Alex, I find myself constantly puzzled by your apparent faith in some very simplistic (and poorly supported) assertions. Capitalism works. Capitalism is in accord with 'human nature'. Socialism allows no innovation etc. etc.
AlexVocat wrote:Was the space race needed? Not one bit. But who cares? It was advertisement for the US. But who cares? Look out at the moon tonight and remember that we went there. It could have paid for many baby-incubators, many mosquito nets, many bags of rice, many water pumps. But if the people that needed those things weren't here, the need for them wouldn't have been there either.
OK, it's true that if humans don't exist, then there are no human needs.
Including the need for moon-trips. I don't see consistency in your thinking here. You seem to be suggesting that the needs of well-off people (for innovation, discovery, entertainment (?) etc) are important, but that the needs of the poor are best dealt with by having the poor cease to exist! I'm sure that isn't your conscious intention, but it's difficult to read your argument above any other way.
AlexVocat wrote:Implementing global socialism is like a reserve parachute. If it's not big enough when deployed, there's no back up, no going back. And it isn't big enough.
This statement is based on no evidence at all, but seems to be based on your own imagined picture of 'global socialism'. But you don't say anything specific about it.
AlexVocat wrote:Yes we could all live in a state that's still be better than many of the poor of today. But if we do that now then we'll all be just trying to survive.
Why? Can you explain why you believe this?
AlexVocat wrote:We'd be better off than a lot of the absolute poor of today but there would be no attempt at innovation because securing everyone's next meal is too important.
Or there might be a push to innovation precisely
because feeding everyone is so important.
AlexVocat wrote:Thus, there's no progress, no increasing prosperity, no change at all. Humanity, as a whole, would have taken a giant leap backwards.
Again, can you outline the assumptions on which you base this prediction?
AlexVocat wrote: Former socialist states may have failed due to other reasons than them being socialist. You're right that we shouldn't associate cause and effect so readily, yet it is an idealist's non-acceptance of the world that gave rise to this 'alternative system' and in both theory and practice it's not the best option.
In the first sentence you recognise that the previous attempts at socialism are unreliable examples, and then at the end of the second sentence you use them as incontrovertable evidence that socialism 'is not the best option'.
(Interesting use of 'idealist' in this context, incidentally. Marxism is certainly not 'idealist' in the philosophical sense.)
AlexVocat wrote: There are direct consequences of socialism which would be repeated in any country it was tried in.
Name some.
AlexVocat wrote: Wrong species? Well yes in the sense that we want more. We don't want to see our fellow humans suffer, but we wan't more. We can satisfy both of these desires with capitalism.
I noted earlier your appeals to human nature, but have yet to see exactly what you think human nature is. I wonder if you could point to any parts of human behaviour (individual or collective) which can be attributed to
anything other than human nature? And if you can point out any such behaviours, would you like say what you think causes these behaviours?
AlexVocat wrote:The CEO of Tesco does not wish to directly lower other people's quality of life, but he wants more for himself. It just so happens that the naturally developed system of capitalism will satisfy his greed whilst - if kept in check - not detrimenting other people's quality of life.
I have no idea what motivates Phillip Clarke, or his predecessor Sir Terry Leahy. I doubt it's greed. Anyone who has a few million quid really has no use for any more spending power.
Leaving aside speculation about the motivations of this or that successful businessman, we can start to think a little more deeply about why people who already have far more money that they could ever 'spend' continue trying to make more.
You most definitely can have too much to eat, more videos than you can physically watch in a lifetime, or too many suits and shoes to wear. But money is more than just a purchasing ticket. Money also brings political and social power and status. So why do some individuals drive for more and more power and status? I wonder if there are some (probably a minority) individuals who are for some reason never able to stop struggling for more and more 'respect'? Perhaps such individuals do not understand that respect cannot be commanded, but they know that fear and obedience can be.
The drive for more and more power is possibly related to an inability to understand that fear and obedience are not signs of respect.