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.

But not babies?


Sorry....that's for another post.

Fair. Except I disagree with you on when a baby is considered a human being.

There is a difference between a zygote and a human.

Fair. : ).

I agree. Very fair. :p

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.

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?

You proved my point here:

www.sharenator.com/Addition_to_Bill_of_Rights/

On your comment on how you felt about each article. You said, "Many Americans are far from charitable. Changing the social norm of greed would be extremely beneficial to the country as a whole, and I think everyone should have the right to food... and life... just like our Declaration states."

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.

Charity: the act of help or relief to the poor.

In socialism wealth is distributed evenly so working harder than required is a lot like you working overtime right now and giving the rest to charity.

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.

But working extra hard to prevent someone from being poor is. C'mon let's not split hairs....socialism is in a nutshell forced charity.

If I allow you to say that, then I get to say that Capitalism, in a nutshell, is forced labor. A.k.a. slavery.

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.)

No, if we are talking extremes, as you are, capitalism amounts to slavery, easily the most efficient, cost-friendly labor.

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.

No, I think you misunderstand socialism. In the ideal socialist state, everyone has a job...

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?

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.

www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf

Good for them. But small businesses also have the same problem... ultimately the owner is working for his own gain.

But that's the entire point. The owner opened that business for one reason, to make money.

Exactly, in capitalism, that's true. In socialism, it is not.

But if there is no chance for profit why open a bussiness. Why? There is risk than there can be no reward. Then no one would want to open a bussiness