Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[Smurf]

Read more carefully...I wasn't talking about cleaning your own toliet! I was talking about cleaning the dirty nasty public ones that I'm scared to even go into. More generally I was talking about people having jobs they would never do if they could afford to not work or if they could find better work.

I didn't know that.

My new response: You're putting it into the context of imposed economic equality again. That's not what I was talking about!

 

[Townsend]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=need
Seriously townsend. Answer the question.
square brackets are my current addition

I don't understand what you're asking me I guess.

I am certain that in every society since the dawn of time there have been men who wanted sex and didn't want a relationship with that woman. I also believe that since the dawn of time and in ever society prostitution has existed wheather legal or illegal.

Making it illegal will not get rid of it and in fact nothing will get rid of it. It always has and will always exist as long as people exist.

I will try to answer the question as directly as I can. People want to have sex with someone else and would rather just pay money then deal with the hassels of a relationship. The service it provides is sex.

What part don't you understand?

 

[Townsend]

You WERE making an argument. An argument that prostitution is necessary to fullfill a need. You don't need to try to be pursuasive to present an argument.

Don't be obtuse...I was answering a question that you posed. The answer to a question IS NOT an argument...it is not a proposition. An explantion is comepletely different from an argument and I welcome you to look it up in your favorite encyclopedia.

 

[Smasherman]

So, back to the what's wrong with capitalism (or what's right with it, depending on your stance)...

 

[Skyhunter]

Read more carefully...I wasn't talking about cleaning your own toliet! I was talking about cleaning the dirty nasty public ones that I'm scared to even go into. More generally I was talking about people having jobs they would never do if they could afford to not work or if they could find better work.

I read your later post's when you clarified, after I responded. That was just the obvious answer to your original post.

 

[Skyhunter]

What about the people who are extreamly ugly?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Are their not homely people of both sexes?

 

[Smurf]

What about the people who are extreamly ugly?

What about the people who are extremely poor?

At least in my system ugly people can **** other ugly people. Of course there's that "inner beauty" argument too (oh I see skyhunter already made that one). And there's always beer.

Beer won't give you the money to buy sex.

 

[vanesch]

The only thing wrong with capitalism is that it has NEVER EXISTED. Pure, laizzes -faire capitalism has never once been implented.

I don't buy that. It is like communists who say that "communism" was never implemented, and that we shouldn't judge communism by what the USSR was/did. Sorry, if an *intention* to build a system leads to something that is not what is desired, then that is just an instability in the original idea and what it leads to, empirically, is then part of it, whether the original theoretician intended this or not.

Moreover, capitalism, in reduced form, does exist: you only need freedom of action and property rights, and it exists. Communism apparently leads to totalitarian regimes, and capitalism leads to corporatism. It's not intended that way, but it happens that way.

 

[Townsend]

An argument doesn't have to be a proposition either.

A proposition is just a statement that is either true or false but not both. Deductively speaking an argument is either true or false but not both so it does in fact have to be a proposition.

And an explanation can be an argument at the same time.

They are quite different things Smurf...if you disagree with me then try talking to a philiosophy professor at your school about it.

You were presenting a course of reasoning with the intent of proving truth or falsehood.

No...
Am I allowed to do something for a reason of my choosing or do you feel that you can tell everyone why they do what they do? I was giving a course of reasoning with the intenet of trying to give a satisfactory answer. The fact that you were using it in terms of an argument means nothing as far as my intent is concerned.

The fact that it was a response to a question is irrelevant.

You have never taken the time to study logic have you Smurf? There is a difference and I don't care to educate you on the matter when you're smart enough to educate yourself about it.

 

[Townsend]

What about the people who are extremely poor?
At least in my system ugly people can **** other ugly people.

What about the ugly people who want to have sex with only hot women? You're creating a class system based on beauty now...

Of course there's that "inner beauty" argument too (oh I see skyhunter already made that one). And there's always beer.
Beer won't give you the money to buy sex.

That is the single stupidest argument against prostitution I have ever heard. All you have said is that you don't like it and that there are other ways that people can get laid. Who cares? I think this way is best and you think that way is best...the difference is that you feel the way you do because you think it's ok to impose your values on other people.

 

[Smurf]

I don't buy that. It is like communists who say that "communism" was never implemented, and that we shouldn't judge communism by what the USSR was/did. Sorry, if an *intention* to build a system leads to something that is not what is desired, then that is just an instability in the original idea and what it leads to, empirically, is then part of it, whether the original theoretician intended this or not.
Moreover, capitalism, in reduced form, does exist: you only need freedom of action and property rights, and it exists. Communism apparently leads to totalitarian regimes, and capitalism leads to corporatism. It's not intended that way, but it happens that way.

I disagree Vanesch. I think your whole perception about this is completely uneducated. No Offence. But there are so many vast differences between Marxism and USSR communism, and also between American Capitalism and what Adam Smith envisioned that I don't see them the same at all.

Just because they commonly share a name, does not mean that they are the same.

 

[Skyhunter]

What is wrong with capitalism?

As jimmie mentioned in an earlier post, it is a matter of order/priorities. The first priority is to provide for the self maintenance needs of each and every individual on this planet. Capitalism does not provide this, therefore it is flawed.

In our present human form we are transient beings existing in an eternal universe. I am astounded at the idea that we, as finite creatures can presume to own that which is eternal.

 

[Townsend]

Saying I think I'm right is not the same as imposing my values on other people. Don't be so defensive.

If you were to prevent people from doing something you don't want them to do because it conflicts with your moral values then you would be imposing your morals onto other people. You might not be physically able to impose your values on other people but you certainly seem to want to be able to.

 

[Townsend]

The first priority is to provide for the self maintenance needs of each and every individual on this planet.

Why should this be first?

 

[Smurf]

A proposition is just a statement that is either true or false but not both. Deductively speaking an argument is either true or false but not both so it does in fact have to be a proposition.

A statement is either true or false. An argument can only be strong/weak/inductive/deductive. (you started with the fancy language)

They are quite different things Smurf...if you disagree with me then try talking to a philiosophy professor at your school about it.

It depends on the context. An explanation can be within an argument. In this case you were explaining a part of your argument. That is, that prostitution provides a respectable service to a society. Or something like that. Thus, I was arguing an illogical point of your argument - which you just explained.

No...
Am I allowed to do something for a reason of my choosing or do you feel that you can tell everyone why they do what they do?

Does it really matter what your intent was? If I say that Pasta is good because so and so. I'm making an argument. My intent might be to give my opinion, to explain my opinion, or what ever else you want. But it's still making an argument for the goodness of pasta.

You have never taken the time to study logic have you Smurf?

A little. Not a lot. You?

Actually.. maybe none. What's the difference between logic and critical thinking and reasoning and rhetoric?
fun fun fun

 

[Smurf]

If you were to prevent people from doing something you don't want them to do because it conflicts with your moral values then you would be imposing your morals onto other people. You might not be physically able to impose your values on other people but you certainly seem to want to be able to.

Prevent? Impose? I don't want to impose laws on people that they can't buy sex. I'm including this as part of anarchist arguments.

 

[Smurf]

Townsend. I think this logic argument arised because you didn't mean to include that as part of your prostitution argument because your main reason for supporting it should be one of their civil rights. And this whole thing is a misunderstanding.

The reaosn I said "didn't mean to", instead of just "didn't" is because I consider it a part of your argument because it presupposes that a society exists in which there is a need for the service to be bought in the first place.

 

[Skyhunter]

Who cares? What if a leper wants to make it with a beauty queen? If she will consent then it's all good, right? What is wrong with him using his other talents to help convince her to have sex with him? You know, like the ability to hand over a grip of cash?

I would not advocate laws against prostitution. I would not advocate laws against drug use either. Neither of these actions by themselves harm anyone except the principles. But that doesn't mean I think they are good things, in fact many people that participate in such practices many times do harm others, often as a result of their impaired actions while under the influence.

We are one. The Universe is one. Society is one. To act separately and selfishly we pay a price, which is our choice. Because everything is connected, our actions are never of consequence only to ourselves. If we do harm to ourselves, we do harm to the whole.

 

[Townsend]

A statement is either true or false.

Every single textbook I have says a proposition can only be true or false...they also say they use statements to mean proposition.

An argument can only be strong/weak/inductive/deductive. (you started with the fancy language)

I also said deductively speaking Smurf and I am 100 percent correct on that.

It depends on the context.

So we agree there is a difference then...

An explanation can be within an argument. In this case you were explaining a part of your argument. That is, that prostitution provides a respectable service to a society. Or something like that.

I agree that explanation can within an argument but we already agree that they are not arguments. I was explaining to you what you were asking of me. The fact that an argument and an explanation can sound very similar does not change the fact that they are in fact not the same thing.

Thus, I was arguing an illogical point of your argument - which you just explained.

NO you weren't...this is really starting to piss me off because I have been going over this subject in detail in class and you wrong on every point your think your making.

Does it really matter what your intent was?

It matters a lot! I can't believe you even said that!

If I say that Pasta is good because so and so. I'm making an argument. My intent might be to give my opinion, to explain my opinion, or what ever else you want. But it's still making an argument for the goodness of pasta.

Clearly you have never studies logic or you would know there is a difference.

A little. Not a lot. You?

I am currently doing so...

Actually.. maybe none. What's the difference between logic and critical thinking and reasoning and rhetoric?

I can't think of a good way to answer that question. Clearly you use logic in almost everything you do...in deductive logic you don't care about the actual truth value of the statements in general. You just deal with validity and stuff like that..

edit: I'm getting tired and making a crap load of mistakes.

 

[vanesch]

But there are so many vast differences between Marxism and USSR communism, and also between American Capitalism and what Adam Smith envisioned that I don't see them the same at all.
Just because they commonly share a name, does not mean that they are the same.

You refuse to see my point, Smurf. It doesn't matter what some guy wrote in a book somewhere, if, when one tries to implement it, it leads to another system than what is written in the book. This simply means that the guy writing the book had it wrong about the dynamical laws of society (which, themselves, are of course rooted in human psychology). So or the thing in the book started describing a system, but had it wrong concerning how things would evolve, or the book is describing a non-existant system.
From Adams' and Marx' writings, we can then OR conclude that "capitalism" and "communism" are strictly what is described in the book, and hence doesn't exist with real humans, OR that what they describe in the book is a kind of starting point of an evolution, and then, communism IS what the USSR was about, and capitalism IS what the west is about.

 

[Townsend]

I would not advocate laws against prostitution. I would not advocate laws against drug use either. Neither of these actions by themselves harm anyone except the principles. But that doesn't mean I think they are good things, in fact many people that participate in such practices many times do harm others, often as a result of their impaired actions while under the influence.

I don't believe prostitution is right either...I have been married for the last 6 years. I just don't believe my values trump everyone else’s values. If someone thinks that it's cool to drink their own urine I might think it's really gross and unhealthy but hey...it's their choice.

 

[Townsend]

Townsend. I think this logic argument arised because you didn't mean to include that as part of your prostitution argument because your main reason for supporting it should be one of their civil rights. And this whole thing is a misunderstanding.
The reaosn I said "didn't mean to", instead of just "didn't" is because I consider it a part of your argument because it presupposes that a society exists in which there is a need for the service to be bought in the first place.

That's pretty much exactly right.

 

[Skyhunter]

Why should this be first?

Because it's the American way?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Without wholesome food, clean drinking water, fresh air to breath, shelter, clothing, and I would also add, a place of dignity in society, then a person is not enjoying those inalienable rights.

Why should these self-evident truths not apply to everyone?

Do not all men have the same creator?

 

[Smurf]

I am currently doing so...

Hey. Me too!

I don't can't imagine a good way to answer that question. Clearly you use logic in almost everything you do...in deductive logic you don't care about the actual truth value of the statements in general. You just deal with validity and stuff like that..

So in a rhetoric perspective, logic would be the evaluative aspect?

 

[Townsend]

So in a rhetoric perspective, logic would be the evaluative aspect?

Um...no more like the specfic use of more general cases. Modus ponens is a valid argument technique that deals with general statements. Poeple use this argument all the time to prove things specifically. So I guess I would say that rhetoric deals more with the application of logic than it does with the study of logic itself.

edit: I'm really too tired to be posting...

 

[Smurf]

You refuse to see my point, Smurf.
stippish
is about.

Well adam smith didn't actually predict a whole lot. Pretty much just hammered in that perfect competition and selfish behavior leads to a rise in living standards.

I disagree. but I can't really be bothered to get into it right now. Some other time.

 

[Smurf]

I don't believe prostitution is right either...I have been married for the last 6 years. I just don't believe my values trump everyone else’s values. If someone thinks that it's cool to drink their own urine I might think it's really gross and unhealthy but hey...it's their choice.

Which is a moral belief in it's self. A belief you're trying to impose on me?

 

[Townsend]

Do not all men have the same creator?

No...I was created by the flying spaghetti monster...how about you?

 

[Smurf]

No...I was created by the flying spaghetti monster...how about you?

Telephone wire monster, actually.

Sky?

 

[Townsend]

Which is a moral belief in it's self. A belief you're trying to impose on me?

I want you to be able to live by whatever morals you want...I just don't want other people to have to agree with you. And it is not so much a moral value as it is a premise that people should be free to do something unless by doing so it infringes on others people’s rights.

 

[Townsend]

Telephone wire monster, actually.

Haven't heard about that one yet...is (s)he/it a benevolent deity?

 

[Smurf]

Haven't heard about that one yet...is (s)he/it a benevolent deity?

Yup. Free candy on new years. You should convert.

 

[Smurf]

I want you to be able to live by whatever morals you want...I just don't want other people to have to agree with you. And it is not so much a moral value as it is a premise that people should be free to do something unless by doing so it infringes on others people’s rights.

And since my morals include never imposing my power over others, that shouldn't be a problem for you. No?

 

[Townsend]

And since my morals include never imposing my power over others, that shouldn't be a problem for you. No?

So we pretty much agree about this whole thing...

From the very beginning, my point was never that prostitution is a good thing that society has to have to exist. My point is that from some people's point of view, it is a good thing and if I set my morals aside, I really can't see any reason why prostitution should be illegal.

Which is pretty much what your telling me you believe too...

that really kind of pretty much sux...we have been wasting time over bad communication...

 

[Smurf]

So we pretty much agree about this whole thing...

From the very beginning, my point was never that prostitution is a good thing that society has to have to exist. My point is that from some people's point of view, it is a good thing and if I set my morals aside, I really can't see any reason why prostitution should be illegal.

Which is pretty much what your telling me you believe too...

that really kind of pretty much sux...we have been wasting time over bad communication...

Yeah pretty much. My argument is that prostitution is harmfull, and the best way to fix that is to be in a society where it's not needed -> not one where it's unallowed. If I had my way the very idea of "buying" sex would get you laughed at.

Having said that, if an anarchist colony is set up in a way that prostitution *is* needed, even to a small degree. And the people in that colony want to forbid the practice then I would support that. Not because I have any qualms against prostitution (even though I do), but because that's the choice of the community, which should be respected.