6 ms·
In fairness, if you didn't have to worry about where your next meal was coming from, it might be easier to not want to violate your ethics to get ahead in life.
by Edman274 6y ago
In fairness, if you didn't have to worry about where your next meal was coming from, it might be easier to not want to violate your ethics to get ahead in life. This is not an endorsement of socialism, rather, a defense of criticism of capitalism.
- topspin 6y agoThe market economy I live in, where you imagine we spend our time worrying about our next meal, has fostered the largest cohort of morbidly obese people in the history of our species. And I am utterly incapable of imagining anything less in need of defense than criticism of capitalism.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoIt indeed achieves both, at the same time! Here's how it works: a typical person - particularly an American - gets enough money to buy more food than they'd ever need, but at the same time, they're ~two random events (e.g. sudden medical or car repair bill, and losing their job) from becoming homeless. It's really not that hard to imagine living in luxury and fear at the same time. That's how rich and/or powerful people feel in less democratic countries - they simultaneously have more money than they know what to do with, and are one random event (mistake, shifting political winds) from losing it all, possibly along with their lives. It's actually one of the main reasons democracy is considered the superior system - powerful people living in fear is a combination that often leads to blood being spilled.
- ActorNightly 6y ago>f you didn't have to worry about where your next meal was coming from, This is statistically true for more people living under capitalism than socialism btw.