|
|
And in other news, reliable studies have shown that it gets darker when the sun goes down. |
Posted on 02/24/2006 6:24:09 AM PST by Sam's Army
review
"All well and good -- but you're making Cato's mistake: you've not accounted for human nature, and thus will end up surprised when socialism makes another leap forward."
Absolutely true. When the masses start believing that capitalism is giving them a raw deal, capitalism is in deep trouble. Eventually the socialists will accomplish change, either through the ballot box or the bayonet.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying the possibility is there and it's very real.
If it should happen one day, Good Lord willing, I will simply find something else. Or, like I am doing now, continue training/education so that I get more tools in my toolbox.
No one owes me a living, but I owe my young family my most earnest efforts to provide them with one.
How much of this was driven by the Y2K mobilization? For a while there, qualified IT folks could pretty much name their salary.
OTOH, the idea that you might lose your job because some Chinese or Bangladeshi is cheaper ... that's where one can plausibly apply the "faceless capitalism" label: to the company it's not personal, it's just business. Of course, to you it's utterly personal.
The economic arguments in such cases are all very well and good; however, the difference between "nothing personal" on one side, and "of course it's personal" on the other, cannot help but cause friction.
And where is socialism with a human face?
Given the amount of information available in this culture, my opinion is that one must stay informed enough to at least read about current trends. Being able to interpret current trends and make hopefully sound judgements about your own future should ward off a career choice of a role that could easily be done in Bangladesh.
Good question. Plenty of the Left would point to Cuba, Venezuela, etc. unforutnately.
I truly wasn't sure where you were headed, thanks for the explanation.
I now find that our differences are far fewer.
As a free marketer and a believer in individual freedom, I hardly think that prices of goods and services should be set individually according to predetermined asset levels. Instead, prices ought to be determined by what people are willing to pay. That's nearly unavoidable in any case.
I do agree that those of wealth have some *moral* obligation to help in some way those who are in need. Even though, IMO, the actual wealth that they've created is more (generally) helpful to the needy than their charity is. But the obligation should not be a legal one in a free country, charity should be at the discretion of the giver rather than the receiver...or the state.
As for outsourcing and free trade, I am philosophically a free trader, but do have mixed feelings and concerns, especially where national security comes in. Besides which, how can there be free trade if only one side is doing it?
|
|
And in other news, reliable studies have shown that it gets darker when the sun goes down. |
Absolutely, if you have only 2 major strata, exceedingly wealthy, and exceedingly poor... you will wind up with a Boshevic outcome or some sort, whether it be all out Communist uprising, or socialism.
You must have a vibrant middle class, where the lower classes honestly can see a path to improving their lot peacefully.. otherwise, you will wind up with a nice revolution on your hands.
If you're one of those folks who sees a hungry kid and wants to help her, then you see its human face every time you look in the mirror.
Most humans naturally do want to help people in need. I'd go so far as to say that many folks who are in favor of various socialist ideas are genuinely motivated by a desire to help. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to help.
The failures of socialism as a governing principle are well-known. It's a perversion of a good and natural desire to help; the problem is that it raises "wanting to help" above all other moral imperatives (like freedom, for example), and thus not only ruins those things, but also ends up failing to help.
Still -- the "human face" of socialism is yours and mine.
Another lefty CRUTSINGER "analysis" supported by Schumer Wyss and Bernstein...all educated in the laps of Marx.
My human face and my desire to help is not socialism.
However you slice it, the rich do get richer. That's how capitalism works. Get over it. Perhaps you'd rather watch the nomenklatura get richer instead?
No -- but it is the driving force behind socialism nevertheless. As I said, socialism perverts the desire to help by making it The Only Thing That Matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
