1. Competiton, Survival of the Fittest, Success Driven Society, Capitalism, freedom
2. No one "wins" - we all FEEL GOOD, give money to people who choose not to work, allow weak and underqualified people to hve jobs to meet quotas, Big Government
2006-12-12 03:14:10 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Please add VALUES - MORALS - and GOD to number 1. Thank you.
2006-12-12 03:14:50 · update #1
It really can't be an either-or choice. It has to be more a sliding scale. This is arguably the most important issue of our time, as our society has changed so much in the last 25 to 30 years. Obviously, both pure capitalism and pure socialism are horrendous. Pure capitalism can be very cruel, although it results in the most wealth produced in a society. Pure socialism results in so much lost wealth, that eventually almost everyone suffers. The trick is to strike a balance between the good and bad facets of each. For example, we don't want blind or paralyzed people in the street starving to death, but we shouldn't be giving money to able bodied persons. This is unfair to people who are working and reduces their motivation to work and contribute. If we as a society could intelligently discuss every social issue and argue about where it fits into this sliding scale, we might could make some real progress. If we could discuss whether an idea brings us too far left or too far right, instead of being emotionally FOR or AGAINST, maybe we could pass laws that actually make sense. GREAT QUESTION!!!
2006-12-12 03:24:38 · answer #1 · answered by Robert A 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Number 1, with restrictions.
Competition is necessary. Without it there is no feeling of accomplishment
Freedom is essential. This includes the freedom to worship as you see fit, not dictated by society or the government. If freedom is essential, this includes the freedom to not accept the values, morals, and God of another. Responsible freedom is a better term. Freedom to do as you see fit, as long as, in doing so, you do not compromise the freedom of another.
Now we've come to a dilema. If we believe in survival of the fittest and are Christian, can that coexist with Jesus message of compassion towards the less fortunate?
As for #2. in every societal group, there are winners and losers. How should we treat the losers? I'm sure, after your sons game, they shake hands with the other team, win or lose. We, as muture people, need, to some extent, to extend that hand of friendship to those who don't "win".
Towards welfare, the best way to describe it is the old saying "If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he eats for life." I lean towards the latter, but see no problem with feeding the man while he is learning. Welfare should be temporary assistance, not a lifestyle.
Quotas, in a perfect, non-bigotted society, would be unnecessary. But we don't live in a perfect world. If every job and every college slot were given to the best qualified applicant, quotas would not be necessary. I don't like quotas. I don't see any alternative, though. Everyone has a certain level of bigotry.
As for big government, we now have the largest government since FDR. I am opposed to big government. The larger the government, the more intrusive it is and the more money it takes to "feed the beast".
This goes back to an item in #1 - Success Driven Society. This I agree with. Society needs to be driven by sucess and we must do anything we, as Christians, can do to increase someones chance of sucess. Not all failure is caused by poor choices. Sometimes, circumstances beyond our control play a hand, be it illness, natural disaster, etc. Usually it is a combination of the 2. By helping those in need, we increase their chance of sucess.
Robert A makes an excelllent point.
2006-12-12 03:45:12 · answer #2 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The answer depends on what your goals for life are. If you want everyone to be live mundane lives never gain any useful experinece then answer 2 is the best answer.
If you think life is an opportunity for individuals to experience long-term happiness by continually improving themselves. Then people need to have fredom to choose right and wrong and experience the consequences of their actions. Some people might have a miserable experience but those who learn to make good choices will be successful in life usually financially but in every case they will experince true long lasting happiness during their lives as they learn to use their lives and the things they have for good purposes.
I prefer option 1
2006-12-12 03:37:12 · answer #3 · answered by halfway 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
#1 seems the logical choice. It's nice to meet a Christian who understands Darwin for a change. Survival of the fittest indeed!
2006-12-12 03:48:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Where does the current administration fall? 1.5?
Certainly number 2 as it relates to big government (Department of Homeland Security, record debt).
Certainly NOT number 1 as it relates to competition (Halliburton).
NOT number 2 as it relates to allowing allowing weak and underqualified people to have jobs (Brown, Michael Powell, John Ashcroft).
Not number 2 as it relates to "no one wins," (Iraq).
Just wondering . . .
2006-12-12 03:31:56 · answer #5 · answered by Garth Rocket 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Both have advantages and disadvantages, but if your objective is to advance society and make the world a better place through innovation and invention, number 1 is the correct answer. If no one wins, there is no motivation to work harder, think more, try new things, or innovate.
2006-12-12 03:19:50 · answer #6 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
1.
Rome fell because of one major reason that reason is as follows.
Rome conquered many lands and was taxing these lands one form of taxation was food. The citizen soldiers of Rome or the middle class maintained its middle class standing by being farmers. Food became worthless because it was given away so the Middle Class was eliminated. When the hoard showed up at Rome it fell without a fight because there was nothing left to defend. That is to say no middle class meant no one was willing to fight for Romes freedom.
In the end Rome that had built roads that still exist today was merely wiped out by its on politicians and no one would defend her in the end.
2006-12-12 03:20:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Survival of the fittest is Darwinian, as a self proclaimed Christian, you can't believe in that! Government has never been bigger than it is under now under Bush, so I don't understand your choice #2.
2006-12-12 03:17:21 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Seriously, now? This is how you view Conservatism? Finally, a joke on here that I actually find funny. Unless- (chuckle), you surely aren't serious.
Your view is quite flawed. Allow me to help you with my own interpretation:
Number I (Nationalist Fascism) states only those with money can prosper. If you do not do as your country tells you, you are an infidel. If you do not believe in who your country tells you, you are an infidel. If you are a Muslim, you are inherently a terrorist. If you are in the lower class, it is your own fault and you do not deserve aid, as we know everybody who gets aid will abuse it.
Number II (Socialism) states that everything is shared, government all the way. Everybody's happy, give money to everybody so we're all equal.
Number II-B (Liberalism), however, states that money is given for a limited amount of time as aid to an individual, to allow them to get on their feet. All religion is allowed, including Islam.
That's my little interpretation of your bullshit question. Go ahead, report me if you want; typical comeback for a coward.
2006-12-12 03:19:29 · answer #9 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I would choose number 1, too bad we live in number 2.
2006-12-12 03:24:01 · answer #10 · answered by cantwaitborder 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋