteed margins.
See what I did with the thread title there hehehe
If you extend his thinking enough I'm sure it would be, but if you prefer look at it as Mr. Evolved's Theory of Evolution
There are sure a lot of words in this thread.
1. No
2. Who are you?
3. No
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5...d/nadiaqs3.jpg
Define nasty sex.
Who gives a fuck how much we in Australia pay to help out the less fortunate. Without the poor/poorer people there would be nobody to work for the rich people to make money, why not help them out when they need it? If we let all the sick poor people die because they can't afford to get treatment who will you hire and pay minimum wage to so you can enjoy your lavish lifestyle? Your rich friends won't work you, they're rich enough. The middle class is used to earning a lot more than minimum wage.
You define it and that's what we'll make it in the law.
I hear the voices inside my head. They counsel me. They understand. They talk to me.
I want to watch Judge Dredd.
I AM THE LAW!
I hear the voices inside my head. They counsel me. They understand. They talk to me.
i hit it not all that great
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks