Unregulated Capitalism does not give opportunity to all

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Socialism is an inevitability.

I think that's the first time I've ever agreed with you. Socialism is a natural byproduct of democracy. It's like Ben Franklin said: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” It's unfortunate that so much power was put in the hands of the people - the power to tax a stranger, the power to imprison a cannibus user, the power to discriminate against those with different ethnicities, beliefs and lifestyles.

Many conservatives think people are too dumb to resist the temptation of alcohol, sex, and drugs. Many liberals think people are too dumb to feed and clothe themselves. People are too dumb to decide what food is safe to eat. People are too dumb to decide what a safe driving speed is. People are too dumb to save money for a medical emergency. People are too dumb to decide where a road should be built. People are too dumb to put a child up for adoption instead of killing it in the womb.

Those same politicians who think you're basically too dumb to breathe - think you're perfectly capable of voting for the right candidate. No my friends, you're just a pawn in their little game of control ...

Factoid: Did you know it was Karl Marx who said "Democracy is the road to socialism"?

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Guidance.Is.Internal]

Originally posted by endisnighe
Guidance, I heard that Enron was where the whole carbon credits scam was hatched.

Do you think that the next bubble is going to be created with that, to try and maintain the economy by the government?

I cannot see how trading something that has no production value, is going to help anything but the redistribution of wealth possible by our government.

That's correct - Enron spearheaded the concept of carbon credits. It's like I tried to point out to Southern Gentleman: Enron thrived from scarcity. Electricity rates in California are heavily regulated and power plant construction is impossible. It's a recipe for corruption and grid failure. Enron simply exploited a system where competition was non-existant. The government imposed scarcity on the people. It's quite an outrage when you think about it.

Carbon credits are even more outrageous. Enron had an incestuous relationship with both the regulators (up to and including Bush) and environmental groups. They hatched a brilliant idea - create carbon credits out of thin air (pardon the pun), and broker them on the open market. All the while looking like champions of the environment! Man, these guys were goooood. It's the classic Enron calling card - create scarcity, and capitalize on it. All made possible thanks to regulation.

I don't know what's going to happen in the future. Conservatives are seriously pissed off. It may be that the pendulum is going to swing hard in the libertarian direction for a few years ...

reply to post by truthquest


Your claim that Wal-mart is doing more good than harm. Do allow me to offer insights on why I think you may be too kind to that monolithic creature that will eventually doom everyone with its presumed low prices.

1. It's only economics to understand the concept of economies of scale - simply put in WM case is to buy in bulk and get discounts. Unfortunately, the reality is that most of its goods are manufactured and produced by sweat shops in 3rd world nations, bought even cheaply YET sold at the high american price paid by the consumer unknowingly, for there is no other competitor. This is already a huge profit for WM.

Cheap products from WM that helps the poor? Think again.

2. Despite its wealth, it pays its staff peanuts, or make full use and even unconscienable use of the american worker as cheap labour to 'multi-task'. This is another set of profits WM makes. No Unions to check on them and to protect the american worker.

WM creates employment? I rather be a slave, because as slave, i get my 3 hots and a roof over my head. No way that WM wage will feed me, let alone have a roof.

3. During the initial years when they started, just like any noble ideas to serve the community, their products and services were cheaper and better than the Mom and pop shops. Unfortunatedly, with the demise of them due to their inability to compete or organsise themselves as 'co-operatives' chainstores to challenge WM on economies of scale, WM reared its ugly head and dictated market pricing and employment issues unchecked.

WM had gone wild and am a good example of what unregulated capitalism can do to a civilised society.

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
Many conservatives think people are too dumb to resist the temptation of alcohol, sex, and drugs. Many liberals think people are too dumb to feed and clothe themselves. People are too dumb to decide what food is safe to eat.

Those politicians do exist so I will agree with you on that comment.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
1. It's only economics to understand the concept of economies of scale - simply put in WM case is to buy in bulk and get discounts. Unfortunately, the reality is that most of its goods are manufactured and produced by sweat shops in 3rd world nations, bought even cheaply YET sold at the high american price paid by the consumer unknowingly, for there is no other competitor. This is already a huge profit for WM.

Haha .. Truthquest vs SeekerofTruth

Ask yourself these questions:

1) What's stopping someone from going to an impoverished third world country and selling those $1 tennis shoes for $2 in the U.S. to undercut Walmart?

2) By employing a man in a third world country, are you hurting him or hepling him?

2. Despite its wealth, it pays its staff peanuts, or make full use and even unconscienable use of the american worker as cheap labour to 'multi-task'. This is another set of profits WM makes. No Unions to check on them and to protect the american worker.

WM creates employment? I rather be a slave, because as slave, i get my 3 hots and a roof over my head. No way that WM wage will feed me, let alone have a roof.

So you will fight to deprive other people of the right to work at Walmart? This is a very important point - by forcing employers to pay wages you consider "fair", you eliminate what little competitive edge immigrants have. After all, why hire a Mexican who can't speak English (and there's nothing wrong with that) over a white guy if you've got to pay them the same? Stop telling people how to live their lives.

WM had gone wild and am a good example of what unregulated capitalism can do to a civilised society.

It's an example of how efficiency can save everyone money. Everything you've proposed harms society to the benefit of your special interest. It's nothing more than a shakedown ..

I am a humanitarian so I will answer your second point first.

2) So you will fight to deprive other people of the right to work at Walmart? This is a very important point - by forcing employers to pay wages you consider "fair", you eliminate what little competitive edge immigrants have. After all, why hire a Mexican who can't speak English (and there's nothing wrong with that) over a white guy if you've got to pay them the same? Stop telling people how to live their lives.

What competitive edge and right are we talking about when anyone - foriegner or local employer decides to set up shop in US and sell to US consumers?

US is a society bult up over 200 years of blood, sweat, toil, tears and taxpayers monies which had funded social spending such as education, created infrastructure for all - the roads, the parks, the etc. No one alone could have afforded all. It was the collective efforts of every american past and present.

Thus, there is a debt of honour for employers of whatever kind, to respect the common masses and pay them their fair wages for their productive efforts, each according to their level of output - the cashier or the store manager, so that they may continue on with a standard of life commiserate with the growth that their forefathers had put in.

This is not even socialism, just pure humanity to others within a responsible society.

Who is the foreigner or immigrant? What had he and his forefathers done for US? What has he done for society that he deserves the right over an american in terms of benefits and rights?

The green card is a priviledge and not an international right for anyone else in the world, similarly for any other nation, which will do equally the same, except for dictatorships.

Worse still if he, with no linkages to american society, were to depress the wages, for he has no stake or families to take care of here, which is why he is in US to eke out a living which his own country failed him. He should be contributing to the whole and not for the selfish greedy Corporations who dictate and hoard wealth.

I have nothing against immigrants, for every amercan had been an immigrant, but they must assimilate with the rest of US society, not US society, members of a great tradition, roots and culture, assimilate to him, from a country which he fled from!

As for setting up shop and creating employment for the 3rd world worker, is it a good thing to exploit the workers there, keep them stupid with low wages that you know they will never be enough to help them grow as a society?

Better they remain farmers, at least with a roof over their head than to flee to cities to live in a hypocratic delusion that the Corporation/capitalists are noble men and there to help elevate their lives. not for profits, or will simply pull out when the economies goes wrong.

1) What's stopping someone from going to an impoverished third world country and selling those $1 tennis shoes for $2 in the U.S. to undercut Walmart?

Govt's duty to protect their own industries and workers. If a shoe can be made and sold at $1 then why is the US incapable of doing so? It has the brains and the resources to do so, but why the need to instead import and sell at $2, by Wal Mart or anyone else?

Labour costs may be the reason, and until it is indeed the reason, then the country that sold the tennis shoe to US at $2 must be made to buy an american product produced at $1 but sold to them at $2.

The tax and revenues generated will then go to social spending for both nations. This is called Fair trade, in its simpliest form to explain, as is actually more complex in reality, but the concept is the same.

3.) Save money?

For who? The workers or for the wallets of the fat cats who do not believe in circulating money but hoard it all up?

I am not a Know-it-all or made any attempts to TELL people what to do. I am insignificant, just a speck in the bigger scheme of life. All I can ever hope is that others may consider what I post instead.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

reply to post by Kokatsi


Wow, Mr. K. that is quite an impressive resume you have there. Your family of economists must be very proud of you. Your fallacious arguments not withstanding, you make many amusing, even bemusing assertions. You ask me if I think you are a Marxist because you think social justice should be considered but you have offered no evidence that this is what you think. To merely claim it so does not make it so.

Of course, the amusement begins with your own presumptive comparison of you to Jesus. While the teachings of Jesus are deeply profound and stress a doctrine of tolerance and compassion, you have not shown any proclivity towards these characteristics at all. On the other hand, you do sound much like a "Keynesian capitalist" which is to say you don't sound anything at all like a capitalist, and just like Keynes you advocate some welfare statist mode of regulation.

You then engage in deception by declaring, without backing it up, that I declare anyone who disagrees with me to be a Marxist. This, of course, only reveals your profound love for fallacious arguments, by relying upon selective reading, ad hominem attacks, prefaced by your shameless appeal to authority. There are plenty in this thread of whom I have not agreed with but felt no compunction to call them Marxists. I only feel compelled to call those who rely upon Marxist ideals, Marxists. Yet, it should be noted that you also rely upon a variation in Godwin's law by comparing my own assertions to Islamic fundamentalism.

It is also interesting to note how you seem to think declaring my own "black and white" sensibilities as some sort of character flaw, which is yet another fallacy in the method of appeal to widespread belief, presuming that it is a widespread belief that people who view the world clearly, or as you would put it "in black and white" are somehow flawed.

But your most impressive skill of convoluted logic comes with your attempt to avoid being associated with Leninism. You innocently ask me how I arrived at Lenin, but before doing so you make a statement that sounds remarkably like Lenin. You say, and I quote:

"Marx BTW was a brilliant economist, but he certainly missed certain points. He was a utopian. Like many scientists of his genre, he should be studied, and some can be learned from him, Engels and other 19th century minds."

Now compare this to Vladimir Lenin's remarks in Tasks of the Youth League:

"You have read and heard that communist theory—the science of communism created in the main by Marx, this doctrine of Marxism—has ceased to be the work of a single socialist of the nineteenth century, even though he was a genius, and that it has become the doctrine of millions and tens of millions of proletarians all over the world, who are applying it in their struggle against capitalism."

But this is not what compelled me to correctly point out your Leninism, it was in your original post where you declare:

"Zodeaux et al... You are dogmatic..."

Lenin was famously opposed to dogmatic thought and railed against it often. It, in fact, became a defining part of what others would call his "revolutionary realpolitik" thought. Beyond that, it was a tactic and strategy of Lenin's to use denial of certain labels and motives in order to better be that which he denied being, and to better push forth that which he denied being an agenda. It was Lenin who argued that it was pointless to go to America and declare themselves a communist because too many people in the U.S. had a clear aversion to the term. Lenin advocated finding more appropriate euphemisms, (yet another form of fallacy), to sugar coat their ideology.

So, when you state:

"The OP is not Marxist, the OP only has a streak of human decency."

In your first post, which led me to believe you were a Leninist and you only strengthen my resolve by your statement of self congratulation in this most recent post:

"Sou you think I am a Marxist simply because I think social justice should be perhaps considered?"

You hope to couch your own dogmatism of strict regulation in terms of social justice without any regard for the damage that regulation does. You claim I suggested you were a Leninist to make a baseless insult but you continue to sound like one still. You arrogantly ask and then offer:

"Have you READ any Lenin?
I recommend his "article" on the history of European philosophy. I had to read his stuff as a philosophy student. The man was a clear schizophrenic, or a borderline one at that, and not a philosopher, bent of violating ideas in a manner that paid no respect to logic of any kind (even Hegelian), and none (except token) to the Western tradition that Marx came from. It is the work of a barbarian."

Apparently unaware that Lenin, in his Conspectus of Hegel's Logic(1914) states:

"It is impossible completely to understand Marx’s Capital, and especially its first Chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!"

So, when you ask me, parenthetically so, if I am surprised, I say no, I am not, you continue to argue in the same predictable and fallacious way. While you claim to be somewhat of an authority on Lenin, your own assertions undermine this claim. You even further undermine your claims, or at the very least your desire to separate yourself from Marxism by arguing:

"The two men cannot be mentioned under the same heading, based on their intellectual output. Marx is still considered in sociology as an influential thinker, and some of his observations were adequately proven by research (such as the attitudes towards money separated by income strata.) Some have been disproven, and some points are obviously better argued in philosophy class - his weakest contribution. The basic idea is that capitalism had been founded on colonies (what he calls the original accumulation of capital). Simply put, capitalism historically arose in countries that ripped off other cultures by collective violence. However, by our days it has been tamed and accepted as a social system in the cultured West, refined by struggles and complex regulations."

Which is wholly a Marxist argument. You then go on in an attempt to paint Adam Smith as mediocre. Let's examine that in the next post.

Continued

reply to post by Kokatsi


Continuing...

In order to show us all your vast amount of knowledge of capitalism, you state:

"having seen BBC's famous commentary film, it is odd how Islamic fundamentalism and market fundametalism (by Strauss and Friedman) arose around the same time."

Not being nearly as erudite as yourself, and not having the privilege of seeing this famous commentary film aired on BBC, I can not speak to it. I can, however, tell you that capitalism has its roots in early 11th century Islam, a time when the Muslim Agricultural Revolution had led to an Islamic Empire that produced the highest literacy rate of the Middle ages. Indeed, a literacy rate that was comparable to Athens in Classical Antiquity, only ten fold. The combination of the Agricultural Revolution and innovative economic concepts such as early forms of capital, limited partnerships, and start up companies, led to an increased life expectancy from improved medical care unrivaled at that time.

Go figure that it would be a crude form of capitalism in stark contrast to the feudalism of Europe where health care was practically non existent, that would produce an efficient form of health care. It would not be until several hundred years later in the mid 18th century that Wahibism, or what you refer to as "Islamic Fundamentalism" would begin its political and global rise.

You make your erroneous claims of the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism, of which you attribute, based apparently upon a television show, to beginning in 1979-80, when in fact it began in 1744 with the alliance forged between Mohammed Ibn Saud and Mohammed Ibn Abdel Wahab, and follow with even more when you state:

"Both came from people who were deeply dissatisfied with the actual freedom and liberalism of the "bridled" capitalism of the early postwar era. Both movements had a material start from 1979-80. And both are deeply paranoid. Today's neoconservatives want to transform society radically. But market fundamentalism is failing in all the countries of the former Soviet Bloc, big time, in various styles."

Somehow expecting people to believe that the American conservative movement of that era was rooted in a deep dissatisfaction with actual freedom and liberalism of the "bridled" capitalism of the early postwar era, which is yet another poetic euphemism for saying, American conservatives, fed up with the heavily regulated era of FDR's New Deal socialism and craving less government and more freedom to govern themselves, grew ever more politically popular.

The key to your understanding your idea of "actual freedom" is understanding your Marxist/Leninist proclivities, where an empowered Federal Reserve and heavy taxation and oppressive regulations amount to what you call freedom. It reminds me of your earlier question when you asked me if I actually ever READ Lenin. I have certainly read this by Lenin:

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."

And I have read this by Lenin:

"...first ascertain exactly the position of the various capitalists, then control them, influence them by restricting or enlarging, facilitating or hindering their credits, and finally they can entirely determine their fate."

And yet, you wonder how I came to the conclusion that you were a Leninist. You continue to advocate heavily regulated market places by making this outrageous claim:

"I translated studies on how Korea and Japan in their time exercised firm control over foreign investment - regulation - that was the secret of the Asian Tigers. Without regulation, they would have remained dirt poor - especially South Korea. When globalists moved in, their markets pretty much collapsed (98-99)."

While it is not surprising that a Marxist/Leninist such as yourself would make such a claim, you do not stand as an authority on such assertions, and it is not all hard to find others who would disagree with you. Consider these words by George W. Bush made in 2008:

"Free markets allowed South Korea to make itself into one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world. Free markets turned small areas like Singapore and Hong Kong and Taiwan into global economic players. Today, the success of the world's largest economies comes from their embrace of free markets."

Of course Bush, being no capitalist himself makes the same assumptions you do about capitalism, and free market principles claiming a regulated market to be a "free market", but it makes sense that you and George W. Bush would agree on such things, even while disagreeing. It's that uncomfortable gray area you seem to be so comfortable in.

So then, let us look at another view of South Korea, and this collapse of 1998 from a more realistic approach. Consider Robert J. Meyer's report for the Japan Policy Research Institute, on South Korea, by far the largest of the four "tigers" or "little dragons":

"While there has been a good deal of discussion about the causes of the Asian economic crisis in general and the fallout in South Korea in particular, there has not been much talk about South Korea's future political economy. The general assumption has been that the South Koreans will make a good thing out of the disaster and their acceptance of a hastily-arranged International Monetary Fund $58 billion bailout. The new president, long-time dissident opposition leader, Kim Dae-jung, seemed to be just the man to right the wrongs of the past and lead Korea into a free-market economy and democracy."

Or, consider this article by Anthony J. Kim titled South Korea's Economy at the Crossroads:

"This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Asian financial crisis, better known as the “IMF crisis” in South Korea. It forced South Korea to renounce its government-controlled economic strategies and to embrace firm market principles."

While I dare not challenge your skills or acumen at translation, it would appear you do rely upon the fallacy of stacking the deck in order to reach your own conclusions.

You then go on to defend your silly virus analogy, first by asserting that is obvious that I had not see, yet another documentary, The Corporation. This erroneous claim only makes obvious that you are not reading this thread in its entirety or you would have noticed on page six, I corrected another posters claims.

Continued...

reply to post by Kokatsi


Allow me to start this post with yet another quote of yours. You state:

"When comparing the transnational corporation to a tribe of viruses - as opposed to a tribe of people, I was pointing out (obviously you did not watch the movie "Corporation") that corporations have been usurping the rights originally intended by lawmakers for natural persons. They are "legal entities." A corporation cannot die, like you or me, but it can sue you for a hundred years. And, it has no conscience, like most human beings do.
I worked with enough founding documents to see that their logic, if translated to a living person, would equal to that of a psychopath hell-bent on grasping everything in its path, lying, rationalising etc. Unlimited growth itself is a sick idea, that no sane human being or community would espouse. But every one of our corporations does. And if the CEO has an inch of conscience, he is kicked out quickly. Investors have practically no control over this."

To begin with, let's make clear that this parenthetical claim of yours that it is obvious I have not seen the corporation, would not have been so obvious to you had you read all the posts on page six of this thread. Even so, what your silly virus analogy has to do with that documentary is beyond me, since unlike you, that film cleverly parallels the behavior of corporations to the symptoms of psychopathy as listed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV, showing the proclivity towards psychopathic behavior, which only underscores mine and several other posters in this thread who have advocated laissez faire capitalism.

Furthermore, both The Corporation, and now you, albeit somewhat awkwardly, promulgate the erroneous claim that corporations were granted the right of person hood. It is actually known as the doctrine of corporate person hood and is a notion that has existed much longer than the SCOTUS ruling the documentary The Corporation claims granted corporations such status. The ruling that The Corporation is referring to is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, and the mistake of fact is that SCOTUS did not hold any such thing as a part of that ruling, it was dicta that was unfortunately headlined by a court reporter that sparked this controversy. However, dicta is not holding and The Supreme court never gave, nor does it recognize as law, the doctrine of corporate person hood.

This is the problem with relying upon television shows and films to educate yourself. Unless you are willing to verify the bold and audacious claims made by these shows, you will wind up indoctrinated by their propaganda. But I am quibbling with you, and perhaps even teasing you a bit, because quite frankly, here is where you and I and all those other "dogmatists" who advocate free market principles agree with you. Corporations are a big part of the problem and I have said it before, I will say it again, yours and the O.P.'s complaint is not with capitalism, it is with corporatism.

You go on to say this:

"Did you know that the very amendment that was brought for the benefit of the freedom of speech of Black people in the USA has been used mostly by corporate lawyers?"

You are, of course, speaking of the 14th Amendment, which is the most atrocious and arrogant piece of legislation and is quite unfortunate, demonstrable in your own description of its purpose. Black people have the same rights as anybody else and did not need a special Amendment written for them in order for them to assert their right to freedom of speech, religion, right to peaceably assemble or petition the government for a redress of grievances, or keep and bear arms, or due process of law.

The 13th Amendment was wholly necessary to stop the unforgivable act of slavery, but those black people who were slaves did not need a 14th Amendment in order to enjoy the same rights as white people and the creation of the 14th Amendment has not only led people to believe that rights in the U.S. exist by government grant, it has been used by corporations to nullify the 13th Amendment! Did you know that?

While you, for the most part, have ignored mine and others assertion that laissez faire capitalism has never existed, at the very least you finally admit that our current system is not at all capitalism with this statement:

"Another point in question: when capitalism was real, most of the Western stock markets traded in goods or gold-based currencies. Only a few per cents of all stocks were speculative."

While we are not in complete agreement that capitalism was ever real, clearly we are in agreement, at least for the moment, a moment that will change just like your whims, that capitalism is not what is in play today. You go on to say:

"Now this is over 90 per cent in all Western stock exchanges."

And finally ask:

"Do you see no problem with that?"

The answer to speculation and its viability in the market place requires a long and complex analysis, that can not be addressed in the limited amount of space in this post, and after three posts rebutting your claims, I think it is time for me to take a break and perhaps answer that question at another time.

With that, I will leave you with one more quote from Vladimir Lenin that seems to sum up much of your strategy when debating:

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

And leave it with your lie told often:

"The problem is not capitalism, it is UNBRIDLED capitalism, as the OP has named it appropriately."

And simply answer that by holding strong, perhaps even dogmatically so, that "bridled" capitalism is not capitalism.







[edit on 12-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Alright, any further discussions on capitalism, regulated capitalism, Marxist and Leninist theory will be pointed to this thread.

I will say it now and I will say it again, we need to remove the chains our government has put on us.

Jean Paul 25, Control mongers 0

Debate team much Jean Paul?


edit to add-

If they only had a little more control, everything would be fine.
Can anyone not see, that you are arguing for more chains?

[edit on 1/12/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


I got away from this thread after reading how misinformed so many people are about the type of Capitalism we have in the US, but now I see some understand how our nation works.

We are Capitalistic nation that the government uses socialization to regulated business, all this to help those that made more to pay for those that don't.

But things are going down the hill, the wealth of the US is held by only 5% of the population, those are the ones that moves the political decisions in the government, the ones that controls the Federal Reserve and write the laws that are causing the demise of the middle working class in the nation, while forcing the tax payer to pay for their loses due to mistakes, many of them also control seats in congress and major positions surrounding the president.

They created agencies like the government regulators the FDA, SEC, FCC... those are socialist actions to regulate free companies, while leaving themselves out of regulation as very well shown during the financial crisis and the too big to fail.

Anybody that doesn't see who are the real players the winners and losers in our Capitalistic/socialist nation are just blind.

Have fun people.

JEAN PAUL....

"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter..."

Concise arguments often bear more truth. Think about that if you join the debating team.

Originally posted by Georgism Through Tolstoy
JEAN PAUL....

"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter..."

Concise arguments often bear more truth. Think about that if you join the debating team.

Is this an argument? Concise? Think about that.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I can make this WHOLE argument in 5 words, and you cannot put it more succinctly.


Leave me the FRELL alone!

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I can make this WHOLE argument in 5 words, and you cannot put it more succinctly.


Leave me the FRELL alone!

Actually, that's FRELLING brilliant! Is this not what all free people want? To be left the FRELL alone? Who the FRELL care's if there are top 1% or 5% or 10%? How does that excuse FRELLING with me?

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Socialism is an inevitability.

I think that's the first time I've ever agreed with you. Socialism is a natural byproduct of democracy. It's like Ben Franklin said: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” It's unfortunate that so much power was put in the hands of the people - the power to tax a stranger, the power to imprison a cannibus user, the power to discriminate against those with different ethnicities, beliefs and lifestyles.

Many conservatives think people are too dumb to resist the temptation of alcohol, sex, and drugs. Many liberals think people are too dumb to feed and clothe themselves. People are too dumb to decide what food is safe to eat. People are too dumb to decide what a safe driving speed is. People are too dumb to save money for a medical emergency. People are too dumb to decide where a road should be built. People are too dumb to put a child up for adoption instead of killing it in the womb.

Those same politicians who think you're basically too dumb to breathe - think you're perfectly capable of voting for the right candidate. No my friends, you're just a pawn in their little game of control ...

Factoid: Did you know it was Karl Marx who said "Democracy is the road to socialism"?

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Guidance.Is.Internal]

god you make me happy.

It puts a smile on my face to see people upholding liberty and freedom around here.

So few understand that government does not give you anything, it takes it.

Southern Guardian

Firstly, I'm not a Conservative. I'm not interested in old dogmas.

Socialism is an inevitability. There has never been a modernized government without socialist elements within it. Even alternative tax systems like fair tax is still socialist as public funds are still distributed into public structures, its just through the form of goods and services. Same could be said for flat tax. Any type of tax is a form of public distribution in capital. Whether it be the trickle down or trickle up system, these are merely different ways of distributing capital from the public and it is still socialism at the end of the day.

The Constitution gives the Federal Government the mandate to do certain things in the general welfare of all citizens. That is not socialism. Socialism has been long misused and misunderstood in the west. We agree that it's not all bad when taken piece by piece. But true socialism is very destructive and historically tends to bankrupt and impoverish nations. We aren't seeing Socialism in this country however, we're seeing the long reach and power of Corporatism-it always comes with a thin veil of "socialism" just to keep most people quiet.

The problem isn't socialism itself so much as the Nation's compatibility with certain aspects of it. The Federal Government doesn't have rights it has POWERS, and those powers are clearly laid out in the Constitution. Anything outside of the Constitution is a State issue so long as it does not violate the Federal Constitution. The Federal Government has no authority to assume the roles demanded by real socialism, and through our own ignorance we've handed the reigns of the Nation to smooth talking Fascists.

If you(not you, but people in general) want more Socialism, shrink the Federal Government to a manageable size and then put the idea forward, because currently the Federal Government has stolen too much to practice socialism(and it is unconstitutional) and that debt will be saddled on the States eventually. Socialism costs a lot of money, and we simply don't have it to make it work right. If we can unburden the Individual States from the weight of the Federal debt, then States can reject or accept any aspect of socialism they wish provided it is not in violation of ones rights and is put through the democratic process.

I feel the same way about abortion(NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE), Gay Marriage(Marriage has ALWAYS been a State issue), and Health Care(Actually seems to work better at the State level).

My argument was that unregulated capitalism, or the free market in your definition, is no more better than that of communism. This system leads to a state of nature in the economy where the existence of the competitor eventually dissappears and only a few survivors reserve the top spot outlasting the rest.

This is NOT how I define the Free Market. NO ONE should get away with gaming the system LEAST OF ALL the Government. I have and always will be against monopolies. They HURT the free market paradigm(A level playing field). I want to see an end to the money pit being filled by lobbyists in Congress. A BAN on ALL lobbyists. You completely ignored(at least in your post) that I said we actually NEED to enforce the LAWS already in place. They have not been at all. Fraud is fraud, theft is theft, corruption is corruption, and increasing the size of that system would be incredibly destructive based on their track record for several decades.

The conservatives will rally against socialism as a whole, but will forget their staunch support for the billions of public funds being sent into the military. They will forget that the existence of our police and fireman are as the result of socialism. Sure, you may argue this is all in the constitution but then again it proves the fact further, that socialism is a legit system as it is even written in the constitution as a necessary system.

1. Indeed I would say that and add that both conservatives and liberals have been misusing our military for decades now. I fail to see why we should lay the responsibility on just one part of the same coin, at least as far as war/politics go.

2. Police are not in the Constitution, that's why they are state, county, or city affiliated. Federal police of any kind(FBI, DEA, ATF, NSA, CIA) are unconstitutional and a horrible waste of money.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by projectvxn

The Constitution gives the Federal Government the mandate to do certain things in the general welfare of all citizens.

That is not socialism.

How can it not be socialism when it uses the same system as socialism? Lets take the basic definition socialism:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

dictionary.reference.com...

Where do you think the navy and military come from? They are a social organization funded by the community as a whole and managed by the federal government.

Just because its a legitimate part of the constitution does not excuse it as being socialist. They exist because of a socialist concept period. They work in the same way as the socialist concept and if this was healthcare or any other service, you would be talking your head of and refering to it as socialist. Its the same concept, regardless of whether its in the constitution or not. The fact the founding fathers saw the concept of socialism as a legitimate element in the constitution further proves its importance in this nation.

You dont like the concept of socialism, but its a concept nobody can do without. I challange you to come up with a form of government that will not use and control public funds, services and distribution in some sort of way, i.e a "socialist" free government. Come on, explain it to us.

Socialism has been long misused and misunderstood in the west.

Socialism critics argue that its any control of public goods and services. What is that exactly? Among goods and services we can buy alarm systems and private security to protect us. We can pay to go college to get that degree we always wanted. These are part of goods and services, and yet the government controls similar public services. So, in a sense that definition still doesnt escape the inevitability of the government managing and controlling some goods and "services".

We agree that it's not all bad when taken piece by piece. But true socialism

You are either for or against the concept of socialism. Evidently you have stated you are against "socialism" to which I will assume the entire concept. In that case you have very little to argue about as the government will always in some way dictate the people, goods and services through necessary law and enforcement. Its a given just like the concept of socialism where some services are seen as necessary enough to be government controlled, like our own protection and insurance.

The problem isn't socialism itself

So you say that socialism is a failed system, and yet you now say "its not actually the system".

Federal Government to a manageable size

But you said you were against the existence of a central government. How is that any difference by shrinking it as at of the day it will still be a central goverment?

Gay Marriage(Marriage has ALWAYS been a State issue),

Marriage itself is a religious ceremony that has no business in the federal government. There for the practice of gays is a federal issue as its their right to their lifestyle. I did support the idea of it being a state issue but really when you get down to it, religion has no business in the federal government and thats the real issue here. Its a federal issue because its "a right to lifestyle". Its a civil right.

This is NOT how I define the Free Market.

Unregulated capitalism is an economy without any regulation or laws which is in concept a "free" market. You have a very funny way of defining things.

A BAN on ALL lobbyists.

The last time that was done it was shot down as lobbyists were still US citizens (most of them) with the constitutional right to petition anything to their representitives. So I am sorry, its not that easy. I dont like lobbyists any more then you do, but lets be a little realistic of what rights are we talking about here.

You completely ignored(at least in your post) that I said we actually NEED to enforce the LAWS already in place.

Which had nothing to do with economic regulation, and all to do with criminal laws, which was not the topic of discussion.

1. Indeed I would say that and add that both conservatives and liberals have been misusing our military for decades now.

Agreed.

2. Police are not in the Constitution,

So essentally your saying here the police was not in the original constitution, and yet it is a social organization providing a service to protect, and funded by governments. That is still socialism.

Do you oppose the existence of the police?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You're taking everything I'm saying entirely out of context. As if you're only reading the first sentence of every paragraph and it is not fair to this discussion.

Firstly, you cannot call something that isn't socialism, socialism. The public good is not socialism. Centralized POWER in government IS a bad thing, and we are currently moving in that direction. Bush Jr. gave the concept steroids early in the decade and we can now see what the results are. Socialism either is or isn't. Public services that are absolutely required to maintain the safety and security(per Constitutional mandate) is not socialism. Conscription into the armed forces, compulsory service IS socialism, wealth redistribution(giving one group's money away to another) is socialism.

Our military is not a socialist organization it is a Constitutionalist Army(per Oath).

No where in the Constitution does it allow the Federal government to assume command and control operations of the health of the individual. Now where in the Constitution is there a clause that says we must intervene in the health of business. The only clauses regulating business in any way is the enforcement of Contracts and the even and orderly flow of goods and services among the states. Everything else is left to laws on the books regulating fraud and corruption. Shrinking the Federal Government would go along way toward states taking more responsibility toward themselves. Then those states that wish to live in a heavily regulated state market place can do so if they so wish.

Education is a state issue. Ever since the creation of the DOE we've seen MAJOR declines in the quality of education and the results of their policies have been horrendous. States and municipalities know far better the educational needs of their student population than any blanket standard passed down from a centralized government like "No Child Left Behind" which was among many of Bush's failed attempts at pseudo-socialism.

You also seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying about socialism. I'm not for it. My family escaped Cuba Socialista, but I do see the merits in some of it's ideas. Not all of them are bad, but the central control schemes that are part of such a structure are all too similar to the pyramid structure of the WW2 era fascists, whereas the idea of collective progress and prosperity gives way to collective hardship and suffering at the hands of a few who get rich at the expense of the many.

The same centralization can be seen in the US system today which is what is ERODING our nation, not helping it. This once funded programs are now in debt, what was once a national service is now a national liability. The Experiment with socialism is FAILING. And to boot, it is an old concept, along with fascism, and other forms of dictatorship. The only NEW political concept of this world is the idea that we don't need to be dictated to. We don't need to be told what our goals are. We just want to be left the hell alone to make of our lives what we will. In no way should the government be able to have input on how that life should be lived.


Further, criminal law has EVERYTHING to do with what we're dealing with in our day and age as far as economics are concerned. Economies fail big time, just the way ours has, for historically the same reasons. Manipulation, falsification, and fraud. All of which are criminal acts.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by truthquest

 

Your claim that Wal-mart is doing more good than harm. Do allow me to offer insights on why I think you may be too kind to that monolithic creature that will eventually doom everyone with its presumed low prices.

1. It's only economics to understand the concept of economies of scale - simply put in WM case is to buy in bulk and get discounts. Unfortunately, the reality is that most of its goods are manufactured and produced by sweat shops in 3rd world nations, bought even cheaply YET sold at the high american price paid by the consumer unknowingly, for there is no other competitor. This is already a huge profit for WM.

Cheap products from WM that helps the poor? Think again.

2. Despite its wealth, it pays its staff peanuts, or make full use and even unconscienable use of the american worker as cheap labour to 'multi-task'. This is another set of profits WM makes. No Unions to check on them and to protect the american worker.

WM creates employment? I rather be a slave, because as slave, i get my 3 hots and a roof over my head. No way that WM wage will feed me, let alone have a roof.

3. During the initial years when they started, just like any noble ideas to serve the community, their products and services were cheaper and better than the Mom and pop shops. Unfortunatedly, with the demise of them due to their inability to compete or organsise themselves as 'co-operatives' chainstores to challenge WM on economies of scale, WM reared its ugly head and dictated market pricing and employment issues unchecked.

WM had gone wild and am a good example of what unregulated capitalism can do to a civilised society.

By definition, there are a lot more poor people in 3rd world countries. So by exporting jobs from rich countries to poor countries, the "evil industrialists" are helping the poor a lot more than if they only hired workers in rich countries.

In these 3rd world countries, prior to Wal-Mart, you have people who are hardly scraping by and hardly living, spending their days toiling in the fields. Yet now, with Wal-Mart factories, they can move to the city and accept a sweatshop job. They can save up pennies a day rather than nothing at all. If they figured they wouldn't be better off after taking the sweatshop job, they wouldn't be applying for it and they can quit and go back to "nature" at any time they chose.

I do insist that upon accepting a sweatshop job, that 3rd world worker is just as happy to hear about being hired as an American worker accepting a 1st world factory job.

Physical and mental abuse of workers is already illegal. Its an act of aggression... an act of unprovoked violence. Pure capitalism does not mean abuse is allowed or acceptable. If someone takes a sweatshop job, there are doing so only because they'll be better off after taking it. So the sweatshop is a good thing for them. Industrial revolution is finally arriving in 3rd world countries in the form of sweatshops. Well, that is good, because sweatshops are a step from toiling in the fields. Worker abuse has nothing to do with *marketplace* regulation. It has to do with *criminal* law. Under pure capitalism, harming another human being is just as much of a crime as ever.

I don't see liberals getting together and providing any factory jobs at all to people in 3rd world countries. Zero help from the liberals. I do see industrialists doing it, and I'm not offended by it unless it involves physical or mental abuse which are entirely illegal even under pure capitalism.