|
|
Post by Tara on May 10, 2005 7:04:01 GMT -5
I figured this discussion could carry over to society section.  .... I'm a libertarian, and I'm opposed to socialism on every level. Believe it or not, most liberals are just neo-socialists. Why are you opposed to socialism? |
|
|
|
Post by Earthen Child on May 10, 2005 13:42:57 GMT -5
I'm opposed to socialism because it's against everything I was raised to hold dear. Capitalism, free will, and the pursuit of happiness. Socialists are also devastiating to moral values. Say I didn't hire a black person because he didn't qualify for a job. Because of the socialists, he could sue me for racism and win, regardless of the fact that I refused to hire him simply because qualifications I have in my business that he failed to meet. Similar lawsuits are putting small businesses out of business every day. They are costing America as a whole billions of dollars. Furthermore, socialists are trying to restrict liberties such as the right to keep and bear arms. They also incite terrorism, and blame the straight white American for every problem they come across, regardless of whether or not they are even related. There's much more, but it would take me veritable days to list every greivance I have with socialists, and my time is limited.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 11, 2005 13:29:59 GMT -5
have you looked into what socialism is actually all about? i haven't (yet) so i don't even know, but it seems that your problem is with socialists, not necessarily socialism ... like i used to think feminists were really dumb because they were always preaching about how women are better than men and blabbing on about how they need more rights and stuff ... but then i looked into it - turns out i'm a feminist  feminism is just about equal rights for men and women, which is something i agree with. the reason feminists talk about more rights to stuff is because they have been wronged in the past and the a possible way to reverse this wrong is with affirmative action things (like with black people in america etc.) - and that is something i also agree with to a certain extent (even though i am white and male and it would give me no personal benefit) |
|
|
|
Post by Earthen Child on May 11, 2005 13:39:49 GMT -5
have you looked into what socialism is actually all about? i haven't (yet) so i don't even know, but it seems that your problem is with socialists, not necessarily socialism... My main problem is with socialists, but the concept of socialism is equally despicable. The basis of socialism is a more powerful government. Under socialism, the government chooses what is best, and citizens must follow decisions made for them, that they once would have made themselves. I personally believe that people should do things because they want to, not because they're told to. I don't want socialism claiming some 40-odd percent of my income and spending it on things I don't suport. |
|
|
|
Post by Tara on May 11, 2005 16:16:48 GMT -5
It's understandable, Earthen Child, seeing as that is how you feel. If I didn't believe in something and I didn't think it did any good to people and society, I wouldn't be supporting it in the least. littlepea, you do have a good point. |
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 11, 2005 17:30:40 GMT -5
capitalism is the despicable system, not socialism, if you want to get personal ... capitalism is based on the fundamental principle that you can put a value on manual labour, socialism is based on the fundamental principle that people want to work together for mutual benefit ("from the strong according to his abilities to the weak according to his needs" - who could disagree with that?) if socialism worked then it would be utopia, but the very reason it doesn't work is that nobody is fit to be a citizen of utopia, if you know what i mean. the reason it doesn't work is that people are not willing to put in their fair share to help the common cause, they will only put in their fair share if it benefits them personally - that's why capitalism works. socialism is not inherently anti-democratic, but it is anti-elitist and anti-capitalist ( look it up for yourself, it's very interesting) thinking like that is precisely why socialism can't work. you would have to let the money be spent on the needs of society - you sound more like an anarchist than anything else ... how does that make you feel? |
|
|
|
Post by Earthen Child on May 11, 2005 20:19:57 GMT -5
littlepea, please forgive me if I don't give you a response as indepth as the one you've given me. There is not a thing you have typed that I haven't heard before. I have different values than you do. You're an altruist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltruismI'm an ethical egoist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoismWe are totally and completely opposed to each other on a fundamental level. Rather than forge enmity, let us agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 14, 2005 6:39:26 GMT -5
fair enough, but it is indisputable that if a country managed to get socialism to work perfectly then it would be a utopia (the same cannot be said for capitalism).
not that i'm trying to incite a riot, but surely altruism is more idyllic than egoism?
|
|
|
|
Post by Earthen Child on May 14, 2005 22:00:45 GMT -5
fair enough, but it is indisputable that if a country managed to get socialism to work perfectly then it would be a utopia (the same cannot be said for capitalism). not that i'm trying to incite a riot, but surely altruism is more idyllic than egoism? If they could make it work perfectly, perhaps it would be idylic. However, morals must be defined by what man is, not by what people want him to be. Also, altruism and ethical egoism are both moral standpoints. One can be right, or the other, but not both. Whichever is more "idylic" will be defined by which set of morals you use. Since morals are relative rather than absolute there is no correct answer. |
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 15, 2005 12:04:33 GMT -5
ethical egoism has its place - like, when election time comes you should vote for the party which best represents your own views, it's the fairest way - but i can't understand how you could have a fulfilling life by only satisfying your own interests ...
is this like the epicurean philosophy which states that (among other things) the only reason people would ever act altruistically is if they derive some kind of personal satisfaction from their selfless actions? would it be within the realm of ethical egoism to act altruistically if that is something that fulfils your own interests?
if so, then i guess it's not quite as bad as i first imagined, but isn't it in danger of becoming paradoxical?
|
|
|
|
Post by Earthen Child on May 15, 2005 15:03:32 GMT -5
would it be within the realm of ethical egoism to act altruistically if that is something that fulfils your own interests? Yes. Nope, never. You can do something completely altruistic, and justify it as a means to boost other people's opinion of you, thus ensuring that they are more likely to help you out in the future. (Yes, justify. Just like altruists justify themselves when they do something selfish.) |
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 15, 2005 15:39:18 GMT -5
sounds a bit sociopathic to me  |
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on May 15, 2005 16:36:35 GMT -5
Ethical Egoism leaves one question in my mind: What happens when the precarious balance it makes between self and group fulfillment (at a basic level, survival) is tipped? Otherwise, as littlepea observed, what safeguards does it have against sociopathy? Or is that not considered a problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 15, 2005 17:29:23 GMT -5
perhaps it relies on some people having to live unfulfilled lives (like capitalism)  |
|
