true capitalism and free market economies lead to corporate tyrrany - discuss

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?

Originally posted by KidRock
I am against a completely socialist government, not some socialist policy.

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.

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?

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.