I wouldn't agree with this as such, based largely on the cut throat behaviour of most of humanity for most of its history, in which of course we are the most proper inheritors of mother nature, if you like, author of no less than five mass extinctions (the last of which very nearly succeeded) and over twenty partial extinctions throughout the earth's history, thus making the viewpoint of extreme environmentalists worthy of a chortle, which is neither here nor there.
I agree with you in that there is more than enough to go around for everyone, and as technology advances, there will continue to be more resources, not less, as we learn to make better use of them through this technology.
What we have right now is the optimal solution in my view, a good social safety net to ensure that nobody starves on the streets and everyone has a roof over their heads, a decent educational system and no real barriers to self improvement, educationally, socially, or economically, the basis of a true meritocracy, which is by its nature the ideal situation.
Where we disagree is in the removal of the arguably meritocratic society we have and replacing it with a communist "no child left behind" solution, which demonstrably does not work. It might work for ants, but its benefits would overall not be worth the costs to the overall betterment of society.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
human beings were cutthroat a long time before capitalism every came upon the scene
"Sometimes the best thing a government can do is simply get out of the way"-Vince Cable
OK - let's think it out:
When humans are in competition with each other over resources and access to them, of course they will be cutthroat. Those are the incentives - and for a good part of our history, that has been the case.
If we organise society so that we are cooperating for the greater good, we won't be in competition so we won't need to engage in cutthroat behaviour.
Obviously.
Perhaps you were teaching it, but that doesn't make your comments on the issue superior to mine.
HOW were they communist??? A small group of people made decisions on behalf of everyone. Communism is about "an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general."
The society is not classless if a special group make decisions. The society is not egalitarian if those groups are treated differently to others. The society is not stateless if you're defining it as a state!
There is not common control of the means of production if a small group are controlling it.
These societies meet none of the criteria for a communist society and so ARE NOT.
Obviously what you were teaching was false and you were perpetuating myths that have been around for years now, the myths that the rich use to stop us from taking control of the means of production.