|
|
 Originally Posted by rong
So the vid in rando thread about the guy who's daughter died of cancer got me thinking.
Let's say a 5 yr old kid has leukemia and it's parents are poor. Society has several options for it's care.
1. We pay for everything it needs to give it the best chance of survival.
2. We give it a bit of care but not as much as we would a rich kid.
3. We give it some care and bankrupt the parents.
4. We say tough shit kiddy, you ain't getting Jack.
It seems to me that capitalism favours 3 and 4 where as alternative set ups may favour 1 and 2.
That sounds about accurate, but it's a mistake to assume that capitalism addresses everything. Capitalism is better for a bunch of very important things than any other system by far, but it isn't the only aspect of society. So if somebody says "well capitalism is immoral because it favors 3 and 4", I get to say "well capitalism isn't supposed to fully address this problem in the first place".
Of all the counters to capitalism, none work, and they're all far worse, but that doesn't mean capitalism addresses everything. But when you add welfarism to capitalism, now you're talking. The capitalist-welfarist model is tried and true. No other models are. To me it seems the derision of capitalism is just a giant straw man. Of course, a lot of its proponents are straw manning it too
|
Reply With Quote