Asking legitimately not as a joke

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago

    I fully support being able to choose to end your own life with dignity. But in Canada there were reports of people encouraging the homeless and severely ill to do it, simply because it was cheaper and easier for the institutions if these people killed themselves.

    Within a capitalist society, where the lives of those who do not produce profit are not valued, it can lead to some sickening discriminatory behavior from profit-driven institutions.

    • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      within a capitalist society

      Besides slavery, I cannot think of any successful societal system to date that did not prioritize rewarding the productive and/or powerful. Not saying that you’re wrong, just that it’s far from exclusive to capitalism. (The bar for “success” here being a society that exists over many generations)

      • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        26 days ago

        Socialism and communism are specifically designed to put the needs of the people first. ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.’

        • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          26 days ago

          Socialism and communism, in theory, are structured to prioritize the needs of the people over profit or power. That slogan captures that ideal beautifully. However, history shows that the implementation of these systems falls short of their ideals. Issues like bureaucratic inefficiency, corruption, or the consolidation of power within ruling parties have led to systems that still reward the powerful or productive, just in different ways. I’d argue that the challenge isn’t the system itself but the difficulty of designing any system that fully aligns with such principles while addressing the complexities of human behavior and societal needs. Capitalism embraces it while socialism and communism pay lip service to ideals while also committing the same sins in practice. My point that it’s not exclusive to capitalism remains.

            • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              25 days ago

              You mean cronie capitalism. The Fabian Socialist were big into eugenics, remember. Straight capitalism is based on a free and open market. That’s not what anywhere has.

              • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                25 days ago

                No one would want to. Letting capitalists run rampant (more so than they already do) would be extremely destructive for any society.

              • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                25 days ago

                “Free and open markets” work in theory, lol.

                Private ownership over the means of production and allowing people to hoard capital will ALWAYS concentrate wealth and will ALWAYS produce an oligarchy.

                You just unironically made a “capitalism hasn’t actually been tried yet” post in a thread where you’re on the “communism and socialism never work” position.

                The irony is delicious

                • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  25 days ago

                  I never said it’s never been tried, lol. But when the government picks winners and losers, it’s not a free market

                  • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    25 days ago

                    The government exists as a check on the power of huge corporations in this model (and is required to enforce private property in the first place). Who stops the richest company from picking winners and losers? Who stops companies from buying up their competition then cranking up prices? You need a framework to keep the market “free” in the first place.

                    Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, right-libertarianism is an oxy moron.

                    The problem is capitalism, full stop. There’s no good and bad kind, there’s just capitalism. An owning class dictating over a working class isn’t freedom.

                    You don’t need private ownership over the means of production to have trade and markets and productivity.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      26 days ago

      Sources on that? Serious question

      I’ve heard multiple people claiming this yet haven’t read anything about it

    • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      25 days ago

      How many of those people being encouraged are actually doing it tho? That should be the main issue, not the fact that people are encouraging them.