Text 29124, 93 rader
Skriven 2015-11-22 23:16:13 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 29123 av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: Capitalism vs. socialism
================================
Hello Björn,

 LL>> We are all "socialists", whether we want to admit it or not.
 LL>> Who do we choose to share our wealth with? That is the question.
 LL>> Do we choose to share our wealth freely with everyone? Or just
 LL>> a select few?

 BF> If you have to ask that question you haven't understood what socialism is
 BF> all about.

You haven't got a clue.
Yet you call yourself a political economist.

Socialism is an evil political system.
You do understand what evil is?

 BF> If you chose to share your wealth with a select few, it's capitalism.

I choose to share my wealth with the ones I love the most.
Namely, my family.  That is what the vast majority of people
do.  They share their wealth with those they love the most.

Now think about that for a minute -

The structural unit of society is the family.
My family is a select few.
My extended family is everybody else.

If I choose to share my wealth with the ones I love the most -
to the EXCLUSION OF EVERYBODY ELSE - then I would be practicing
something other than capitalism.

 BF> The most despicable economic system ever invented by mankind.

Oh, come now.  Capitalism is the only moral political system
that exists in the world today.  Why?  Because capitalism is the
only system that is dedicated to the protection of rights, most
especially in regards to property rights.  Why are rights so
important?  Because rights are a requirement for human survival.

You think I am bullshitting?  Name another moral political system
that exists in the world today.  Go ahead.  Can't do it?  Don't feel
bad.  Nobody else can, either.

The only proper role of a government is the protection of rights.
And those rights belong to the individual.  Not to any government,
or government entity.

I refuse to defend capitalism on an economic basis.  I stated in
my last message to you the economy is for the person, not the other
way around.  There is strong moral basis for that view, not much in
regards to the penny-pinching madness of austerity.

All political systems, without exception, rest on an ethical
system.  Socialism is no different in that regard.  The basis
of socialism is founded on the moral system of collectivism.
When collectivism is accepted as valid, as seems to be the
case in Sweden and most if not all of Europe, then socialism
is possible.  It is through this collectivism that the many
crimes of socialism are committed.

Atlas Shrugged.  JFK listened.  And gave a great speech
to the maddening crowd -

"Ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you
can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy

Now do you understand?  The Borg demands that all be assimilated,
as the group is more important than the individual.  The Borg makes
it a requirement that the individual sacrifice himself for the good
of the group.  Mr Spock insisted.  Fortunately for Mr Spock, Captain
Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise refused to listen.

Please.  Do not let me confuse you with such things.  Collectivism
is not the same thing as altruism.  Even though it might seem that
way to the unenlightened mind.  You see, altruism demands sacrifice
for others, while collectivism demands sacrifice for the group.
Understand the difference?

Yes, Mr Spock was a socialist.  And Captain Kirk set him straight.

A fanatical Muslim wearing a suicide vest will cry out "Allah Akbar!"
thus making himself a sacrifice for the good of his group - even though
many others outside his group also get blown up in the process.

That is the problem with socialism/collectivism.  It is a form of
anthropomorphism.  An attempt to turn a society into having a single
identity.  In this case, the identity of a monster.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)