|
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
|
 |
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
|
|

Jan 10th, 2004, 04:48 PM
"Ok, but that is a technicality that remains irrelevant to the point. "
A technicality raised by you. Your thought process is muddy and needs work. You arrogance is unfounded and a hinderance to your developement.
"Capitalism is the system which comes closest to making people as happy as possible by giving them free choice."
I might even agree with that statement. But you don't support it in any way, you simply state it as a fact. The relationship between Capitalism, free choice and happiness is subjective and in now way examined by you. I assume you inteded to do more than bluster, but underneath all the showing off that's all you're doing. You can dress a turd in a gown and take it to th prom, but it won't dance.
"Capitalism rewards those who function better in the market with higher salaries"
Huh. That's why George Bush got bailed out by friends of his father whenever his businesses failed, right? His really great functioning in the market. That's why Michael Powell is head of the FCC sitting pretty for huge thinly veiled industry bribes and why W's brother can go to Asia and get a salary and whores, becuase of they function so well in the market. Your faith in the Market and it's functional incorruptability are quasi religous and pro forma. In addition they are entirely theoretical. I would be a lot less sure of yoruslef until you work for a living and pay your own bills. Also, kids who use 'thus' in their writting are asking for a wedgie.
"economic equality does not lead to equality of pleasure."
experimentally this can't be proven since it's never been attempted. In addition, as a statement does not automatically justify it's converse. I would also suggest that they may be other worthy goals in the world than merely the accumulation of unmeasurable, unquantifiable pleasure units. Jutsice gives me pleasure.
"That said, surely you can recognize that capitalism lowers the inequality of pleasure among persons when compared to systems like socialism?"
Surely I can't. You don't make comparisons with any system. You use a meaningless statment implying the measurability of imeasurables and pair it with the word logic. Income is measurable. Time spent working is measurable. Access to health care and other neccesities are measurable.
Here's my point. You are thrilled with yourself. Your narcicism encourages you to overvalue your arguments, such as they are. It is a very unbecoming characteristic. I think you should concider the very strong possability that you might actually learn something by listening instead of expounding.
|
|
|
|