Appropriately is questioned loyalty and ethics in regards to capitalism versus austerity . One must obey ethics and remain loyal unless one is treated like a stray dog but left stray . Quite clearly all to see is to see but I sense more bs as that is what me senses see. What's your opinion?
We need a little more clarity. Let's ignore the dog and concentrate on basic meaning. What is being questioned? are two separate concepts You can be an honest man loyal to another honest man; an honest man loyal to a thief, a thief loyal to another thief or a thief loyal to an honest man. Loyalties are formed as emotional bonds, not moral imperatives. The two may be in conflict, as when your brother has committed a crime, and you have to choose between fraternity and law. Capitalism and austerity are not in contention with each other. You can have austere capitalism or austere communism. Also, you can be loyal or disloyal in either system. If you want to pursue this, start over. What is the central question?
Well I suppose a dog will always be a dog and seeing stray dogs as seeing homeless humans makes me feel quite sick . Austerity is a factor of division and equality of life being determined by the shares of spoils capitalism divides amongst the working class population and those who need help because they are ill or elderly and unable to work . A sense of greed can obvious be seen by the difference of classes of people , from the homeless at the bottom end of the ladder to the rich considered an higher class . So you say capitalism and austerity are not in contention with each other , I disagree and is born with a silver spoon in your mouth or austerity . There is plenty of things on my mind I would like to say but life's to short to consider everything as such , that would have to explain history and would probably increase my internet time use. So in short I'll try to further give more brief arguments .
Okay. But stray dogs, by definition, do not have owners and do not owe loyalty to anyone. I suppose the same can be said of dispossessed, disenfranchised and displaced people. As to homelessness within an established society, it has many possible causes and several possible solutions (That's assuming the society considers it a problem to be solved. Some societies, including non-capitalist ones, have considered its human detritus a normal fact of life and made a virtue of giving alms to beggars.) This is largely true. However, in order to analyze a situation, you need to examine its components more critically. Austerity may also have a number of different possible causes: war, embargo, bankruptcy, drought, destructive event, depletion of a resource, or even some communal project or belief that demands giving up luxuries. I understand now that by 'austerity' you mean a specific type of political policy, which advocates cuts funding to social programs in order to reduce taxation on high earnings and large properties. Okay, but you need to say so and place it correctly in its context. Greed is universal. Every organism with volition, down to the least intelligent caterpillar, is capable of it. The challenge to a society (human or other) is to teach its young self-control, boundaries and fairness. If the culture itself glorifies wealth and denigrates poverty; if it prizes success at any cost and punishes failure regardless of its causes, that society will engender not only a lopsided economy but very disproportionate values and expectations in different segments of its population. Capitalism celebrates monetary success, because it thrives on growth. Everything in a capitalist society is adjusted to reflect that value system: everything is measured in currency and judged according to its cost/profit ratio. Only because you're using the word 'austerity' incorrectly. Maybe you mean 'want', 'privation', 'penury' or 'destitution'. Or maybe you just need to substitute 'disparity'. That's fine. Keep them rational, well defined and specific. This post was far more coherent than the first one. Hone it a little finer and you're there.
I'm glad you found my post coherent , more than I can say for constant misunderstanding in another thread, the nerve of some people hey because they don't or can't understand you . I've often wondered what the cause of austerity is and oh my it isn't an easy subject and one has to think really hard about the politics involved .
It's a question of motivation. If you want to communicate with others, the onus is on you to express yourself intelligibly. Why should they make the effort to understand gibberish? One can think productively if one understands the words one is using.
Making sense of things is difficult when you can't even make sense yourself. Austerity is a scam that conservatives use to justify reducing social spending while they rape the planet and enrich themselves.
