Capitalism or Socialism choose a side and state your point

[Mray3460]

1.Progressivism, I.E., whatever keeps things moving forward, and the budget balanced

This is what the Progressives say they are all about, but how do you define forward? Abortion on demand for anyone who wants it whenever they want? Sex changes for toddlers? Suicide booths in central park? Organ harvesting from the disenfranchised? (We shall enfranchise parts of them, eh comrades? eh?) And balancing budgets is the last thing on the Progressive agenda. Not really on the agenda.

2.(Basically, Government control of certain substances that would detract from money better spent in a productive manner [cannabis, poppys, LSD, tobacco, and alchohol{although I'll admit that that last one never did and never will work in the U.S.}],

The government should not be choosing how people spend their money. If they do, its not your money, its the government's. And I cry bullshit for that. Prohibition of substances has a much longer track record of abject failure than alcohol prohibition alone. Soon, we will see mexico decriminalize, many US states are decriminalizing... give it time and the prisons will be emptied of nonviolent drug offenders. Now that would be change I can believe in.

3.a flat rate income tax,

Grossly benefits the wealthy. I support it because my family is wealthy enough that a flat tax would grossly benefit me. Once grad school is over, I will probably bring in enough money that a flat tax would make me really happy. America has among the most progressive tax rates in the world.

4.large investments in education [to help people make smarter decisions down the line]

The US has thrown gobs of money at education since well before the clinton era, and the entire system has gone down the tubes. Simply throwing money at 'education' doesn't make people smarter. Especially when most of that money goes to administrators. We can say that "well someone good needs to be put in charge of the department of education" but since that department was created, the quality of american education has gone through the floor.

(note, I changed it so that the numbers coresponded).

1. I agree with the first one, but not with the latter three. My problem with the toddler sex changes is not something that stems from progressivism, but from my personal feelings, namely that once a pregnant woman's water breaks that the baby becomes a separate, unique individual, independant from the mother, and that such life altering actions should not be undertaken without the child's consent (now, if the change had been performed while the child was still in the womb, more power to the parents, but otherwise, no dice). Suicide booths are not, and never will be, progressive, because suicide is not productive. Every person has something to contribute to society, even if it's just being a square peg in a square hole. I'll go with the same explanation for the organ harvesting, people are unique, irreplacable resources, even the lowest of the low are worth far more than the sum of their parts (couldn't resist). The point of Progressivism is to get as much out of everything as you can, including people, which brings me to...

2. The reasons for controling the listed substances are that they either A. are physically addictive with little to no medicinal value (poppys and tobacco [or cocaine/crack]) ( see http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/tobacco.html http://teens.drugabuse.gov/mom/mom_opi1.php and http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/cocaine.html) B. impair a user's judgement (alchohol) (see http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/alcohol-related-neurological-disease) or C. it can cause permanent psychological damage (cannibus and LSD) (see http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana4.html#school and http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/hallucinogens.html). The point of controling addictive substances is that they are an unnessasary product, which becomes nessasary (I.E. once someone tries it, it is nearly impossible without serious psychological and medicinal help for them to stop), additionally, profits made off of sales are usually reinvested in advertising and product placement deals to draw more new users (this is especially prevelent in the tobacco industry, ever see a big star light up after an action sequence? How about a sign advertising cigaretts at a baseball game?). Drugs that impair a user's judgement need to be controlled because they ultimately cause more domestic/public violence, accidental injury/death, and unwanted/irresponsible sexual activity (however, I will admit that a total ban on alchohol [as in prohibition] never did and never will work. Alchohol is simply too ingrained into our culture. After all, it's been in use since the classical period and anchient Egypt at least). Finally, the long term psychological effects of many drugs ultimately deprive society of more competant individuals. A person who uses psychoactive drugs may still suffer from short term memory loss, learning disabilities, and other effects long after they have stopped taking the drug.

3. A flat rate income tax is not meant to benifit the wealthy (although it would) it is meant to A. be fair to all individuals by taking a proportional ammount from everyone, instead of changing the rate for different people (rich vs poor) and B. Simplifying the tax system (in my opinion, if you can run a company to do other people's taxes, then the system is too complicated).

4. By "large investments in education" I do not just mean money, I mean time, thought, people, and attention. One of the cournerstones of progressivism is that the government's main focus should be the future, and that especially concerns children (and the world we leave behind for them). Education should not just be a small side venture to occasionally (and ineffectually) throw money at, it should be a major focus of government resourses, right up there with the military in scope (as opposed to paying the social security benifits of someone who stopped contributing to society over ten years ago or the newest blunder of the economic trash dump refered to as Wall Street).

In conclusion, the point of progressivism and the definition of "moving forward" is to A. empower as many people as possible by giving them an advanced education early on and removing as many obstacles to their ability to think, function, and adapt, and B. treat everyone as fairly as possible by not providing special advantages or disadvantages stemming from economic background, age, race, gender, social status, caste, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or any other pre-existing factor or factors.

 

[Kinguendo]

Dont worry, I will still question you... Then again, I am a nice guy so I wont use expletives.

Excellent.
I was afraid that I wasn't going to meet my execution quota this month.
Thank you for putting my fears to rest.

Always happy to help.

 

[DigitalSushi]

EDIT: Changed it to Anarchy. Cause of Max's point, and because complete and utter chaos always gets the blood pumping.
And couldn't you have added a poll?

but with Anarchy it needs to be planned, I never understood that, people who are pro anarchy and actually protest and shit have to plan that ahead, which is counter intuitive to what anarchy is.

I vote Nihilism. I vote it hard.

And as such I don't believe in it.

 

[Thingo]

Socialism. We have it here in sweden, or at least a version of it. You work, get paid, pay for most services but the government controls healthcare, education and alot of that stuff (i'm too lazy to say all the things it has control over)so you wont die/ get a crappy life if you're poor. Also, it takes good care of you if you're without a job (although you will have to search for a job, if you take too long the government gives you a job without pay till you can find a normal job). I'd hate to have american capitalism here in sweden, the system we're using now is keeping poverty minimal and quality of life maximal.

 

[Hedberger]

Capitalism cause look how communism turned out in China and Russia and look what socialism is doing to the UK.

Governments always tend towards socialism as it gives them more power. We need to limit this with capitalism.

Yes we need to hand all that power to private CEOs that we can't check what they are doing with it. It's not like we have any right to know what they do with the power that we grant them. If they are good enough to inherit a company from their dads surely that must be all the test we need to hand over all our power to them.

/massive sarcasm


In case someone actually took all that tripe seriously.

I agree with this completely. Glad to see a fellow Marxist (or atleast someone who understands it), the best parts of my country are all Socialist based ideals. Free medicare, free education; honestly I don't think people understand where the true power rests with Capitalism. The power is ofcourse in the hands of the consumer, or so the system would have you believe, I'm not going conspiracy theory with this, but look at who the Government runs around trying to please.

Equally glad to see a fellow marxist It feels like we are few and far between these days, or maybe i'm just lookin in the wrong places.

That's what i like about Sweden too. Sadly the right wingers took over in 2006 and it's been steadily downhill from there. If they want to stay in power after 2010 though they'd have to gang up with the Swedish nationalists and i doubt they have the balls to do so.

I don't think there is any power left with the consumers actually. At least not the individual consumer. For every critical thinking consumer there are at least 5 plebs that just blindly go along with everything.

The way i see it only the government should have any real power because they are the only ones we, the public, have any control over. Also it should be forbidden to accept huge amounts of campaign money from individuals or companys because that actually works a bit like a vote. The more money you have to spend on a campaign the more likely you are to gain voters.

 

[kawligia]

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

In a system where there is no reward for success and no price for failure, why would people struggle to make scientific or technological advances? People do that in a capitalist system because creating something new or better will give you great rewards. But if all that you earn is taken away and given to someone else who put forth little or no effort, that incentive is completely removed.

Sure there will still be people out there who do the hard work because they find it interesting or enjoyable, or maybe just to help other people like any other volunteer worker. But those people are pretty few in number. There is no way they could even come close to maintaining our current levels of advancement.

In fact, we would probably take steps back. For example:

I went to law school for two reasons, 1) because the subject was interesting and I thought I could help people settle their differences in court, with words, rather than on the street with weapons, and 2) because I could make a pretty nice living.

The training and work is just too difficult and stressful for either of those to be enough without the other. #2 without #1 is not worth it because money isn't everything. But if all the money I have made is taken away and given to someone else who didn't put up with the hard work and stress, then I wind up with #1 but not #2. That's also not worth it. Why should I put up with all that just to be in the same boat as the security guard who sleeps through half his shift and has few responsibilities?

And I don't think I'm alone. Like I said there are people out there who will be driven enough by charity and volunteerism to not care about #2, but those people are few in number. Doctors and lawyers are so busy, it's hard to see them right away when you need them. So what happens when half of them shut down their practice? Where will we be then? What happens when the people doing medical and technological research say "fuck it" and do something else? What happens when the people who run companies that sell you all the shit you want/need shut down because they are liable for all the losses of their companies, but all of their profits get taken and "redistributed" away?

What happens when all the people who work for those doctors, lawyers, and companies get laid off when the doors close? Now we have to support THEM TOO! And what do you do with the people who refuse to work or do such a crappy job that nobody will hire them?

Also, what happens when the government, which can barely run the DMV, is in charge of damn near everything? I don't even want to know.

 

[Mray3460]

[While I don't disagree with a single thing you've stated as a matter of fact, I could never vote for a Eugenics system of any kind. I don't support socialized health care for some of the very reasons you talk about and could never support a government that controls the reproductive abilities of the populace.

I understand and respect your opinion, and admit that a proper, unbiased, humane, and unexploited Eugenics program (if any at all) would be virtually impossible in most, if not all industrialized nations. Both because of logistal concerns, and moral ones. Unfortunately, Eugenics has a bad reputation due to many racist and classist regimes (from the Nazis to several states within the U.S. from 1896-1983 [mostly in the deep south]) calling their racial/classial purging programs "Eugentics Programs". Sterilyzation, Execution, and Racism are not proper eugenics. Proper eugenics is unbiased on race, religion, or social class, and breeds humans solely based on their "genetic longevity" (their gene's ability to benefit, rather than hinder, the developement and natural survivability of future generations). I myself would be disallowed from breeding do to weak ligaments in my legs and arms, and allergy-induced astma, both of which run in the family.

Other then the Hitler mindset, that makes sense.

Anyone know what the downsides to national health care are to people who aren't breeding a superior race?

Actually, I do. Namely the problem that many conservatives have with universal healthcare is that they fear government regulation of prices for said healthcare, and that this will drive skilled medical practitioners to leave the country, and unskilled practitioners to be run out of bussiness. Example: Two surgeons operate independantly of one another, performing an identical procedure. Surgeon A (SA) is an inexperienced clutz who barely made it through medical school/residency and just got out, he loses about half of his patients on the table. Surgeon B (SB) is a highly skilled surgeon, with twenty years of experience performing the procedure, he loses 1 in 1000 of his patients on the operating table. Both surgeons are only capable of performing 5 procedures in a day. SA used to charge $100/operation, because almost no one came to him and he had to stay competative. SB used to charge $500/operation, because he had so many people coming to him that he'd charge more to thin out the amount of people coming. Then, the government, after establishing universal healthcare coverage, regulates the price of the procedure to $250/operation to be payed for by the government. SA goes out of bussiness, because no one is willing to go to an unreliable surgeon, even for free, when more skilled and experienced surgeons are also free (not nessasarily a bad thing in my opinion). SB leaves the country and starts his own practice somewhere else, because he can make more money overseas than he can where the prices are regulated.

That is about the only example I know that is a non-Eugenics based reason against national healthcare.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

I support capitalism. I'd rather the economy be run by a massive group of businessmen than by a massive government.

EDIT:

Also, what happens when the government, which can barely run the DMV, is in charge of damn near everything? I don't even want to know.

Pretty much this.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Hm..A sort of anarcho-socialism where only art can be used for profiteering?
Not very well thought-out, but perhaps somebody can develop on that idea.

 

[Hedberger]

snip-

Also, their primary aim is to fill the companies and their own pockets any which way they can.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I support a sensible government where elements are taken from both. Mainly because living under pure systems would be rather like living in the depths of hell.

 

[Cuniculus]

Actually, I do. Namely the problem that many conservatives have with universal healthcare is that they fear government regulation of prices for said healthcare, and that this will drive skilled medical practitioners to leave the country, and unskilled practitioners to be run out of bussiness. Example: Two surgeons operate independantly of one another, performing an identical procedure. Surgeon A (SA) is an inexperienced clutz who barely made it through medical school/residency and just got out, he loses about half of his patients on the table. Surgeon B (SB) is a highly skilled surgeon, with twenty years of experience performing the procedure, he loses 1 in 1000 of his patients on the operating table. Both surgeons are only capable of performing 5 procedures in a day. SA used to charge $100/operation, because almost no one came to him and he had to stay competative. SB used to charge $500/operation, because he had so many people coming to him that he'd charge more to thin out the amount of people coming. Then, the government, after establishing universal healthcare coverage, regulates the price of the procedure to $250/operation to be payed for by the government. SA goes out of bussiness, because no one is willing to go to an unreliable surgeon, even for free, when more skilled and experienced surgeons are also free (not nessasarily a bad thing in my opinion). SB leaves the country and starts his own practice somewhere else, because he can make more money overseas than he can where the prices are regulated.

That is about the only example I know that is a non-Eugenics based reason against national healthcare.

Awesome, thanks.

Would it work to put a cut off on the healthcare? Such as if you make *some huge amount of money* you don't get free healthcare but if you make less then *this small amount of money* you do?

 

[Swenglish]

Socialism is not communism.

For me, I'd make the sensible choice and take a combination of Capitalism and Socialism, like, I don't know, a good lot of countries are using right now.

You have most defining qualitities of Capitalism, but people who don't have the best jobs or the most money can still benefit from governmental programs that get funded by taxes - you know, stuff like free health care, decent free education, et cetera.

Kinda like Sweden? Sweden is awesome.

 

[veloper]

Anarchy's not chaos you know but rather a system where everyone would have complete and utter individual freedom, and all live happily side by side, being peaceful and free, urgh horrible.

No, that's Anarchy in a perfect world.
Anarchy is an inherently flawed system because people are inherently malicious and self-serving.

Which is exactly why none of the stated systems work. The systems aren't flawed, it's the people who are.

People were here FIRST, so it's the systems that are flawed.

Erm, but wouldn't that in and of itself prove that people are flawed because people created the systems? If people were not flawed then they would have created a perfect system or systems, no?

You've got him there, I doubt there'll be a response.

Well you two can share all the credit for socialism, fascism and the wrongs on the world for all I care, but leave the rest of us out of it.

Some people isn't the same as all people.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Stalin actually claimed the comparative performance of the Soviet Union during the American Depression as a feather in the cap of socialism. Say what you want about compulsion, terror and purges, it worked for Stalin at the time. He was indeed able to rapidly industrialize a backward, feudal nation by scaring or charismatically inspiring people into working at the jobs handed down by central planning. I don't know what history you've been exposed to, but interwar Europe was already quite, quite economically... dire is probably the best way to describe it long before the crash of 1929. Germany was experiencing hyperinflation due to the war debt and printing money to pay it. Elsewhere there were other problems. No one was doing all that well, really.

So, what you're saying is that when you're inhumane you can really get stuff done. I happen to agree that's correct. After all, look what Egypt was able to do with slaves. If you see people as nothing more than cattle, that's cool with me. I happen to believe that there is a sort of divinity associated with the life of a human. I actually believe(crazy me, I know) that human life is sacred and that people should not be forced at gun point to work for their merciless masters.

Strange how it seems that conservatism is more compassionate toward humanity than the ever emotional liberalism.

You're right that the policies of the United States contributed to the Great Depression. However, it wasn't so much the market intervention and (inadequate though still helpful) Keynesian style spending as it was Hoover's 'fiscal discipline' (he raised taxes and cut spending in response to the Great Depression, the opposite of Keynesian policy) and overoptimistic government assessments of the health of the economy. In 1937, Roosevelt was convinced by the deficit hawks that the government had done enough to combat the depression and moved away from deficit spending. And at that point a chorus of angels descended from heaven, 'Hark!' to spread the good news of the government's finally coming to see the truth, that Keynes was wrong after all-- actually, what happened is that the abrupt downward shift in money supply from the newly changed fiscal policy plunged the economy into an even deeper recession. Unemployment jumped and production faltered. If there is a lesson to be learned from the Great Depression, it is that successfully stimulating the economy was even more expensive than Roosevelt or his contemporaries could have imagined. World War II and its aftereffect was the stimulus package that finally brought us out of it, and the spending there dwarfed BPA, Hoover Dam, Tennessee Valley, all of it. Luckily, there is good reason to believe that WW2's economic impact was somewhat watered down by the fact that it was military spending and (mostly) not infrastructure development, so it could still be that a Great Depression would not require spending on the scale of the Second World War to recover.

I'd like to disagree with you, but I have no real foundation of historical knowledge to really work with on this one. I'm still trying to get books on the subject to more fully understand the situation.

As far as a company being too big to fail: financial companies were not too big to fail because they employed so many people. They don't really employ that many people. The problem is that financial companies and banks are the ones providing liquidity: businesses need loans to function. When the largest finance companies are in bankruptcy everything is screwed up. Businesses run out of money to pay their employees, to buy inputs, to replace machinery, etc. and can easily go under (or be forced to severely cut production) just because they don't have an immediately available loan for short-term expenses. Now you cannot possibly tell me that such a result is good for the economy, that the best course is to waste available resources hour by hour merely because of a temporary shortage of slips of paper... but I suspect you will just the same. Finance in particular has no "better widget"-- it only has better (or luckier) management. Enduring the costs of a financial services failure only to get another company with the same sorts of policies and employing the same sorts of people is needlessly and pointlessly masochistic on the grandest scale.

There wouldn't have been a liquidity problem if the companies had not been told to grant bad mortgages to people who couldn't have paid them back by the Community Reinvestment Act. In fact, that's what lead to the liquidity problem. The banks had already given their money to shady borrowers so that those same borrowers could be taken by the real estate sellers. When the time came to pay back the loan so that the banks could then use that same capital to invest in businesses, it was no where to be found. Why? Because it never really existed in any substantial form. The people that they had lent money to couldn't pay it back and never could have. But because it became ridiculously unpopular for banks to deny loans to low income people(to the point where people would actually picket outside the banks), they then couldn't help keep businesses afloat.

The better financial widget? Don't get government involved with the business of operating money. Allow the people who will literally sink or swim to make the financial decisions they must make. If people know their future rides on how well they know their business they'll operate their business in better terms. That's the nature of the free market system.

The largest problem with Schumpeterian creative destruction is entrance and exit costs and risks and the questionable availability of entrepreneurship. Economic recovery by replacement is very, very costly even aside from the fact that you're wasting millions of manhours of labor by letting unemployment reach its market equilibrium. New firms are not guaranteed to do any better, and a liquidity crisis is not exactly a good environment for any new firm. If you truly understand what a liquidity crisis entails, the reason why should be obvious.

There will always be entrepreneurs. Always. As long as there is a system in place for men to get rich based on their own clever ideas and hard work, it will be exploited. The only difference between capitalism and communism is which system they will work. Will they work the government or will they work the businesses? Man will become rich, there is no denying this will happen. The only question is, should we let them do so by gaming the financial and business markets or by gaming the government?

Private welfare is still welfare. Your mother should be ashamed that she's getting treatment that her wallet indicates that she doesn't deserve. It is de facto theft from those who do pay (and because of those who cannot afford it tend to pay MORE) for such service. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and just providing a service for no fee merely because the person cannot afford it is the height of inefficiency and waste. Right?

Private welfare has a different name. It's called "charity." Accepting charity is, by most standards, not to be considered a "bad" thing. Accepting charity is a way of life for many people who simply cannot get by on their own merit. Life's hard, sometimes people need a little help.

It is not defacto theft any more than any other gift given is defacto theft. My mom was very open about her financial troubles two years ago when the disease started. The hospitals had every right to demand she pay back every dime that she owed to them. Unfortunately, they decided that they didn't have to milk a poor old woman for cash and could obtain the necessary money to pay for her treatment elsewhere. Perhaps even by donations from people in the community who believed they had enough money to share with those less fortunate, thus not throwing the burden onto other people needing medical care. Gee, that's almost exactly what seems to have happened.

People can't always be relied upon to do the right thing for others. That's true and unfortunate. But I would rather they have the chance to make that choice for themselves than snatch it away and force them to do what I believe is right all the time. Sounds a bit like tyranny, doesn't it?

Take off the ideological blinders and realize for a moment that the problem is a whole ton more sophisticated than you make it out to be. For one thing, the crisis in housing was not even nearly the entire problem. Problems with private agencies utilizing bad assumptions to rate the risk of bundled subprime loans were a very, very big part of it. If deregulation were the answer, those private agencies would have realized that the CRA (if it was in fact a large enough factor to be the cause of the housing bubble) would have the effect that it did. But they didn't realize that so many of those loans would go unpaid because housing prices suddenly collapsed, suggesting that there was a problem with paid private financial information gathering. Know why they didn't get it right? Because there wasn't an incentive to get it right, just to provide the rating. They were paid by... the people selling the loans. Such is unregulated capitalism at its finest, and the real cause of the crisis. There was a structural problem with financial information... that regulation could fix. Sure, it could have been fixed privately too. But as you see... it wasn't. If you want to live in a world with financial mayhem of that sort merely because other people are failing to make sensible decisions, count me out.

The subprime loans were created by the CRA. The banks wouldn't have lent out the money if they didn't think the government had their back. Or, at least, they wouldn't have done it if they didn't think the government didn't have a gun at their back.

You seem to think people aren't capable of making decisions on their own. Not everyone is a sheep that must be lead forward by the nose. In fact, I do not believe that anyone should be led forward by the nose, even if they are a sheep. People should be left to their own devices so they can make the decisions they will make. If they are weak, they will be weak and that's fine. But it should be their choice to be weak.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

[While I don't disagree with a single thing you've stated as a matter of fact, I could never vote for a Eugenics system of any kind. I don't support socialized health care for some of the very reasons you talk about and could never support a government that controls the reproductive abilities of the populace.

I understand and respect your opinion, and admit that a proper, unbiased, humane, and unexploited Eugenics program (if any at all) would be virtually impossible in most, if not all industrialized nations. Both because of logistal concerns, and moral ones. Unfortunately, Eugenics has a bad reputation due to many racist and classist regimes (from the Nazis to several states within the U.S. from 1896-1983 [mostly in the deep south]) calling their racial/classial purging programs "Eugentics Programs". Sterilyzation, Execution, and Racism are not proper eugenics. Proper eugenics is unbiased on race, religion, or social class, and breeds humans solely based on their "genetic longevity" (their gene's ability to benefit, rather than hinder, the developement and natural survivability of future generations). I myself would be disallowed from breeding do to weak ligaments in my legs and arms, and allergy-induced astma, both of which run in the family.

I believe that all forms of eugenics are inherently racist. It is the belief that one is better than the other, even if the reasons are quantifiable. Eugenics, to me, is nothing more than science approved racism.

It starts as classism. Who has the best genes vs who doesn't have the best genes. People split up according to the "strength" of something they cannot control. Over time, this morphs into racism. Those who have the best genes vs those who do not have the best genes. People are no longer looked at based on their personal qualifications or personal achievements, but based on something they have no control over. Their genes.

I cannot support a system that will discard the possibilities of a man based solely on his DNA.

 

[Lunar Shadow]

I am personally for a mixture of the two, because as someone said above pure capitalism and pure communism suck. Also, Capitalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive, you can have socialistic policies in a Capitalistic society.

 

[Mray3460]

[While I don't disagree with a single thing you've stated as a matter of fact, I could never vote for a Eugenics system of any kind. I don't support socialized health care for some of the very reasons you talk about and could never support a government that controls the reproductive abilities of the populace.

I understand and respect your opinion, and admit that a proper, unbiased, humane, and unexploited Eugenics program (if any at all) would be virtually impossible in most, if not all industrialized nations. Both because of logistal concerns, and moral ones. Unfortunately, Eugenics has a bad reputation due to many racist and classist regimes (from the Nazis to several states within the U.S. from 1896-1983 [mostly in the deep south]) calling their racial/classial purging programs "Eugentics Programs". Sterilyzation, Execution, and Racism are not proper eugenics. Proper eugenics is unbiased on race, religion, or social class, and breeds humans solely based on their "genetic longevity" (their gene's ability to benefit, rather than hinder, the developement and natural survivability of future generations). I myself would be disallowed from breeding do to weak ligaments in my legs and arms, and allergy-induced astma, both of which run in the family.

I believe that all forms of eugenics are inherently racist. It is the belief that one is better than the other, even if the reasons are quantifiable. Eugenics, to me, is nothing more than science approved racism.

It starts as classism. Who has the best genes vs who doesn't have the best genes. People split up according to the "strength" of something they cannot control. Over time, this morphs into racism. Those who have the best genes vs those who do not have the best genes. People are no longer looked at based on their personal qualifications or personal achievements, but based on something they have no control over. Their genes.

I cannot support a system that will discard the possibilities of a man based solely on his DNA.

What you've pointed out is the enherent flaw of Eugenics, and why I acknolege that a "proper" program can never be instituted in modern society. Humans, as a whole, no matter their breeding or social background, all eventually obtain the idea that they are superior to other humans. A common concern, one that I share, is that people that are "bred" will get the idea that they are superior to "unrefined" individuals, instead of just being more specialized.

To coin a phrase: "Dogs make the worst dog breeders."

Thus, I concede the argument to you. Well done.

Edit: I'm not conceding that Eugenics is racist, but that it can "breed" racism.

 

[clicketycrack]

Capitalism, because I don't like when people call me evil for wanting the money that I actually fucking worked for. And definately not socialism because I don't trust other people for good advice so I definitly don't trust them to tell me what to do. Anyway, I don't really know all that much about either, so thats why I'm reading Ayn Rand.

Reading Ayn Rand is a great way to fool yourself into believing that you have any more of an 'objective' point of view than anyone else. Some of what she says is quite agreeable. Almost none of that is in Atlas Shrugged.

Well I don't usually go for reading something to make me believe that I'm anything else. I just like to read for a good story/ information/ to hear different points of view. I always try not to take anybody else's thoughts just because they present them in a smart way.