This became much longer than I had intended, but it is a very interesting discussion. I hope the length doesn't discourage you.
evanos said:
When corporations make products they look to cut costs as much as they can, and one major downside of this is the effect on the enviornment. Most companies will go to almost any end to cut costs, regardless of the cost on people and the environment. If it means dumping waste they dont care.
Hit that one in my ethics in the profession class. That is one of those situations where the government is needed for setting boundries. In this case, the government makes being environmentally friendly the more cost advantage option. They make it so that to pollute x tons of waste costs y amount of dollars in fees and fines. Suddenly, dumping is no longer the most cost effective option.
Another factor to consider is many companies can incorporate an eco friendly ad campaign to increase sales as an off set for higher environment expenses.
WHen dealing with hazardous materials that they cannot dispose of legally they simply dilute it into water until it reaches a legal limit that they can dump it
Except its not that simple. Not only do companies have a contaminate concentration limit in parts per million for example, but they also get volume limits. I learned way more than I wanted about this from a field trip to the local sewage treatment plant for Fayetville. Everything is carefully measured in that not only do that have to keep the concentration low, but they have to keep the volume down. However, dillution is a possible solution because it is accomplishing the goal of not realesing a toxin concentration so thick it shocks the environment.
Sculli said:
So would it be fair to say that you believe that the some 45 million Americans who do not have health care coverage just don't consider it important enough?
Correct. They have their priorities, and they put healthcare somewhere on the list. On the top of the list are usually things like food, electricitiy, cell phones (sad, but true), shelter, etc. If healthcare is important enough to them they can get it or work more to get it. However, I see the real problem with healthcare as its current high expense brought on by the vast amount of insurance doctors need against malpractice and how expensive that insurance is, which is a direct result from frivolous and/or too large of lawsuit amounts. This expense gets passed on to the consumer. A study I saw a couple years back put our malpractice suits as averaging 10 times the amount in other modern countries. This has an additional effect of motivating potential doctors to other careers which decreases supply and causes the price level to rise.
When I say socialist economy, I am talking economy as currently practiced in Germany or Sweden. With that in mind, the above quote doesn't ring true.
Like evalos pointed out and I discovered after further research, there are no true socialist governemnts nor economies currently in effect in the globe. Those two for example are still heavily influenced by capitalist styles and don't meet the requirements of a socialist economy. Even the socialist websites I checked decry the heavy capitalist style found in all current European countries. So really, you are comapring a capitalist economy to a slightly crippledcapitalist/socialist economy (crippled slightly because of the socialist aspect :wink
.
I believe that all people should earn their keep, but I am willing to accept that some don't, and I feel that if that number of loafers is small enough to be acceptable
Except the number of loafers will never remain small and acceptable. This is the very problem of group work and what happens the second you move away from individual motivation. To take a quote on
Social Loafing: "social loafing is the phenomenon that persons make less effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when they work alone. This is one of the main reasons that groups sometimes
perform less than the combined performance of their members working as individuals." In some of the studies I have seen on this the group effort of 4-5 people can result in less than the individual effort of any single member when motivated individually. Now apply that to an entire country, and you have a major reduction in output. This is best seen in the U.S.S.R.'s attempts at communism. There was no motivation.
We have much more in common with animals than we realize. What drives us everyday is the desire to survive. When survival is gurannted, you remove the most basic and instintual motivator from us. Look at teenagers for example. Some nievely float through school comfortable that their survival is secure as they live off their parents and their performance has little effect on whether they will survive. It's a huge temptation to simply slack, and many take it. Move that into the working world, and you have full on economic collapse.
Don't get me wrong, I like money as much as the next guy, but I believe that a modern society has an obligation to all its members, even the unproductive ones.
All, but the mentally handicapped have the ability to be productive. I can accept keeping them in asylums. Thus, beyond that there shouldn't be anyone not working. There are jobs for the blind, deaf, mute, disabled, etc. Not the best jobs, but jobs that earn their survival. Guranteed survival of all is anti-evolutionary and anti the ways of nature. Nature has always taught that the weak get picked from the herd and that makes the herd stronger and healthier. It sounds cruel and cold, and it is. I admit that before Answa points it out. However, it is a necessary evil for advancement and the long term benefits outweigh the costs in this instance. Funny you say you are after "the greater good of the nation" too, but we are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. :biggrin:
Interesting analogy for death penalty. Personally, I justify it by saying there are less killed innocently than are saved by the deterent. When I apply that to the choice between capitalist and socialist, it comes down to which I think will save more lives. I would then have to go with the capitalist for many the reasons I have stated already (check my logic post), but they would include more medical R&D, higher standard of living, healthier society if the weakest who can't provide for themselves are removed.
as long as the productive elements of society are sufficently rewarded, and do not feel that the loafers are a burden on them, things are fine.
Except, we already have elements in our capitalist society who do feel the loafers are a burden on them. This can be seen in the many complaints about welfare for example. That only becomes a bigger problem as more and more come to depend on the governments survival when you move farther from capitalism. Its an exponential effect. The more loafers there are, the more productive workers become disillusioned, the more they in turn loaf.
Likewise the workers in socialized systems are sufficiently compensated. Between salaries, lower hours per work week, significantly more annual leave, the ability to take vacations without to hold two jobs to pay for it, and enjoying a wide varierty of free or heavily subsidized services provided by the government, the socialized system worker does simply not feel shafted.
Except, they will have to work more hours than in a capitalist system because the capitalist system will be more efficient for previously stated reasons. You can't get more benefits
and less work time with a less efficient system. As one increases, the other decreases. Easy way to view it is: Time worked = Overall Benefits. If the nation as a whole works less time, then the benefits will decrease, if they work more time, then their are more benefits to be passed out. However, they will be limited and always underperform a capitalist economy because they won't be as efficient.
