[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / news+ / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]

/atheism/ - Atheism

The rejection of belief in the existence of deities

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types: jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


New to this board and want to know the rules? Have a question for atheists? Then you should probably read the FAQ (Updated: 3/19/15). It's not necessary, but don't be surprised if people ignore you if you don't elaborate further on a question already answered here, or the moderator does something you didn't expect.

File: 1426178422448.jpg (80.17 KB, 850x400, 17:8, quote_einstein_socialism.jpg)

bbae85 No.4138

As an American I left high school economics with the simplistic message that capitalism is the best system and that Adam Smith said the marketplace is most efficient when people act in their self-interest. Of course, he wrote that in his first few pages of a thick book, and no one gets to the later parts where he talks about the exceptions like how unrestrained avarice can be detrimental to society.

The principal also applies to the marketplace, and says nothing about morality, or how we "should" act. The principal of "Tragedy of the Commons" demonstrates a circumstance where if everyone acts in their own interests a public resource can be depleted to the detriment of everyone. For example, when there are no pollution controls and every company is allowed to save money by polluting as much as they can, you end up with toxic rivers.

As I studied, I saw countless examples of companies screwing over everyone else to save money. Love Canal, Enron, Freddy Mac, and Walmart come to mind.
At the other extreme we all know Communism didn't work because of inefficient bureaucracies, and human laziness when working harder doesn't directly benefit you. That's why I'm now believe in a mixed economy, to bring my country closer to European models. We should continue to encouraging entrepreneurialism and competition, but there should be more income redistribution laws and taxes here, because otherwise helping the needy is always a minor afterthought for large companies.

More socialism is why most European countries have a better quality of life, especially in Scandinavia, and Germany's economy is also doing fine even though they have better laws to protect their laborers. Australia may have a slightly lower mean GPA than America, but they also higher medium GDP per capita than America, which means more people have enough money to have fewer hardships and be happier. Other countries generally live longer while paying less for healthcare, and there are safety nets and longer vacations.

With less extreme income inequality there is less conflict, fewer very poor people, fewer underpaid shift workers, and fewer super rich CEO kings that jet around in leer-jets while bragging about how much good they're doing with their philanthropy.

Any thoughts on the best economic system? Let's to keep the discussion more intelligent and use your own thoughts or research, without speaking the platitudes you heard lobbyists chanting on, say, Fox News.

efaaf0 No.4139

>>4138
Socialism is not necessarily good for Scandinavia.

Case in point: Sweden has a higher rape rate then most of Africa, why? Muslims. How did they get there? Socialism. Capitalism is bad and good in it's own ways, just like socialism. Though, coming from someone who lives in the ghetto, I prefer capitalism. We will always be guided by a negative trait. I'd prefer it to be avarice rather than anger, psychopathy, or anti-intellectualism.

bbae85 No.4141

>>4139
> Sweden has a higher rape rate
Wiki does point out it's difficult to compare the rape rates across countries, where police departments have different procedures, and where cultures differ rapes may go unreported. Japan has a lower rape rate than most countries, but rape is probably under reported there, and over reported in Sweden. I wouldn't advise Japanese women to walk through secluded alleys late at night in the land of the chikan.

efaaf0 No.4146

>>4141
It's not called rape in Japan, they call it "hello".

ba09bb No.4147

File: 1426190702722.png (10.53 KB, 475x382, 475:382, 1-On-MSNBC-Opinion-Dominat….png)

>but there should be more income redistribution laws and taxes here
My problem with this is if someone can't compete given the circumstances they aren't fit. Also you're encouraging mediocrity when you tax those who earn to give to those who don't. Let's encourage excellence and weed out the weaker links. Actually work to improving the quality of people not only the conditions they live under.

>More socialism is why most European countries have a better quality of life

Only on average but here you can get much richer. I think we should incentivize excellence not mediocrity. Mediocrity doesn't innovate.

Also overall the EU economy doesn't seem to be doing that great.
https://hbr.org/2013/06/the-european-union-a-failed-ex/
>The resulting human suffering is sobering — tens of millions of Europeans who want work can’t find it, and many of them are facing truly desperate situations.

>With less extreme income inequality there is less conflict

And this can be fixed by eliminating inept people. If everyone was competent and capable they would close the wage gap by themselves. The main reason the wage gap persists is because of variation in competence. And giving stupid people money is stupid.

Also reducing conflict isn't a necessarily good thing as it eliminates a thing called competition, yeah it's a type of conflict and results in the greatest economic gains through driving innovation.

>Any thoughts on the best economic system?

There could be no such thing, each system has its set of pros and cons and currently no objective way to weigh them against each other.

If you want technological innovation I would argue for some implementation of eugenics (either free market or fascistic). The simple fact remains you need smart people to develop technology and stupid people can be replaced by automation (and automation is cheaper when you factor in the cost of raising a human let alone those pampered by socialism).

Now by weeding out alleles that are responsible for poor brain morphology and function likely won't reduce functional immunodiversity so we'd be safe. And not all biological diversity is good, alleles that make someone dumber than the rest is arguably deleterious. And since technology and wealth distribution eliminated harsh selection not implementing eugenics may have dire consequences.

inb4 genetics has nothing to do with intelligence
http://users.loni.usc.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf
It's a large factor (not the only one as we do need good living conditions as well since being starved of nutrients while having the good set of genes will still result in a poorly developed brain but having shit genes and great conditions will also result in a poorly developed brain).

And about those possible dire consequences:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000189
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000463
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000244

>Let's to keep the discussion more intelligent and use your own thoughts or research, without speaking the platitudes you heard lobbyists chanting on, say, Fox News.

MSNBC is worse. Just Fox is full of retards who can't present themselves while MSNBC is full of retards who can.

89fc3d No.4148

What does this have to do with atheism?

>>4147
>if everyone was competent and capable

78791c No.4150

>>4148
This guy is right, I should probably delete this, because while this is sort of a political board at times, it's more politics related to atheism.

However you guys have put some effort into this discussion, and I'd hate to just delete it just like that. Should I leave it up for a day or 2?

fabd67 No.4154

To use a cliche, socialism only really works in theory.

Though to be fair, pure free market capitalism suffers from the exact same problem. The truth is that the best economical systems are usually neither purely socialist nor purely capitalist, but a mix of the two, usually with one side dominating the other depending on the political and economical climate. Right now, we seem to be turning away a little from capitalism, with the financial crises and meltdowns, but in the 80's and 90's, capitalism was hailed as the solution for everything. It created relationships around the world and the end of the 80's saw communism collapsing, so who knows what's next, we might be heading straight for another era of endless praises for capitalism

7ee16a No.4155

>>4150
I see nothing wrong with having some philosophical or political threads that aren't strictly related to atheism as long as it doesn't take over the board.

ba09bb No.4172

>>4150
It's all good. Appreciate your thoughtfulness, bro.

97be34 No.4173

Come make a thread on >>>/leftypol/, we would love if someone made this kind of thread!

bbae85 No.4175

Op here, I realize it was unusually off topic, but in my defense I started the thread to see if Atheists would respond differently than if I had posted on a political board. It's probably not that different though, so I have copied the thread to leftypol.

>>>/leftypol/125022

fed437 No.4269

Here's my 2 cents. I want maximum freedom. You can't have this with complete freedom, because powerful people will exploit vulnerable people. So you have to curtail some people's freedom to give more freedom to others. A simplistic way of looking at it is to roughly equate money with freedom. This sort of works, because the more money you have the more options you have in an economy based on capitalism. Pretty simple. So I figure we would be best off having the government run things that are demonstrably better (to the average person) run by the government (fire stations, health care, etc.). And then we should institute social programs to make sure people near the socioeconomic bottom have the ability to climb upward, like by giving the very poor enough resources to work less and use that time to learn a marketable skill instead.

>>4150
Thanks for taking our input. Seconding this >>4155 because I'm generally curious what /atheism/ thinks about non-religion issues plagued by irrationality.

89be99 No.4342

File: 1426422999684.png (34.9 KB, 754x389, 754:389, table.PNG)

in order to point out the failure of socialism, people always compare socialist countries to the developed world.

But when compared to third world countries (where the majority live), socialist countries fare rather well actually.



Delete Post [ ]
[]
[Return][Go to top][Catalog]
[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / news+ / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]