<p>Fasinro: “^^ No, i don’t think that’s the problem. If i do more work than you why should you earn the same as me? That’s the problem”</p>
<p>I just wanted to point out that this isn’t always the case. My parents work their fingers to the bone, and they got screwed over because certain financial intermediaries took advantage of them. The world of business is harsh and cruel and involves copious amounts of deception, leading to the regrettable fact that not everyone reaps what they sow.</p>
<p>Everything is good in theory, and nothing is good in reality. Not capitalism, not socialism. The key is finding the optimum balance, and I think that at this point in time, the countries previously mentioned (Canada, France, etc.) are closer to the right balance than the U.S. is. Consider the Gini coefficient. Countries with higher Gini coefficients are generally not places that one would move to in order to secure his family a better quality of life. So isn’t there a considerable correlation between quality of life and income equality?</p>
<p>I don’t think any of us are arguing for complete equality, but ensuring that everyone can have some form of health care, increasing social mobility, and establishing regulation to prevent businesses from engaging in selfish, dishonest practices? That’d be pretty sweet.</p>
<p>This is definitely not the case. On the lower end of things, I work at the grocery store and my best friend works at the library. She is a computer tech; i.e., she signs people in and out of the public computers and fixes basic problems like “help, my computer is frozen” or “how come the sound doesn’t work?” I’m a cashier. I work hard. I stand on my feet all day, deal with angry customers, handle money, clean, receive absolutely no appreciation, touch bloody meat and leaky milk, etc. I get paid minimum wage, or $7.25 an hour. My friend sits on her butt all day, occasionally restarts computers and writes library card numbers down a few hundred times a day. She makes $9.75 an hour. I’m not bitter about it, but how could you say that she “works harder” and thus deserves the extra money?</p>
<p>I mean, you could say America is pretty cool, but America isn’t exactly the best example of pure capitalism, eh? Nor has it been since…well, the beginning of its existence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a Canadian citizen who has had plenty of treatment in Canada, I can say that waits are not significantly longer than they are here.</p>
<p>To answer the topic’s question and solely that, I think the first reply sums it up quite nicely. I don’t see the necessity for the remaining banter.</p>
<p>No, it isn’t summed up in two lines. Even in this reality. They’re plenty of intelligent people here and i think that if it indeed WAS summed up in two lines, it wouldn’t have extended 4+ pages.</p>
<p>^^Two lines that have never been backed up once in history. Two lines that are regurgitated mindlessly by millions of people across America who just don’t understand what socialism is.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that they’re false, just that they’re unsupported. In fact, they’re probably true: As romani said, pure anything rarely works. That includes capitalism, of course.</p>
<p>It’s a summary. Since when do you ever cite sources or add authority within a summary? It’s supposed to be clear and concise, and that’s what those two lines did. The only reason this topic extended 4+ pages was due to fallacious arguments and misinterpretations, as is usually the case. In this prospect, people argued against Soccer’s opinion because of his crude example choices that he chose to support his belief. And yet this rather crude argument that has indeed extended 4+ pages continues to revolve around the basic idea that is said in the two lines.</p>
<p>Here’s the problem with the two line summary:</p>
<p>
It hasn’t been tried in practice, so this is conjecture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<h2>Most people don’t seem to think it works in practice; it has never been tried in practice. Therefore the conclusion above must be based on theory, that is to say in theory socialism doesn’t work.</h2>
<p>So the first line is patently false and the second line is just a guess.</p>
As I have already stated, the arguments laid in this topic are mostly fallacious and are often misinterpreted, and here is an example. This may sound right, but if you deconstruct your syllogism, you can notice a clear-cut fallacy, particularly in the last statement.
You state that people don’t think it works in practice, which is based on conjectures of applying the theories of socialism in a pragmatic fashion. This is true. However, that does not mean the people therefore don’t think it works in theory. In no way are those two related.
In theory, socialism is not forced to be applied in a practical manner, and it is only when it is applied in a practical manner that the conjectures of it not working are made. You can’t argue that if the conclusion is based on theory, then therefore they’re arguing that socialism doesn’t work in theory either.
Also, if you’re arguing that the first line is a “conjecture” and the second line is a “guess”, then why are you then implying that only the first line is “patently false”?
The fact that it is two lines long does not mean it can’t be a summary, and the fact that it is two lines long does not make it a sound bite.</p>
<p>" The fact that it is two lines long does not mean it can’t be a summary, and the fact that it is two lines long does not make it a sound bite. "</p>
<p>I think a more appropriate term to use would be two lines ‘short’. (lol)</p>
<p>Using the word “short” as a substitute is grammatically incorrect as it changes the meaning.</p>
<p>@Gerontius: Indeed there IS a major problem with the theory if it doesn’t work in practice but not as you would think. The major problem coincides with trying to apply the theory into practical matter, not because the theory itself must be changed.</p>