h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So here is another question for all the pro Cappies out there.
How in a capitalist system do you address global concerns? IE: helping third world nations fight AIDS, or the chronic poverty in a third world nation or Redistributing wealth to those nations that have problems feeding themselves because of Cash Crop subsistence farm issues.

The world AIDS conference is a wonderful example. US patent laws prevent No Name AIDS medicines being sold into most African Nations. No Name treatment $10 Patent 2000 a treatment. Nice to see the major Pharmaceuticals killing off entire populations in the name of patent rights.

Here is another Producers in Brazil can't compete with the large mechanized model of farm production that the industrialized nations employ. Their own producers can no longer sell to the markets because foreign companies selling food into the nation undercut the domestic cost of production. Farmers in order to make a profit move to cash crops like cocoa, bananas, coffee, but none of these actually feed people. So the local population is made dependant on the foreign supply and begins to spiral into perpetuation. The highest return of course comes from poppies. So the US decides to spend, was it 6 million or billion in sending in choppers to spray down the only crops that make the farmers the money they need to purchase food. I'd love to hear what chemical is actually being used. But the farmers have said they don’t want to grow poppies they just want a living, and they can't make it when the US subsidizes exports into foreign nations to undercut domestic production. The EU subsidizes more, but it is used domestically to protect their production and employment levels rather than Corp profits.

What’s the capitalist answer to these problems.

The capitalist answer? To quote Mel Brook's History of the World Part I, "F*** the poor!" While there are some companies that do have a social conscience, many don't care about the consequences of their business. They justify their actions by saying "Business is war" "Dog eat dog" and other crap.

(Standing up on my soapbox for a minute) About pharmacueticals, have you seen the ads on TV lately touting how drug pricing reform would hurt people? Ads paid for indirectly by drug companies? This kind of propoganda makes me sick, like those 'Tom and Sally' commercials (or whatever their names were) launched by the insurance industry against universal health care. Pretty lies to scare people away from legislation that would actually benefit them.

Here is the answer to the question of "Who will care for the poor and socially disadvantaged?"

If YOU want to help them, nobody's gonna stop you.

Exactly.
I think cheez solved it..........

No one can really stop anyone from doing anything.

But by failing to act in a social manner you are being anti-social.
It is a clinical condition and the sign of someone who is not well adjusted.

When it occurs on a national level then the statement can be made that the nation is not well adjusted.

If an individual is continually anti-social it is seen as a symptom of deep seated mental instability. They are typically segregated from society unless willing to submit to treatment of some type or another.

Unfortunately nations are not as fortunate.

The issue in the conversation seems to have become slightly muddled.
What you are referring to when you talk about Cuba and the ex Soviet Unionare failed attempts at *Communist* societies, and even then the goal of communism was never even nearly acheived in these places. Communism is but one branch of Socialism, an idealism which ranges from Anarchism right up to modern Liberalism such as that of the UK Liberal Democrat Party.
The claim that all that Socailism equals is SCUD missiles is absurd - who could imagine the current Liberal Leader, Charles Kennedy, agreeing with the production of weaponry? The fact is that you are over gerneralising on this issue and therefor your anti Socialist arguaments are highly flawed, if not invalid.
Socialism can take the form of a popular democracy, but the "Socialism" that the world has seen already, and i enclose it in speechmarks because it is a misuse of the word, has proven not to be socialism but dictatorship, which is at the opposite end of the political spectrum. After all, which true socialist wouls advocate the killings of thousands of innocent eastern Europeans? Answer: none


---The Red Fish )-{{{'>

"Power Corrupts"
[email protected]

ps. sorry to barge in like that but i just joined this community today.....


---The Red Fish >-{{{'>
"Power Corrupts"
[email protected]

Not a problem, we've had people popping in and out of this conversation for a while.

Ever notice that AIDS seems to be such a huge problem in third-world countries, and is rather well under control in free-market democracies? If those countries were better at managing their own resources, they wouldn't have such problems with disease... thay could solve it their own-damned-selves.

It seems to me that the AIDS epidemic is more a problem with education than with resource management. You don't need a lot of resources to prevent AIDS from spreading. Now, treating it is another matter...

Here Here you have my support fish.
I just enjoy starting an argument every now and again with blatant capitalists. Who come to knock around the concept of .....
Say we're in H2G2 here and no one has brought up the infamous quote yet.

"Almost two thousand years after they nailed someone to a tree for saying how nice it would be if we could be nice to one another." I thought that was a socialist concept.

Here is a question though, how do modern socialists drive the agenda forward when from the vary range of interests and backgrounds in the system there can be a number of divisions.
I.E. By supporting labour issues for solid working conditions in for example the mega-industry, you alienate those in the environmental movement.

Do you enjoy pushing buttons?

First. I was not trying to tie AIDS to the system of governance, which is irrelevant when dealing with the gravity and style of epidemic. I was asking your perspective of the patent laws was given that it the basis of capitalist belief that these laws be enforced in a global perspective.

Secondly Most of these third world nations are free market economies in the extreme. (its might makes right)

Thirdly "solving it their own damn selves" is something I am sure any caring human being says only in anger. Willingly sitting by and supporting a policy that means millions die has only happened a few times in history, and is unacceptable.

Now I finally understand the logical flaw that has caused you all to accept socialism and reject anything else. You equate socialism with morality. Jesus was not a socialist. But Stalin was. Socialism is about removing choice... is that moral? Socialism is about forced equality... is that right? Socialism is about obliterating personal independence, personal responsibilty, and individuality. Well, you can have my freedom... when you're prepared to die trying to take it. Socialism does create equality... everyone becomes equally poor and wretched. Except for the government. Has a lot in common with feudalism that way, doesn't it?

Colonel Sellers, who knows firsthand what a mess of it the government can make of it when it tries to take care of people.

I disagree with your premise here and find your argument confused in a couple of stances.
First off Socialism is not about removing choice, personnel independence, responsibility or individuality.
In some instances it is about the need for universal minimum standards based on compassion.
Its about deciding as a society that all can enjoy the benefits of a higher quality of living and being willing to make that personal sacrifice to ensure it happens.
The balance that is constantly being sought is cost to the individual for those minimum standards and the gain from their being there. Its a moving target so no one should ever assume the system has reached that balance.
Using business terms it is insurance. I pay x dollars to ensure that we a re a compassionate society and have these safety nets for us should there be problems.
You are also currently equating Socialism with Communist Russia which is the equivalent of comparing Capitalism with Fascist Germany, and that is not I road I wish to explore.

Okay, you're making a distinction. You're saying nationalization of the means of production is a communist idea, not socialist. You're saying that you support the free market, but you believe it is the duty of every citizen to pay a tax that can then be given out to less fortunate. That tax will go to ensure a minimum quality of life for those people. Am I interpreting this correctly so far?

The problems with this idea are twofold... what is a minimum standard of living, and how much are you willing to pay for it? Does it mean basic needs are met, like food, clothing and shelter? Or does it mean that everyone can enjoy much more... several trips to the movies, a new DVD player, and dining out a few times a month?

A socialist country will always be granting themselves new social benefits... espeecially in a social democracy. Slowly and steadily, the tax burden skyrockets, and the government has to borrow heavily just to pay the bills. Ask Sweden, the social democracy. Per capita, they have the greatest tax burden and the highest national debt in the industrialized world. Soon, they'll all be equally broke.

In reply to the stance that if third world countried managed their resourced better they would have a smaller problem with AIDS I have only one thing to say. Maybe they would if all of those Capitalist countries out there stopped forcing them to repay debts that they have no chance to end within the next Millenium. They have no money because htey are giving it to everybody else in exchange for flood relief and other help.

HELEN

PS, how do you change you nickname, I'M HAVING A BIT OF TROUBLE

Nice one Fish. And for all of you confused Americans out there, when he's talking about Liberals he means tha Liberal Democrats in the UK, which are a merge of the Social Democrats and the Liberals, very different fromt the Liberals where you are.

The problem with discussing Socialism is that it covers such a wide range of topics that almost any pose on it can be refuted, how about some specifics. Are you talking Communism or Democrocy, or don't you care as long as you can say how wonderful Capitalism is and how terrible everyting else is?

HELEN

PS, still can't change the nickname

Miss Helen: click on the "Preferences" button on the left side of your screen if you're using "Goo skin." (or top of it if you're using "alabaster skin"

Ok. Ownership without control of the thing you own is a contradiction in terms. Socialism implies directly that all ownership is granted through the government instead of through right. This is why capitalism is the only system that defines itself as a free system, meaning; you have control over disposal of your property. In a Socialist system, the government does.

To define a true Socialist as someone who holds humanity's best interests at heart is a laughable statement. Under any and all socialist governments, there have been more atrocities commited in the name of "social welfare" and "caring for the 'Little People'." How could anybody think that to spill blood is the way to social progress? Socialism is a blatent play for power, nothing more. Whoever holds the tenents of Socialism to heart is basically claiming their right to help themselves forcefully to the wealth that I created. I won't tolerate it, and neither will any right thinking people.

I don't know what countries or what debts you're talking about. I do know that the US has a long history of forgiving debts and giving away foreign aide, so this argument is pointless. Among the debts forgiven were massive loans made to the UK and France during WWII. Lend-lease turned into Lend-keep. If you're referring to IMF loans, well, they agreed to borrow the money and pay it back. Expecting repayment is hardly unjust. If they didn't expect to pay the money back, they should never have asked for it. I would expect no better if I ran up a massive credit card debt. I avoid that by not accruing any. Funny how private citizens can manage resources better than educated, elected officials...

Your initial analysis is correct as far as I'm concerned.
Your concerns of "the government has to borrow heavily just to pay the bills" is accurate only if the government is maintaining deficit financing.
It is failing to take into consideration that people are not stupid and will not support deficit financing because it is stupid.

I am still researching the Sweden example.
On financing every country ran deficits in the 70's. Now deficit financing is out of vogue. But there is still a need to maintain a social safety net, and it is the financial conservatives that will ensure budgets are balanced. Just like it is the social democrats that will maintain the safety net.
You can't have one with out the other.
I think the pendulum gives us balance. I will use the domestic example of this where you have a swing left and right and in the end it ultimately works itself out.
These swings are important because there are always improvements to be made, because no system is perfect.
The only ones that seem to contend they have achieved perfection here is the capitalists.
The ideals behind a free-market are as ludicrous and naive as ideal socialism.

Besides there is no free market right now its all socialist.
You could hold up the US as the perfect example and that is a lie.
I.E.
Over 19 billion in farm subsidies sure lead to accurate market indicators.
Export enhancement programs that undercut foreign competitors.
Regulations on my individual rights to bear arms.
Taxes that go toward state run agencies that don't benefit the public like NASA.
Federal food inspectors that dictate the minimum standard for food quality in public restaurants.
County agencies that help keep good water quality.
Federal roads, federal internet back bone.

A true free market is anarchy because it is based on freedom with out controls. (Could the argument be made now that Russia is the ultimate free market because there are no controls? Its all based on the power of your money now?)
Unfortunately it's these controls that allow us to have infrastructure and a standard of life. So inherent in any government is a socialist kernel because the society that appoints it decries minimum standards.
Socialism equals society because the instant you get a society there is a form of socialism as people work together for their mutual benefit. True free markets are anarchy plain and simple because there are no rules.
Given that its arguments over the form of socialism and extent that you practice it.
I.E. socialized medicine and the like. I guess through my own argument the US is a socialist government. Not one that I necessarily like, but it is incredibly effective in using its tax base for large projects that benefit its people. However given the number of people I simply question what could be done better to equally distribute the benefits to all that pay into it rather than the few that control it.

Care to switch sides for a while.

I think I can argue against socialism, would you care to argue for it?