Should the US be 100% capitalism with no concern of social ethics?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by keepitlow, Feb 3, 2010.

  1. keepitlow

    keepitlow Well-Known Member

    See YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Michael Moore on Larry King CNN

    Link wont show up here.

    [ame=]YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Michael Moore on Larry King CNN 10/29/2009[/ame]

    Sure Universal Healthcare is a form of socialism. So what? We already have many socialzed sytems in force within the US.

    Medicare, Social Security, our the Postal Service as well as Public Education are all forms of socialism. Sure our socialized systems need improvement as they are mismanaged through the corrupt politicians. But mismanaged or not would we do better as a country without such systems?

    Should the US be 100% capitalism with no concern of social ethics?

    In the vid Prez Johnson touched on the answer need a mix of capitalism and free markets as well as social safety nets. It is just a question of what the mix is?

    Socialism is what saved our country from going bust with the Wall Street debacle. Maybe we needed to go through a terrible depression and die off to clean house. But that is not the way things went down. So we must give credit where credit is due and the saving grace that kept America as well as the world going turned out to be socialism and not the free market capitalism.

    Another fellow (I think on the AR-15 forum) had a solution to America's woes. He subscribed to the "Scrooge Theory."

    He said if a person can't get along without pills, medicine, psychiatric care, welfare, Medicare, food stamps or gov handouts to live - then they need to just die. He wasn't bitter about it, just viewed this as the correct way to run a country under the law of natural selection.

    I heard similar views from the survival podcast man about gov entitlements. (He didn't mention the need to die part) but, I agree with him the gov keeps a certain amount on the citizens beholden to the politicians for handouts,

    But that is how we built our nation. Do we kill off half of the pop in midstream? If that was the case, America would be a very different place, wouldn't it?

    But as America goes bust from corrupt politicians, we run out of fossil fuels and fewer and fewer of us can afford to get healthcare...that 'kill off' is exactly where we are headed.


    Where are you on this issue?

    Socialized mix for the US or dump all social programs and let capitalists have full control?
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2010
  2. TechAdmin

    TechAdmin Administrator Staff Member

    I have hard time believing the only options lie in extremes. We need an overhall sure but unregulated non ethical capitalism is crazy. That was esentially what was happening at the dawn of the industrial revolution which is why there are now laws in place.

  3. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    Is this the link that you were hoping to post?

    [ame=]YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Michael Moore on Larry King CNN 10/29/2009[/ame]
  4. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    I think Dean has the right answer. The extremes of history spawned corrective measures. One can easlily see the desirability of Socialism when you look at the conditions that birthed it.

    Some of the problems we face today have to do with our basic worldview. The social progressives tend to believe that mankind is basically good and wants to benefit his fellow man. Therefore evil comes because a person did not have good options to chose from. For a "good" society people merely need good opportunities. The remedy for evil is to provide opportunity. People do not really have the freedom to make choices. They are like a log floaing down a river and subject to the current's whim. If one does wrong it's because of their enviroment. They are not presonally wrong nor should they be held accountable.

    The traditional view of Western Civilization is that mankind is basically evil and self-centered. Therefore he must be taught to do good and have restraints imposed to limit his actions. He does have the ability to choose although his propensity will be to chose evil unless moral restraints are imposed.

    Both views have some merit although I tend to believe the correct one is the Western (Christian) understanding. The problem with unrestrained capitalism is that the strong will control the weak. (History has proven that premise true.) Does anyone here believe that Bill Gates wouldn't like to see Apple go out of business or that GM wouldn't like to see their competition obliterated? Without restraints the rich will subjegate the poor as has been shown by history many times.

    However, a socialistic or communistic society fails because of their flawed view of mankind. Man is basically selfish. Why should anyone work harder than any other if the rewards (or lack thereof) are the same for everyone?

    The ideal society will provide a balance. People will have opportunity to do well along with rewards (and penalties) for their actions and choices. The rich may need restraints to safeguard the rights of the poor. The poor need realistic opportunities to better their lot in life. The weak need to be helped. The lazy need to starve.

    The purely Darwinian understanding of survival of the fittest is great as long as you're at the top of the food chain. But, there's always someone wanting that top spot and no matter how tough or self-sufficient you are there will be times of weakness.

    As my children have grown one of the hardest things I've had to deal with are the ways they grew up just like me. Some ways were good but other ways I wish they had learned more from their mother. Imagine a "civilization" (or could we even use that word!) based on Darwinism. Would you want to leave that heritage to your children and grandchildren? We need to retain our humanity.

    (mosquitomountainman stepping down from soap-box)