It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Again, more Marxism, and class struggle references.
Make no mistake there are real world shortages of food and water; and, yes, people determine how to allocate those physically scarce resources by using every means of moral reasoning under the sun (favoritism, group survivability logic, majority vote, lottery, unregulated money, moral code of the society, might-makes-right, etc) to bolster their position at cost to someone else.
Since in your view greed and human competitiveness apparently have nothing to do with people getting hurt in a situation of true scarcity. I challenge you to explain why in a world of plenty we have children dying per day[/url] largely due to under nutrition or, to be more blunt, starvation.
Another bad assumption. Is water controlled through demand and supply? In other words is water privatized or is it in the hands of government?
Please explain to me how Coca-Cola plants that drop the water-table from 20 feet in depth to 150 feet is enriching anyone other than themselves, especially in agrarian communities that depend on water for farming?
I answered this, see above.
Oh, that's right Coca Cola is making a profit and thus their usage of the water is clearly superior to that of the peasant farmers who try to scrape out an existence by feeding themselves and their families based on the fruits of their own labors, on their own land no less!
Okay good luck with that…but I can tell you that everything you discuss is seriously flawed. Your views, I’m afraid are akin to a freshman/college student or high school graduate’s understanding of economics, society, and full of fallacies and misconceptions.
If anything I write here sticks I hope it's this:
Because you believe it is bogus, does not make it so. I think you mean, COLLECTIVE morality is bogus, BUT INDIVIDUAL morality is very much a tangible thing, since it does not involve coercion. In other words: You cannot say that YOUR decision of taking the food, for example from a RICH MAN and giving it to others is THE ONLY COLLECTIVELY AND CORRECT MORAL DECISION. The correct and ONLY MORAL as well as righteous DECISION is if the RICH MAN DECIDES voluntarily to give UP his FOOD.
The idea of what is moral is completely bogus.
I like to eat meat everyday, but that doesn’t mean I know how to kill, skin, pluck an animal to be able to eat. Again you ignore basic division of labor, specialization in society. Furthermore it is not necessary for me to know these skills, since I can use other skills that I have and trade them for my meat. Again your WHOLE scenario disregards the IDEA OF human cooperation, ingenuity, division of labor….etc.
A person can plan out their next meal it doesn't mean that they're going to acquire it if they lack the resources or skill to get it.
Again, more flawed Marxism. Everyday when you go to work and trade your labor services is at the expense of someone? Is someone made worse off because you have acquired income? Trade, your trade (your labor for income) is not making anyone else worse off. You are rather contributing to society’s well being and overall standard of living. You have made your employer better off by finding someone who will produce something, and in return you acquire income that you need to survive. Nobody is being hurt by this transaction. Just as someone is working in Calcutta or Ethiopia or South Africa…their work or labor makes society better off, because they are helping to produce a good that is demanded FULFILLING A need.
If you don't want to deal with the hypothetical scenario because you refuse to confront the fact that there are situations occurring right now requiring you to determine whether or not YOU as an individual enrich yourself or help make it possible for someone else to survive, you're more than welcome to fool yourself.
How best to allocate this resource has been through the market. Remove prices, demand and supply forces and you will only have further starvation, death, and degradation. The increase in human population is a result of the success in providing these things. How else do explain human pop. growth without the lack of these things? First came prosperity, then the lag and the natural growth of the human population follows. Or do you think, first the billions of people came first, and then the resources. If you believe the chicken came before the EGG then YOUR comprehension of society, markets, and human condition is FAR WORSE THAN I thought….and beyond my help.
My point was fairly straight-forward in my original post, but since I didn't state it explicitly I will now:
We cannot call ourselves a civilized race until all people have water, food, and basic shelter. Until that happens we cannot say we're civilized.
I do not have time to correct your misunderstanding of history, or give you history lessons. But I can give you a clue, as to who was responsible for instigating the famine. See here
Alright lets talk about the 1943 famine in India where an estimated 3 million people died. Do you think the untouchables were the first to feel the sting of the famine or was it the Brahmins who suffered first?
Capitalism does not solve all problems. Consider the goal of capitalism isn't to drive down scarcity for society, but for the people who invest in the company. Put in economic terms capitalism produces a bell-shaped curve on return on investment (ROI) for society.
So other operating systems would have never existed? I suppose mac o.s., solaris, linux are products that the government created?
Having worked at Microsoft as a software developer I can say with some clarity that if it weren't for the US govt filing an Antitrust lawsuit the consumer would be much worse for wear. MS
Originally posted by Better Mouse Trap
LOL, It's always the rich greedy people who made their money on the blood sweat and tears of someone else who worry about something being taken away from them. These very elitist would rather blow money on a vacation in Spain then to be taxed a little more.
Face the facts, prevention is the best path to take.
You get the picture I'm painting?
My point is NO GOVERNMENT laws were necessary.
Originally posted by poet1b
By the way, computers, software, the internet, all originally funded by huge amounts of government money. The market system only gets involved when the technology reaches a point where it can be profitable.