Capitalism Vs Communism: Practical Question

[AisA]

Moreover, the supply will not run out anytime in the foreseeable future. Those dire predictions the frauds put out to scare pink mothers into buying envirohybrids are absolutely useless. That the known reserves of oil will last only X number of years means nothing, because there so much moil in as yet unknown deposits. These deposits are as yet unknown because right now, given the current state of technology, they are marginally too expensive to find. When technology improves and currently-known reserves are slightly tapped, it pays to find new oil deposits.

Though it is a bit off-topic, I would like to add to y_feldblum's comment about oil reserves.

Not only is the total amount of crude oil unknown, I am aware of no evidence that it is a static quantity. The process that created crude oil may well be ongoing and may be creating it at a rate greater than our consumption.

[Jenny]

This is my first post, so I apologize if I make any social errors here. While my heart agrees with many communistic principals, I know that government is extremely ineffective and inefficient. Whether it's at the state level or the federal level, the government always seems to muddle things up. Real difference is made by individuals who are motivated to make a difference (whether by money, or by altruism). Look at communistic governments --- actually, look at any government -- there is too much of a potential for corruption.

For example, I strongly feel that every man, woman and child should be able to have quality medical treatment. However, I am also strongly against the nationalization of healthcare (I am from the US btw). I do not want the government telling me who to see, when to see them, and putting me through a bunch of hoops to get my healthcare. I have a daughter who has had significant medical needs, and I feel very fortunate that our health insurance has funded our doctor visits, and allowed us to get the necessary treatments for her. It kills me to know that there are many people in the world who are not so fortunate. I wish there were a way for every one in the world to get adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. I am wholly unconvinced, though, that having the government in charge would rectify this, though. In fact, I am convinced that things would be even worse

[softwareNerd]

Welcome to the forum, Jenny. I'm guessing you haven't read much Ayn Rand, at least non-fiction; but I'm curious to know if you have.

You say: "I strongly feel that every man, woman and child should be able to have quality medical treatment."

As such, that's a fine sentiment. Who would not want to see a world full of happy, rational, productive, and proud people. The vast majority of poor people in the world could easily have been rich if only their governments had respected individual rights, starting a generation ago ... leaving their people free to produce. Look at China, for instance: in 3 decades, it has changed so radically, even though it is far from being a capitalist country; the same in the case of India, over the last 10 years. The only fundamental change was related to rights. I say this merely to clarify that the vast poverty in the world is caused by tyranny. Given the advanced state of technology today, a free country would have very few people who cannot work hard and afford the basics of life. (Indeed, the poor in the U.S. would be considered pretty well-off by the standards of many other countries.)

If you feel strongly that people should have quality medical treatment that they cannot afford, then you should donate to hospitals. Historically, many hospitals were established as charitable and partly-charitable organizations. Think about this: if we're paying taxes willingly, to let the government set up services like hospitals, then why involve the government at all? As you say, they're ineffective and inefficient. So, why not give directly to charity?

The answer becomes obvious: much of the tax money is not really given freely as charity but is taken against the free wishes of those who earned it. So, when you say you want to give free health-care to the poor, you aren't speaking of your charity at all... what you're saying is that you want to force someone to be more charitable than he would otherwise be.

Well, education is good... let's force people to pay to educate all. Roads and airports are good... let's force people to pay for those. How about art? Art is definitely a value. Science? Without science where would health care be? Surely we must force people to pay for that? and so on... the road to hell is paved with "good" intentions.

[Dikaiosyne]

If you want a true advantage of capitialism it is continious bloodless, revolution of the political economy, to use words that a Marxism may understand.

With "communism" and central planning, the government is entrenched, there is no way to change bad policy or corrupt leaders quickly. I suppose a communist country could have democratic elections, but considering the history of letting powerful government is that it rarely contracts of its own free will, and rarely lets power out of its grasp. Thus, the only recourse is a bloody revolution, to remove the government in power. But continious bloody revolution is not a good state of affairs.

With Capitialism, if a good or service is not delievered adequetcy, the market will respond much faster than a bureaucracy, new competition will appear, old unproductive firms will die off, basically, if something does no good whatsoever, it will fold to the reason of the market, no blatant force is required. With a system based on force, force can keep the unproductive using resources that may otherwise go to a better purpose. Thus the system is propped up until the massive contradictions assert themselves and destory the system, in a very ironically Marxist way.

If property rights are protected, people are allowed to start and stop business at their will, and force is banned from the opperation of the market, then you will have a dynamic and flexible system that can move to efficiency faster than any bureaucracy can manage.

[DavidOdden]

For example, I strongly feel that every man, woman and child should be able to have quality medical treatment.

That is a perfectly normal and reasonable wish. There are two things that are necessary for that to come about. First, there has to be the necessary medical capability: there needs to be ample medical knowledge, well-trained doctors, and adequate facilities (among other things). That means that doctors need to be paid and their working conditions need to be rewarding; hospitals need to be profitable, and medical research needs to be rewarding, both intellectually and financially. A capitalist society encourages all of these rewards, for example allowing some group of doctors to open a medical clinic without restrictions and the need for an elaborate justification and approval procedure.

The other thing that is needed is an affluent and productive society, where all members produce enough to be able to both feed themselves and take care of their medical needs. Again, only capitalism does this, because only with capitalism are men free to produce to the best of their ability.