Socialism's not in the Bible

[~candice~]

The strawman is that socialism relies on the goodness of man's heart, and yet capitalism doesn't.

Wrong.

Capitalism is not based on human goodness. Socialism assumes an inherent quality that does not exist in man. Capitalism assumes no inherent qualities good or bad in anyone. Capitalism is based on the laws of supply and demand that operate in our enconomic system.

Socialism relies on man chosing to go to work in the absense of motivation.

Wrong. Even capitalists like myself lack motivation to go to work, except that I have to pay bills. Given a choice, I would sleep in and order a pizza. Laziness is neither a capitalist or socialist trait. It is a human trait.

Capitalism relies on man chosing to go to work and giving of his own profits from the goodness of his heart.

No it doesn't. If we never gave a penny to charity, the capitalist economy would still be strong due to the laws of supply and demand, the right to private ownership of business/property and the ability to decide for yourself which opportunities you want to take advantage of and just how much money you want to make and how you want to spend it.

As long as you get the money in an honest way, it is yours to spend save or give away as you see fit. Capitalism will move along famously no matter what you choose.

One is reliant on work without motivation, the other, giving without compulsion.

Uh, you need to study this out better. You really don't understand the differences.

Please don't mistake my clarification of the merits and failures of these two economic models with defense of either.

With all due respect, you have not accurately clarified either one.

I really don't think you are reading what I say at all.

I was talking about these programs, from the point of view of supporting those in need.

Capitalism (in supporting those in need) requires the good will of people to give. You can't deny that AT ALL. The system works fine without goodwill of man, but that wasn't the point. Those in need, living in a capitalist society, have their needs unmet unless man gives voluntarily out of the goodness of his heart. Meeting needs is therefore depending on giving in the absense of compulsion.

I stand by what I said.

Socialism on the other hand, meets the needs of the poor. It does this through wealth redistribution which does bring down the entire society. It removes incentive for workers. I never suggested that capitalists wouldn't also suffer a lack of motivation to work, but socialism goes further because it teems that natural dis-incentive with a lack of financial reward. I was being honest in identifying the flaws of socialism. It does suffer from a lack of motivating factors for workers.

With all due respect, you are not reading my comments in the context which I went to great pains to set out. This was always only about comparing those two economic models in terms of how they met the needs of the poor.

[Guest shiloh357]

I really don't think you are reading what I say at all.

I think you are the one not reading. We are not debating social programs.

Capitalism (in supporting those in need) requires the good will of people to give.

That has nothing do with capitalism. You are trying define capitalism by things that do not define it. Capitalism is an economic structure. It really does not speak to social programs.

You can't deny that AT ALL.

Yes, yes I can and have.

The system works fine without goodwill of man, but that wasn't the point. Those in need, living in a capitalist society, have their needs unmet unless man gives voluntarily out of the goodness of his heart. Meeting needs is therefore depending on giving in the absense of compulsion.

Which again, has nothing to do with capitalism.

I stand by what I said.

What you said was completely irrelevant to how capitalism is defined.

With all due respect, you are not reading my comments in the context which I went to great pains to set out. This was always only about comparing those two economic models in terms of how they met the needs of the poor.

With all due respect, you entered a thread about socalist welfare states in an attempt to defend social programs.

[~candice~]

I'm not defending it. I merely pointed out the strawman (misrepresentation of socialism) that has occurred in this thread in order to espouse capitalism.

And I told Dave I'd say out of this .

Sorry!

There is no "strwawman" here.

I bet if you went to the socialist nations of Cuba and North Korea, you might find that capitalism is not as evil as many portray it to be.

The strawman is that socialism relies on the goodness of man's heart, and yet capitalism doesn't. Socialism relies on man chosing to go to work in the absense of motivation. The needy (and indeed, the lazy) are automatically supported. Capitalism relies on man chosing to go to work and giving of his own profits from the goodness of his heart. One is reliant on work without motivation, the other, giving without compulsion.

Please don't mistake my clarification of the merits and failures of these two economic models with defense of either.

It is not a strawman. In socialism, the entire system eventually collapses and then everyone is poor. I think if you study true socialist nations, you will find that there is still a small group at the top that exploit the poor.

It is a strawman. The needs of the needy are never met in a capitalist society unless man freely gives without compulsion. The needs of the needy are met in a socialist society at the expense of the society (which requires man to work without motivation).

Seriously

[Guest shiloh357]

The way that socialism invades a country is through the successive inclusion of socialist programs, is it not?

I would say not. America has been a very successful capitalist nation even with welfare and social security.

Aren't you fighting a war of gradual increasing socialistic policies?

Yes, but that is mostly because a new very far left generation is climbing the ladder of leadership in our country.

[Guest shiloh357]

The needs of the needy are never met in a capitalist society unless man freely gives without compulsion.

Not so. Welfare and social programs are funded through our taxes, not charity and free-will giving.

[~candice~]

Shiloh, are you seriously trying to say that capitalism has a way of supporting those in genuine need aside from free will giving? How????

If a person cannot work, and they don't have money freely given to them, where is this providence coming from?

Capitalism does speak to socialist welfare programs through it's absence. In the pure capitalist economic model there is NO welfare. Welfare is therefore the domain of free will giving, or it is absent.

Hence the needs of the needy are completely dependent on free will giving under a capitalist economic model.

You can deny it until the cows come home. It is what it is.

[~candice~]

The way that socialism invades a country is through the successive inclusion of socialist programs, is it not?

I would say not. America has been a very successful capitalist nation even with welfare and social security.

Aren't you fighting a war of gradual increasing socialistic policies?

Yes, but that is mostly because a new very far left generation is climbing the ladder of leadership in our country.

You are not a pure capitalist nation. You do have socialist policies, as most nations do. These policies are gradually increasing more and more, causing panic in your nation. It is invading, and people are protesting against it.

Your two statements contradict each other. The first disagrees with a successive inclusion of socialist programs leading to socialism, and the second agrees with it.

[~candice~]

The needs of the needy are never met in a capitalist society unless man freely gives without compulsion.

Not so. Welfare and social programs are funded through our taxes, not charity and free-will giving.

If it were the case that your taxes only supported your own welfare, maybe. But that isn't the case. Part of your taxes go towards the welfare of others, including people whose tax contributions come no where near their own welfare payments.

Your nation is not purely capitalist, sorry to inform.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, are you seriously trying to say that capitalism has a way of supporting those in genuine need aside from free will giving? How????

Taxes. Welfare funding and social security entitlements and even Vocational Rehabilitation programs are entirely funded by the American taxpayer. We pay for that and it is taken from us. We do not "give" it voluntairly. I cannot think of one social program for the needy that is not funded except through our taxes, and we do not have a choice about which we will or will not support. There is nothing "free will" about it.

If a person cannot work, and they don't have money freely given to them, where is this providence coming from?

Taxes.

Capitalism does speak to socialist welfare programs through it's absence. In the pure capitalist economic model there is NO welfare. Welfare is therefore the domain of free will giving, or it is absent.

It is not free will giving at all. I have to pay welfare to illegal immigrants and deadbeats who don't want to work. I have to because it comes from my taxes, money I earned.

Hence the needs of the needy are completely dependent on free will giving under a capitalist economic model.

You can deny it until the cows come home. It is what it is.

Sorry, but you are completely mistaken and really don't understand this at all.

[Guest shiloh357]

The needs of the needy are never met in a capitalist society unless man freely gives without compulsion.

Not so. Welfare and social programs are funded through our taxes, not charity and free-will giving.

If it were the case that your taxes only supported your own welfare, maybe. But that isn't the case. Part of your taxes go towards the welfare of others, including people whose tax contributions come no where near their own welfare payments.

Wrong. My money goes to welfare, but it is not from the goodness of my heart. It is because government-based social programs are funded by taxes I am forced to pay.

I have news for you, Andy. It is only free-will giving if I choose to give it based on my personal choice to give it. When it is my taxes that are used to pay for it, I did not give it of my free-will.