NationStates Jolt Archive

Capitalism-money uber alles, the almighty dollar. It is easy to see where one gets this from, as the bottom line in capitalism is to make a buck, no questions asked, and I shall not go against this arguement at any point in this. I have prepared this for the huge amount of socialists/communists on this forum, for thier viewing pleasure. So, without further ado, let us actualy get to some defense.

Often times one can try to smack down capitalism with the arguement that the bottom line is to make a buck. If you think long and hard about it, this does not come as immoral, as I shall show you. With few restrictions, businesses tend to do much better and thus the economy seems to be better.

But wouldn't massive corporations dominate a sector of the market, and then force us to buy thier product? Sure, but with the bottom line of making a buck, it wouldn't make sense. If I were in charge of say...Games Inc. (making this up), and I produced inferior games, wouldn't someone rise to the challenge of creating a better game for the same price and thus make me lose money? If it works, I should continue to do it and if I managed to get in this position I am obviously running things much better than my competitors, and then could expect growth. If I stop, someone could possibly make headway against me

But then you ask, But doesn't capitalism make the rich richer and poor poorer? No. The amount of work you put into capitalism dictates the amount of succes you will get out of it. Born to a poor family and can't afford college? Work multiple jobs, get loans, whatever, but work hard and you can from that position go to college, get a degree, and use your newfound money to pay back all those debts. You have now risen from poverty. But if I had been in that position and said 'Well, I'm poor, I can't get out of it, I ain't doin' nothin' I won't go anywhere. I will get nothing/little, from the nothing/little I put in. It's all fair. Which then leads me to CEO wages.

If capitalism is so moral, why do CEOs earn so much more than the common worker? First off, the CEO is much more important the a single common worker. If the CEO screws up, you have the potential for job cuts, with possibly thousands of workers on the streets, while if a single common worker screws up, a few products are ruined/defective. It takes hundreds of workers to be important as a CEO, because without them, there would be no CEO, but with no CEO, there would be no workers. They are thus equal in value, if enough workers are applied. Also, mental labor (descision making, etc.) can be harder than just common labor. Plus, how many people can you get to make career defining descisions very often as compared to common labor?

What about exploiting common laborers? I thought capitalism did that? SInce I am setting out to earn a buck, I must atract employeese to help me acomplish that goal. Since I must compete for employees, I must offer the best possible wages/benefits to those who would work for me. This could also make for happier workers and thus better production, which would be nice.

What about those who cannot work? This is where the middle ground capitalist socialism (is that possible? :o ) idea comes in. Charities, or social welfare would help those who are truly disabled by keeping them alive. Family members could take care of them. They could even get jobs that use mental abilities (thinking, etc.) that might actualy make them more succesful than the common person. Only the retarded are really superly limited, but even they can get small jobs as janitors, etc. if they aren't retarded enough.

As unregulated, can't business discriminate against customers/employees for sex/race/whatever? Yes, but for making a buck, it makes no sense. People against racism woulnd't work for me, and those I discriminate against wouldn't buy my products, but those of competitors. I would lose money from those discriminated against. Sure you could do it, but why? Makes no sense under capitalism.

What about the environment? Why would youI, as manager of Games Inc, want to trach my environment? For public relations, it simply wouldn't make sense. Someone could easily find out I am poluting, and if they did people might not buy from me because I trashed the place. Because I recycle, and cleaner, etc., more people would buy from me that are environmentalists, because I am cleaner than competitors.

So as you can deduce, capitalism actualy seems fairly moral when played out in this way. I can't opress you because if I did, you might not like me and thus not buy from me. If I polute you might not buy form me for that. If I am a monopoly in any of these positions then people would create competition that didn't opress/polute/whatever and then I would lose money.

Well, enjoy my little rant, it's late so :P

A good summary of how capitalism works, in theory.

You forget that big companies can just buy up their competitors or set certain standards that other companies are forced to use, because they are so popular.

You forget that everyday people simply inherit money, which takes no work. Sometimes people work their asses off but things go wrong. A stock crashed, a business fails, whatever. Hard work doesn't always equal success under capitalism.

You forget that when it comes down to it, the workers are more important then the CEO. One CEO isn't enough to man the assembly lines or develop the source code or whatever. Workers can fly away from the hive. The queen is their slave. Besides plenty of the best ideas come from the workers. Like the Big Mac.

You forget that capitalism needs the workers who will work for the least to do the job right. Everyone always claims 'wages will rise to get the best workers' but they forget that capitalism needs a small percentage of unemployed in order to function. Profits would fall if everyone needed to get the best workers, they'd need to pay more. So with a small reserve of unemployed there's always the threat of being replaced with another, less demanding worker.

As for the enviroment, most people care more about getting goods cheeper then they do about the enviroment. Companies polute because it's cheeper to not worry about the environment. Just like it's easier to leave everything out after you make a sandwich, it's easier (and therefore cheeper) for them to leave their pollution alone.

I stopped reading after you said there was a massive amount of communists and socialists.

Who is John Galt?

A good summary of how capitalism works, in theory.

Thanks :wink:


You forget that big companies can just buy up their competitors or set certain standards that other companies are forced to use, because they are so popular.

Precisely. You must be as good as your competitor, so whatever your competitor has is the standard. No one is going to buy something that isnt as good as the best, unless the best is too expensive. And not all competitors will be selling themselves.


You forget that everyday people simply inherit money, which takes no work.

People inheriting money must still work in order to keep that money. What do I mean? Unless the inheritance was in the billions or so, the person is likely to spend most of it and not pass it on to thier children, and so they must work if they want to keep that family wealth.


Sometimes people work their asses off but things go wrong. A stock crashed, a business fails, whatever. Hard work doesn't always equal success under capitalism.

You can always pick up and try again. If you keep at it, eventualy you will be succesful.


You forget that when it comes down to it, the workers are more important then the CEO. One CEO isn't enough to man the assembly lines or develop the source code or whatever. Workers can fly away from the hive. The queen is their slave. Besides plenty of the best ideas come from the workers. Like the Big Mac.


I stated that the CEO is as valuable as a multitude of workers, because he makes important descisions that can destroy the whole thing, but no workers = no work done.


You forget that capitalism needs the workers who will work for the least to do the job right. Everyone always claims 'wages will rise to get the best workers' but they forget that capitalism needs a small percentage of unemployed in order to function. Profits would fall if everyone needed to get the best workers, they'd need to pay more. So with a small reserve of unemployed there's always the threat of being replaced with another, less demanding worker.

I think I admit defeat on this arguement.


As for the enviroment, most people care more about getting goods cheeper then they do about the enviroment. Companies polute because it's cheeper to not worry about the environment. Just like it's easier to leave everything out after you make a sandwich, it's easier (and therefore cheeper) for them to leave their pollution alone.

But some things, such as reycling, would make sense for a business man to simply reuse things and not have to buy a whole new thing. But there are environmentalists who wouldnt buy the product, and they might go on to a lesser company, and I am sure that theier continued use of my products would equalize it. If not, then the state can simply regulate this as sort of a middle ground, right?

I really hate it when people say CEO or people high up in corporations do no work. They run a corporation, that's pretty hard. Maybe not enough to deserve all that more pay, but they still work hard.

certainly they dont work hard enough to make 50 times more than the factory worker

THey do work hard enough to make that many times the wage of a factory worker. Think about it. If he screws up, there is the potential all of the people employed could be out of work. No one would take such a high stress job if they wouldn't get paid alot.

certainly they dont work hard enough to make 50 times more than the factory worker\

My friend's dad is stressed out 24/7 running his company, he pretty much works all week.

certainly they dont work hard enough to make 50 times more than the factory worker\

My friend's dad is stressed out 24/7 running his company, he pretty much works all week.

People who say the CEO never does any work and gets paid too much, etc, are obviously disgruntled workers who naturally dislike their bosses and authority/power figures in general.

If running a business is so easy, I recommend to those who think so to go out today and start up a business. Any business. Sole proprietorship, partnership, or even a company of 1. Let me know how it goes.

Make sure to don't do any work, either, since business management is all about not doing work. You should be able to top Microsoft in sales in just a few days, what with it being so easy compared to the front line work details and all...

:wink:

Crikey! That was an interesting "defence" of capitalism!

The moral defence of free markets is that it is based on freedom. Nobody takes what is yours without your permission and you don't take what is anyone elses. All trade is voluntary and therefore every trade only takes place if both parites wish it. It is based on mutual cooperation. Forcing people to give up what belongs to them is grossly unfair. Socialism is based on robbery, extortion and forced sacrifice of some people for others benefit.

Free markets are only to do with "making a buck" IF this is how people choose to use their resources. If everyone worked for free and gave away their product as charity then this would still be a free market since you are free to give away your product and labour as you choose. In reality a free market has a mix between mostly profit making enterprises and charities for those unable to look after themselves. People are naturally compassionate to a point and proponents of the free market realise that this compassion doesn't have to be enforced at gunpoint with govt welfare programs.

Corporations can't force you to buy their product at all. They can only try to persuade you. Monopolies are virtually impossible on the free market as you say and govt intervention (in the form of taxes, regulations etc) tend to enforce monopolies/cartels in the name of anti-monopoly.

The rich get richer and the poor get.....richer. The current corporate state deepens, not lessens, inequality via the taxation/regulation structure. A true free market may alleviate this. If it doesn't, so what? Poor college kids could partially fund themselves via loans rather than work lots of jobs. This would be preferable to forcing poor people to pay via taxes and then paying back massive taxes the rest of their lives.

The CEO earns more because someone is willing to pay him more. It's as simple as that. As soon as the factory worker can convince someone his labour is worth $1 million/year then his labour will be worth that. Until then it isn't. That's what "worth" is. Presumably the CEO earns more for the reason you stated.

You're bang on with "exploitation". I've always wondered how doing nothing is not exploitation but giving someone a better wage than anyone else is willing to (actually improving their condition) is. :?

No middle ground is necessary. Charities and jobs are far better at helping the unfortunate than the govt is. People think I like free markets because I don't care about the unfortunate. In fact the opposite is true.

Regulations like Affirmative Action tend to deepen racism not alleviate it. It doesn't make sense for a profit making firm to discriminate. If they do though it is wrong but it is also wrong to use threats of violence to prevent it (every law is a threat of violence).

The environment would be cleaner with a free market because you'd be allowed to sue polluters if they damage your health or property.

I already run my own business AND i work as a slave for a corporation as I try to get my business off the ground. Factory workers have much more stress because they ahve to worry about feeding their families and children and tryign to afford healthcare and all that which the CEO's have no problem with.

The guys who make a ton mor money than me stand around all day in their offices talking about golf. I know because their door is open and I hear it.

They work less time in the office than I do and they take like 30 smoke breaks a day.

I already run my own business AND i work as a slave for a corporation as I try to get my business off the ground. Factory workers have much more stress because they ahve to worry about feeding their families and children and tryign to afford healthcare and all that which the CEO's have no problem with.

You run your own business, yet you work for someone else? Sounds fishy.... CEOs only have no problem when they do not screw up. If they screw up, they could be out of the job just like anyone who screws up.


The guys who make a ton mor money than me stand around all day in their offices talking about golf. I know because their door is open and I hear it.

They work less time in the office than I do and they take like 30 smoke breaks a day.



They don't stand around talking about golf all day, otherwise no one would have hired them, as they are serving no purpose. Just because they are standing around talking about golf doesnt that that is all they do. Same with the smoking.

yes because I want to eventually make enough money to support myself, so that I dont have to work for someone else. WHat is so fishy about that. With the money that CEO's make, they should be able to save quite a bit of money and therefore not have to worry if they lose their jobs from making a bad decision.

Although I have seen the company I worked for lose several accounts from big clients because of poor decisions made by my bosses and they havent lost their jobs.

Yes they spend the majority of the day bs'ing with each other. The rest f the time they are delegating work to the rest of us. I see them sitting in their offices talking on the phone with their family. They are always coming back from trips to exotic lands with pics to rub in all our lowly faces.

They dont deserve the amount of money they make. Us lowly workers who do all the programming of the applications we sell to other companies, are being shortchanged big time. We are the ones who make the products that allow the company to make the money.

And yes every freakin time I walk by their offices they are sitting around laughing and having a good time (oh how stressful!!!!). Were we to do that, we would get reprimanded. That is a facct.

But wouldn't massive corporations dominate a sector of the market, and then force us to buy thier product?

It's already happened. Look at Microsoft. Ironically, it took the very thing that protects capitalism to keep it from going too far and probably dooming itself: the government.

But doesn't capitalism make the rich richer and poor poorer?

Absolutely. If you are born rich, you don't have to work nearly as hard to succeed as someone is poor.

If capitalism is so moral, why do CEOs earn so much more than the common worker?

It has nothing to do with importance. Actors are no where near as important as farmers but get paid much more. If a CEO genuinely worked 500 times harder than a worker, they would have more heart attacks than you can imagine.

If there were no CEOs, we would survive and, in fact, do much better. If there were no workers, nothing would get done at all.

What about exploiting common laborers? I thought capitalism did that?

It does. The workers only work because the alternative is starvation. The business owner has many advantages in an agreement with the worker.

What about those who cannot work?

If charities can seriously be expected to support them, then why not go all the way and abolish money?

As unregulated, can't business discriminate against customers/employees for sex/race/whatever?

What customers know about your business comes largely from commercials and how much a product costs. If they don't know you discriminate, they will choose your lower prices.

What about the environment?

See above. It costs a lot to be environmentally friendly.

certainly they dont work hard enough to make 50 times more than the factory worker

500 times as much in some cases, actually.

My friend's dad is stressed out 24/7 running his company, he pretty much works all week.

In that case, let's abolish capitalism so he can relax.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Work in software development do you? Well I have news for you: you aren't being opressed, etc. etc. Look at the wages of most computer people with degrees. Many of them are near $100,000! That's over twice the GDP per capita of the United States!

And you prove that they aren't useless. If they didn't tell you what to do-obviously being managers-then what would you do? Without knowing what the project is or having anyone command it, you would either do nothing or do something stupid.

But they deserve thier pay because they are directing you to do the project. You 'lowly' programmers are not opressed, not put down, and not poor. As said, without them you'd be doing nothing useful.

And about those bosses not getting fired-do you even know the people that made the descision? Mightn't they be on a short leach by now? If not, your leaders are obviously incompetant.

I'm curious that no one has pointed out how discrimination works to the advantage of business.

One purpose of discrimination is to keep the workers at odds with each other. You can see it now between blacks and whites in the south, where they are competing for jobs. Until they stand together, things will not improve, because they are always willing to take jobs from each other.

The classic example of this is the steel mills. At one point, everyone worked side by side, and got along. Then management got the brilliant idea to separate the two--moving white workers to the high-payer, safer jobs, and leaving blacks in the filthy, dangerous ones.

The blacks demand equal work, but the white workers, seeing it as an attack on themselves, fight back, creating a divide between the two.

The same can be said of homosexuality, which has existed for as long as humanity has. At some points, society has tolerated it more or less, and others have vilified it. Homosexuality is especially useful in this regard, because, like political discrimination, you can hardly prove yourself innocent. And unlike political discrimination, it's still legal.

I already run my own business AND i work as a slave for a corporation as I try to get my business off the ground.
You do not "work as a slave".

It's already happened. Look at Microsoft. Ironically, it took the very thing that protects capitalism to keep it from going too far and probably dooming itself: the government.

Wrong! Microsoft is in its position because it has done so well, and disgruntled competitors are plotting to throw it down because they can not match its succes.


Absolutely. If you are born rich, you don't have to work nearly as hard to succeed as someone is poor.

Only slightly true: if you screw up and waste your money you will still be poor, and it can happen. And you can go from dirt poor to mega rich. Look up some of those people that coined the phrase 'from rags to riches'


It has nothing to do with importance. Actors are no where near as important as farmers but get paid much more. If a CEO genuinely worked 500 times harder than a worker, they would have more heart attacks than you can imagine.

If there were no CEOs, we would survive and, in fact, do much better. If there were no workers, nothing would get done at all.

If there were no CEOs, we would not do good. We need people to direct the workers to a common task. If you simply say 'work for society!' then you aren't getting anything done. Who would ensure that such things as software would be developed for those who use computers? Who would ensure that your car is running and that more are made so that more people can have them? You obviously don't need them to survive. You and I are on a computer now. Should we disband this all because you are under the mistaken belief we are opressed?


It does. The workers only work because the alternative is starvation. The business owner has many advantages in an agreement with the worker.

But the business owner also works. Many of them have stressful, though highly rewarding, jobs. Bill Gates is an example of someone who has good work ethics. Though his family is set for generations, he continues to work and refuses to give his children a single penny, so that they will have to learn work ethics.


If charities can seriously be expected to support them, then why not go all the way and abolish money?

Why not just ruin the economy as well?


What customers know about your business comes largely from commercials and how much a product costs. If they don't know you discriminate, they will choose your lower prices.

No, because you would have less people to potentialy work for you/buy your products and thus have competitors gain all those that you discriminated against.


See above. It costs a lot to be environmentally friendly.


Indeed, but if people start protesting you and thus cause your ruin by exposing that you pump toxic waste into a pond, potentialy harming them, would they then want to support you by buying your product?


500 times as much in some cases, actually.


But they can also, potentialy, cause thousands to lose thier jobs if they mess up.


In that case, let's abolish capitalism so he can relax.

He wouldn't relax, because then your socialist society would have most modern comforts be destroyed because they are not neccesary for survival. Communism is dead. It died in the 19th century. It is an easily exploited system, and produces inferior products with no choice but the inferior products. It also produces less of them.

dp

Work in software development do you? Well I have news for you: you aren't being opressed, etc. etc. Look at the wages of most computer people with degrees. Many of them are near $100,000! That's over twice the GDP per capita of the United States!

And you prove that they aren't useless. If they didn't tell you what to do-obviously being managers-then what would you do? Without knowing what the project is or having anyone command it, you would either do nothing or do something stupid.

But they deserve thier pay because they are directing you to do the project. You 'lowly' programmers are not opressed, not put down, and not poor. As said, without them you'd be doing nothing useful.

And about those bosses not getting fired-do you even know the people that made the descision? Mightn't they be on a short leach by now? If not, your leaders are obviously incompetant.

Actually, I only make 40,000/yr and its hard to get by on that. There have been several new employees at our company that say they have never seen such low morale from fellow employees. and many stated how dissapointed they are with their pay and their work environment. But that's how things are with teh economy right now. There is hardly anythign out there and what is out there is barely worth taking. Thats why I am tryign to start my own business. I came up from a poor neighborhood and have been workign my ass off trying to get ahead. But I am nothing but deeply in debt. I put myself thru school and supported myself since I turned 18. I'm thirty now and still wondering how I am ever goign to pay off my student loans. Capatalism is not all hunky dory my friend.

The bosses dont tell us what to do. The sales guys get a client to say they need a product built by us. the bosses tell us to do it. We figure out what to do.

Yes my superiors are mighty incompetent and there are too many of them doing a whole lot of nothing and making way too much money for doing nothing. If the boss has to make a report, he tells us to do it, then explain it to them, and then they go present it to the president. They did nothing but relay informaiton.

And I suggest plans of action and ideas to the managers all the time. I dont sit around doing nothing, because I wasnt told to do anything and wouldnt.

Actually, I only make 40,000/yr and its hard to get by on that... Capatalism is not all hunky dory my friend.

*Cry*

It's time to look at the real victims here... people like Gods Bowels, making only US$40,000 a year. He can only eat at nice restaurants a couple times a week... sometimes he needs to shop for groceries. Once he bought bottle of generic cola. His television could be bigger if it weren't for the management overlords.

You can help. Sign over your freedom for a welfare/socialist state. Then Gods Bowels will only make US$35,000, but those management overlords will make the same as he does and Gods Bowels won't have to feel oppressed.

well living in Los Angeles takes a huge toll on your pay.

I dont drink cola, go out to restaurants or watch tv.
I spend all my money on student loans, car loans insurance gas, cc bill pay offs (and I only used cred cards in emergency situations), medical bills, utilities, and trying to get a business started. I work my ass off and still I live paycheck to paycheck.

and I would feel better if the management who sat around and got their subordinates to do their work made a fairer amount of money.

Actually, I only make 40,000/yr and its hard to get by on that... Capatalism is not all hunky dory my friend.

*Cry*

It's time to look at the real victims here... people like Gods Bowels, making only US$40,000 a year. He can only eat at nice restaurants a couple times a week... sometimes he needs to shop for groceries. Once he bought bottle of generic cola. His television could be bigger if it weren't for the management overlords.

You can help. Sign over your freedom for a welfare/socialist state. Then Gods Bowels will only make US$35,000, but those management overlords will make the same as he does and Gods Bowels won't have to feel oppressed.

Stirner you seem to be obsessed with wellbeing being measured by accumulation of material goods. There is actually nothing worng with generic cola and shopping for groceries and most people wil admit that. People have survuved for centuries with far less material comfort than we are becomming accustomed to now. From what I read into his comments, Gods Bowells is not complaining about his material well being. His real complaint is that the nature of the wage/labour trade robs him of dignity. He is, to use Marxist terminology, alienated from the production process. Why do you think he is running a business as well as working, obviously not because it makes enough money to support himself but because he gets more satisfaction out of it (sorry if i am putting words into your mouth GB). In a modern capitralist society, the number of people who can own their own business is limited as corporations need to be of a certain size in order to compete (dont get me started on economies of scale and monopoly markets) and therefore the number of employees who obtain no satisfaction out of work increases every day.

This is not a problem that can be resolved through application of capitalist logic.

Hey! Do you want to know what happens in a purely capitalistic society? Well, read one man's perspective in Jennifer Government. It's a book by Max Barry. Hey! Wait a second! This website was built to support and advertise Jennifer Government, a very anti-capitalistic novel! If you continue to blast socialism or communism, you blast this website, that book, and Mr. Max Barry. ENOUGH SAID!!

Now, before I sign off, I will point these out
1) Communism has not been implemented in the history of the world.
2) Quit combining socialism and communism. They are two distinct ways of life.
3) I personally do not support communism because it limits our natural born freedoms (such as religion).
4) There are advantages and disadvantages to any and everything. Socialism, communism, and capitalism are no exception. I feel the advantages and disadvantages of socialism outweigh the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism and communism.

Thank you, and have a nice day!
Yours royally,
King Bobort of Tihland

1) Communism has not been implemented in the history of the world.
It has been. Very, very early in the Communist Revolution is Russia it was emplemented and there have been various experimental communist villages.

2) Quit combining socialism and communism. They are two distinct ways of life.Both of them are anti-capitalist, it seems.

4) There are advantages and disadvantages to any and everything. Socialism, communism, and capitalism are no exception. I feel the advantages and disadvantages of socialism outweigh the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism and communism. Socialism's welfare and such tend not to be very good equalizers, and even were they, people would still find ways to be better than one another. There is no cure to hierarchy.

Fluffy bunny, if you knew even the bare historical context of Lenin's 'War Communism' policies then you would know that the conditions were hardly ideal for establishing a communist state. Apart from the fact that Russia had already been ruined by war with Germany, she was also being invaded by the armies of Britain, France and the USA in addition to fighting a civil war against the Tsarists.

As for socialism and communism, they are differrent. Socialism is state or collective ownership of major capital enterprises and is thus a specific type of capitalism. Communism on the other hand is anti capitalism.

With regards to your comment about equality, if you eliminate the hierarchy then no one can be at the top of it. Hence Anarchism.

Who is John Galt?

Ask Dagny, Hank or Francisco.

1) Communism has not been implemented in the history of the world.
Read the communist manifesto, and then come back and tell me all the details of when and where it was implemented. Give us all the details, for we're all ears. You have failed so far.

2) Quit combining socialism and communism. They are two distinct ways of life.
Fluffy Wuffy wrote "both of them are anti-capitalist, it seems."
Just as socialism is non-capitalist and non-communist, communism is non-socialist and non-capitalist, and guess what? capitalism is non-socialist and non-communist. Now that we've gone through all the permutations, I repeat:
Quit combining socialism and communism. They are two distinct ways of life.

Why bother with this debate? Have you not learned by now that we aren't going to have our minds changed by your continued illogical comments about capitalism? We cannot seem to persuade you with our many examples, many logical arguments, and many good ideas. Why not read some contemporary material about capitalism? Try a book called Antimarket Economics. I can't remember the author, but it's a good book. It discusses the fallacies and illogicities involved in current capitalistic thought. It also presents a different form of an economy. I also suggest reading another book, for entertainment and enlightenment. It's called Jennifer Government, and it's by Max Barry. Your eyes will be opened upon reading this book. I promise--but you can't go around questioning every little thing in it. Read it for enjoyment at the very least.

Yours royally,
King Bobort of Tihland

The problem is that it's just not in some people's nature to be a capitalist. They have different priorities; they may even (gasp) hate money, or not be competitive. There are many things that are part of a person's inherent nature and not inherited by acculturation; economic beliefs are, I believe, one of them. I am such an example. I live in a capitalist nation and was born to capitalist parents, but I can't bring myself to like capitalism very much, or have the same priorties valued by capitalists. I am just different from them. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think capitalism is evil; I have respect for someone who can use that system to their advantage, work hard, and come out on top. But I cannot make myself do it. I am just not that way.

That doesn't necessarily mean that I think capitalism is evil; I have respect for someone who can use that system to their advantage, work hard, and come out on top. But I cannot make myself do it. I am just not that way.
Don't worry, my lazy friend. You will be allowed to leach off of the driving engines of the world. That's why we have taxes!

Seriously, no one is telling you that you must get rich. Nobody is telling you anything. Live your own life, and know that it belongs to you for all its successes and failures.

THey do work hard enough to make that many times the wage of a factory worker. Think about it. If he screws up, there is the potential all of the people employed could be out of work. No one would take such a high stress job if they wouldn't get paid alot.
Tell me, then, where's the sense in accumulating all that power and wealth in someone who can easily screw up? He may work just as hard as the average employee, but he's still a liability. Why waste so much money on someone who can easily screw up and ruin the company?

Okay, a person from a rich background has lots of inherited wealth. He works just as hard as someone from a poor background. Who is going to end up better off, even though the actual work they put in is the same?

Okay, a person from a rich background has lots of inherited wealth. He works just as hard as someone from a poor background. Who is going to end up better off, even though the actual work they put in is the same?

Oh, man. Life isn't fair! How terrible!

I know, let's invent a stupid quasi-utopian fantasy called communism where everyone is exactly the same as everyone, economics doesn't work (thankfully, all we need for that is an infinite amount of resources! whew- for a second I thought it'd be difficult and unrealistic!), and everyone gets everything they need! Yeah!

As a matter of fact, someone's already invented a fantasy like that. But they call it Heaven.

It's funny, you know, how Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses, and his quasi-followers now have communism as a religion.

Grow up, people. Capitalism is nothing more than acceptance of the reality that is. It doesn't need to be defended (I'm just posting cuz I'm bored). Communism is a laughable fiction that ignores both human nature and the nature of geopolitics.

The problem is that it's just not in some people's nature to be a capitalist. They have different priorities; they may even (gasp) hate money, or not be competitive.

Why hate or love money? Money is a tool. You either can get and use that tool or you can't. Generally, people that can't are the ones that hate it. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though, wink wink.

And if you're so not competitive by nature, well then you'll have no problem with me informing you that you are just plain wrong and you adhere to a dead politico-religion, yes?


In that case, let's abolish capitalism so he can relax.

Hey while we're at it, let's abolish all kinds of freedoms, not just economic! Since that is what you "equality above all else" types are about, isn't-- sacrificing freedom for control, due to insecurities...

Grow up, people. Capitalism is nothing more than acceptance of the reality that is. It doesn't need to be defended (I'm just posting cuz I'm bored). Communism is a laughable fiction that ignores both human nature and the nature of geopolitics.

Why is it that, every time someone wants to defend doing something unpleasant, they claim that it is "human nature"?

"Sure, I'm greedy and selfish, but hey, don't blame me: it's just human nature! I'm a helpless victim of my meanest and basest desires. It's utterly beyond my power to control."

And why should people just accept the reality of the current situation? I thought capitalists were supposed to be in favour of innovation and progress.

Why is it that, every time someone wants to defend doing something unpleasant, they claim that it is "human nature"?

"Sure, I'm greedy and selfish, but hey, don't blame me: it's just human nature! I'm a helpless victim of my meanest and basest desires. It's utterly beyond my power to control."
He never said anything about human nature being deterministic.

"Sure I'm selfish and my own person. I accept responsibility for this. I am the glorious product of my own rational mind. I am in complete control of my life."
And why should people just accept the reality of the current situation? I thought capitalists were supposed to be in favour of innovation and progress.
Who's for accepting the reality of the current situation? We want capitalism. And when it comes we will accept it because capitalism is innovation and progress.

It's funny, you know, how Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses, and his quasi-followers now have communism as a religion.

I agree. It was a strange cycle, wasn't it? That's what happens when you abolish freedom of religion: people take something else as seriously as they did their former belief. I'm not for taking away religious freedoms at all, if only for that reason.

Grow up, people. Capitalism is nothing more than acceptance of the reality that is. It doesn't need to be defended (I'm just posting cuz I'm bored). Communism is a laughable fiction that ignores both human nature and the nature of geopolitics.

I also agree that it is often a natural human trait to be selfish, but who has ever said it's a good one? We always praise the selfless in our society, calling them heroes. Should we not try, then, to minimize the culture of selfishness encouraged by capitalism? Again, capitalism is not inherently evil, no more so than any other economic system, but selfishness is what makes it go round. I would hope you'd be willing to admit that.

The problem is that it's just not in some people's nature to be a capitalist. They have different priorities; they may even (gasp) hate money, or not be competitive.

Why hate or love money? Money is a tool. You either can get and use that tool or you can't. Generally, people that can't are the ones that hate it. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though, wink wink.

And if you're so not competitive by nature, well then you'll have no problem with me informing you that you are just plain wrong and you adhere to a dead politico-religion, yes?

Er, if you are referring to communism, I am not a communist. But if you want to call me one, and say that I'm wrong, go ahead. People's opinions have ceased to have much effect on me. If you're looking for a flame war, you won't get one. Also, communism is not a religion, though it may have been treated as such by some of its adherents. Communism is an economic system. If it can be worshipped, then so can capitalism. It was Marxism, an actual philosophy, that was usually looked at in a more religious light.

And as for money, I don't have much now. But I will be starting my job soon. That doesn't mean I'm going to like money; even when I had a job before I never thought much of it. I dislike money not because of what it is used for, but because of what it could do to me as a person if I let it. I don't like the things that money has done to people in my society, and I don't want what's happened to some of them happen to me. I fear its power, I suppose you could say. I'm not afraid to admit that fact.

Clicky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3790141.stm)

DirecTV, a satellite firm bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp empire a year ago, sold its entire stake in TiVo, causing its shares to fall 14%.

US firm DirecTV has become the main source of new subscribers to TiVo.

The sale could be the first step in Mr Murdoch's assault on TiVo, which allows users to pause and skip broadcasts.


People power.

Poletariate Comrades, congradulations! you have begun the long process of questioning what is around you. . .You have discovered an "emptyness" inside yourself. Do not worry! Many are like you! You have begun to realize that all that is great does not come from a store, and nothing material will fill that "emptyness". . .

Learn the philosophy of "being over having" and you will truley be free. Being is internalized, having is externalized. Most people think "freedom" is the right to have and do (almost) whatever they want. . .Poor fools!!That is not freedom! True freedon is "not needing" There so called freedom is in fact SLAVERY!!. That's right, SLAVERY!! Detach yourself! Focus on what really matters in life - Life in it's most basic level, in it's multitudes, your friends and other close relationships your interests. All else is illusion! All else is only meant to passify you. . .Rebel!! And in the end, we will win!!!

[dry cackling laughter]

I also agree that it is often a natural human trait to be selfish, but who has ever said it's a good one? We always praise the selfless in our society, calling them heroes. Should we not try, then, to minimize the culture of selfishness encouraged by capitalism? Again, capitalism is not inherently evil, no more so than any other economic system, but selfishness is what makes it go round. I would hope you'd be willing to admit that.
I don't praise the "selfless" in society. I call them victims. Willing victims are the worst kind of person. We need to promote selfishness.

A selfless person is someone with low self-esteem, who considers himself cattle for others. A selfless person is someone who sacrifices a value. This could be his life, his freedom, his property.

It is not being selfless to trade values. And it is not selfless to depart with a lesser value to maintain or obtain a higher value. So a fireman rushing into an occupied burning apartment building where he dies is selfish, not selfless, in that he seeks to preserve a value that he rates even higher than a risk to his life. But the same fireman dying to preserve a burning abandoned building is sacrificing himself, and I for one will not praise him.

Okay, a person from a rich background has lots of inherited wealth. He works just as hard as someone from a poor background. Who is going to end up better off, even though the actual work they put in is the same?

Oh, man. Life isn't fair! How terrible!


I love the way you totally ignored the point I was trying to make. Instead of thinking what I might have been trying to say you launch into a diatribe against a political ideal that you project onto me, well done.
What I was replying to was the statement that Fluffywuffy made that the material rewards one obtains under capitalism are dependant solely upon one's work. In doing so he implies capitalism is a perfect meritocracy and thus fair. I pointed out that this is not so.

Poletariate Comrades, congradulations! you have begun the long process of questioning what is around you. . .You have discovered an "emptyness" inside yourself. Do not worry! Many are like you! You have begun to realize that all that is great does not come from a store, and nothing material will fill that "emptyness". . .

Learn the philosophy of "being over having" and you will truley be free. Being is internalized, having is externalized. Most people think "freedom" is the right to have and do (almost) whatever they want. . .Poor fools!!That is not freedom! True freedon is "not needing" There so called freedom is in fact SLAVERY!!. That's right, SLAVERY!! Detach yourself! Focus on what really matters in life - Life in it's most basic level, in it's multitudes, your friends and other close relationships your interests. All else is illusion! All else is only meant to passify you. . .Rebel!! And in the end, we will win!!!

[dry cackling laughter]

I cannot help thinking that somewhere in your rant there is a grain of truth.

Poletariate Comrades, congradulations! you have begun the long process of questioning what is around you. . .You have discovered an "emptyness" inside yourself. Do not worry! Many are like you! You have begun to realize that all that is great does not come from a store, and nothing material will fill that "emptyness". . .

Learn the philosophy of "being over having" and you will truley be free. Being is internalized, having is externalized. Most people think "freedom" is the right to have and do (almost) whatever they want. . .Poor fools!!That is not freedom! True freedon is "not needing" There so called freedom is in fact SLAVERY!!. That's right, SLAVERY!! Detach yourself! Focus on what really matters in life - Life in it's most basic level, in it's multitudes, your friends and other close relationships your interests. All else is illusion! All else is only meant to passify you. . .Rebel!! And in the end, we will win!!!

[dry cackling laughter]

I cannot help thinking that somewhere in your rant there is a grain of truth.

Grain of truth now? Many such grains. . .many indeed!

You even worse than Ayn Rand.

You even worse than Ayn Rand.

Who is Ayn Rand?

Who is Ayn Rand?

A demoness.

I don't praise the "selfless" in society. I call them victims. Willing victims are the worst kind of person. We need to promote selfishness.

A selfless person is someone with low self-esteem, who considers himself cattle for others. A selfless person is someone who sacrifices a value. This could be his life, his freedom, his property.

It is not being selfless to trade values. And it is not selfless to depart with a lesser value to maintain or obtain a higher value. So a fireman rushing into an occupied burning apartment building where he dies is selfish, not selfless, in that he seeks to preserve a value that he rates even higher than a risk to his life. But the same fireman dying to preserve a burning abandoned building is sacrificing himself, and I for one will not praise him.

A person who values only money is seriously ill.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

You even worse than Ayn Rand.

Woah, lets not go around saying things we might regret tomorrow.

A person who values only money is seriously ill.
Indeed. What prompted you to say this? It's totally out of context.

I'm not sure if New Astrolia was talking about me, but I take being called "worse than Ayn Rand" the highest of compliments. Thank you.

Hey while we're at it, let's abolish all kinds of freedoms, not just economic! Since that is what you "equality above all else" types are about, isn't-- sacrificing freedom for control, due to insecurities...

capitalism /= economic freedom. the argument only works if you use a contradictory notion of freedom that allows for some people to be 'free' at the expense of others. which isn't freedom, it's just privilege.

the economic structures that most socialists propose are democratic in some way. which means that they are more free than the private dictatorial tyrannies that make up the capitalist system - for exactly the same reason that the semi-democratic republics in the world today are more free than nations run by full-on dictators.

freedom requires equality.

Hey while we're at it, let's abolish all kinds of freedoms, not just economic! Since that is what you "equality above all else" types are about, isn't-- sacrificing freedom for control, due to insecurities...

capitalism /= economic freedom. the argument only works if you use a contradictory notion of freedom that allows for some people to be 'free' at the expense of others. which isn't freedom, it's just privilege.

the economic structures that most socialists propose are democratic in some way. which means that they are more free than the private dictatorial tyrannies that make up the capitalist system - for exactly the same reason that the semi-democratic republics in the world today are more free than nations run by full-on dictators.

freedom requires equality.

True freedom also requires two more things. . .Responsability, and detachment. . .

[quote]Who is Ayn Rand?

A demoness.[quote]

Well then, I am nothing like her. I checked a site on her. I am nothing like her, and you are right she is a demoness!

To those of you who have half a brain left I would advise that you read of some of Rand's work and make a rational decision as to whether or not you agree with Rand instead of simply listening to the Letilas of the world who have never read anything by Rand and have decided to hate her based upon a couple of derogettory descriptions their friend may have uttered.

To those of you who have half a brain left I would advise that you read of some of Rand's work and make a rational decision as to whether or not you agree with Rand instead of simply listening to the Letilas of the world who have never read anything by Rand and have decided to hate her based upon a couple of derogettory descriptions their friend may have uttered.

I've read at least some of the site and my view of it still stands! I simply do not agree with her teachings. No animal rights! She praises capitalism and property rights, like they are everything! The individual over the multitudes, which sounds selfish to me. I simply disagree with what she says!

[quote]quote]

A person who values only money is seriously ill.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I agree, also too much money makes you weak and facid. . .I see it all the time. It is conducive to decadence, which always bring weakness! Obey the dictates "of taking only what you need". . .The good earth will love you for it, and reward you with "strength of flesh"

To those of you who have half a brain left I would advise that you read of some of Rand's work and make a rational decision as to whether or not you agree with Rand instead of simply listening to the Letilas of the world who have never read anything by Rand and have decided to hate her based upon a couple of derogettory descriptions their friend may have uttered.

I've read at least some of the site and my view of it still stands! I simply do not agree with her teachings. No animal rights! She praises capitalism and property rights, like they are everything! The individual over the multitudes, which sounds selfish to me. I simply disagree with what she says!

You sound just like a antagonistic character from Atlas Shrugged. You cannot draw your conclusions on her by simply skimming through a website. Which site is this?

BTW, you're right about her being selfish.