Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

do you agree or disagree. give reasons why. {also, this can help people give their arguments against socialism/communism which are the major alternatives}. oh, heres a video by noam chomsky on the subject which i personally tend to agree with.

hBC_XICK7i0

True capitalism? No.
Real capitalism? Yes, almost certainly. People simply aren't rational actors and as a result are capable of letting monopolies form.

monopolies, however, aren't always bad.

In the non-existent, theoretical "True Capitalism", a monopoly can only exist if a company is creating a product that everyone wants to buy as opposed to the competition. Because the market remains open, as soon as someone could provide a better product at a better price or fill a niche not covered in the market, they are able to and they can easily break the monopoly. Obviously there are 1000 reasons why that isn't how it works.

This reminds me of a talk I heard Naomi Klien give at the start of this recession on Democracy Now! I disagree with Klien on a lot of issues, though this one point she made really rang true with me. Lefties have had to come to terms with the collapse of "true communism" or "True socialism". We have seen that irrational people cannot make these idealistic systems work, and left wing ideology has become much more pragmatic in response to this, creating almost a "post-socialism" that people refer to as social democracy or other such names. The same needs to happen on the right. The market is a powerful tool, but we conservatives need to forget the rhetoric that probably was what initially sold us on the free market, because it doesn't work in practice. And like Communism, it isn't that the political theory is inherently mistaken about how things could work, it is that the ideology assumes, I guess as sym said, that people are rational actors.

^however, in REAL capitalism, the state wud have so little power that EITHER a singular monopoly wud emerge which{seeing as its a corporation} wud work on cutthroat business and dominations principles, do all in its power {which wud posess military might at this point} to hijack, and get ownership of any NEW product that comes out from a source different from itself, as well as doing all it can to MISINFORM the consumers to boost sales{i never understood the term INFORMED CONSENT as the backbone of ideal capitalism, seeing that there is no INCENTIVE for the companies to inform the consumer}.

i.e. weak government in short paves the way for tyranical corporate rule.

or if we consider the other scenario of MORE than one companies selling products {often competing} to the same consumers under a weak government, then you have the same negetivities with the added fact that they really wud go to WAR with each other, and possibly break the country into smaller parts for all effective purposes.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
{i never understood the term INFORMED CONSENT as the backbone of ideal capitalism, seeing that there is no INCENTIVE for the companies to inform the consumer}

The idea is that there is profit to be made from informing people. It's a third party that gives it out, not the producer.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^however, in REAL capitalism, the state wud have so little power that EITHER a singular monopoly wud emerge which{seeing as its a corporation} wud work on cutthroat business and dominations principles, do all in its power {which wud posess military might at this point} to hijack, and get ownership of any NEW product that comes out from a source different from itself, as well as doing all it can to MISINFORM the consumers to boost sales{i never understood the term INFORMED CONSENT as the backbone of ideal capitalism, seeing that there is no INCENTIVE for the companies to inform the consumer}.

i.e. weak government in short paves the way for tyranical corporate rule.

or if we consider the other scenario of MORE than one companies selling products {often competing} to the same consumers under a weak government, then you have the same negetivities with the added fact that they really wud go to WAR with each other, and possibly break the country into smaller parts for all effective purposes.

I know people from Asia talk about capitalism weakening governments, but that is hardly the case. These were weak, poor, non-centralized governments before American corporations came in and started running them.

Look at America itself. The most capitalist country on the planet, also one of the strongest governments in the west.

Capitalism just puts too much power in the hands of corporations, which many fledgling states cannot compete with.

^but in america, the people who run the government are the same as those who run the corporations.

yes, hence why True Capitalism can't exist. It is impossible to not equate power and money, thus the rich will always be the most powerful.

There is no fundamental difference between free market capitalism and feudalism and fascism. And please, before you give me the lecture about the fascist "third way" economics, it's a hoax made up by mussolini, hitler, franco, and antonescu, it's a fraud to appease the middle class and make them think they matter.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^however, in REAL capitalism, the state wud have so little power that EITHER a singular monopoly wud emerge which{seeing as its a corporation} wud work on cutthroat business and dominations principles, do all in its power {which wud posess military might at this point} to hijack, and get ownership of any NEW product that comes out from a source different from itself, as well as doing all it can to MISINFORM the consumers to boost sales{i never understood the term INFORMED CONSENT as the backbone of ideal capitalism, seeing that there is no INCENTIVE for the companies to inform the consumer}.

i.e. weak government in short paves the way for tyranical corporate rule.

I agree with this. Sort of what I would say.

Think Ultraviolet. Yes, I'm serious.

Maybe, maybe not.

On the other hand true communism or socialism would lead to tyranny as well.

What doesn't lead to tyranny?

True Communism wouldn't, ie Marxism. It's a failed concept though, unless kept in a very small group, like the Smurfs, 100 people (or less), all working together, La-la-lala-la-laa.

Originally posted by KidRock
Maybe, maybe not.

On the other hand true communism or socialism would lead to tyranny as well.
By definition if it's tyranny than it isn't true communism.

As for socialism, I suppose every country in Europe is run by tyrants, amirite?

Originally posted by King Kandy
By definition if it's tyranny than it isn't true communism.

As for socialism, I suppose every country in Europe is run by tyrants, amirite?

No European country is completely socialist, amirite?

edit: and by definition, communism IS tyranny.

Originally posted by KidRock
No European country is completely socialist, amirite?

edit: and by definition, communism IS tyranny.
In communism everybody has equal influence so I don't see how it could be tyranny...

And if you don't think Europe is socialist why are you so against the system that has been proven to yield higher standards of living? Honest question here.

Originally posted by King Kandy
In communism everybody has equal influence so I don't see how it could be tyranny...

And if you don't think Europe is socialist why are you so against the system that has been proven to yield higher standards of living? Honest question here.

Communism: # a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

How is it not tyrannical that the government takes away any right that I have to private ownership? That sounds a bit oppressive and authoritarian, or tyrannical, in my opinion. Do you disagree?

I am against a completely socialist government, not some socialist policy.

Originally posted by KidRock
Communism: # a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

How is it not tyrannical that the government takes away any right that I have to private ownership? That sounds a bit oppressive and authoritarian, or tyrannical, in my opinion. Do you disagree?

I am against a completely socialist government, not some socialist policy.

Actually I believe Marx and his immediate successors advocated anarcho-communist which eliminated both the state and private property in favor of group effort. It was only later theorists who proposed the sort of totalitarian Communism that we think of today. Strictly speaking nothing is more anti-communist than a government because that results in a group where some people have more power than others.

In all actuality communism has been tested about as many times as a pure market.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually I believe Marx and his immediate successors advocated anarcho-communist which eliminated both the state and private property in favor of group effort. It was only later theorists who proposed the sort of totalitarian Communism that we think of today.



Even with that, I see anything that disables me from having the ability or right to own my own private business or capital is tyrannical.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


In all actuality communism has been tested about as many times as a pure market. '

Agreed.

But, the Soviet Union showed us the most extreme form of it thus far and it really doesn't seem to work..and even so like I said it's a form of tyranny. But yeah, we haven't seen a true form of communism or really a free market for that matter..at least not since the passing of the Sherman Antitrust Act

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually I believe Marx and his immediate successors advocated anarcho-communist which eliminated both the state and private property in favor of group effort. It was only later theorists who proposed the sort of totalitarian Communism that we think of today. Strictly speaking nothing is more anti-communist than a government because that results in a group where some people have more power than others.

In all actuality communism has been tested about as many times as a pure market.
That would be more socialist idea - state owned.

But yeah, true communism noone owns anything. Technically, there wouldn't be such thing as ''government'' as everything will be runned for the people by the people.

Karl Marx did not support government of any kind...he no liked it.

Originally posted by KidRock
Communism: # a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

How is it not tyrannical that the government takes away any right that I have to private ownership? That sounds a bit oppressive and authoritarian, or tyrannical, in my opinion. Do you disagree?
Yeah I do disagree because in marxism there IS no government, so obviously there isn't one that "takes away" anything you have. Communism would ideally occur when everyone realizes that it's better for everyone that way.

Originally posted by KidRock
I am against a completely socialist government, not some socialist policy.
Really? Because it seems like you have spoken out against every single social benefits program we've ever had any discussion on.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah I do disagree because in marxism there IS no government, so obviously there isn't one that "takes away" anything you have. Communism would ideally occur when everyone realizes that it's better for everyone that way.


Really? Because it seems like you have spoken out against every single social benefits program we've ever had any discussion on.

I have said before that I am for certain social programs. I think all mentally disabled should have certain services like healthcare given to them because they're in most circumstances unable to work and pay for it themselves. I am just against having my tax dollars pay for people who are perfectly capable of working themselves and paying their own way. "I cannot find a job" or "I don't make enough" is not included in this group of people who claim they are unable to pay on their own.

Would I or would I not have the right to private ownership or capital and a business in a communist or Marxist world?

Originally posted by KidRock
I have said before that I am for certain social programs. I think all mentally disabled should have certain services like healthcare given to them because they're in most circumstances unable to work and pay for it themselves. I am just against having my tax dollars pay for people who are perfectly capable of working themselves and paying their own way. "I cannot find a job" or "I don't make enough" is not included in this group of people who claim they are unable to pay on their own.
See, here's where I disagree with you. Mathematically speaking, the fact that there are fewer jobs than people guarantees that some people are going to get stuck with bad jobs or no jobs no matter what they do. Whenever I hear you talk about this idea I just feel like you're being greedy. I don't know, I see things differently then you.

Originally posted by KidRock
Would I or would I not have the right to private ownership or capital and a business in a communist or Marxist world?
Theoretically nobody would force you to do anything, but if you wanted to go loner while everybody else helped each other, you would probably not get far. I mean if I lived in a world where everybody shared everything I wouldn't be too fond of the ******* down the street who kept everything to himself.

A cornerstone of even many hardline libertarians is to have anti-trust laws in place to prevent gigantic corporate monopolies. Centralized power of any sort, not just governmental, is the enemy of a free market.

So no, I disagree entirely. The only way such fears would come to fruition would be if a completely irresponsible free market was implemented. Capitalism in its truest sense, sure. But no one outside of a few fringe anarchists wants that level of lawlessness and freedom, and this is coming from a fairly staunch libertarian.

European countries are for the most part, social democratic which is the best system yet and is faaar more representative and able to protect the rights and safety of its citizens than socialism, or free market capitalism, or the declining democracy america is.

i think greed and lack of empathy in general define the people who makes arguments like "why shud i pay for so and so?"{specially when said person is not very fortunate}. they dont consider that THEY cud also be in that position and that luck more than personal responsibility gets them there.

"Because by you paying for so and so's misfortune, you raise your own wage, increase your purchasing power and lower market prices in the long run. Not to mention that with the unsustainable mess that we have, eventually a majority of people will be those unfortunates and if you're still a fortunate, they'll probably come to your house, kill your children, rape your wife, and then lynch you. So consider it a long-run discount and an insurance policy against radical revolution if you can't see the humanitarian side of it, ass-tard."

-that would be my answer.

If a system exists where the expenses of health care, housing, food, education, and all those other are affordable and manageable for all, does it matter if the services are provided by the state or the market?

It matters to the right because to them, those cannot be equal. Everyone shouldn't have the best food or health care. It should all be based on how much you make. They can't stand the idea that they're not better or more entitled than someone else. Bill Kristol flat out said that Americans don't deserve a good healthcare system because they're not as worthy as soldiers or "their betters". Poor people deserve nothing better than to eat shit and die on the streets from preventable diseases because anything better is "socialism". It's the same shit as "separate but equal" facilities under legalized racial segregation except it's applied along class lines.
Unregulated capitalism is class warfare in and of itself because it creates elites who genuinely resent and despise those under them as potential competitors just as a dictator gets paranoid about everyone around him when he is insulated by his power and isolated from other people.

That would be the extreme or "crazy" right.

Most of the right, as far as I know, only resents the idea that what is theirs is taken to support without consent. I doubt they would care if health care, housing, food, education and such suddenly became available to everyone for next to nothing so long as it didn't harm them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That would be the extreme or "crazy" right.

Most of the right, as far as I know, only resents the idea that what is theirs is taken to support without consent. I doubt they would care if health care, housing, food, education and such suddenly became available to everyone for next to nothing so long as it didn't harm them.

even then, that is only the American right

Both Europe and Canada have strong conservative parties that do see the need and pragmatic benefit of government involvement in health care et al.

That the American government spends more money per individual on health care than Canada does should be all a real conservative should need to know. More people protected with greater accessibility for less money.

Not to say there aren't problems with the bloated and inefficient Canadian health system

Originally posted by inimalist
even then, that is only the American right

Both Europe and Canada have strong conservative parties that do see the need and pragmatic benefit of government involvement in health care et al.

That the American government spends more money per individual on health care than Canada does should be all a real conservative should need to know. More people protected with greater accessibility for less money.

Not to say there aren't problems with the bloated and inefficient Canadian health system

I think I covered that in my paper you read.

Americans spend almost double what UK people spend.


If we spent as much on our socialized medicine, in a system very similar to the UK's, as we do now, our (USA's) Health Care would be second to none in the world.


Now, what can we do to create a system just like the UK's with double the funding? (Double the funding and that erases almost every problem the UK system has...if we consider the money is managed somewhat efficiently.)

the problem is, there are an infinite number of "what if..." scenarios that you can write about what could be done if, well, things were run by dreams and not people.

At the very least, America has a number of health concerns which the UK doesn't face that could independently be pushing up their medical costs, regardless of whether it is public or private. Plainly, it might cost twice as much to take care of someone who is part of the American culture vs the UK, and even obesity aside, there are a large number of reasons to suspect this is at least somewhat true.

EDIT: To tie it more directly to something in your paper, I got a very similar feeling about your take on American military spending. Not that I think they couldn't cut back, but there are logical reasons why America spends as much as it does.

America spends the money it does to keep other almost super powers in check. America is the only country with true global influence. Russia and China are close, and certainly growing in Africa, but this is all in the shadow of America. Our economy, our way of life, many things (with all of their terrible consequences) rely on the fact that the status quo remains, and the existence of such a strong military force sort of assures that.

Also, not that I buy that America needs to police the world (Russia and China would be foolish to allow a nuclear armed NK exist so close to them, America is exacerbating the nuclear issue in Iran, etc), but compared to the other nations that are capable of such things, imho, I'm glad it is America and not some other major powers who are exerting their influence.

I don't think I have to defend how little regard I have for American foreign policy, however, compared to the human suffering that might occur if China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc, we able to act with impunity on an international stage, it may be preferable.

Let me just clarify before it even comes up, yes America gets to act with impunity on an international stage, and they flagrantly abuse that right. However, I feel other nations, given their stance on individual liberty at home, might be worse for those being oppressed by major powers. It is all wrong, and selecting the lesser to two evils is somewhat morally bankrupt, but in a pragmatic assessment of why America needs to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on its military, I think it is relevant.

Originally posted by Digi
A cornerstone of even many hardline libertarians is to have anti-trust laws in place to prevent gigantic corporate monopolies. Centralized power of any sort, not just governmental, is the enemy of a free market.

So no, I disagree entirely. The only way such fears would come to fruition would be if a completely irresponsible free market was implemented. Capitalism in its truest sense, sure. But no one outside of a few fringe anarchists wants that level of lawlessness and freedom, and this is coming from a fairly staunch libertarian.

I thought most libertarians were opposed to any and all anti trust laws, it has been the official position of the party in the past

Originally posted by inimalist
At the very least, America has a number of health concerns which the UK doesn't face that could independently be pushing up their medical costs, regardless of whether it is public or private. Plainly, it might cost twice as much to take care of someone who is part of the American culture vs the UK, and even obesity aside, there are a large number of reasons to suspect this is at least somewhat true.

The U.K. would have the same exact concerns as the US when it comes to Obesity. They are not that far behind in their #3 spot.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity


Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: To tie it more directly to something in your paper, I got a very similar feeling about your take on American military spending. Not that I think they couldn't cut back, but there are logical reasons why America spends as much as it does.

It would appear that politicians are starting to agree with my perspective on military spending, though. They recently dropped down production of the multi-billion dollar production project for F-22s.

Now, if only they would do that with more projects.

I've written on here before that there is a lot of excess and inefficiency. Just trust me. I'll PM you how I know this.

Originally posted by inimalist
America spends the money it does to keep other almost super powers in check. America is the only country with true global influence. Russia and China are close, and certainly growing in Africa, but this is all in the shadow of America. Our economy, our way of life, many things (with all of their terrible consequences) rely on the fact that the status quo remains, and the existence of such a strong military force sort of assures that.

The world's most powerful military is not quintessential to accomplish that, though. In fact, it is just one method of many.

We could still remain the world's most powerful military, by far, if we cut our military spending in half. Doesn't that shock you, just a little?

Just by improving project management techniques and increasing accountability to contractors, we could cut military costs by about third, and still remain as effective if not more effective, with each project.

They are overhauling some areas of government. Some projects' annual operating costs have been cut in half, and the efficiency of the project increased by a significant margin while leaving more money to pay the government and contract employees. In other words, a better program, with half the money, and better pay. I'm not saying that's possible with every project as the numbers generally lean towards a reduction of one third while remaining as good as or better than the previous operational state.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, not that I buy that America needs to police the world (Russia and China would be foolish to allow a nuclear armed NK exist so close to them, America is exacerbating the nuclear issue in Iran, etc), but compared to the other nations that are capable of such things, imho, I'm glad it is America and not some other major powers who are exerting their influence.

To others, they feel the opposite. We come off as dictatorial, invasive, and evil.

Why can't we reduce some of our meddling while spending more of that former meddling money domestically?

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think I have to defend how little regard I have for American foreign policy, however, compared to the human suffering that might occur if China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc, we able to act with impunity on an international stage, it may be preferable.

But, we don't have significant military campaigns in China or Russia. Sure, we have military resources spent as byproduct of relations with those nations. We could even reduce costs in those areas as well.

Originally posted by inimalist
Let me just clarify before it even comes up, yes America gets to act with impunity on an international stage, and they flagrantly abuse that right. However, I feel other nations, given their stance on individual liberty at home, might be worse for those being oppressed by major powers. It is all wrong, and selecting the lesser to two evils is somewhat morally bankrupt, but in a pragmatic assessment of why America needs to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on its military, I think it is relevant.

Then I fundamentally disagree.

Why can't we turn one of those evils into a positive, while spending less? This is what I think.


There's no need to settle when real "change" can provide a better way of operation.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I thought most libertarians were opposed to any and all anti trust laws, it has been the official position of the party in the past

that is where Libertarians (like Friedman) and Objectivists (like Rand) have a major disagreement

this forum post from another forum is fairly good:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7314

Libertarians would be against pretty much all government intervention, but see the need of some regulation, whereas objectivists see no need of intervention by the state. Rand uses the case of Alcoa Steel (iirc) in "Capitalism, the unknown ideal" to describe how a monopoly was actually beneficial to the market.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just by improving project management techniques and increasing accountability to contractors, we could cut military costs by about third, and still remain as effective if not more effective, with each project.


more poignantly, this is the true issue.

If we could only do X, Y would happen.

That is the principal behind Communism, Anarchy, Free Market Capitalism, Religious Fundamentalism, etc. All of these are bankrupt political ideals because they expect X to occur, and go to lengths to try and define human nature as X and vilify everything they see as subsequently preventing Y.

People are corrupt. People are inefficient. People are moral hypocrites who act in ways go against their own expressed beliefs with no sense of wrong doing. This is how evolution made us. We aren't a biological organism designed to have logical and politically adept brains, we are selfish, inept and have brains designed to justify anything we do, more capable of lying to ourselves than considering other views, more likely to follow a crowd than stand out. This may sound pessimistic, but it is what research has shown, conclusively, and repeatedly. It shocked a lot of the scientists and theorists too. lol, I've been tinkering with the idea of a thread about "Misanthropist Psychology" just for that reason.

Short of a system that is free of the need of people to run it, or no system whatsoever, people will be the ultimate reason for the downfall of any Utopia that just needs people to act like X.

Originally posted by inimalist
Short of a system that is free of the need of people to run it, or no system whatsoever, people will be the ultimate reason for the downfall of any Utopia that just needs people to act like X.

I covered that in my paper too.









As for the rest of your post, what I've addressed are all things that are doable without much drastic change. Obama is already working in the direction of Foreign Policy that I desire/outlined.

Now, we just need massive improvements on projects in every facet of government, and we will reduce the operational budget requirement, significantly, hitting my other point. That would open the door for social healthcare in the vein of Switzerland's system. The Swiss have a system that would be optimal to adapt for the US. Both social and private insurance...which is exactly the things they are outlining now in the healthcare reform.


However, that's not all it will require. There will need to be a massive overhaul of the current medical system in order to reach the caliber of healthcare the Swiss has achieved.


The first two items that I covered here and in my paper are doable and achievable. Healthcare, on the other hand, will require massive amounts of change. Obama may be up to the task. At the very least, he will initiate the change. Hopefully we can make improvments on whatever he does to obtain better, affordable, healthcare, in addition to lowering costs and inflation. Wow, that sounded so retardedly political.

Free Market Capitalism, specifically the trend of low wage competition and the race to the bottom exemplifies the George Orwell parable of Slavery is freedom.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As for the rest of your post, what I've addressed are all things that are doable without much drastic change. Obama is already working in the direction of Foreign Policy that I desire/outlined.

fair enough, but by marginally reducing military spending, he is hardly turning America into a social democracy.

There are pragmatic choices that could seriously improve the American system, this is true. I was speaking more of your more theoretical ideas, like:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now, we just need massive improvements on projects in every facet of government,

"just" is not the appropriate term in that sentence

Originally posted by dadudemon
and we will reduce the operational budget requirement, significantly, hitting my other point.

and produce the first institution of any size in human history with no inefficiencies, waste, corruption or error.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That would open the door for social healthcare in the vein of Switzerland's system. The Swiss have a system that would be optimal to adapt for the US. Both social and private insurance...which is exactly the things they are outlining now in the healthcare reform.

However, that's not all it will require. There will need to be a massive overhaul of the current medical system in order to reach the caliber of healthcare the Swiss has achieved.


Europe's health care system is the product of hundreds of years of cultural development. That America could "Europeanize" their health care system in such a radical vein would be nearly akin to "democratizing" nations with no history of it?

Not that the violence or anything is comparable, but such changes are not normally met with open arms.

I'm not saying it is impossible, at least, the making of an American system more like the Europeans, however, making it, in America, radically, expecting huge change, simply because you expect people to understand that it is "better" isn't going to work, and has been the bane of Utopian thinkers for ever.

If all members of society were dadudemon, it would be easy

Originally posted by dadudemon
The first two items that I covered here and in my paper are doable and achievable.

the elimination of all corruption, inefficiency, waste and error in government institutions is both doable and achievable?

can you give me an example?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Healthcare, on the other hand, will require massive amounts of change. Obama may be up to the task. At the very least, he will initiate the change. Hopefully we can make improvments on whatever he does to obtain better, affordable, healthcare, in addition to lowering costs and inflation. Wow, that sounded so retardedly political.

the problem is, people are set on this "Government vs market" issue. This is what I was trying to get at before. The change is fairly moot if a government run system is set up by the same corrupt and inefficient political leaders. Whether it is tax subsidized or paid for directly, what America needs is accessible and affordable health care. That end, and not the theory of whether health should or should not be covered by the government, is what is important.

I'm sure we don't disagree, however, my take on Obama is that he is using health care to try and appease those leftists who elected him, yet he has let down on lots of issues up until this point. I don't know the plan, and honestly, don't care to go over the numbers. I have so little trust for this stuff that I'm clearly biased to expect failure, but rarely does the status quo fail to deliver.

Originally posted by King Kandy
See, here's where I disagree with you. Mathematically speaking, the fact that there are fewer jobs than people guarantees that some people are going to get stuck with bad jobs or no jobs no matter what they do. Whenever I hear you talk about this idea I just feel like you're being greedy. I don't know, I see things differently then you.



I don't see how it is greedy to want to strive to be the best I can and achieve the most I can in this world through hard work and determination. I find people like yourself to be greedy and tyrannical. I understand living in a world with a few social programs that are necessary, but people like you get greedy and want to take too much from people.

Originally posted by King Kandy

Theoretically nobody would force you to do anything, but if you wanted to go loner while everybody else helped each other, you would probably not get far. I mean if I lived in a world where everybody shared everything I wouldn't be too fond of the ******* down the street who kept everything to himself.

I am not sure if you really answered my question or not, unless I missed it.

In a Marxist or communist world..can I own my own property, my own business, my own land and money?


Originally posted by King Kandy
I mean if I lived in a world where everybody shared everything I wouldn't be too fond of the ******* down the street who kept everything to himself.

If I lived in a world where everybody shares everything I would not be too fond of the bum down the street who doesn't work taking advantage and using all the things that I DO have to work for.

But you don't, you live in a world where a few people horde and steal everything and propogate the myth that those they steal from are simply lazy and anyone can get to their level through hard honest work.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I thought most libertarians were opposed to any and all anti trust laws, it has been the official position of the party in the past

You may be right. I don't know the intricacies of the current party well enough to say. I have seen both libertarians and free market economists endorse anti-trust laws, so it isn't without precedent. I personally think it would need to be a part of a free market system, simply because you would end up with corporate monopolies that would replace the influence of big governments that libertarianism tries to prevent.

inamalist also helped out with this earlier.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
But you don't, you live in a world where a few people horde and steal everything and propogate the myth that those they steal from are simply lazy and anyone can get to their level through hard honest work.

I don't live in that world. I live in a world where he who works the hardest, gets the most.

And funny enough those few who "steal and horde" all the money in this world are usually the ones who give jobs and paychecks to those innocent and hardworking lower-class workers.

Originally posted by inimalist
There are pragmatic choices that could seriously improve the American system, this is true. I was speaking more of your more theoretical ideas, like:



"just" is not the appropriate term in that sentence

Then you can delete the word "just" if it feels better when reading it.



Originally posted by inimalist
and produce the first institution of any size in human history with no inefficiencies, waste, corruption or error.

No. Improving the operational costs and efficiency of the government does not equal = "produc the first institution of any size in human history with no inefficiencies, waste, corruption or error."

In fact, what you suggest is impossible with the way humans are now.



Originally posted by inimalist
Europe's health care system is the product of hundreds of years of cultural development. That America could "Europeanize" their health care system in such a radical vein would be nearly akin to "democratizing" nations with no history of it?

Sure. Somethings will be painful if they are to be improved and should be expected to be as such.

Examples:

Civil Rights act of 1964.

19th Amendment.

13th Amendment.

Etc.

Originally posted by inimalist
Not that the violence or anything is comparable, but such changes are not normally met with open arms.

If this legislation brings the U.S. closer to true universal care, and no violence occurs of it, I will count us lucky.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not saying it is impossible, at least, the making of an American system more like the Europeans, however, making it, in America, radically, expecting huge change, simply because you expect people to understand that it is "better" isn't going to work, and has been the bane of Utopian thinkers for ever.

If all members of society were dadudemon, it would be easy

You're preaching to the choir.



Originally posted by inimalist
the elimination of all corruption, inefficiency, waste and error in government institutions is both doable and achievable?

can you give me an example?

That's not what I said.

The "first two items" refer to my own post.

Here's what they are directly from the post that my comment referred to:

"massive improvements on projects in every facet of government"

and

"healthcare reform." More specifically, "a system that would be optimal to adapt for the US."


I apologize for the confusion in my post as "two items" is very ambiguous, considering all the things we are talking about.


Originally posted by inimalist
the problem is, people are set on this "Government vs market" issue. This is what I was trying to get at before. The change is fairly moot if a government run system is set up by the same corrupt and inefficient political leaders. Whether it is tax subsidized or paid for directly, what America needs is accessible and affordable health care. That end, and not the theory of whether health should or should not be covered by the government, is what is important.

Oh, I agree.

I am of the opinion, though, that the best way for American to improve healthcare is to leave private healthcare intact, while also offering some sort of single payer system, very much similar to what the Obama administration plans to do. This is also similar to the Swiss option. The Swiss have both private and UHC available...but their system, from what I read, is run better than say, the U.K.'s. (The U.K. also allows for private healthcare...but that was almost a recent thing. I covered that in my paper, too. It would appear that allowing both is better in today's world.)

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sure we don't disagree, however, my take on Obama is that he is using health care to try and appease those leftists who elected him, yet he has let down on lots of issues up until this point. I don't know the plan, and honestly, don't care to go over the numbers. I have so little trust for this stuff that I'm clearly biased to expect failure, but rarely does the status quo fail to deliver.

Sort of. It's more like...


We agree on everything that's wrong, and agree completely on what needs to be improved...but we differ slightly on how we should improve those. We don't disagree on how to improve those, that much, either.

We both recongize that we need to improve the U.S.'s foreign relations and how they conduct themselves in the international community, but the how is being debated.


We both know the US healthcare system needs to be improved, and we both know that we need some sort of coverage that is more universal to everyone...but the how is debatable to a certain extent.


We both know efficiency in government needs to be improved and corruption reduced. In fact, I think we agree on everything there. You just mistook my posts for meaning that we could eliminate all of the problems.

Originally posted by KidRock
I don't see how it is greedy to want to strive to be the best I can and achieve the most I can in this world through hard work and determination.

There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's exactly what everyone should do...but with forethought to other's well-being.

In other words, make sure you success doesn't directly destroy others and make sure your success is shared with others. (Like, creating your own personal scholarship program for you local highschool graduates, etc.)

Originally posted by KidRock
I understand living in a world with a few social programs that are necessary,

I agree here.








Originally posted by KidRock
If I lived in a world where everybody shares everything I would not be too fond of the bum down the street who doesn't work taking advantage and using all the things that I DO have to work for.

Of this, I agree.

However, in that ideal world, there'd be no such thing as a bum, as this bum would work hard to make food for everyone, or clean things, n'stuff.

Actually, Karl Marx goes over this in his works.

The 'bum' we're refering to is called 'Lumpen proletariat' and those, according to Marx are counter revolutionaries, and a drain on society.
They're counter revolutionaries because they advance the cause of bourgeoisies by depending on them to survive, ie begging. They, therefore have no place in communism.

Therefore...In the world where communism has triumphed, there wouldn't be any Lumpen Proletariat or 'bums', because, as counter revolutionaries, they too, with the bourgeoisies, would disappear.

I'd recommend works by Engels and Marks for everyone to read - it is little off putting because Marx just made up words for things as he went along, but the idea is actually really good - and it is damn shame it cannot work. (or rather at this present stage in our history/evolution, it cannot)

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually, Karl Marx goes over this in his works.

The 'bum' we're refering to is called 'Lumpen proletariat' and those, according to Marx are counter revolutionaries, and a drain on society.
They're counter revolutionaries because they advance the cause of bourgeoisies by depending on them to survive, ie begging. They, therefore have no place in communism.

Therefore...In the world where communism has triumphed, there wouldn't be any Lumpen Proletariat or 'bums', because, as counter revolutionaries, they too, with the bourgeoisies, would disappear.

Originally posted by dadudemon


However, in that ideal world, there'd be no such thing as a bum, as this bum would work hard to make food for everyone, or clean things, n'stuff.

Is that really the argument that proponents of communism put forth? That in a true Communist society these leeches to society would not exist? There will ALWAYS be people who choose not to work or don't work hard enough and need to depend on others.

I really am not educated at all on any of this besides what I read on the internet and in a few economics classes I took. So feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Actually yeah, it is. The first thing they taught me in preschool before we emigrated was "those who don't work, don't eat."

Originally posted by KidRock
Is that really the argument that proponents of communism put forth? That in a true Communist society these leeches to society would not exist? There will ALWAYS be people who choose not to work or don't work hard enough and need to depend on others.

I really am not educated at all on any of this besides what I read on the internet and in a few economics classes I took. So feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

If you don't contribute to a communist society (with no extenuating circumstances) they either let you starve or they shoot you.

Rand and Marx were comically similar.

Originally posted by KidRock
Is that really the argument that proponents of communism put forth? That in a true Communist society these leeches to society would not exist? There will ALWAYS be people who choose not to work or don't work hard enough and need to depend on others.

I really am not educated at all on any of this besides what I read on the internet and in a few economics classes I took. So feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

This is the problem with trying to summarize Communist Manifesto over the internet and in few sentences.

You need to read the whole thing in order to understand what it is in essence.

This is a MORAL problem that you're citing which roots in capitalism - ie, those who have nothing or little need or demand help/money/charity in order to survive in the world where money determanes quality of life.

Bums and leeches are therefore product of capitalism, according to Marx. They're the by product of the essence of capitalism which is to make rich richer, by exploiting the poor.
It is this race for making more money, or making enough money in order to buy tons of things (much of what you don't actually need) that produces people who are refusing to do it.
Lumpen proletariat are also there because of the rich and SERVE to further the cause of the rich.

They're considered ENEMIES of the working class, and anti revolutionaries. Bums are the opposite of ''working'' right? Right.

If the whole world is to live in communist Utopia, as the capitalism disappears and the race for money, so would the bums. So, noone has a boss, and noone is a boss. You work in order to better your life and the life of your community/people.
It is hard to explain unless you actually read the whole thing.

As far as Marx is concerned, the main reasons for crime are the social inequalities produced as the result of capitalism (in earlier stages of our history, Marx states, capitalist essence was channelled through feudalism, dictatorships, hence crime...etc.)

Of course, as you will already know, there are different theories on origins of delinquent behaviour and why it happens - including (regardless of how much you agree or disagree), psychological and biological reasons amongst others.

Therefore, if we follow the communist manifesto, the system which it would create would not produce leeches (as the competition for income would be eliminated), but rather rid of them. Religion would be gone too.

Originally posted by KidRock
Is that really the argument that proponents of communism put forth? That in a true Communist society these leeches to society would not exist? There will ALWAYS be people who choose not to work or don't work hard enough and need to depend on others.

I really am not educated at all on any of this besides what I read on the internet and in a few economics classes I took. So feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

True communism can never exist with the way humans are now, specifically because of what you mentioned. There will be leeches. Stupid stupid leeches...and...because of people like you. Selfish self serving people. (There's nothing wrong with wanting to provide for you and yours. But, because of that, you are also a reason pure communism cannot exist.)



Edit -
Ahh. I didn't see this beautiful post. She says it much better.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually, Karl Marx goes over this in his works.

The 'bum' we're refering to is called 'Lumpen proletariat' and those, according to Marx are counter revolutionaries, and a drain on society.
They're counter revolutionaries because they advance the cause of bourgeoisies by depending on them to survive, ie begging. They, therefore have no place in communism.

Therefore...In the world where communism has triumphed, there wouldn't be any Lumpen Proletariat or 'bums', because, as counter revolutionaries, they too, with the bourgeoisies, would disappear.

Originally posted by KidRock
I don't live in that world. I live in a world where he who works the hardest, gets the most.



So hedge fund managers are hard workers?

There are plenty of people who do nothing more than manipulate money and make a lot

The hardest workers are not always the highest paid

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
So hedge fund managers are hard workers?

There are plenty of people who do nothing more than manipulate money and make a lot

The hardest workers are not always the highest paid

I would disagree, strongly, that they don't work hard. They are some of the most intelligent people in the business world. It's a very stressful job with long hours at times...and very few people can do it, else a shit ton of people would work that job.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
So hedge fund managers are hard workers?

There are plenty of people who do nothing more than manipulate money and make a lot

The hardest workers are not always the highest paid

In fact the hardest workers in the world are some of the worst paid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In fact the hardest workers in the world are some of the worst paid.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
So hedge fund managers are hard workers?

There are plenty of people who do nothing more than manipulate money and make a lot

The hardest workers are not always the highest paid

I have to agree with you.

I was a Business Manager for a huge Bank in London, and seriously, considering the pay I was getting - you cannot say that someone working at the factory is fairly paid based on the work they and I did.

I had myself latte from Starbucks few times a day, had a cigarette outside now and again, had my own office where if not too busy, I'd surf the internet, meet with clients now and again - most of them were happy to take me for lunch, and I would give them advice on what to do with their money in their business, and they'd all listen to me...and I advised things which would make ME and the bank rich.

My friends were working in Branches near mine, so they used to come over to my branch, or I used to go over there and leave the assistant manager to deal with complaints...then we'd have lunch or coffee...then I'd come back to my office and do nothing some more till its time for home.
I had all my things ready for deadlines, all my clients happy, but the amout of work I did, you can argue does not justify my wage.

But I got paid two and a half times what a personal banker was paid...and I did jack shit all day every day.
In fact, personal bankers worked twice as hard as me...they were there early in the morning WAY before me. I'd stroll in at 9 or 10am (if Im really hung over from the night before, I'd fake a meeting with a client and come in late)


And don't think for a SECOND your investment bankers and business managers do any different. They don't.
This is the people from whom I learned how I should work - target the richest clients, deal with their money, offer commercial mortgages and the returns would be huge.
Small fishes, middle class small business required no special work. They money they would contribute would have not been worth it (in bank greed terms).

Now compare that to some guy in a factory somewhere working his ass off, his fingers bleeding from manual work, and say that the system we have is fair.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Now compare that to some guy in a factory somewhere working his ass off, his fingers bleeding from manual work, and say that the system we have is fair.


The bleedin' b*tch should have gone to college.

Harsh!

Originally posted by dadudemon
We both know efficiency in government needs to be improved and corruption reduced. In fact, I think we agree on everything there. You just mistook my posts for meaning that we could eliminate all of the problems.

if there is a disagreement, I think it is in this:

To me, it appears that you are saying, lets just give the old political-economic system of governance the old spit shine, make it run most efficiently, then we can tackle health and other more pressing issues.

imho, massive reform to the way the system works in the first place is what is necessary.

Even if it is efficient, lobbyists, politicians, the "usual suspects" who, in all other cases, pork up bills, are in bed with corporate interests, are more interested in electability than anything else, and frankly are corrupt and at best amoral, are still the ones who are drafting and implementing these bills.

I'm all for more efficiency and a well oiled machine, I'd just expect that machine not to look like the oppressive monster that is the financially ruled democratic government of America. The system itself, imho, is what stifles change, not the fact that the system is just 1/3 inefficient.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In fact the hardest workers in the world are some of the worst paid.

Yes, they spend so much time working so hard to cover up a giant ponzi scheme, call it a hedge fund, and screw society out of generations of life savings, then socialize their losses via bailouts. People like that are why I'm still 100% in favor of capital punishment.

Originally posted by inimalist
if there is a disagreement, I think it is in this:

To me, it appears that you are saying, lets just give the old political-economic system of governance the old spit shine, make it run most efficiently, then we can tackle health and other more pressing issues.

Sort of.

Originally posted by inimalist
imho, massive reform to the way the system works in the first place is what is necessary.

This is closer to what I'm saying. However, it isn't the total dissolution and reorganization, though. Some projects should be completely thrown out (DEA), yes, but some should simply be turned upside down and re-purposed. (The FAA is a recent example of that. They are doing almost exactly that, with the FAA. TSA is much further along than the FAA with a project management overhaul, but they still have quite a bit of ways to go themselves. However, the changes they've done, the dissolution of lines of business within the orgs, and the restructuring, has improved them greatly.)

Originally posted by inimalist
Even if it is efficient, lobbyists, politicians, the "usual suspects" who, in all other cases, pork up bills, are in bed with corporate interests, are more interested in electability than anything else, and frankly are corrupt and at best amoral, are still the ones who are drafting and implementing these bills.

Not to mention they will slowly erode away at any reform and improvements.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm all for more efficiency and a well oiled machine, I'd just expect that machine not to look like the oppressive monster that is the financially ruled democratic government of America. The system itself, imho, is what stifles change, not the fact that the system is just 1/3 inefficient.

Part of restructuring for efficiency is redefining responsibilities. It's not just changing processes, it's also changing line of business policy.

Corporations by definition can't exist without the support of a government. Thus, a government is the true source of tyranny because they are the force that oppress people, not the corporation.

Taxation is evil by its very concept. The burden of proof is on those defending taxation as justified.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Corporations by definition can't exist without the support of a government.
That is not even close to the definition of a corporation.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That is not even close to the definition of a corporation. Maybe not in the fantasy based medias eyes, but in reality it is true.

The government has to support the rights and properties of a corporation. If this were not true, corporations would not have a police or military force to protect their monopoly.

This is the definition of corporation:

"A business organization owned by a group of stockholders, each of whom enjoys limited liability (that is, each can be held responsible for losses only up to the limit of his or her investment). A corporation has the ability to raise capital by selling stock to the public."

So no, it is not government aided "by definition".

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'd recommend works by Engels and Marks for everyone to read - it is little off putting because Marx just made up words for things as he went along, but the idea is actually really good - and it is damn shame it cannot work. (or rather at this present stage in our history/evolution, it cannot)

I also suggest "The Ego and it's Own" by Max Stirner. My favorite philosopher.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is the definition of corporation:

"A business organization owned by a group of stockholders, each of whom enjoys limited liability (that is, each can be held responsible for losses only up to the limit of his or her investment). A corporation has the ability to raise capital by selling stock to the public."

So no, it is not government aided "by definition". By definition, a government has to protect the property of said corporation. A government has a police force and a military that cannot be breached without being called a terrorist and shot on sight or jailed for life. If a corporation is large enough, it becomes synonymous with the government, and able to create a monopoly.

He's right, governments grant corporations their charters and are legally allowed to revoke them. As long as the cash keeps flowing, even public support will not get them to revoke charters. That's why every popular drive to revoke a charter to a multinational corporation has failed no matter how much popular support there was.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
He's right, governments grant corporations their charters and are legally allowed to revoke them. As long as the cash keeps flowing, even public support will not get them to revoke charters. That's why every popular drive to revoke a charter to a multinational corporation has failed no matter how much popular support there was.
I know that's the CURRENT state, but I don't feel he was correct in saying it was true by definition.

He's right that corporations as in that definition can't exist without a government, but there could be groups resembling corporations as we now it, which would act the same without government.

Yeah, "armed thugs" would do.

The problem is when a corporation defines itself as a "multinational" or "transnational". The local or state government that originally granted the charter can revoke it but the company could simply claim residence in another country and continue its operations unaffected.

I was wondering if anyone heard of the story that through illegal institutionalized fraud, 85% of all small business government contracts are granted to huge multinational corporations, many of them being foreign companies?

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Maybe not in the fantasy based medias eyes, but in reality it is true.

The government has to support the rights and properties of a corporation. If this were not true, corporations would not have a police or military force to protect their monopoly.

You are aware that most large corporations do have their own "police" force, don't you?

They call them security guards. I dare you to try to break into the Chrysler tower without getting shot or tasered.

That was just a random building. You can think of any building from a large corporation and you'll see the security.



On top of that, if a local police force did not exist, they would certainly invest into that police force. Even in a stateless environment, corporations could still exist, no problem. In fact, me thinks that in a stateless environment, corporations would assume the positions of the state, and maybe even form agreements amongst themselves that form the framework of regulation. They would, of course, set themselves up for maximum benefit for each other. I would assume that in some environments and personalities, there might even be some wars.

ownership - trade rights is the way to go.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
do you agree or disagree. give reasons why. {also, this can help people give their arguments against socialism/communism which are the major alternatives}. oh, heres a video by noam chomsky on the subject which i personally tend to agree with.

hBC_XICK7i0
Wait.

So should I e-mail Noam my response or do you have something to say?

The collusion of government and corporations is what leads to bad things. Not capitalism. To be blunt and simplistic for now until you at least formulate a reasoning for presenting this thread other than via Noam Chomsky.

Unregulated/Free Market Capitalism inevitably leads to Monopolies and Cartels/destruction of the market economy which inevitably lead collusion between corporations and government which inevitably leads to/is fascism.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Unregulated/Free Market Capitalism inevitably leads to Monopolies and Cartels/destruction of the market economy which inevitably lead collusion between corporations and government which inevitably leads to/is fascism.

Why go through all those steps to reach oppression when you can just start with socialism and skip over the rest.

how does socialism (real socialism, not "national socialism" lead to fascism?