reply to post by Swing80s
In my opinion, the complaints thrown around about capitalism are usually as valid as the ones tossed around about communism. Most people only know
what they have been spoon fed about the ideology and usually fail to appreciate that because of the nature of the subject; it can be characterized
according to one's preference... or bias.
Capitalism (like communism) is just a tool. What makes it bad or good is how it is applied and whether it's used to benefit the society, or to
subjugate it. I think we have learned from history that it usually starts out for the former and is eventually transformed to the latter. But the
defect is not in the "-ism" as much as it is in us.
When you use the phrase "Money trumps everything." you have to include at least some understanding that "money" is NOTHING. What money represents is
the key. Some strongly adhere to the idea that money is a symbolic representation of the labor of people. It is a substitute for wealth. Money is
then, a symbol of human activity; effort, endeavors of productivity or creativity.
In our country, money is really a misnomer. We deal almost exclusively in debt. The cash we walk around with is not "money", it is a "note" printed
by the treasury at the whim of the Federal Reserve; and it represents "debt."
Our chief mistake as a collective human "civilization" is the tolerance we have for allowing the middlemen (who produce nothing) that manage financial
transactions to arbitrarily manipulate the value of such 'debt' to the advantage of those who already have control. It's rather self-serving. Rather
than go into a lengthy explanation about fractional reserve lending, the monetization of debt, the control of the supply of notes (currency) to
inflate and control wealth distribution, I simply want to say that my opinion is always changing...
Once I believed money was a measure of 'power;' I now view "money" as a measure of "access" to the gatekeepers of prosperity and freedom. This is a
flaw in a representative system of governance that relies on celebrity, popularity, and marketing to achieve the level of 'servant' of the people.
I think that we would be less worse off if the positions of representation and administration were chosen by lot, a simple 'draft.' We would be more
likely to get sincere well-meaning servants than we are where the object is 'gaming' the electorate and populist pandering with media ownership so
tightly controlled (owned) by so few,
The reason we see capitalism fluttering is because it is no longer desirable from the perspective of "keeping" power. The real free market would
allow for no special 'coddling' of politically connected corporate empires... which supply us with the celebrities we trust our electoral college to
vote for... instead of us.
The Constitutional approach remains the best approach - by codifying the fundamental inviolate nature of personal sovereignty; and by ensuring that
the 'wicked' cannot hide from the scrutiny of their masters (us)...
Sadly, the "owners" of the "wicked" are all economic royalty... and their "access" increasingly usurps that of the citizens. So much so that they can
now play propaganda games with our nation's fate... all with the impunity of "free speech" measured in dollars.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)