The idea that it's justifiable to let unspeakable suffering within your community continue when you have enough excess (meaning losing it wouldn't affect your overall quality of life) resources to stop it, just because those resources "belong" to you and you shouldn't be expected to give them up unless you get something better in return, is absolutely the most selfish, morally bankrupt and evil foundation for a society that always leads to fascism eventually.
#Capitalism
๐ณ๐ฑ
Agreed, people who dont donate their time and money to help charities, especially when you have excess, is morally dubious at best.
Not sure what that has to do with #Capitalism however.
@freemo @Vincarsi
#Capitalism concentrates wealth and resources into the hands of a few rich individuals, which is what leads to the kind of conditions that the OP is talking about, where wealthy people hoard resources for themselves and refuse to give any to others unless they can benefit financially in some way.
concentrates wealth and resources into the hands of a few rich individuals
Yes, though, it distributes fairly based on their contribution to society when operating in a healthy way. Societies dont have an equal distribution of people contributing equal utility, ergo you should see unequal distribution of wealth in a healthy government with a typical population.
which is what leads to the kind of conditions that the OP is talking about
Fully disagree. Uneven distributions of wealth does not, in and of itself, lead to lower quality of life or less charitable works. In fact, it has been objectively shown that rich people give significantly higher percentages of their income to charity than middle class or poor.
where wealthy people hoard resources for themselves and refuse to give any to others
That does not line up with reality IMO. Very few rich “hoard wealth” which would look like a mountain of resources sitting in a vault collecting dust (such as useful minerals, or other materials useful to society). In fact they dont even tend to hoard money itself. Almost all rich people have all of their money actively in the community and used for social utility. For example in investment in businesses. No person who hoarded wealth would be rich because wealth looses value with time. You only become rich by not hoarding wealth (putting your money out into the community, at a risk of loosing it or getting a return).
@freemo @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi Missing their whole point it seems.
@freemo @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi Even if you don't include america. Capitalism in every conception creates inequality. Not just in the context of incom. But in the context of access to resources. Even in some of the european countries non-citizens are forced to pay out of pocket for healthcare. No human should be denied treatment. So no, contribution hardly matters. The market decides your worth, which is arbitrary and non-sensical.
@aeleoglyphic @freemo@qoto.org @Vincarsi
Just block @freemo@qoto.org. There's no point in having a conversation with them. All they did was claimed that I was wrong about saying that capitalism is inherently exploitative without explaining why I was wrong, and instead just kept making claims about the competitive nature of capitalism being good for everyone, again, without explaining why. It's like debating with a pro-capitalist AI with a system malfunction.
@Radical_EgoCom @aeleoglyphic yeah, brings me back to the days when I learned apologetics for young earth creationism. So convinced you're correct that any evidence someone presents to the contrary just doesn't compute. It's the same kind of dogmatic thinking, except instead of "God created earth 6000yrs ago" it's "Capitalism is actually the best system if people just stopped messing it up!".
A system for social organization that results in such a massive imbalance is not a good system.
I mean your the one who keeps referring to these concepts as monolithic pure ideologies rather than nuanced components of a larger system as I keep indicating.
Projecting much?
My reply to you here quite clearly shows that im the only one in this conversation who isnt dogmatic and actually addressing the finer nuance of the discussion:
@freemo @Radical_EgoCom @aeleoglyphic Does the ideology of Capitalism hold that an individual has the right to withhold access to property they own title to, even if the lack of access results in the death of another person? Yes or no.
Does the ideology of Capitalism hold that an individual has the right to withhold access to property they own title to, even if the lack of access results in the death of another person?
No, in the sense that, the ideology of Capitlism is not explicit on that singular issue. That would depend on your interpretation of the ideal.
The ideal itself is essentially that a markets need to be free of any sort of centralized control. But it does not dictate that such a market can not have regulations that does not represent a single controlling interest.
Some may interpret capitalism to mean “no regulation of any kind” in which case the answer to your question under that interpretation is yes. Others might interpret it to mean “regulation is needed to avoid centralized control” in which case they may interpret the answer as no.
For example the Netherlands is a capitalist country, just like all of the EU. Yet it has a law, roughly translated to anti-crack laws, that says if you have extra homes you are required by law to give them to someone in need to live in them if you cant find a renter at a reasonable economic rate. So int he Netherlands we have an explicit example of a country which adopts the capitalist ideal where the answer to your question is unequivocally “no”.
