Why hate socialism so much??????????? (examples, England, European, capital)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course I am against nature. I think nature is actually a pretty monstrous thing. If it is culture vs nature, I definitely prefer culture. After all, I don't live in the jungle anymore and I am happy about that. Why would I even try to emulate nature? Nature sucks...
Being an overachiever is not a merit. The person is lucky to have been given the foundations that make his or her achievements possible. Likewise it is not people's fault if they can't keep up with the ambitious, despite trying. After all, there are very few really lazy people. It is very common for ambitious people not to understand that many other people simply don't have that ambition, and that thus they can't really compete.
You're only out of the jungle because of the people that were empowered and enriched because of their abilities. Given the choice between choosing the betterment of man over enriching themselves those with the abilities will chose themselves every time.
If you want to bring abject poverty and misery to an end you need to give incitives to those with the ideas of doing so. Take that away from them and you have the first 5,000 years of human history.
Likewise it is not people's fault if they can't keep up with the ambitious, despite trying. After all, there are very few really lazy people. It is very common for ambitious people not to understand that many other people simply don't have that ambition, and that thus they can't really compete.
You need to go on a 13 year people watching mission before you make another statement like that...
You know, like I've done. I can explain in nauseating detail how wrong you really are.
You're only out of the jungle because of the people that were empowered and enriched because of their abilities. Given the choice between choosing the betterment of man over enriching themselves those with the abilities will chose themselves every time.
If you want to bring abject poverty and misery to an end you need to give incitives to those with the ideas of doing so. Take that away from them and you have the first 5,000 years of human history.
I disagree. We have improved and evolved a lot because we have become ever more social. Else we would still be chimps, who are much more egoistic than humans.
I disagree. We have improved and evolved a lot because we have become ever more social. Else we would still be chimps, who are much more egoistic than humans.
Not true at all. It wasn't until "rugged individualism" that you saw real live bona fide improvements in the human condition. After America was founded you e seen exponetial growth in creature comforts. You've seen the only time in history where more people have access to the middle class.
A narrow view blames that on socialism. A more open and honest view shows that "greed" has propelled human history into uncharted territory. You got that because people were allowed to profit from those motives. You got that because people with abilities were allowed to gain from their achievements. Given the opposite POV those people would have simply seen no reason but to go along with the status quo and participate in soup kitchens until they passed by the pearly gates.
Not true at all. It wasn't until "rugged individualism" that you saw real live bona fide improvements in the human condition. After America was founded you e seen exponetial growth in creature comforts. You've seen the only time in history where more people have access to the middle class.
A narrow view blames that on socialism. A more open and honest view shows that "greed" has propelled human history into uncharted territory. You got that because people were allowed to profit from those motives. You got that because people with abilities were allowed to gain from their achievements. Given the opposite POV those people would have simply seen no reason but to go along with the status quo and participate in soup kitchens until they passed by the pearly gates.
Sorry, I just don't see it like that at all.
That development was already in full swing when the US was founded, the foundations for that were laid in France, Britain etc. And way before that there were other waves of intellectual boom, like in ancient Egypt, whose best time was when it was egalitarian.
It is also interesting to note that all those famous early inventors and scientists did their work because they loved what they were doing. Hardly any of them gained materially from their work. Many inventors and scientists died poor, some were even persecuted... Money as a motivation for important work is a relatively recent thing. Only simple stuff like trading foods etc. has always been about money.
Blind because you said you can't see. Did you say you are deaf too?
What are you talking about?! I have normal vision and hearing...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
