aashell13 said:
I'm going to divide your statement into two parts in order to show that the first is not the same as the second:
"profit, or a system that holds profit as the most important thing to society, is evil"
1. The various socialist experiments of the late 19th and 20th centuries have shown conclusively that society cannot function effectively without both individual and collective economic incentive, which is typically called profit.
Effectively by what definition? Economically? How exactly does how much money a society makes define how well it functions? Europe is in general far more socialist than America. Guess which has better living standards?
2. From the mere fact that profit exists, it does not follow that profit must become the overarching goal of society.
And yet that is the effect profit and moneymaking has. It only lends itself to the desire for more profit and more money.
Furthermore, I maintain that the existence of profitable enterprise is the primary reason why we are not All starving and dying of thirst. A conclusive treatise as to why is beyond the scope of this forum, but by way of a concise proof I offer two facts:
That is absolute bull. farmers have produced enough to feed people without making profits in many historic examples
Firstly, that the countries with the highest standards of living are the most economically successful, i.e. the ones with the most profitable enterprises.
ROFL, even Cuba has better healthcare for their people than America! Not as much food though but they are trying their best to grow it; they do not want to sell out to capitalism. Wake up!
Secondly, that efforts to improve the long-term quality of life in underdeveloped nations center around means and methods of making the enterprises of those countries more successful in the global economy.
How do you make their enterprises and production more successful?
By providing food, shelter, water, and good education.
Guess which system fails to use RELIEF FUNDING to do so....?
