Health Care bill passed

[Violet]

Capitalism primarily functions off of the desire to have more, so that one can be happier.

Capitalism primarily functions off of people wanting to get paid for the work they do actually. Commercialism is what functions off the desire to have more so that one can be happier.

Are you suggesting that capitalism is not a form of commercialism?

"commercialism |kəˈmər sh əˌlizəm|
noun
emphasis on the maximizing of profit"

vs(?)

"capitalism |ˈkapətlˌizəm|
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

? Is not the goal of those attempting to profit to get as much as they can? (And I mean this in more than just money here, there are many ways in which one might profit after all...)

But happiness is often built upon the unhappiness of others.

...and often built on honest people doing a good day's labour. Capitalism isn't a solution for unhappiness, and I never claimed it was. Neither is socialism. Both are economic models.

Indeed... and on occasion even built upon kindness, generosity, inclusion, and a whole host of other things. I feel it should also be noted that socialism and capitalism are not merely restricted to money... they apply to all forms of economy (all things to which 'resource' is applicable, which in fact is rather multifaceted)... @ the italic: to a great extent socialism eases the difficulties of a society. Eg:

---

"This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school. After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department. And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right."

---

Without such systems in place, the happiness of most of us would be greatly diminished, as too would our quality of life. Capitalism also increases happiness... but it increases happiness to a great deal fewer people, most of which already have decent-good quality of life (read moderately rich-rich). I'm hardly against capitalism... nor against people being rich and poor... but I am openly against the poor suffering terrible lives when it is possible to elevate everyone to a point that their survival and health are not extremely jeopardized, and to offer them many ways to work for a better quality of life.

What "direct lines" are you talking about?

The fact that the only way socialism would "work" would be to have strict government control on the economy, taking money from the working rich and giving it to the un-working poor (oppression). Of course, people don't like this happening (for good reason), and so the government has no choice but to start silencing people who peak out against their regime. In socialist countries in the past, this is done by wiping out those who "dare" to speak out.

Taxes much, mon? I don't think you're getting out of taxes by not being socialistic... it certainly didn't work for America in their little revolt a few centuries ago...

You're defining socialism as a thing that pays the "un-working" poor...

Where in "socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Does it say anything to that effect? Is it certainly a possible way the socialism might be constructed within a society? Certainly... but is it the defining tenet of the theory? Hardly. Though I support giving the "un-working poor" (this is a broad term that goes from children both poor and deemed too young to work, to laggard crooks who've only done a single honest day's work in their life (apparently it was a Tuesday), to poor people who have been injured while working and cannot work till they heal) enough to 'live' off of... I hardly think any socialistic society would support robbing 10 billionaires of all their money to spread it equally (and almost certainly unfairly) among the populace.

Nevertheless... Most societies would 'instill' checks against those who would try to cheat the system to get more than they are deemed by the society to deserve. A rationally designed socialistic system would almost certainly scale by the independent (likely eg: the laggard receives ___ much (if any at all) and they receive ≤ than the injured factory worker with 6 children (none of them a day over 7) who receives < the doctor healing the injured factory worker to heal, among all the other people he's helping). Hence, i altogether call 'bull' on your idea of what socialism is (necessarily at the least, though it is possible for a society to decide otherwise of course).

Socialism is the ideal that nobody should have to suffer a horrible state of existence (and be without aid for when they are)... and everyone should have many good chances to get somewhere they want to in life. It's the idea that we shouldn't give up on people, nor let them walk barefoot through the snow with no place to stay on a cold winters day. That is all socialism is, Adrian... the philosophy that we should help those who need it.

Your lovey-dovey version of socialism is I'm sure what you've been taught to think, but I'm afraid the social side of socialism isn't all of it. I'm very much against giving up on people, and so are capitalists. Socialism and capitalism share the same goal (no more poverty), yet have very different methods for getting to that goal. Capitalism sets up a system wherein the worker works and gets paid (eliminating poverty). Socialism sets up a system where everyone shares the wealth, even if they don't do anything to earn it. Nobody has any incentive to work in socialism, and it is unfair to those who have done the work.

Colorful illustration to explain a very common goal of people who support socialism was colorful illustration that accomplished its task ALso rather... it is not what i've been taught to think at all. I'm american, Adrian... what do you honestly think I've been taught to think about socialism? Luckily some of us are more than what we're taught... 0.o

In actually... neither socialism nor capitalism are expressly anything except organization models. It is ultimately up to the society with the wealth as to how that wealth is managed in socialism... it is ultimately up to the individual with the wealth as to how that wealth is managed in capitalism. Any "law" or other "regulation" on trade that is made by a society is socialistic... and these prevent individuals from managing their wealth as they will (as would be the only meaning of 'pure?' capitalism). 'Pure' socialism is likewise not necessarily a good thing... but it is harder for an entire society to support "extremist" morals than it is for the individuals... and will thus usually lead to wealth regulated by the society that takes offense at how an individual has managed their wealth.

In case it's misinterpreted: I always mean wealth in its' full sense.

I cannot fathom how you are connecting some 'direct line' from sharing surplus resources with oppression and death...

As I've explained, sharing the resources is unfair to those who have done the work to earn it. Under capitalism, there is also a sharing of resources, but it is done on a charity level. People who earn their money fair and square can give to the poor, can help them eat, can set up companies and get them jobs, whatever. That is a fair system. What is not a fair system is forcing people (oppression...) to give to people who they don't know and who they might not even care about. If I earn my wages, I'll spend it on what I want, and I'll give it to the charities I decide. I don't trust the government to spend it wisely, which is why I support private charity.

And as I've explained... only a system that expressly states it will attempt to be fair must necessarily do so. Neither socialism nor capitalism are necessarily fair systems... can they be? Yes. Are they necessarily fair? No. Are they often fair? Not to my knowledge.

Can... but it is entirely dependent on the individual with the wealth. Often the people who make the most money do not in fact work the most or hardest, nor often have really "earned" their wealth... but were rather just plain lucky.

You really lost me here... do you pay taxes?

When I had a job, of course I did. I'm currently unemployed in further education, so I do not pay taxes (I have no income to pay it on).

Then do you support paying taxes?

If there was ever a time to drug a population to calm them down, now would be it.

That didn't go so well in Serenity...

I interpreted that as a joke...

It's from a movie...it was meant as a cultural reference.

I know it's from a movie... and I interpreted his mentioning of it as a joke

Edit: How does every thread about health care always get into an argument about socialism? 0.o I swear...