What is your political opinion?

I am not surprised that companies can't materialise in places where people can't afford to use the services. I bet in those same areas where there are no trains, the average citizen doesn't sport flatscreens and sports cars either. Instead other companies like basket weavers and fruit markets are more fitted to those circumstances.

 

alternatley sewing jeans/ sneakers seems more fitted to those areas as well then.

 

So you do agree that Capitalism is based on profit, not on actual human needs.
If a poor villager gets malaria, should he walk for 100 miles to get to a hospital because he "cannot afford" to use a transport service?

 

He should see a witch doctor or whatever there is locally first, but after that, you are right, he might have to walk those 100 miles. It will probably take three days or so, which is a long time for someone with a terminal disease, and he will sadly maybe end up dying hwell:

EDIT: Let it be known that if it was up to me, treatment facilities like hospitals should never be more than 40 miles away, and ambulances should be able to reach you withing 30 min, but since this is not MY scenario but Rolf's I cannot suddenly spawn a hospital closer than the 100 miles away.

 

Superstition doesn't help.

Malaria is not necessarily a terminal disease.
Anyways, there you go,ladies and gentlemen. Capitalism in a nutshell, right here.
"If you can, good for you. If you can't...what a pity.".
Also, this is quite an interessant example of social darwinism, we might say.

This is not fantasy, this is a real scenario. With shoulds and ifs you don't go anywhere.

 

OK Witch doctor was a bad wording. I meant like a herbalist or something.
And yes that could work in a capitalist society but it could also happen in a communist society.

 

Don't underestimate the power of placebo

 

Well in theory communism is the perfect community. Everyone has food, housing, material goods. People aren't starving and they have everything they want. Only issue is that who ever starts the communist revolution becomes a dictator.

 

Okay, guys go back and read what DrDarcy and me posted about communism. Then go back and also read what I posted about it in the "Communists?" threads... only THEN even mention the word.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a smartass, but (in previous discussions) I've heard enough bullshit and ignorant comments about communism from various people on the forum who know very little about the subject to know where this is heading.

Also, notice that there is a big difference between communism and Communism.

 

I'm out. No more political discussions on the forum, apparently people are not allowed to voice their opinion before spending months or weeks studying a specific for of government (or lack of so), and it's already becoming hateful, with cusswords and anger. hwell:

EDIT: I had already read your post in "Communists?" Bamul. I don't recall it contradicting with what I've read

 

I'm not saying you or anyone in particular. I'm not saying anyone has said anything stupid about it in this thread - I'm just preparing for it based on what others have said in the past.

Also, you have the right to say whatever you want, but when you say something in public then you should also be prepared for others to challenge your point of view as they also have that right. I haven't really challenged your point of view, I'm just preparing for shit to start flying when a misinformed discussion about the subject starts because of whoever. I just fear that it will at some point.

 

Saw this very wise post on reddit today. From these, I'd call myself a liberal.


Of course this isn't bulletproof material and the writer has no education within ethics or philosophy, but it sums up a lot of the ideologies in a (relatively) unbiased way.

 

I wonder if wikipidia helped

 

I'd say from looking at that I'm a Marxist-Liberal.

 

wut?

 

im still a evil center right nut according to my Facebook

 

Actually, the definition of "liberal" in that post looks more the one of anarcho-capitalist to me.

 

But in order to give up a freedom (murder) to receive a greater freedom (you don't get murdered) wouldn't there need to be a government to enforce that right/law? From what I understand anarchism is the lack of goverment

 

That's the contradiction! That post's "liberalism" is strongly against the State, but then it says it renounces to some rights.