His comment;
I don't care what you call the system. any system that allows people to starve/be homeless, not get an education, not get the health care that they need, and spoils the environment is not a good system and needs to be changed. we as a society have enough resources and knowledge to take care of every person's basic needs so they can have a fair chance at a good life, but someone decided they would rather horde those resources to have power over others. that I don't agree with. our current economic system allows that and even promotes it, I don't care what you call it, it's fucked. if you have another form of capitalism that allows for every man woman and child to have a fair chance at a good life with all their basic needs met and free education and health care and respects the environment, I'm all for it, I've heard these arguments before, " true capitalism is a good system, but we don't have true capitalism" well I don't care what it could BE, I care what it is right now. and now some guy on the internet is making assumptions about who I am and telling me I can't have my opinions because I live in the very system that I don't agree with. A person who's not interested in having a conversation so much as telling people what he thinks is right and putting them down if he doesn't agree with them. but hey I haven't studied economics for 20 years and I'm just an ignorant fool on the internet who values life over money.
My response;
I was not putting you down. I was pointing some things out. I am having a conversation, that is why I keep taking my valuable time to reply. I agree with you 100% that what we have is broken and we need something new. I am simply trying to illustrate some points that will hopefully open your mind to some new possibilities. First point I would like to make is that NOTHING is free. everything need energy input. How do you propose we have 'free' health care, education, housing, food, etc? You thinking the government is going to pay for it? Do you know where the government gets its money? By robbing the productive people of society. What we have now is not free market capitalism. It is crony capitalism. It is also closer to communism. The governments steal the working classes money to bail out failed private businesses (aka the banks). In free market capitalism, if a business fails, it is done. The banks would have went under a long time ago. Socialism is not the answer. Look at history, there is no example of socialism working. I am not stating I know the answer, only making some points that I have observe. You don't need to agree with them. I would personally like to see us tweak the current system apposed to a massive collapse and starting all over. Capitalism is essential for our survival. We need a medium of exchange for our goods and services. It is not logical to directly exchange our goods or services anymore. A lot of our purchases come from company that are a far away and most likely have no need for what we have to offer. How else do you propose we exchange goods and services? People need to be rewarded for their effort. And I believe they should be rewarded according to the value they contribute. Rewarding people for making bigger sacrifices and taking larger risk is what has fostered so much innovation and has helped us arrive at this glorious point in humanity where we have access to so much and live such high standards of life. Things are not inherently equal. Some people are far more productive than others and should be rewarded. Having some utopian society will NEVER happen. You will always have the drug addicts, the mentally ill, the physically disabled, the lazy, etc. I agree, we should not leave them behind. I personally think we should have a redistribution tax that applies to capital over a certain amount that is 'pooling' or has been stagnant for a certain amount of time. These corporations making billions or families who have generational wealth and paying no tax is a huge part of the problem. A lot of their wealth comes from returns on asset appreciation that has nothing to do with useful contributions. I agree that there is no need for such excessive wealth, nor to reward people simply for hoarding excessive wealth. We could use this money to fund services for the less fortunate and also to give to younger people so that they have a better shot at building a productive future. I don't believe that taxing the working class to pay for this stuff is a solution. The working class are already the most taxed individuals and are often doing the hardest work. Still, nothing is free. We will always need inputs in any system. And people need to be compensated for those inputs. My believe is a lot of the problem stems from central banking and crony capitalism. Looking back through history, societies that lived with the most equally distributed wealth and highest standard of life were when they used sound money (or 'hard money', ie gold/silver). When the governments can create the money out of thin air with no limit (fiat) and decide which industries they want to subsidize, it creates massive inequality. That is what we have now, and I agree it is terrible. When society uses a 'hard money' such as gold/silver (and now something such as bitcoin), there is no way for governments or private corporations to cheat by counterfeiting the money. That is the biggest problem we have now. They must equally contribute useful inputs that the market confirms is needed (free market capitalism). Every time the government prints more money and puts it into the system through the form of debt it creates more poverty and inequality. The best thing we can do to stop this is to stop using their money as much as possible. Barter, trade, and use other mediums of exchange that are not government issued currencies. As far as harming the planet goes, there is no easy answer. Solar, wind, etc are not the answer (although we need everything we can get). They are highly destructive to the environment as well. Everyone can't drive an electric vehicle. The amount of rare earth minerals and resources that would need to go into building the infrastructure would not be any better than just burning the oil. It's interesting because you live rural which is one of the most energy consuming things you could do. You must drive over 40km to get supplies, the bulk of your food needs to be shipped much further than those living in cities, and you will almost certainly always need gas to survive out there; Unless you are keeping horses and riding them to town, producing all your own food, and only trading locally (which I doubt). The reality is that most of us depend on gas for our well being. Instead of complaining about this I think we should be EXTREMELY grateful for it. I personally value human life over the environment. If you really dislike gas that much and think it is killing the planet then I suggest selling your cars, generators, furnaces, and anything else that consumes gas; moving out of the Kootenays (which is HIGHLY dependant on gas due to it's geographic location), relocating to an urban centre, buying a bike, starting an urban far, and finding ways to survive without it. The only true voting power we have is with our daily choices. The governments will NEVER solve these problems for use. They simply tell us they have the ability to do so and then steal our wealth promising they will use it to better our lives and fulfil these promises. There is no easy answer. But personally I like to remain positive and make the changes in my life that I wish to see in the world, since that is the only true power I have. If you don't like how your computer was manufactures or what oil is doing to the planet, it's simple, don't buy it. End of story.
His response;
seeing as your into research, what you did there is called "Tu quoque" which according to wikipedia goes like this " Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore, X is false.
It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4] " and it seamed like ad hominem fallacy is also a good word for you, heres an excertp " Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. "
My thoughts;
I guess he wins. I can totally see his points now. Lets vote our way out of this mess and strengthen government bacause they will fix this problem, right.....? :/
Again, thank you for reading. Have a wonderful day.
The curious CAT