I have already mentioned my socio-economic model is still in the making
(15-Sep-2010, 09:14 AM)madhav Wrote: If you don't mind me, why do you restrict capitalism only to males? Why cannot females take the role of leaders/wealthy person?
Sure they can. But considering the fact that they would have social security throughout their life, they are never going to be real capitalist beings.
Quote:Also, where will the wealth go after a person dies? If the house, savings and other assets of that person be seized, what is to become of his family who are used to a particular standard of living? It might be impossible for them to undergo a drastic reduction in their lifestyle.
A certain standard of living must be maintained for females (that is neither bare minimum nor affluent). Yes, it would be impossible for affluent family children. But I don't care about them. Since it's a capitalist society there won't be any restrictions on them to create the wealth on their own.
Do I need to bother about human psychology (of unknown scientific validity)?
Quote:Also, why restrict social security to females?
Theoretically, there shouldn't be social security for anybody in a capitalist society. This is a bare minimum requirement for keeping the family life stable with females independent of males and males independent of responsibilities other than themselves.
Again, Do I need to bother about human psychology(of unknown scientific validity) or do I need to come up with ideas based on the ground realities of a traditional Indian society? I know you haven't mentioned anything related to this here, however, this was something I have come across earlier (women are responsible and men are bums).
Quote:On a related note, looking at the Western industrial countries with their massive cutbacks on welfare after the 1970s, where do you propose the money will come from for the welfare state?
By disallowing the inheritance of wealth(of both males and females).