Socialism vs Capitalism: Jonathan's Post

Indeed. I do think capitalism is a better system than socialism. How did I convince you to vote for Obama? I do not think what we've had for the past eight years has been capitalism. I agree with Ayn Rand that the overriding philosophy of humanity is altruism. This idea that we live to serve others. The democrats are open about it and the republicans are apologetic about it. Bush's term was a period of 'good ole boyism', where folks without the skills to govern and run business were given a pass and allowed to lead. They appear to be pro business but they didn't accept the fact that you must earn the positions you hold. I say that if we're on an oscillating scale it is not between capitalism and socialism it is between unapologetic socialism and apologetic, give me a break cuz I'm your buddy cronyism.

Now, I agree that a potential crisis probably won't strike to the extent of the Cuban missile crisis, but Biden's words are extremely ominous. He is an idiot for saying something like that and it does lend itself to some crazy extreme socialist policy should such a crisis occur. As for Obama swinging to the extreme of good, what would that look like? I don't like the idea of forcing folks to do anything unless they are acting like a criminal. The thing that concerns me about Obama's motivations for redistributing wealth is that he considers the rich earning more money than the poor to be unfair. Not illegal, but unfair. Now, maybe he wants to put into law a wage differential so that once a person earns a certain amount of money they must forfeit that money to the poor, but I think that's a horrible idea. The scenario of the rich earning money while poorer people aren't doing well is only unfair if the rich are earning money by unfair or illegal means. At which point it's the government's job to protect its citizen from such acts. Both candidates think that it's generally unfair for some people to be doing well while others are doing poorly. They make no point to examine the idea that some folks may be doing poorly because they suck at life. The danger in this is those who would gladly take handouts are enabled when the government decides that regardless of why or how you've come to suffer in life you deserve to be taken care of by those who have the means to do so.

If there is a floor that people know they cannot fall through then the motivation to ascend erodes away. I do not see progress in socialism. I see an idealogy designed to stop the progress of the most talented and productive so that the least talented and productive can catch up to some abitrary level of existence. I see tremendously fertile ground for bitterness, laziness, and corruption in socialism. And now begins the debate if the ground is as fertile for bad things in capitalism.

Now I will agree that we need to do a much better job of preventing cheaters from proliferating. However, I don't think socialism, or socialist views are all that interested in that. As I said before, socialism is an enabling philosophy because it does not distinguish between those who are suffering by their own falt or by misfortune. Of course this can be a difficult thing to determine, but the point is under socialism this distinction is irrelevant. It's for this reason that I think socialism is ripe for cheaters and why socialism is just a prelude to fascism and dictatorship. We've degraded the question of 'why?' in almost every aspect of our lives. We've degraded the importance of using our minds, the only tool we have to survive. You cannot deny your mind and promote capitalism. You can certainly make equivocations and promote socialism.

How do we improve as humans is the question. How do we move away from the stupid that we all seem to understand is spreading amongst us? Do we enact a policy where we seek to level a playing field without giving consideration to the fact that some people do not deserve to be on it? Better yet, do we ignore the fact that such a question is valid? If we are socialist we do. Furthermore, how do we pay for this process? The answer is clear of course. It would be one thing if people and candidates were talking about correcting the corruption amongst the rich and removing those who have what they haven't earned. It's my impression that even those who have earned their wealth must be held accountable to those who have not regardless of any distinction among the folks in the later category. This is wrong. Should they choose to not help those who could use their help then they are bastards for it, but they are not criminals, nor should they be forced to comply. That's what I say about that as I'm clearly trying to start a debate on capitalism vs. everything else. Maybe this should be the first entry in our blog.