It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: subtopia
a reply to: dieseldyk
I get your point dieseldyk yet crony capitalism as you call it has some justified merit. There is nothing worse than a person coming up with a good idea, get it all the way to market then have it copied to the point where it becomes unviable for the creator to continue their business.
Plus the justification for most governments to limit entry into markets is so they increase the contributions they get from the limited companies in the industry, and have less people to deal with when they make decisions.
originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: dieseldyk
Capitalism is Crony Capitalism. I cannot think of a single instance where "you scratch my back and...." has not applied in capitalist transactions.
In theory there is a magical/mystical "invisable hand" but theory and practise are two entirely different realms...
You can prove me wrong by a single example where there wasn't 'crony' in the capitalism.
originally posted by: Bluesma
Where I live, basic necessities for living and healthcare are pretty much guaranteed.
Now, as an american, I was sure, at first, that that must mean people are all lazy bastards as a result.
For, if we don't have our survival instincts stimulated, why would anyone bother working??
So far, what I observe is that there seems to be people who are naturally more individualistic, and ambitious, and others which are not. No matter what the upbringing and cultural education. Sometimes within the same family, siblings will differ on this point.
I have been a business owner here in the capitalist side, and have experienced being an employee in the socialist public sector.
I mingled with other very individualistic ambitious colleagues, and with the other more social minded and less ambitious colleagues.
Two very different systems.
I observe that individuals, when not in the sector that they are naturally "made for" don't do well. They have handicaps of a sort, which challenge them.
I am not doing well in the public sector, though I excelled in the private one. What happens is that you get natural drives which have to be repressed, and cause problems for you.
I have an innate drives for problem solving, intellectual stimulation and growth, and independance, that don't get met in the public socialist area. I had that in common with my colleagues in the private sector. We were taxed heavily, and working long hours, sometimes for no pay... so why did we do it? Why did we bother creating our own business? Because of those drives! -NOT money.
Now, I sit in front of a woman who has worked for 20 years as a cooks aide in a hospital, and cannot understand why she is content there! She loves it. She is always on time and happy to come in whenever needed, even on her days of vacation, if needed. Jesus, I think, how do you find the motivation to get out of bed each day???
She can stop at any time and just stay at home with her small child, and get the same pay, for the rest of her life! She doesn't NEED to be there to survive. She will never be promoted to anything more interesting, and she doesn't care.
But she still does it. She has drives I just don't feel so much. She has the need for familiarity, for being with others, for a feeling of inter-dependence in a group, for automatic reactions and movements. It makes her feel good to be doing same-old, same-old. She has no drive for challenge, for independence, or intellectual growth. The fact that she has financial security, her basic necessities met, does not stop her from working, because work provides something else she needs- social interaction and bonding, the physical pleasure of familiar structure and ritual.
She would do horribly in the private sector. She would hate the challenges of problem solving; she would hate the long hours alone into the night working out her accounting, or organizing her stock. She would have problems adapting to the changing needs of her clients and the experimentation necessary to find the best response to the market. She would, quite simply, fail miserably. Even if she had been raised in a country which taught her from an early age that all people love independence and challenge- even if she believed it was true of herself.
I say that because I see people all the time that have grown up with the values of this society (which teach that all people feel a need for social inter-dependence, familiar ritual, security) and believe it is true of them, and yet they seem to be wrong. Their need for independence, ambition, and challenge still bleeds through, but in negative (subconscious) ways. They get competative, where the naturally social people don't- at all. They get very resentful and nasty when someone else coms up with a solution, or does something alone- as if they are jealous- a part of them wanted to do that and they repressed it.
The naturally social in the private sector get jealous of those who live out their social nature, not competing to get ahead of each other, and staying within comfortable familiar environments and movements. A part of them wishes they could do that too, but their education has taught them to repress those needs.
What I am suggesting here, is that within any nation, any culture, you will get perhaps half the people naturally inclined to innovate and entrepreneur, and half naturally inclined to stay secure in working conditions and teamwork. (or perhaps different percentages, I don't know)
No matter what the cultural values, that is true on a deep level, and if the system they have grown up with is not one their natural drives are appropriate for, they get bitter and resentful for anyone that dares to live them out.
Here, if you are independant and innovative, you are a bad guy. That is actually what the Chambre of Commerce warned me about when I set out on my own. (you a corrupt egotistical bastard)
In the US, if you are not that, and you are more social and less competative, you are the bad guy. (a lazy bastard)
Capitalist education teaches us that everyones motivation is money. But I suspect that everyones motivation is self fulfilment.... and selves differ.
Sorry I got so long. I had been pondering yesterday why two women at work just hate me and are making my life hell, seemingly for no reason. My intuition simply said "because they are Alpha females, like you." I had to think hard about what that meant. They don't believe in trying to get ahead individually, in the need for leadership, or independence. But it seems clear to me that, regardless of their beliefs, they have those drives, and trying to repress them causes them much discomfort- and resentfulness when they see me go ahead and do something alone, or peep up with a solution to a problem (which they probably thought of, but repressed speaking, out of fear of standing out from the group). They show an amazing amount of intelligence in creating "traps" of various kind for me, and I keep thinking, it is too bad such creative intelligence is being channelled into destructive acts instead of constructive endeavors!
Those that don't have those drives just don't feel any reaction to my actions. They don't care. They are fulfilled.
originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: TheJourney
I come from a hedonistic and Aristolean philosophical background, so the libertarian movement in America was very inspiring to me, but I agree with you in part. I appreciate the freedom and social liberation aspect of libertarianism, but the anarcho-capitalist backbone is disquieting. I'm an economic mutualist, but I believe democracy must be penetrating and decentralized in order for it to offer optimal levels of freedom. You need a universal system of basic justice, a basic system of contract law and a confederacy of microstates that affords people the opportunity of travel. If you give them these basic things, they can vote with their feet and move to places that give them optimal levels of freedom and opportunity.
The mistake is assuming that there is only one type of paradise.
Even a very small oasis can be paradise in the midst of a vast desert.
Anyway, true multiculturalism and true diversity will lead to a very cultured and very satisfying world. That can never happen so long as we have centralized policy makers making one-size-fits-all decisions for large masses of voiceless people.
originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Helious
I would add; when the constitution was written leeches were still a part of medical and x-rays were unheard of, health care then and the constitution. thanks for the lol's
originally posted by: sylvie
That was a very thoughtful post, and I agree that there are different types of people everywhere. BUT I would also say that many of us have those contradictory traits within themselves.
originally posted by: CB328
45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
Then add all thee people that die from air pollution, cancer from chemicals, cigarettes, etc and war or course and capitalism is very expensive.
originally posted by: FyreByrd
originally posted by: txinfidel
a reply to: FyreByrd
See the film "The God's must be Crazy" for the concept in story form.
I love that movie, used to watch it with my dad all the time growing up.
On the ownership part, I think ownership is a right that is worth defending and if you don't defend it you will lose that right.
How did this 'right' come about. Natural Law perhaps, based in nature. I don't see ownership in nature - I do see territoriality but it is very fluid depending on circumstance and non-exclusive. Religious Law - that maybe - but personally I don't hold to the "Divine Right of Kings" nor do I hold to the "Divine Right of the Wealthy" that God seems to support.
Think about it.
There was a time when men, and I use the term specifically not genericly, 'held' land. As long as they cared for the land and its inhabients, they held it; if they didn't the property would desend on another or no one. It was the concept of "Divine Right" that overthrough that old common law.
I'm kinda partial to my 'stuff' but when I look at it I try to see how others contributed to my holding of it - so it isn't really mine.
I don't know the answers. Private ownership, is so deeply ingrained in our society, but I think it is a serious cause of all our current problems.
originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: bjax9er
You are correct. No Utopia is possible; nor is a Dystopia. Everything falls on a spectrum of poles.
Now - you've told us what wrong with government, etc. Tell us whats right with is?
Liberty - your definition I assume is Freedom to do what you want without interference and just to sound good you might add as long as it doesn't infringe on the Liberty of others.
Who decides if you are infringing - you or the infringee?''
Who watches the watchers?
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Bluesma
Why couldn't she have the same job in the private sector?