Capitalism

http://www.justiceplus.org/capitalist.htm

Poverty in the world is caused by a lack of capitalism.  China's economy is only now starting to grow because of AMERICAN corporations stepping in, and giving them jobs, and in general, income of capital.

>>80  Some people just think they deserve to be paid to breathe, is what it amounts to.  Believe it or not, there are ACTUALLY people out there, who think they have a 'right' to money out of other people's pockets.

>>80 & >>81 I've been through this before. Everyone. Doesn't. Start. On. Square. One. If some people have a headstart, they should be ready to offer some crumbs to those that started off with determening handicaps beyond their choice and prevention. Welfare is natural, but like all governmental restrictions it must not be taken for granted, the way others take pacifism or the openness of the internet for granted

>>82
Yeah, I think wellfare for disabled people is good and nice thing, but see absolutely no reason why those who aren't disabled should get it.

>>82
"'ve been through this before. Everyone. Doesn't. Start. On. Square. One."

Do you think I haven't been listening? It is irrelevant what square they happen to be starting on.  It is not the "rights" of the recipient which are in question in the case of giving money to someone.  It is the right of the property holder. 

"If some people have a headstart, they should be ready to offer some crumbs to those that started off with determening handicaps beyond their choice and prevention."

That 'headstart' that you speak of is another individual who chose to give him the produce of his labor voluntarilly.  There is absolutely no reason why they should be forced to give this up.  It is not that they have any kind of 'right' to recieve it.  It is that the giver has the right to 'give' it.

"Welfare is natural, but like all governmental restrictions it must not be taken for granted, the way others take pacifism or the openness of the internet for granted"

Welfare is a horrible abuse of individuals in society that actually work.  It should be repealed at once.  Freedom is what should not be taken for granted. 

"Yeah, I think wellfare for disabled people is good and nice thing, but see absolutely no reason why those who aren't disabled should get it."

Many people that are disabled are disabled because of their own negligence or stupidity.  Ex:  a teenager gets drunk at a party and dives off the shallow end of a pool, becoming partially paralyzed. 

In a situation such as this, why on earth should all the other responsible individuals be forced at government gunpoint to pay for his negligence and irresponsibility?

Charity is a wonderful thing.  Forced charity is stealing. 

>>83 I'm talking about being born a woman or being gay, those are also slight handicaps in american society.
>>84 The headstart I'm talking about is not inheritance, but being born and raised in a good environment to two parents. The advantage such a person receives comes at the expense of those born less fortunate, an unfair reception of opportunity. Hence the leverage. I wonder how much of a paycheck goes to welfare anyway.

>>85 I wonder how much of a paycheck goes to welfare anyway.

it would be zero if we didn't have people sucking the life blood out of the economy by getting "free money". People on welfare are just like leaches, and if you just keep letting more and more people suck money from the economy pretty soon there will be no more money. A society can't exist when there are more people taking then producing.

The advantage such a person receives comes at the expense of those born less fortunate, an unfair reception of opportunity.

Thats bullshit. its not my fault sombody didn't grow up in a "good environment" and i don't owe them shit. Besides if you think free money will make up for that then you are a dumbass. There have been many people from bad backgrounds who have grown up to be INCREDIBLY successful. Look at Andrew Carnegie.

>>85
Umm, hello? How is being transsexual or gay a handicap? I'm gay and I have decent job and income. I'm not closeted either.

>>87 I'm sorry for the generalization. I'm not trying to paint a mural of pure injustice in order to make an exaggerated case for welfare, but discrimination is widespread, and that is a force that acts negatively on a person, despite said person not choosing his position, but being born with it. Those born with an advantage has it at the expense of others, hence leverage is justified. Welfare is in today's practice a faulty and negative societal force. In theory and as a princip, however, it is not.

Secondly, more people to the right think it is A-ok to allow employers to keep certain types of people out of the company, which is no more than a surrender to the bigotted and a damning charge for the right's capacity to free the individual. And that is also a problem with the market, it always sucks up in order to make a profit. The right must give the conservative faction of the christian majority the finger before I accept is an alternative.

>>88
In my experience such bigotted employers are rare and exists only on low-education and low-income slave jobs. Besides it's highly unlikely that your employer will ever know about your sex life(if he does even care), unless you tell it to him ofcourse, but I see no reason why should anyone go around and telling "hey I'm gay", unless it's appropriate. I mean people don't generally talk about their sex life with strangers. I also believe employers do have full rights to choose who they employ. It's their business. If they discriminate gays instead of complaining to goverment gays should organize a demonstration against them, collect adresses and get in touch with gay employees in that company. I don't believe many persons are born as gay either. I'm gay myself and I remember pretty clearly it was choice. I tried women, but found men more lovable.

>>89 There is more evidence of nature than pro-nurture, but I just wanted to get a minor point across, related to the fact that companies need to stop being so populistic. I need some stats on this anyway, so thanks for countering me.

>>90
Sadly, I don't have any stats, but that's what I have experienced. Reason why I'm against anti-discrimination laws affecting inviduals(goverment should ofcourse not discriminate anyone) is that while itself it's nice thing in history it has lead to bad things such as affirmative action and outlawing "hate" speech. It's bad when you give minorities unfair advantage and freedom of speech and expression is universal and I do honestly believe people have right to say and think what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone physically or slander specific inviduals, but those two exceptions are illegal anyway.

>>91 Yup. 85% of all interracial crime is black-against-white, not v.v. But dems shy away from such facts because they are tied to all black people (good or bad), much like reps are stuck with all kinds of christians. You get the politicians you deserve, and the politicians get the voters they deserve.

>>91
Agreed.  Obscenity laws are stupid.  The Freedom of Speech is there to protect the offensive speach.  If the speech being said isnt offensive, what is stopping you from saying it?

>>92

The term "interracial crime" fails. Black criminals aren't attacking whites because they are white, they are attacking them because the general perception is that white people have money.

>>94 And that is a viable reason for singling out whites? That sort of profiling harms america to an insane degree.

>>95 I jst realized you weren't implying that it was viable at all. I apologize.

>>94
Niggers are racist :O?

>>97 The human mind, like all animal minds, has been proven to generalize between at any given moment. It is actually that innate paranoia that saved our monkey asses in the past, and now causes subconscious bigotry. In that case, the problem isn't racial discrimination, rather racial generalization.

Humans naturally fear things they don't really know. This is why jews who tend to be secretive are though to be conspirators that control world and very same reason is behind why blacks are feared and hated. They're particularly dangerous minority(although I don't believe it's race related, more related to socioeconomic factors) and rumors spread quickly thus people begin to assume that every black man is criminal. In essence we need to make distinction between "good"(read law-abiding) and "bad"(read dangerous criminal) people and not by race.

>>96

It's not viable at all. But, generally speaking, who's fault is it that whites have access to a certain amount of wealth that blacks can seem to, or don't believe themselves to be able to reach?

It's not general black population or the white population who is to blame, but surprisingly enough those who would use those facts and statistic to enforce policies that snow ball racial generalization.

Once we're unable to come together, it makes it easy for us to be controlled.

>>100 Well, point taken. I once heard an otherwise intelligent libertarian say something about the little dude from Boondocks being upset, and then stating "it's not my fault that I come from a community that value success and progress." That left a sour taste in my mouth; It's not like blacks were once given an equal chance but then decided to break up some bourbon and mooch of society instead.

>>101
It's beside the point.  Those who happened to be born into a "good" family should not be forced to work harder to make up for the ills of those who were not born into "good" families.

>>86 Amen.

Just because other people grew up in shitty families doesn't mean those of us who didn't should have to pay for them and their shitty families.

>>102 Okay, I'll run this through one more time in the hope it will be news to someone, or at least piss someone off. When those from a better past gain advantages in the many steps of life, they do so at the opportunity cost of those with the same cerebral/physical/mental potential who did not stand a chance due to environmental determinism. Good is in this case a parameter that doesn't belong inside quotation marks. Wealth may not be a constant, it is continuously produced, but all of it isn't of one's own fair making. When all people start on square one (that is, your life situation when born doesn't influence your future to such an absurd degree), then Soc. Sec. can disappear.
Until then I'll gladly pay each month in order to bracket things, and vote for politicians that work for a sustainable future w/out welfare while at the same time enforcing soc. sec. everywhere.
And no, I don't believe in social justice since it is an illogical utopia. But a society without welfare but with environmental determinism is a society I have to defend my fellow humans against.

>>104
     How do you intend to make nobody effected by what situation they are born into.  The only way I can think of is to eliminate parenthood altogther and have the state raise every child equaly.  If my parents have more money than you that means they can afford more to purchase me more books than yours.  It means I can afford to get spoiled more.  It means so much that the only way to balance the scales is to have the state take both of us away from our respective parents and raise us on it's own so that we are raised in absolute equality.
    If you want to donate money you can, the govenment doesn't have to tax you for you to give.  You can donate money to school districts of your choice, to charity of your choice, to whatever poor person you choose.  That is your fucking choice and more power to you if you do it.  Stop saying that just because you are willing to donate money gives you the right to take my money and donate it too.  Because that is bullshit elitism that makes you think that way.

>>105 This isn't about removing the source of inequalitites, this is about preventing said inequalities from accumulating into polarizing, dividing and unsound economic segregation. However, I do believe that all people should have a very high minimum level of education and I also believ that all job applications should be sent in anonymously. I believe that racial/sexual/orientation profiling by employers should be punished very harshly and lastly no differences in appearance should have an effect on your lot in life. If your parents are rich then fine; they will have more capability to protect and this is an incitement for others. It's when a person born into poverty has a 1% chance of getting up that you have to understand that while environmental determinism is unavoidable, it's effect must be limited. Until you non-elitists give an alternative that doesn't resemble an urban fucking jungle, I'll gladly vote so that both I and all you industrious, striving and constitutional people have to PAY.

>>104
Why are you so attracted to that ideal? Can't you see that it involves the use of brute force?

People shouldn't be FORCED to do so many things.  We should roll back government from as many aspects of our lives as we can... private institutions can do everything better, and not only that, they do it without the use of physical force.

>>107 (i'm poster 107)

The point being that you are forcing your ideas onto others like a a typical thug... common really.  Can't we be more civilized than that?

What's the difference between tax collectors and robbers/thugs?

One has the illusory shroud of legitimacy provided by the government, and the other does not.

I give cash to beggars, but I make deals with them, like I say hold my tools for me for an hour whilst I do my gardenning and you will get $15. I make them know that I am paying them for the work and not out of pity. I now have myself a whole host of niggas who basically help me carry things around, do a few things for me at work, it's awesome. There is this one mestizo guy, so it's multi-racial, I just call them my niggas because that's what they call each other. I'm not like racist or any of that nonsense, it's just a tradition to call low paid black workers niggas, if they didn't want me to call them that they'd say. My only law is that they take a shower, they are US citizens, don't scare the local children with their contorted faces and don't use drugs on my premises.

I am paying them a lot for a little work, yes, but this way they learn. This one nigga I promoted in a little ceremony involving whiskey and a BBQ. I promoted him to African American, he lives at the same warehouse where he works at one of my colleagues who imports and distributes tyres. He does a fine job of carting the things around and works a 12 hour day for a 10 hour day of minimum wage.

I'm not sure what you capitalists and socialists  think, but I am putting the bums to use and being charitable at the same time and I'm not even doing it for a tax break. I think my way is probably the best.

>>109
INDENTURED SERVITUDE FTW

>>110
they don't sound very indentured, idiot.

>>105
>>107

You guys are arguing against the fundamentals of social order. History has shown us what happens when the weak outnumber the strong and are not cared for. You pretty much get total anarchy. Social Welfare is a compromise with the socially weak and those that didn't start with the advantages you or I might have had.  Without social welfare the majority of the people would not only be destitute and impoverished. But they would be certainly even MORE willing to take what you have. And because they are the multitude and you are the minority social order would be reduced to something far less civilized than what we have now.

And "FORCED"? You mean how we sorta forced Africans to come to America and become slaves? You mean how we are sorta forced to pay taxes that lack proper representation, the very issue that our forefather rebelled over. We're being forced every fucking day- go take issue with those 'forces'. We're talking about making it so that you can and your kids can walk down the streets at night without risk of being mugged because NO ONE has any money. 

>>112
No they wouldn't.  Under a fully libertarian government and society, I'm sure they would all be far better off than they are now.

>>113

And this is why most people fail at politics. You can't just throw all your weight behind one system or set of ideals and claim that you're so sure that "we'll be better off". You have no proof of that! You don't fucking know. So why all the conjecture? Especially in this instance. Your arugment isn't supplanted by anything but "take my word for it.".

Meanwhile mine is pure logic. If you don't take care of the weak in a society where the socially weak out number the sociall strong you get the french revolution, you get total anarchy (not the good kind)=== if that's "your thing" then by all means...........

>>112
Why would anyone(especially kids) need to walk on streets at night?

That Rand, she argumented that women were at their best like never-as-equal-but-just-as-sexy accesories to men. She found non-heterosexuals unnatural even though science says otherwise. Her fans says that was the consensus back then. So, the godess of individualism caved to obsolete, retarded peer pressure. MotherFUCK Ayn Rand; I love all my fellow humans whether they can give 25-page hymns to selfishness while looking sexy or not.

>>116
"I love all my fellow humans"
I don't.  You love Hitler just as much as you love Einstein?  You love Stalin just as much as you love Beethoven?

Get real.  I love based on the virtues that a human has, not just because he happens to be a human. 

Rand was right on many things, such as that.  Even if I disagree with her politics, she was a respectable author.

>>114

"Meanwhile mine is pure logic"

There are plenty of logical arguments that demonstrate that most of the problems of society right now are caused directly, or indirectly by governments, not private enterprise.

There are plenty of arguments showing that your average person would be better off in a free society than in an enslaved one.

"If you don't take care of the weak in a society where the socially weak out number the sociall strong you get the french revolution, you get total anarchy"

THAT is the reason we have police and government.  It is not to redistribute income.  The government exists to defend citizens from other citizens.  The Bill of Rights is there to protect citizens from the government.
 

>>117 Loving isn't the same as trusting/respecting/approving/appreciating/supporting/condoning etc. I just don't have an experience of conflict where hatred, indignation, contempt or conviction has been useful.

>>119
I don't understand what you are saying.  What I am saying is that you should love man for the things that make him/her virtuous, not just because he is a man.

I dislike Hitler.  He was an authoritarian asswipe.

I like Beethoven.  He wrote good music.

The point being, love is not based on race, but on merit, and reason.  I love individuals for reasons, not just because they are humans.