Comments by "Common Sense Craziness" (@commonsensecraziness7595) on "Toronto Comedian Fined $15,000 For Insulting Lesbian In Audience" video.
-
10
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@coolioso808 [I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are new to what real critical thinking looks like and that's why you don't recognize it when you see someone else employ it.]
I’m very familiar with critical thinking. You’re just simply not employing it. Unless you mean thinking excessively through a critical theory lens. That’s kind of what parts of this argument looks like.
[Because when you look past the surface level, find the truth, you find that there is no different types of capitalism in structure.]
[..the incentives are to maximize profit, use competitive self-interest for gain, and to infinitely grow.]
True, the incentive structure is as you said. This is not a bug but a feature. But you’re definitely wrong in saying that this is a “structure” that has no difference regardless of type.
[There is not communist/socialist full countries, where the people own the means of production collectively, not a small group of corporate bosses or government officials.]
The world will never live in a hippie commune not least of which is because the sheer population size requires a more rigid hierarchical structure. And state-owned capitalism is very much a thing in more socialist/communist countries. I could state with perfect truth that there are also no countries that are 100% capitalistic. This is not proof of any of your statements.
[There are, however, more social democracies with strong regulations on corporations, high taxes, but very strong social supports like free college, universal basic income, housing for all, etc. that put those countries top of the list on happiness and Gini coefficient rankings - showing that socialist-style policies are more helpful, than harmful.]
That’s because these countries address problems that capitalism doesn’t address. It’s a partnership, not a refutation. Capitalism is designed to create wealth. To create incentives to best use scarce resources. There are essential things capitalism doesn’t address, but that doesn’t mean it’s the root of all evil (although it can be if a balance isn’t struck). It’s not meant to address every human issue.
[USA is one of the most deeply capitalist countries on Earth.]
Yes, it uses a largely lassiez-faire capitalism with few or no controls. There are plenty of other countries, as you pointed out, that also follow a capitalistic system that doesn’t work the way the American one does.
[I always consider I might be wrong on something, I'm eager to find out the truth. If you want to prove me wrong, present facts, figures or valid arguments, I'll hear it all.]
Although I appreciate the gesture, it seems to me your education on the topic needs to continue. I can’t convince you by telling you things you don’t know as you will attack the information rather than decide on the pros and cons. The best way for you to be convinced is to learn it yourself and decide once you do. The first step is to rid yourself of the idea that all forms of capitalism are the same and educate yourself on the variations. If you refuse to accept they are indeed different in execution and implementation then we’ve already reached an impasse.
[What's my alternative suggestion? A system of Natural Law, localized, automated, open-sourced, networked access-sharing maximized technical efficiency to meet the needs of all people, without labor-for-income, without systemic poverty, the need for politicians, war or existence of debt and slavery.]
This isn’t an alternative system, this is a wish list. Does this system exist anywhere else then in your own mind? Have you fully fleshed it out in detail? Have you convinced a single person that your ideas are worth pursuing to the point they would be actually interested in implementing it? I suspect not. You still fail to deliver a credible alternative.
[If you woke up tomorrow and money didn't exist what would happen?]
Funny question. This seems to indicate you don’t understand what money is, and that even if you replaced it with something else, the replacement would have the same meanings and incentive structures.
1
-
@coolioso808 [Why do you refuse to accept a simple structural fact that capitalism, with the incentives built in for profit maximization, competitive self-interest and infinite growth are unjust and unsustainable.]
I think you fail to realize why the system is so effective - because people are all these things as well. And I agree there are many aspects (like growth) that are unsustainable, but the pursuit won’t stop because of that. Also, the “unjustness” of it, as I already pointed out, has to be balanced by other things.
Capitalism is good at generating wealth and nothing else. If you’re imposing any expectations more than that, you don’t understand its nature.
[You beat around the bush without addressing the core issue.]
I’ve addressed the core issue, you just refuse to accept what capitalism is and, most notably, what it isn’t.
[It certainly isn't socialism or communism because people collectively owning the means of production wouldn't be so stupid as to pollute their own water, air and land to the ridiculous degree that we are seeing.]
Yes, they would. They’re doing it. Some people can’t even be bothered to recycle, despite all the problems with even something simple like that.
[The majority of countries that are doing fairly well, for now, on happiness and overall health, are from strong social programs- not from capitalist private business.]
Hate to point out the obvious, but what do you think pays for that?
[I'm hoping you were trying to be funny, not actually thinking that the only alternative to monetary-market economics is hippie communes.]
This appeared to be what you were proposing, I just gave it a name that accurately describes it. And while ignoring the comparison you also ignore the lack of scalability I pointed out.
[Yes, we need a global sense of resource management, hierarchies exist in different fields and departments and aspects of life, but they do not have to exist in economic classes,..]
Wrong. All things being equal, they necessitate it because not everyone brings the same resources to the table (and by resources I’m not talking about money, I’m talking about human capital – intelligence, competence, drive, etc). I’m guessing you’ve never heard of the Pareto principle?
[Natural Law is the law we can't avoid. Man's Law complicates things.]
Assuming we’re using the same definition, mostly the “man’s laws” success at adoption is a direct result of being in line with natural law.
[Do you even have a reason why you defend capitalism?]
I don’t want to defend it. I just understand what it is and what it isn’t. I also don’t want a poorly thought out alternative. We don’t need a cure worse than the disease.
[But if your idea of a healthy system is selfish privatization, I'd ask you why you think that way.]
For the record, I don’t. Healthcare is one example of something that shouldn’t be at the mercy of purely market driven forces.
[You can fully read and explore the science and logic behind it if you check out "Economic Calculation in a Natural Law Resource Based Economy."]
Interesting. I will. Thank you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1