..do you know any Mexican farm laborers,
Matter of fact, I do. We import them to Canada too.
You vastly exaggerate the poverty of a group of laborers who the vast majority aren't even here legally, and hence, not all make minimum wage.
And you don't think that's an injustice? "Illegal immigration" is an injustice in itself. People should be able to go legally wherever dollars do. It's an oxymoron to have a "free trade" agreement that doesn't include the free and legal cross-border movement of labour as well as goods and investments.
As for exaggerating their poverty, have you checked what the Mexican labourers think about the situation back in Mexico? If they weren't fleeing poverty, why did they come to Tennessee illegally?
Why vegetables were leaving Ethiopia I don't know, but I'll guarantee you that there was food arriving from guess what-evil capitalist America.
Sure, after you've bought out all the healthy nutritious vegetables out from under them, pride yourself on the minimum rations of carbs and milk powder you send out from the good ole US to the people who wouldn't be starving in the first place if you hadn't robbed them of their own produce. And don't forget that while it may have been US charities and US taxes that sent the relief, the rations were still purchased from US Agri-business corporations--at a profit to them.
I wouldn't be so proud of such "charity" if I were you.
not sure if this was supposed to be an argument for socialism or just an attempt to make the US look like the boogey man for feeding most of the world.
Why should the US be patted on the back for feeding most of the world when it won't even feed all its own? And when most of the world can feed itself very well when the US (and Europe) don't interfere with their capacity to do so.
The fact is that the US and Europe need the markets of the rest of the world to absorb their own overproduction. That's why they artificially create agricultural shortages elsewhere through cut-throat, heavily subsidized competition. And then they have the nerve to call this government-dependent competition "capitalism". Fact, is, neither America nor Europe can really cut it in true free trade. So they need Big Daddy Government to break the way for them.
And then you have the gall to paint yourselves as saviours of the world's poor.
The capitalists of Jesus' day had the same skewed mental outlook. Luke 22:25
That you're even arguing against the US (a rich country) spending its money to feed starving people across the world and keep food costs down doesn't seem to make much sense for a socialist to be arguing.
That's because you keep associating socialism with charity instead of with what it is really about. Justice, not charity. The justice of being able to eat what you grow yourself instead of having to sell it to pay off debts contracted by a former dictator and then be dependent on the charity provided by the very creditors you had to sell your food to pay.
Creditors who are profiting at every turn. Their banks hold the money the dictators stole from the people in the first place, and their banks are also collecting interest on the funds that were stolen from the people it was stolen from. Their businesses buy the produce that goes to pay the debt and their businesses profit from the relief goods sent to the starving.
Charity is a very murky business when you start exploring it. There's good in charity and far be it from me to say "let people starve". But there is lots of greed and pride in charity too. Christians need to be very astute and very humble when it comes to dispensing charity. And we should always, always, always seek justice with charity in preference to charity without justice.
That is what socialism means to me: justice, not charity.
and capitalism calls for everyone carrying their own load,
Socialism does too. It's not just "to each according to his need". It is also "from each according to his ability".
Indeed, one of the huge problems with capitalism is that it wastes so many abilities and does not use people's abilities. Capitalism depends on having an always available (e.g. unemployed) pool of labour. It depends on keeping a %age of people out of the workforce. (A good writer on this topic is Daniel Quinn. Read
Ishmael if you haven't already.) Don't believe me? Ask an economist about the acronym NAIRU.
economic freedom to the individual,
Socialism calls for this too. Unlike capitalism, however, socialism recognizes that economic freedom and poverty are mutually exclusive. You cannot have economic freedom where poverty is a reality or even a real threat.
Eradicate poverty and there will be genuine economic freedom for all.
dunno, they can in capitalist countries though.
Not until very recently. And it took the feminist movement to assure it, not capitalism.
Want to know who the real pioneers were in giving women economic rights? Muslims.
1400 years before any European or American woman had the right to independent ownership of real assets, it was prescribed in the Qur'an that what a woman earned belonged to her and her alone. Her husband had no legal claim on it. Meanwhile as late as the mid-20th century English Common Law--the basis for American law as well, held that as man and wife were one in marriage, anything a married woman earned belonged legally to her husband as well.
And there are still many parts of the world where women are excluded as owners of assets.
Maybe in the theocracies and dictatorships of the Middle East they can't.
Actually, as noted above, Islamic law has given women their own property for more than a millennium.
If the hockey player makes millions he's in an upper tax bracket and pays about half of his income in taxes
Don't be ridiculous. 50% is only the rate on the top taxable dollar. And millionaires have lots of tax shelters available. I doubt many actually pay anywhere near half their income in taxes. Not to mention that there are practically no taxes on accumulated wealth.
Middle-income earners are more likely to be paying close to half their incomes in taxes, and they don't have the cushion of accumulated wealth either.
which the government piddles away on, among other things, social programs to help subsidize daycares and those in lower employment brackets.
Indeed, "piddles" is the operative word. Then they blame people for being "unproductive". Well, you get what you pay for.
I've never heard of someone running a daycare making minimum wage though,
Oh, I don't doubt the owner is doing well. I was speaking of the workers.
They're made dependent on welfare, first of all, not because there isn't child care, but because they are incapable of providing for themselves.
That slander speaks volumes of your real attitude. So far removed from Jesus' compassion. You know so little of those whom you speak of from your lofty and comfortable seat as dispenser of charity. To you, they are not really people at all. They don't have hopes and dreams and skills and talents going to waste. They are just a drag on the system, a waste of your taxes.
That's capitalism for you.
Child care is expensive, true, but people are in all honesty, not supposed to be able to support a family on their own without government assistance when they have 0 skills and no real education or training.
So you punish them with poverty. Right!!!
How about starting off seeing that every child gets the benefit of real education and training instead?
How about seeing that every adult who needs it is provided with real education and training instead of left homeless in the streets or stuck in project housing with no help to raise her kids for better things?
Tell me, where does scripture say that the way to deal with the uneducated and unskilled is to either let them literally starve,or fester in conditions of social neglect generation after generation?
If it be welfare OR government provided childcare, she is still on government assistance and the government is still spending money on her. The end result is the same-government expense and the person becoming dependent on it.
No. Welfare dependency is a real thing. It's a horrid trap I wish on no one. But government provided day-care is enabling. It enables her to go out and get education, get a job, make something of herself, and one day be able to pay for private day-care if she prefers. Indeed, one day, she could be the operator of one of those day-care centres, a bona fide capitalist entrepreneur.
I support any socialist measure that works with a person to establish their personal independence. I oppose any "socialist" measure that traps people in unwanted dependency. So I support universal health care, universal education, social security, universally accessible daycare, etc. I oppose welfare that is nothing more than a pittance to keep people alive and idle. Again, it is justice, not charity, that is the key.
Gotta love NAFTA.. North American FREE TRADE Agreement, which is really the only thing giving any Latin American countries the ability to become industrialized or agriculturally independent BECAUSE they have free trade with the US and can get equipment cheaper and can sell their exports without worrying about tariff.
Yep, that's why the people of Latin American organized against the hemispheric extension of NAFTA and why the FTAA is currently dead in the water. That's why newly-confident 3rd-world countries have resisted the US agenda at the WTO ever since Seattle and are demanding more attention be paid to their agenda if the US wants anymore concessions from them.
Corruption in Mexico is the problem, not their big brother to the north.
I notice you don't mention that it is the corrupt Mexican leaders who signed it into NAFTA.
Chinese kids working in sweatshops is socialism at its finest, what can I say?
Guess you haven't heard about the new capitalist China.
....to be continued
