Compare this with communism, anarchism, etc. They assume that humans are basically good. Let's just increase everyone's income! Except that isn't sustainable unless it makes economic sense. Negative externalities and all that. There's always going to be people that want power and money and prestige. If you get rid of money, they'll seek those things by turning Russia into a dictatorship. Why should they care about the people starving in the holodomor famine? It's an externality.
Note, of course, that capitalism only works well if you have strong human rights and the rule of law. If either of those fail, you get corruption and slavery. But strong human rights and the rule of law aren't going to change the fact that some (many) people will still be working for $2 a day, simply because they've got no better option. The world sucks, but idealism alone can't fix it.
I don't think I'm explaining my point very well, so let me just state it plainly: it's easy to complain about our f^@!$d up system, but much harder to find a solution that works any better. Before you advocate radical architectural changes, you better be able to prove that your revolution won't eat it's young.
This doesn't mean that we get to sit back and enjoy our lives without guilt. I think every person in the first world has a moral imperative to help people in developing countries. However, we need to be realistic about what works. One great way to improve lives is to provide education, or employment for people who complete higher education. Technology provides a good opportunity in this regard (not the best opportunity, but it's something that we can do, without excuse). There's no reason why a Rwandan in Kigali can't earn first-world wages for doing software development.
This sounds a little like the US today. In order for capitalism to deliver what promise it holds, it must be saved from the capitalists. That means intelligent regulation (as opposed to mere red tape).
Your radicalism is just as useless to that girl as is the opposite opinion you deride.
Been tried. Didn't work out very well.
It's just sad and juvenile.
What works? Incremental changes that you can make while keeping the current system running. It's ok if you have some grand masterplan behind your changes, but try and make sure those small changes will be valuable even if you have to abandon the grand plan, or change its direction. So I now approach politics this way, and it feels like this is a more mature position, not less.
Gradual change do not exclude fundamental change - eventually. Revolution is after all just evolution speeded up. It's just a different approach.
I'm waiting for someone to tell me that Communism works, but that people are broken, the most marvelous rationalization that history ever spit forth.
Not as much as you would if you wrote a bit less and read a bit more.
There's little wrong with Rahman's post in general. There's plenty wrong with the psychological mechanics that led it to quietly bubble to the top. Many people rightly see it as an "authentic" shield or cover for their own apathy. Hurl "slacktivism" my way, I'll call you a Randroid or something (I'm not feeling very inspired). Ultimately via this message board all we can do is expose the kernel of our philosophies. Mine is that all wealthy people that react to a story of strife by seeking a reassuring explanation to carry on about their business (ie: the silent upvoters) are probably bad people in the only meaningful sense of the word: selfish and reactionary.
Keep explaining to me how this is the best of all feasible worlds and how your privileged position in it isn't clouding your objective economical understanding of things. Keep telling me about political correctness and "outrage tourism" as obstacles to Bangladesh's rational child labor economic success story in the making- they could be as happy and equal as South Koreans and Americans one day!
I'm just a young cloudy-headed incipient leftist, what do I know?