22 Mar '11 22:33>
Originally posted by no1marauderNo pasarán.
Non sequitur.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNevermind the fact that Chavez is a complete whack job that no one would ever take seriously... But's he's completely wrong.
Capitalism may be to blame for the lack of life on Mars, Venezuela's socialist president Hugo Chavez says.
"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilisation on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Mr Chavez said in a speech to mark World Water Day.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/23/3171019.htm
Thoughts?
Originally posted by savage4731When a natural resource like water is in short supply in a country, who gets the best access to it - the people with money or the people without money? If it's the latter, do you think it's acceptable that people who already have so little then find themselves with too little water too. Is it kind of 'their own fault'? How can poor people who don't have enough water, buy less? Is there something inherent in wealthy humans that means they should have more water than poor humans?
There's built in methods to prevent running out of resources in capitalism. When the supply goes down prices go up and people buy less- thus conserving the resources.
Originally posted by FMFYeah, shortage of resources like water is a real problem. But, ecnomically speaking there's only two alternatives:
When a natural resource like water is in short supply in a country, who gets the best access to it - the people with money or the people without money? If it's the latter, do you think it's acceptable that people who already have so little then find themselves with too little water too. Is it kind of 'their own fault'? How can poor people who don't have enough w ...[text shortened]... mething inherent in wealthy humans that means they should have more water than poor humans?
Originally posted by savage4731I'm in favour of a market economy, with certain basic protections and contingencies for market failures monitored and maintained by the mechanism of social democracy. I believe water should be a publicly owned utility because I think access to water is a right for every citizen even if they have absolutely no money at all.
Yeah, shortage of resources like water is a real problem. But, ecnomically speaking there's only two alternatives:
Alternative #1: is a centrally planned economy. The government controls all of the water and will give it out "fairly". The only problem is that it may take awhile. People making decisions can sometimes take years to make adjustments that say the government doesnt use the water as means to control people and/or wage wars?
Originally posted by FMFA more nuanced response can be found in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. Capitalism takes people to Mars; on Mars they get cured of capitalism and society becomes more 'Minoan' ...
Well according to savage4731, economically speaking, there's ONLY two alternatives: Alternative #1: is a centrally planned economy. And Alternative #2- is a market economy.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageRobert Heinlein is a SF author with a libertarian/freedom leaning, I think it was a story set on Mars he dealt with the private ownership of air.
A more nuanced response can be found in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. Capitalism takes people to Mars; on Mars they get cured of capitalism and society becomes more 'Minoan' ...
Originally posted by WajomaWhich reminds me of my favorite Heilein quote, and since this thread isn't going anywhere here it is:
Robert Heinlein is a SF author with a libertarian/freedom leaning, I think it was a story set on Mars he dealt with the private ownership of air.