I like capitalism a lot more. It is true that competition fuels greatness right? Also I don't like socialism becuase it can let people recieve things they don't deserve.
But true capitalism is bad. That is where there is no govt regulation at all. No bueno.
So children starving in 3rd world countries dont deserve the basic living standards of life? A roof over their head, enough rations for their survival?
They dont deserve these things? Child slaves in India work their ass off just so you can buy a cheap rug. Just for some firewood. You Dont deserve to be saying that. But at the end of the day, you will just make some irrational excuse up, and push it out of your mind because you feel bad.
And now for you "BEASTY": Please go get your crappy American education and get off forums that are far beyond your brain capacity.
Did I ever say any of that? And what does myself living in a capitalistic or socialistic country have to do with any of that? I think it is horrible that things like you mentioned happen but it has nothing to do with this debate.
But it's not impossible to earn a living in America. GRANTED, it is kinda hard right now due to the economic situation but generally almost anyone should get a job. But I must ask, why should a bad employee get the same as someone who works their ass odd.
I'm addition, India has way more problems than a rich/poor gap. Ex. Child slaves.
Half the people who say that don't even know what communism is. Another 25% just googled it. Communism basically means there's no poor people, rich people, etc. Everyone gets paid the same no matter what they do. It's a great idea but it's flawed. For example: A man goes to school for 8 years to become a doctor and a man who dropped out of highschool becomes a janitor. They both get paid the same. It just isn't fair, that's the thing.
Reply
Report
Responses are below viewing threshold (show responses)
im a capitalist because the ones who work hard get what they deserve i've worked my ass off from my freshmen year in high school to right now i make 32 an hour and play with the stock market. dont give up just because the economy sucks just work harder.
Except for those who don't. Those people (not just Americans) who have to work three jobs to feed their families, and can't even with that level of dedication. Those who get screwed over by the greedy suits at the top. Those who, despite a lifetime of dedication to a local store get overrun by a large supermarket, and now have next to no way of earning revenue.
As the great Immortal Technique puts it [warning, explicit], "But you see, here in America the attitude that is fed to us is that outside of America there live lesser people. "Fuck them, let them fend for themselves." No, Fuck you, they are you. No matter how much you want to dye your hair blonde and put fake eyes in, or follow an anorexic standard of beauty, or no matter how many diamonds you buy from people who exploit your own brutally to get them, no matter what kind of car you drive or what kind of fancy clothes you put on, you will never be them. They're always gonna look at you as nothing but a little monkey. I'd rather be proud of what I am, rather than desperately trying to be something I'm really not, just to fit in. And whether we want to accept it or not, that's what this culture or lack of culture is feeding us."
Well yes yes in any system people are going to get screwed over. But why shoud the few people who work at a tiny family-owned supermarket be considered more important than the 50-100 workers at the large supermarket.(I work at one of those "evil" places). Yes it does suck for the owner of the small buisiness but that is part of the only reason people open a bussiness. That is for reward. But whenever there is a chance for reward, there is a chance of failure.
I don't believe that we should be okay with people just "getting screwed over." I think a revolution is in order, one that finally recognizes what all of humanity actually is: valuable. Because, currently? Our American mindset destroys far too many lives.
But if there is no reason to work hard why do it? Your gonna say people would do it for each other but if that were true there would already be little poor people.
Ok I just saw something on the news that will help my argument. Zimbabwae now has a $100 trillion dollar bill. No joke. Not too long ago ONE of their dollars was worth more than an American dollar but due to excess govt regulation the value of their dollar tanked.
I do not advocate pure socialism, simply close to it. I believe the scale should be tipped much more toward the socialist ideal than the capitalist idea.
I will list my reasons:
1.) I support democracy, and when I say that I mean the purest form of a democratic republic possible. The economy is one of the most important aspects of American life, and to have our economic officials go completely unelected, then have them control almost all of our money flow and merchandising traffic, is tyranny in its purest form. Unelected, untouchable officials guiding essential aspects of a nation. This I do not support.
2.) Neither capitalism nor socialism is a perfect ideal, and both fail for the same reason. Both make an assumption of the human spirit: that they will work for the country. Socialism hopes that everyone will work for a country in which equality reigns, whereas capitalism hopes that everyone will work for the wealth of the top 1% of the nation. I would much rather work for equality.
3.) The rich/poor gap in a socialist society is much smaller than in a capitalist one. 95-99% of America's wealth is controlled by 1-5% of the population. I personally find that disgusting.
4.) "Competition fuels greatness...".... really? How about intellect fuels greatness? Human ingenuity? National unity? I think Equality fuels morale.... and Good morale fuels work... and work fuels greatness.
Ok I understand your problems with the distribution of wealth here but look at it this way. Yes that 5% is unimaginably rich, but the vast majority of that other 95% are not poor by any means at all. A lot of them live in two-story houses, drive SUVs, and have multible TVs. Then the majority of the people left are still not poor. They have a house, a car, probably a tv, and the eat every day. Just becuase there is a huge gap in the wealth distribution doesn't mean that something is wrong. Also just becuase someone can't afford the nicer things in life doesn't make them poor. I would say that around 99% of people in America don't go hungry every day.
And I still think competition fuels greatness. Just look at sports. Everyone is competing to be the best and that competition motivates them to be the best they can be so that they win.
It depends on family size what the poverty line is. 1 person= around 10,000. 5= around 25,000. Details here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml .
As to how long they were hungry, it essentially deals with cases where the amount of hunger was long/severe enough to affect a person's health. To my understanding anyway: I'll find a comparable chart soon. Too lazy at the moment... as that is quite the elusive statistic.
Situations are far too nuanced to make a generalized statistic involving who is at fault for individuals' poverty. And I don't think it is right for us (in most cases) to assume we understand who is to blame...
Those who drop out of school? What if it's to take care of a dying mother?
Those using drugs? What was the cause? Abuse, death, emotional strain?
Those in jail? Wrongful accusation?
Unwanted pregnancies? Condom failure? Sacrificing their own livelihood for their new child's?
I think every situation has a spin.
That's true, but neither model (Socialism or capitalism) ejects people from the country. And besides, a capitalist state does not differentiate between incompetence and disability: if a person is not turning a profit, they are not worth supporting.
by with the drug use and pregnency, it's still their fualt. If someone has a child it's the parents responsability to take care of it and why should I be burdened by thier mistake? If you want to totally eliminate the possibility of a child, don't have sex.
Also I never meant to eject people. By if one can't support themselve becuase they are to lazy or too crappy as an induvidial why should we hurt the people who do work hard? Now I do have one question, did you mean your statement, "if a person is not turning profit, they are not worth supporting.". If you did we may be geting somewhere. :)
Also, I don't support a true capitalism. Sorry of I didn't clarify that before. A true capitalsim is to easy to screw over the consumer. But with some govt regulation, it is as close to perfect as we can get.
Then what do we do with that parent and child? Let them starve and die? I'd rather support them until they are able to contribute.
How does socialism hurt those who work hard? All it does is create equality. And just as you are not supporting true capitalism, I am not supporting true socialism, meaning there is some kind of luxury to be gained. And no, that statement was a rhetorical device criticizing the base capitalist ideal. I think every person is worth supporting, as every man is created equal.
If you haven't noticed I am very big into a person's own responsibility. If the adult cant take care of themselves maybe they should starve. But take the child away. A child doesn't deserve to suffer like that. And yes, all men are CREATED equal but they can lower their own personal worth.
I disagree. Every human life is still worth... well... life to me. And that's the difference. I don't care how badly someone does, I still want them alive.
Yeah, I'll go with capitalism being the better (american pride, lol) because, like Jofus said, it leads to advancement. If something isn't good enough, it shuts down and is replaced by something better, which is always good. Of course, capitalism can lead to unbalanced wealth distribution. Nothing's perfect.
capitalism is the most fair between the two. its because if u work your ass off you get rewarded more.
When russia tried communism which is alot like socialismin the financial department, it completely failed. thats because whe government is created you have to think how the common man could abuse it. With socialism all you have to do is sit on your fat ass and you get paid just the same.
Thanks Jofus... Communism and Socialism are completely different. And theoretically that could happen, however, who would choose to not work for their loved ones?
But I must say he was also right. In communism the social class structure is taken away. It makes sure no one is too rich. Also the govt has a heavy hand on bussinesses.
Sure. However, Communism fails because it's a takeover/hijacking of an entire governmental peoples, not a simple economic revamping. It is run through dictatorship, whereas I support a Socialized Democratic Republic, run by the people, the people who are equal : ).
Well I would hope so. I going to be honest and you are probably the same way. I think I am a pretty open-minded person but I will never shift my views to match yours. Between us it just comes down to our morals and ideology. I just believe in personal responsability and getting what you deserve.
Rawr. I honestly hate that viewpoint... of never changing your views? I am 100% willing to alter my views, I just require a hard-nosed factual basis to do so. If someone can lay out empirically/philosophically a case that is better than my own, I will change my view right then and there. So far, on this subject, that has happened once. From my support of fairly extreme capitalism (Ayn Rand-esque) to where I am now. But truly, never changing your views? That is not open-minded...
I'm not saying you aren't open minded, you seem to be, I just wish you would revise your above statement : ).
Sorry. I didn't really mean that. I am open minded to other opinions, but only to a certain extent. I was just trying to say that yourself and I are just too different to agree 100% on an issue we are so divided on.
That just gave me an idea. Maybe I could change my profile name to "wrappedinanotherdebate" almost like my absolute favorite sharenator wrappedinbacon. I think that would be appropriate for me because I'm always debating on sharenator.
Socialism is the morally superior, but relies on the assumption that human beings are able to act with moral integrity. Often in a Socialist system, the hyper-rich abuse the system, making themselves far more rich than the plebiscites, who are forced to work for a corrupt Governmental system in order to feed those richer and less deserving than them.
a lecturer begins a seminar holding up a 20 dollar bill, and asking:
- Who wants this 20 dollar bill?
Several hands went up, but the lecturer said:
- Before handing it over, there’s something I must do.
He furiously crushed it, and asked again:
- Who still wants this bill?
The hands continued raised.
- And what if I do this?
He threw it against the wall, letting it fall to the floor, kicked it, stamped in it and again held up the bill – all dirty and crumpled. He repeated the question, and the hands continued to be held high.
- You mustn’t ever forget this scene – said the lecturer. – No matter what I do with this money, it’ll still be a 20 dollar bill. Many times in our lives, we are crushed, stamped on, kicked, maltreated, offended; however, in spite of this, we are still worth the same.
That is a great point. But are you saying a child rapist who has raped and killed 3 little girls is still worth the same as you and me? I consider myself a person with decent moral fiber and from what I can see you are too. I just don't believe that no matter what a person does that we all are equal.
I don't believe that we are all "equal" in the sense that we have the same worth as a human being, but "equal" in the sense that we are all still human beings, and ultimately have the right to life.
I understand your point. I just believe that if someone is to much of a scumbag to take care of themselves that the good responsable people in this country shouldn't be burdened by them.
umm i agree more with a capitalism approach than a socialism but i think we do have socialist aspects in our society and all those people going homeless and/or going is because they fucked up their own lives everyone has a choice and everyone can get above poverty if they can earn their way up plus some of these figures your getting logos i dont think are accurate plus 1. News will exagerate to get good ratings and make people also think its more of a problem than it really is i.e. Global warming 2. Why arent u also pointing out the good points if your so in love with equality state each point equally
PLus wats the point to trying or working harder if you just gonna earn the same this so whats the point of even trying. all countries are run by the rich and that will never change NEVER no matter what u say about equal class someone will always be above another. In capitalism everyone starts somewhere at the bottom unless in the very few lucky cases but whether you move up that chain is up to the choices you make and how hard you work and your determination and btw we are not a democracy we are a republic there is a difference
I think both sides have made a very valid argument, and I hate to be indecisive, but I think it depends on the country, the USA is better as a Capitalism, and Canada is better as a Socialist country. It has to do with more than what people want, other factors such as history, politics, resources and current economy define a country as socialist and capitalist, and there isn't a line that separates the two, a capitalist country can have some socialist laws and vice versa
Very accurate, reasoned comment. However, taking into account such factors as recession, general economic health over the years, state of the impoverished, etc etc, I don't think we can say the US is "better" at capitalism.... We haven't given anything else a try.
But rescessions are natural. Granted this one that we are in now is pretty extreme, I think if we give it time we will be fine. We've beat worse things before.
Ok. Even if socialism doesn't have rescessions which they do.....back to an earlier point of mine. I said competition fuels greatness. Here is my question for you:
What great inventions have come out of a socialistic or communistic country?
Reply
Report
Responses are below viewing threshold (show responses)
Because that's what I and almost everyone else I know would do... I need work to stay sane, and the less collective work done the less collective wealth. I would work possibly even harder in a socialist environment, knowing I wasn't working just for myself but for my friends and loved ones as well.
Yes so would I. But how many other people would actualy do that? 99.9% of people would just do the bare minimum just to get by. Most people wouldnt care enough to bust their ass for someone else becuase there his nothing to work harder than normal towards.
Once again, I disagree with that conjecture about human nature. If you would work, I would work, and all of my friends would work... So far it seems like every test case has supported my position. Would anyone on here slack off instead?
The majority of people would slack off becuase they don't need to work hard. But it's not nessecarily just slacking off, it's not going above and beyond, or reaching for the stars Who would want a harder job with more work and responsability if they won't get paid more?
Now, could we agree that if one was to work harder than he/she has to for no extra money because he/she knows that it would help another person that that would be a form of charity?
Interesting point you just made. However, this isn't charity. This is working specifically for someone's loved ones. Almost all people I know would certainly be "Charitable" to their loved ones. It's working for society, not for charity. Working for your brother and sister, not free handouts. Working for your country, not for one man's greed.
That's the key: since wealth is distributed equally, there is no charity. For there is no "poor" to say the charity is going to. You proved my point, sir : D.
Well everyone should do everything in their power to get a job so that they are not a leech on our system. But you are not forced to work.(if it was my call if you decided not to get a job to buy your food screw you. Now that would only apply if they decided to not work hard, not the inability to.). But in socialism you are forced to give to others.(now charity is fine and dandy but you shouldn't be forced to do it.)
But in capitalism no one is forced to work. Only if you want nice things. But are you saying that people shouldn't have to have a job? Now i dont think it should be required but don't come crying to me when all you've eaten for a month is ramen and baked beans.
But someone who works harder will get the same as a slacker. But if someone decides to work harder while knowing that they will get no extra, then they are basically just picking up someone else's slack. That sounds very much like charity to me.
But as you work harder, the overall total increases. Overall productivity increases, standards of living increase, etc.... Once again, I would like to see a person here who would refuse to work if it meant the downfall of America?
Yes but there are not that many users on here compared to the amount of people in the USA. Also people would not be willing to get harder or jobs with more responsability for nothing extra in return. It's just common sense. Why work harder when you don't need to cause you know uncle Sam will take care of you.
Yeap, but at least a small sample size is better than none.
And it's "common sense" that if you are working for your fellow countrymen, you work to the best of your ability. You work harder to make America better, and it eventually benefits you as well. We can't keep going over the same point: we have different opinions on human nature. Everyone here lends credence to my view, and everyone I've ever known does as well. Your argument has so far been employing common sense that obviously isn't common if I think it isn't sensible.
But if your theory were true than we wouldn't have poverty now. If most people would work hard just because it's the right thing to do and it's for the good of the country than why don't we see than now? So many people are on foodstamps and wellfare and they abuse it. So many people go and buy all junk food with their cards but still somehow have money to spend $50 on a carton of cigerettes and $25 on booze. If they could spend all than money on stupid crap like that then they don't need foodstamps. They know that they are being a burden on our system and they don't care. The know that jow the are cheatingthe system is very detromental to the usa but they will never change their ways. They do not have motivation to get a better job or try to get a raise
by working harder than other people. They will never work harder to benefit the ones around them.
Now you may be right. You seem like you suround yourself with good people. Good people would work harder for the benifit of society. And yes than would increase production but, there would be those who would still just cheat the system. And the amount of production made by them would be miniscule. Bit f you ask me, the good people would have more motivation to produce harder if they had something to strive for. Not just being inthe same place all of their lives. Also if we controlled our welfare more then those scumbags who burden our system would either have to work hard or they would be SOL.
The reason we don't see that right now is that the incentive of working for the country and loved ones doesn't exist. Right now, if you work, you are almost always working for a classical "corporate giant," working extremely hard to make someone at the top rich. That person at the top is not contributing to society, but just to themselves and their acquisition of material assets. Who would want to work for that principle?
I agree with your last statement I think: there must be incentive for people to work harder, which is why I do not support pure socialism. I support something similar to what Sweden has, where 80% of their money is given to the government in taxes. The government then, takes care of essentially all of their base needs/ survival requirements. After that, those who work hard have a larger remaining 20%, giving a small gradation of those who "cheat the system" and those who do not. Thus, those who work hard can still find luxury, and those who do not can survive, yet not necessarily comfortably.
Everyone works for society, everyone has enough to stay alive, and some get luxury if they work harder than others, or are more skilled.
Actually small businesses make up 99.7% of all employer firms, pay 44% of U.S private payrolls, and create more than half of the non-farm private GDP. Also they have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.
poopitee, you are probably one of the guys who got srewed over by the system but socialism is messed up more than the healthcare bill capitalism works if you make it work if the market is low stick with the sure things for example fashion right now holister and the rest of them are doing well and they are publically traded so go with them and whe that market starts to climax sell and go to a different thing.
Logos, there is no ideal socialist country. Someone always has more than others. This is shown in the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. The book shows communism, but they are alike in ways. In Socialism, everybody is supposed to get an equal amount, right? (by the way, I'm not exactly studied on this subject so tell me if I'm wrong) In the ideal Socialist government, there can be no government, the government controls who gets what. Your neighbor could be getting more than you but you think he gets the same amount. But without government how do you divide money between the people? I believe you should work to get what you want. If you don't want to live a crappy life, start young. Get good grades, go to class, pay attention, do what you know is right, not what other people say is ok and whatever happens in the home, don't let it disturb your dreams. You ask, "What if that can't be done?" The real question is, "How bad do they want it?"
Well maybe of they hadn't done marijuana, gotton pregnant(or someone else pregnant), or not slacked off in school, and gone to college they would be better off
Logos, though Animal Farm is fiction, it closely parallels the events of the Russian Revolution, but please feel free to argue as I know that this is usually considered a satiric book. And I think if you want it bad enough, you'll find a way.
It's your #0 visit here. It's about time to stop lurking!
Sharenator.com is all about sharing, voting, competing and simply having fun. Who's the best at posting the coolest stuff? Join now and benefit from all of sharenator's features available only to members. Be the Sharenator!
But true capitalism is bad. That is where there is no govt regulation at all. No bueno.
They dont deserve these things? Child slaves in India work their ass off just so you can buy a cheap rug. Just for some firewood. You Dont deserve to be saying that. But at the end of the day, you will just make some irrational excuse up, and push it out of your mind because you feel bad.
And now for you "BEASTY": Please go get your crappy American education and get off forums that are far beyond your brain capacity.
I'm addition, India has way more problems than a rich/poor gap. Ex. Child slaves.
Except for those who don't. Those people (not just Americans) who have to work three jobs to feed their families, and can't even with that level of dedication. Those who get screwed over by the greedy suits at the top. Those who, despite a lifetime of dedication to a local store get overrun by a large supermarket, and now have next to no way of earning revenue.
As the great Immortal Technique puts it [warning, explicit], "But you see, here in America the attitude that is fed to us is that outside of America there live lesser people. "Fuck them, let them fend for themselves." No, Fuck you, they are you. No matter how much you want to dye your hair blonde and put fake eyes in, or follow an anorexic standard of beauty, or no matter how many diamonds you buy from people who exploit your own brutally to get them, no matter what kind of car you drive or what kind of fancy clothes you put on, you will never be them. They're always gonna look at you as nothing but a little monkey. I'd rather be proud of what I am, rather than desperately trying to be something I'm really not, just to fit in. And whether we want to accept it or not, that's what this culture or lack of culture is feeding us."
Secondly, socialism! Let the debate ensue.
I'll post a reasoned argument soon, but for now it's bed time.
If I could uprate this for you again I would!
I will list my reasons:
1.) I support democracy, and when I say that I mean the purest form of a democratic republic possible. The economy is one of the most important aspects of American life, and to have our economic officials go completely unelected, then have them control almost all of our money flow and merchandising traffic, is tyranny in its purest form. Unelected, untouchable officials guiding essential aspects of a nation. This I do not support.
2.) Neither capitalism nor socialism is a perfect ideal, and both fail for the same reason. Both make an assumption of the human spirit: that they will work for the country. Socialism hopes that everyone will work for a country in which equality reigns, whereas capitalism hopes that everyone will work for the wealth of the top 1% of the nation. I would much rather work for equality.
3.) The rich/poor gap in a socialist society is much smaller than in a capitalist one. 95-99% of America's wealth is controlled by 1-5% of the population. I personally find that disgusting.
4.) "Competition fuels greatness...".... really? How about intellect fuels greatness? Human ingenuity? National unity? I think Equality fuels morale.... and Good morale fuels work... and work fuels greatness.
And I still think competition fuels greatness. Just look at sports. Everyone is competing to be the best and that competition motivates them to be the best they can be so that they win.
58.5% of Americans will spend at least one year below the poverty line between the ages of 25 and 75.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
/> (I realize it's wikipedia, but their cited sources are legitimate in this case).
More than one in 7 househoulds, or 14.6% of them, suffered from "food insecurity" in 2008. This means they were in danger of going hungry, and most did.
http://www.bread.org/press-room/releases/more-americans-go-hungry.html
/>
Your view of America is quite skewed because you, much like me, must live in a fairly wealthy, safe region. Before you make generalized assumptions that the rest of America is in your situation, look at the facts...
3.5 million people go homeless according to an annual survey.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html
/>
It's not just about America either. If you want to be chilled to the bone, read this:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
/>
Finally, even in sports that analogy falls through. Because you must also apply it to a global scale. If a team (country) does not cooperate: all share in the rewards, all work together to the same goal, all get treated equally; then they will fail miserably. Cooperation fuels greatness.
Also of those unde the poverty line, how many are there and it's their own fualt? (dropping out, drug use, jail time, unwanted pregnency, ecetora.
But in addition a team does have cuts and doesn't let the weak people in.(now before you bite my head off I am not including disabled people in this.)
As to how long they were hungry, it essentially deals with cases where the amount of hunger was long/severe enough to affect a person's health. To my understanding anyway: I'll find a comparable chart soon. Too lazy at the moment... as that is quite the elusive statistic.
Situations are far too nuanced to make a generalized statistic involving who is at fault for individuals' poverty. And I don't think it is right for us (in most cases) to assume we understand who is to blame...
Those who drop out of school? What if it's to take care of a dying mother?
Those using drugs? What was the cause? Abuse, death, emotional strain?
Those in jail? Wrongful accusation?
Unwanted pregnancies? Condom failure? Sacrificing their own livelihood for their new child's?
I think every situation has a spin.
That's true, but neither model (Socialism or capitalism) ejects people from the country. And besides, a capitalist state does not differentiate between incompetence and disability: if a person is not turning a profit, they are not worth supporting.
Also I never meant to eject people. By if one can't support themselve becuase they are to lazy or too crappy as an induvidial why should we hurt the people who do work hard? Now I do have one question, did you mean your statement, "if a person is not turning profit, they are not worth supporting.". If you did we may be geting somewhere. :)
How does socialism hurt those who work hard? All it does is create equality. And just as you are not supporting true capitalism, I am not supporting true socialism, meaning there is some kind of luxury to be gained. And no, that statement was a rhetorical device criticizing the base capitalist ideal. I think every person is worth supporting, as every man is created equal.
Sorry....that's for another post.
There is a difference between a zygote and a human.
When russia tried communism which is alot like socialismin the financial department, it completely failed. thats because whe government is created you have to think how the common man could abuse it. With socialism all you have to do is sit on your fat ass and you get paid just the same.
I'm not saying you aren't open minded, you seem to be, I just wish you would revise your above statement : ).
a lecturer begins a seminar holding up a 20 dollar bill, and asking:
- Who wants this 20 dollar bill?
Several hands went up, but the lecturer said:
- Before handing it over, there’s something I must do.
He furiously crushed it, and asked again:
- Who still wants this bill?
The hands continued raised.
- And what if I do this?
He threw it against the wall, letting it fall to the floor, kicked it, stamped in it and again held up the bill – all dirty and crumpled. He repeated the question, and the hands continued to be held high.
- You mustn’t ever forget this scene – said the lecturer. – No matter what I do with this money, it’ll still be a 20 dollar bill. Many times in our lives, we are crushed, stamped on, kicked, maltreated, offended; however, in spite of this, we are still worth the same.
Are you saying because equality is hard we shouldn't try for it? Freedom is hard too.
And which figures do you question? I will provide sources for any. And global climate change is EXTREMELY serious. But that's for another discussion.
What points am I not stating equally? I'm very confused.
What great inventions have come out of a socialistic or communistic country?