meatcleaver
Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
meatcleaver, your post follows the thinking of Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons which was the driver for much of our current environmental law.
The fact remains that if everyone in the world consumed at the consumption rate of people in the developed world, we would need eight planets to satisfy everyone. The other fact, deforestation and desertification of land is growing at an alarming rate, satelite images give us direct evidence of that. There are two main reasons for it, 1. over consumption by the developed world 2. The need to survive for the day by the underdeveloped world. You may believe or not, in human contribution to climate change but you can't argue with human contribution to deforestation, desertification and pollution.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
Back on subject, I hope you're wrong regarding the poor family in your example. If they rely on their government for their existence, then they might well think that they deserve someone to hand them a better lifestyle. But if they have the MEANS within their hands to change their own life for the better, they'll be motivated as hell to do so. The US citizens do not condemn anyone to poverty - other governments do so. For example, note what happens whenever a country nationalizes an industry.
Extreme poverty is psychologically debilitating and causes mental disorder, one of the main reasons why people are unable to escape poverty. The other one is that the opportunities often claimed to be there, just aren't there.
Ask yourself DarkSteven, how come in the last OCED report in 2006 on social mobility, the USA came out as having the least social mobility in the developed world, just behind that other most capitalistic country in the developed world, Britain. Most mobility was in north European social democratic countries, even Japan, that very conservative state, had much more social mobility that the USA.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
Capitalizing on individual initative is how the US built itself to its present state. If you look at the Homestead Act, the Mining Act, and Western water law, it all follows the same idea - the government will give you a home tract, mining land, or use of water IF you can use it to benefit the economy.
The fact that the government allows private individuals to own the means of production was a radical idea when first implemented.
See above.
The US built its economy the same way as most developed countries built their economy, the theft of resources and controlling of the markets and military force where necessary. The idea that western countries developed on the backs of hard working poor, working their way out of poverty is a fallacy. The only way the exploited poor got out of being poor was through the threat of rebelion and rich and powerful giving away a little to hold onto a lot. As Winston Churchill commented when he introduced unemployment benefit in Britain, 12 shillings and sixpence is cheap when it comes to buying off a revolution. Think why such a capitalist country as the USA has benefits, not because it believes in them but not to have them would mean more social unrest, more violence and possible rebellion. International capitalism requires poverty, not necessarily in the developed world anymore (though thankfully for capitalism there is some to balance the markets) but certainly in the undeveloped world.
Yes, there is a place for markets but as the current credit crunch has proved, it needs regulating to save the majority from the greed of a few. Markets should make the economy function while regulation should protect the weak from exploitation, something the capitalist system is very adept at doing, as we can see in the current phase where dirt poor people in the undeveloped world are expoited as cheap labour to create cheap products for the developed world. Hell, we even turn a blind eye to child slavery so we can have cheap products, not to mention we turn a blind eye to an epidemic of mutilation through industrial accidents for our cheap products.
< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 8/11/2008 12:09:35 PM >
_____________________________
There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.
|
RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread