In fairness, a lot of the famine was caused by the governments religious objection to the Irish. That govoner whos name escaped me literally said he hated the Irish, and called the famine a punishment from god.
I think part of that is their appeal to evangelicals. Evangelicals are the easiest conned people on the planet... look at how many give tons of money so their megachurch pastor can buy a bigger jet
I don’t know, my dad managed to get pretty wealthy by being intelligent and taking advantage of the system. Something he would never have accomplished under communism or socialism, something he himself told me, having grown up in a communist country.
It definitely does happen, but there's also people who are in circumstances that would make them have no chance, no matter how smart they are or how hard they worked.
The problem with this line of thinking is that the "lowliest of the low" that you think somehow has a fighting chance under capitalism, would be either starved off, or worked to death under capitalism in the first place as said so here:
so to be able to come out on top in a capitalist system, anyone that comes out on top isn't at the very bottom of the pile in the first place, and even then that just loops around this point being true:
So it's rather difficult to take the idea of Capitalism as "benevolent" because you and yours came out on top of the pile of corpses that's' only slightly smaller than other systems, and due to luck wasn't a part of the pile. It's just a gamble with a better chance to win for some, and no chance to win for some, unless you consider losing your left hand because you didn't work hard enough as a win.
That was largely due to Weather. The rest is pretty horrible, but not comparable numerically. Again, I’m not saying capitalism is perfect, I just have a very apprehensive and negative reaction to anything vaguely reminiscent to equality of outcome, let alone more hardcore left wing ideas.
Which is why I said that I’m in favour of social capitalism, where those who want to can become billionaires, but those who can’t have a safety net. Welfare =/= socialism.
After a certain tens of thousands dead, we're just splitting hairs. Both have a body count, and both can be exploitative and ruin lives and families, and I'd go further and say that the death and suffering one system causes doesn't somehow make the death and suffering under any other system some how "lesser" or more tolerable, least of all from someone that benefits from either system; naturally they aren't going to oppose something that helped them.
The issue is more so the assertion that it's in any way shape or form a kind system. It isn't. Its incredibly cutthroat and aggressive, and has had to be curtailed and fettered time and time again, because of the extensive potential for harm - that usually comes to pass - that comes inherent to it.
You’re literally describing democratic socialism.
I’m describing third way liberalism, not democratic socialism. One rejects wealth redistribution, while other does not.
How are you paying for safety nets for the poor then? The money has to come from somewhere.
Wouldn't that be a really grody bottle if you keep using it?
It doesn't matter, it will uncancel the cancellation (despite buying more of that company's product instead of buying another syrup brand)
They're angry that Aunt Jemima removed the mascot because it panders to "woke people"
