IF YOU GET INTO A POLITICAL DISCUSSION with an american conservative, which might not always be the wisest thing to do, and the topic turns to economcs, said american conservative will quite predictably tout the virtues of capitalism, and the evils of socialism.
one of the arguments he or she is likely to present is that capitalism is more in keeping with human nature that socialism. capitalism is human nature, socialism isn't. the implicit assumption is that since this is the case, capitalism or more workable, more natural, more desirable.
all this is of course debatable. suffice to say, just for the sake of argument, that capitalism is indeed more in harmony with human nature than socialism. is that a reason to implement it? or, perhaps, a reason to avoid it?
who in their right mind would want to subsidize and encourage human hature in its present form anyway? wouldn't it be better to work on changing it, possibly through nano technology and chemo therapy? or, perhaps, somewhat gentler methods, like moral reform.
what's so great about human nature anyway? anything we wouldn't want to change? capitalism is competition, self interest, self sufficiency. socialism is cooperation, interdependency. Granted, humans might be more competitive than cooperative, though that is debatable.
But even so, is that eny reason to encourage it, to surrender to it? competition, after all, is the foundation of violence, and war. just how much of that do we need in our economic system?
perhaps a sustainable balance between competition and cooperation, between freedom and responsibility, wealth and poverty can be achieved, a reasonably prosperous middle class.
but not unless we are all willing to change our beliefs, attitudes, behavior, and very nature...
Bb
please scroll down...THANKS!
No comments:
Post a Comment