NationStates Jolt Archive

They have their platitudes. We have history and the courage not to give in to noisy unreal idealists who claim to be "ENLIGHTENED".


Yes, it's amazing how history seems to support Rightist theories when it's censored for content and made up wholesale wherever no supporting facts can be found. When the Right get's ahold of history McCarthy becomes a hero (the Senator, not the Beatle), and cowboys become noble white rugged adventurers trying to defend civilization from the warmongering saveges. Give it another 20 years and the political right will turn Hitler into a hero too. Once more people start to realize that Bush's grandfather funded him that is.

Your ignorance of capitalism is profound.

(( And I'm "prodding" again, with the leftist=fascist equation. Though "leftism" is inherently fascist, fascism are not necessarily ONLY leftist. ))

Apparently you don't agree with my "trend analysis" of rightist monopoly with leftist monopoly. That's fine. :)

The truth hurts, and we all generally avoid pain.

And yet I notice again that when called upon your BS you can never defend it, just insult those who disagree with you. You still can't come up with an explanation of how leftism leads to fascism you still trot out self-referential insistances that it be so.

You don't have a "trend analysis." Analysis by definition takes thing apart until the self-evident facts can be demonstrated to amount to your thesis.
You don't do that, you trot out an absurd thesis (leftism = fascism) and then only defend it by saying it again and again in the hopes that insulting those who disagree with you will wander off. Then you accuse them of being afraid to tell you how wrong you are when in truth you're just being dense.

If you think you can see how capitalism protects against monopoly please tell me where all the "robber barons" of the turn of the last century came from? Even in Ming China it became appearant that capitalism causes wealth to consolidate around merchants the way gravity consolidates rocks around iron.

Unregulated capitalism always tends toward monopoly. It is the natural result of allowing people to gather wealth and power, they will use it to keep others from doing so.


I'm not for governments breaking up monopolies, however, such a free market monopoly so rarely occurs as to make the discussion of them nearly pointless.


This is completly untrue. Capitalist trade can benifit everyone involved but this is not what happens when the US trades with any other country. Or indeed when any countries of unequal power trade with one another....1950's invasion of guatemala


So far you've not offered any real evidence to show this to be true. Your single example of 1950's Guatemala is quite flawed. You make a accusation that the US "bombed" Guatemala because they refused to sell us bannanas. In fact the CIA help instigate a coup of the Soviet leaning Arbenz whose administration had stolen land lawfully purchased by an American company (communists do so love to seize private property don't they). I'm not sure if you are trying to intentionally misrepresent history, or are just unaware of the details.


If you think you can see how capitalism protects against monopoly please tell me where all the "robber barons" of the turn of the last century came from?


They came from leftist myth. The robber barons, such as Standard Oil, were never robbers nor barons. A quick example: By the time Standard Oil was broken up the price of oil derived products had dropped drastically and Standard Oil was in the process of losing market share naturally as more competitive corporations eroded their market dominance.

And thus chimes in the adolescent who, after having thoughts of robbing his more "prosperous" neighbor, then subsequently having thoughts of being apprehended by the police and punished, comtemplates killing all police officers. And then promotes the idea to all his friends.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Are you at all capable of defending your ideas? Note; insulting those who disagree with you does not constitute a defense.

Thus chimes the would-be robber baron who dreams of growing enough fat to fill his gilded throne while oiled-up slave boys have no choice but to feed him "peeled grapes" because they were less successful at playing the stock market.
See? that sort of argument doesn't actually defend a position.

The adolescent is an idealist who thinks that a single, simple theory will sum everything up if only everyone else would stop being so stupid as to disagree. This idea can be capitalism, communism, fascism, or direct democracy. As such you are the adolescent thinker.

The realist knows that compromises of ideology must be made to make them practical. eg. Tax cuts must be rescinded in times of war, monopolies established by highly succesful businessmen who use their power to control the market must have their businesses broken up to restore class parity.
The adolescent idealist thinks that capitalism will self regulate or that communism will be embraced by all once the majority see how it would benifit them.

The realist knows that Democratic Socialism is the only long-lasting form of government and economic practice that will be overturned neither by corporate fascism nor subversive revolution. Socialism is the compromise of the adult. Communism is the hope of the adolescent dreamer, capitalism is the dream of the adolescent bully.

I'm not for governments breaking up monopolies, however, such a free market monopoly so rarely occurs as to make the discussion of them nearly pointless.
They happen so rarely because we live with a socialist economic system that forbids them. Those controls are systematicly being removed. The most obvoius result of which is the cardboard flavor in pop music these days.

So far you've not offered any real evidence to show this to be true. Your single example of 1950's Guatemala is quite flawed. You make a accusation that the US "bombed" Guatemala because they refused to sell us bannanas. In fact the CIA help instigate a coup of the Soviet leaning Arbenz whose administration had stolen land lawfully purchased by an American company (communists do so love to seize private property don't they). I'm not sure if you are trying to intentionally misrepresent history, or are just unaware of the details.

America recognizes the sovreignty principle which says that no country can be challenged on its laws without its consent. Guatemala payed a price for the land that it thought was fair, but as the government of the land it was ultimatly in control of who was allowed to own it and within its rights to determine that the country needed the land to be turned over to farmers. Capitalist principles demand that Dole's response not be military intervention but simply to offer the farmers enough money that they can buy the rice and beans that they're not growing. America has the same system. You think you own your land? You don't, that's why you pay taxes on it. You may own the house, but the land under it belongs to the USA.[/QUOTE]



They came from leftist myth. The robber barons, such as Standard Oil, were never robbers nor barons. A quick example: By the time Standard Oil was broken up the price of oil derived products had dropped drastically and Standard Oil was in the process of losing market share naturally as more competitive corporations eroded their market dominance.

I love this strategy of GOP/Ingsoc. If history doesn't agree with you, make it up. Take a look at the book History on Trial. Historians are liberals because history demonstrates the truth of the position, not the other way around. If conservatives want history to reflect their views they have to exert political pressure to leave disagreeable facts out.

Monopolies do not loose market share unless they are handled incredibly stupidly. Take a look at Starbucks. A couple from Seattle moved to England and begged Starbuck to open a chain there. Starbuck said "everyone knows Brits only drink tea." So the couple opened their own coffee chain. It became hugely successful, but not yet anywhere near the strength of Starbucks. So Starbucks seeing that it had missed a boat simply bought the boat. Sure the couple who started the upstart made out ok from the deal but now Brits are stuck with coffee that tastes like it had a spoon liquified in it.

That's how monopolies work. They have power, so they use it to put rivals out of business.

You people do know that NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST which is an extreme right-wing form of government so stating that americans hate socialism because its directly related to left-wing communism simply isnt true.

Hitler had some weird ideas. The Nazis were facists not socialists.

"Unregulated capitalism always tends toward monopoly. It is the natural result of allowing people to gather wealth and power, they will use it to keep others from doing so."

The sort of monopoly which occurs in a capitalist system, where and when it does, it is generally because such a vast number of people have CHOSEN to buy a superior product, making competition by less adequete products unlucrative.

However, under a communist government, this process is not allowed to occur, because a false monopoly is imposed - a government monopoly. The products which the government build are usually inferior to privately built ones because the government is unable to specialise. It is trying to create everything (Just look at the trans-siberian railway - feat of engineering my ass, the thing is a piece of crap).

A semi-monopoly which occurs naturally because of a vastly superior product is perfectly acceptable, because as soon as someone produces a better product, that product will tend to seize the market (take a short course in economics - this is a simple principle).

A monopoly imposed by the government is usually a blanket monopoly, and because no private individuals are allowed to trade or develop their superior products, no progress can ever be made. If our ancestors had been communists, we'd still be riding chariots and wearing woolen underwear.

"Monopolies do not loose market share unless they are handled incredibly stupidly. Take a look at Starbucks. A couple from Seattle moved to England and begged Starbuck to open a chain there. Starbuck said "everyone knows Brits only drink tea." So the couple opened their own coffee chain. It became hugely successful, but not yet anywhere near the strength of Starbucks. So Starbucks seeing that it had missed a boat simply bought the boat. Sure the couple who started the upstart made out ok from the deal but now Brits are stuck with coffee that tastes like it had a spoon liquified in it.

That's how monopolies work. They have power, so they use it to put rivals out of business. "

I'm British, and let me tell you - I would rather drink coffee from Starbucks (a company which is market leader because it provides so well a service which the populace requires and chooses to buy) than government-mandated coffee whose creators had no incentive to provide a good service - the government would still pay them if they served cow dung in their coffee cups.

They happen so rarely because we live with a socialist economic system that forbids them. Those controls are systematicly being removed. The most obvoius result of which is the cardboard flavor in pop music these days.

These things didn't happen in 19th century America either so this point is moot.


America recognizes the sovreignty principle which says that no country can be challenged on its laws without its consent. Guatemala payed a price for the land that it thought was fair, but as the government of the land it was ultimatly in control of who was allowed to own it and within its rights to determine that the country needed the land to be turned over to farmers. Capitalist principles demand that Dole's response not be military intervention but simply to offer the farmers enough money that they can buy the rice and beans that they're not growing.

Which is why I also mentioned that the main reasoning behind the coup was the inclination of the government to favor the Soviets. That was a risk the US was not willing to take, and for good reason, see what happened in Cuba when we failed and a Soviet satellite got planted. Do you normally ignore the substance of a response which is unfavorable to your arguement?


America has the same system. You think you own your land? You don't, that's why you pay taxes on it. You may own the house, but the land under it belongs to the USA

Actually, it doesn't. I am a sovereign citizen, my property is mine, not some abstract legal entity's which I created with my fellow sovereign citizens for mutual benefit.


I love this strategy of GOP/Ingsoc. If history doesn't agree with you, make it up. Take a look at the book History on Trial. Historians are liberals because history demonstrates the truth of the position, not the other way around. If conservatives want history to reflect their views they have to exert political pressure to leave disagreeable facts out.

I thought you were the one complaining about people posting empty fluff with no real discussion value. Yet then you say something like this...

Monopolies do not loose market share unless they are handled incredibly stupidly.

Monopolies suffer from beaucratic inefficiencies just like any other large institution. As we can see from my Standard Oil example it is not impossible for competition to erode the market share of even very entrenched monopolies. To suggest that a monopoly, once established, is immune from everything except gross mismanagement is economically shallow.

Take a look at Starbucks. A couple from Seattle moved to England and begged Starbuck to open a chain there. Starbuck said "everyone knows Brits only drink tea." So the couple opened their own coffee chain. It became hugely successful, but not yet anywhere near the strength of Starbucks. So Starbucks seeing that it had missed a boat simply bought the boat. Sure the couple who started the upstart made out ok from the deal but now Brits are stuck with coffee that tastes like it had a spoon liquified in it.


Then I suggest that if everyone is so dissatisfied with Starbucks that you open a high quality coffee shop and watch the business fly to you.

That's how monopolies work. They have power, so they use it to put rivals out of business.

They can do nothing of themselves, only the consumer has the power. If a monopoly tries to buy you out you don't have to sell. If they lower their prices your customers don't have to leave your shop and take their business to the monopoly. Everyone is still making a free choice, its just a choice you don't like so you cry foul.

The sort of monopoly which occurs in a capitalist system, where and when it does, it is generally because such a vast number of people have CHOSEN to buy a superior product, making competition by less adequete products unlucrative.
Then explain Starbucks. Their coffee tastes like it's made from iron filings instead of coffee grounds and yet it's a corporate giant. How it gets to be a monopoly is less the case in point than what it does once it becomes one. Once you can't get your coffee, or software, or eggs from anyone other than a single provider they become free from market pressures to regulate their prices. Whatever they want to charge you have to pay.[/QUOTE]

However, under a communist government, this process is not allowed to occur, because a false monopoly is imposed - a government monopoly. The products which the government build are usually inferior to privately built ones because the government is unable to specialise. It is trying to create everything (Just look at the trans-siberian railway - feat of engineering my ass, the thing is a piece of crap).
I'm not trying to defend communism. I'm aware that it doesn't work. There are even forms of socialism that don't work. The furthest to the left that socialism can go without becoming communist is that the government owns the business but the people work for money and compete with each other for wages on the basis of skills. This is gone too far and won't work.

The furthest to the right that socialism can go without being capitalist is that government enacts regulatory laws. Most of these that we're familiar with would be laws against false advertising or safety laws.

A semi-monopoly which occurs naturally because of a vastly superior product is perfectly acceptable, because as soon as someone produces a better product, that product will tend to seize the market (take a short course in economics - this is a simple principle).

I've taken some rather advanced courses in economics. I'm working on a masters. Yes, it's a simple principle, that's why it doesn't work in anything but theory. In reality what happens is that people who already run a monopoly, or even a near monopoly simply use their power to squash up and comers. It's called the Panda Principle, even an inferior product will maintain control if it's big enough. It's why we still have coal powered electric generators.

A monopoly imposed by the government is usually a blanket monopoly, and because no private individuals are allowed to trade or develop their superior products, no progress can ever be made. If our ancestors had been communists, we'd still be riding chariots and wearing woolen underwear.
We are, after a fashion. In order to participate in the corporate world you have to wear a suit and tie. The tie that was invented to tie the neck of a shirt closed in a freezing cold British winter before buttons became cheap enough to sew onto every shirt is, in the modern age of central heating and New York summers, wearing woolen underwear.

But I've already mentioned that I'm not defending communism, only socialism.

Socialism and Communism look really great on paper. The problem is that they go against human nature. It is the evils of human nature that ruin these great ideas.

Once a product becomes too far out of proportion in either its price or its quality, individuals who make use of said product will tend to seek alternative providers of that product. Sure, starbucks isn't the greatest coffee on earth, but people feel that its price is more proportional to its quality than its competitors.

If starbucks began charging £100 for every cup of coffee they sold, setting up a competing company selling coffee for even £50 a cup would be so lucrative that starbucks would quickly loose the vast majority of its patrons. This process would continue until the market leader was selling fair quality coffee for close to the actual cost of its production (obviously this price would have to be higher than the cost of production - the company would fail to generate income otherwise). It is this process which keeps immense corporate monopolies under some sort of natural control.

Sure, starbucks, microsoft or whoever may be able to sell their product for a marginally unfair price, but the nature of the free market will stop their price/quality ratio getting too ridiculous.

The furthest to the right that socialism can go without being capitalist is that government enacts regulatory laws. Most of these that we're familiar with would be laws against false advertising or safety laws.

Fraud is not in the spirit of an open and free market. Fruad is another form of force, the force of trickery instead of the force of arms, but force none the less.



I've taken some rather advanced courses in economics. I'm working on a masters. Yes, it's a simple principle, that's why it doesn't work in anything but theory.

I don't care how advanced your degrees are, I only care about the ideas you present.


In reality what happens is that people who already run a monopoly, or even a near monopoly simply use their power to squash up and comers. It's called the Panda Principle, even an inferior product will maintain control if it's big enough. It's why we still have coal powered electric generators

Actually the reason we still use coal is the same reason I still drive a dated car...its cheaper to keep the old one than to upgrade. Indeed coal is still cheaper even when the plant is built new; a city I live nearby recently began construction on a new coal fired plant because it was cheaper than the other available alternatives.

But I've already mentioned that I'm not defending communism, only socialism.

Socialism is just Marx's transition state between capitalism and communism. I'm sure you think you've cleaned up Marx's version of socialism though.

These things didn't happen in 19th century America either so this point is moot.
Those controls couldn't be removed because they had never existed. They came into being as a response to the accumulated power of the conglomerates.

Which is why I also mentioned that the main reasoning behind the coup was the inclination of the government to favor the Soviets. That was a risk the US was not willing to take, and for good reason, see what happened in Cuba when we failed and a Soviet satellite got planted. Do you normally ignore the substance of a response which is unfavorable to your arguement?
I'm hardly ignoring it. You presented a self referential argument that the reason that the USA invaded was because of their economic model. I said as much to begin with. But for the US to invade over an economic quarrel is not capitalist, it is mercantilist.

Actually, it doesn't. I am a sovereign citizen, my property is mine, not some abstract legal entity's which I created with my fellow sovereign citizens for mutual benefit.
Like I said, the house is yours. The land is only on rent from the government. If you don't agree with me, try not paying your property tax.

I thought you were the one complaining about people posting empty fluff with no real discussion value. Yet then you say something like this...
I'm hardly in a position to duplicate the entire text of History on Trial here. The political right in this country is making a concerted effort to write history not as a form of academic discipline but as a tool to promote patriotism and belief in unadulterated capitalism. They don't even deny it, they just don't talk about it a lot.

I will concede however that historians are also vexed by leftists efforts to use history to encourage multiculturalism and humanitarianism. But since this is a thread on economy, that's not really relevant, I thought I'd just add it for balance. And even at that, the Right's efforts to manipulate the history books are meeting with a lot more success and so are a lot more vexing to historians who don't see the purpose of history as encouraging capitalism or humanitariansim but simply as a collection of knowledge with lessons to be arrived at independently.

Then I suggest that if everyone is so dissatisfied with Starbucks that you open a high quality coffee shop and watch the business fly to you.
There is plenty of superior coffee for much cheaper. And yet the market force hardly seems to dent Starbucks market presence.

They can do nothing of themselves, only the consumer has the power. If a monopoly tries to buy you out you don't have to sell. If they lower their prices your customers don't have to leave your shop and take their business to the monopoly. Everyone is still making a free choice, its just a choice you don't like so you cry foul.
A publicly traded company can easily be bought out by a more powerful corporation. It's called a hostile takeover. And only a publicly traded company is likely to get the market power to challenge a monopoly.

And I would add that the gravity of allowing a government to punish the market leader by subsidizing its competitors and the like is much greater than the slight discrepancies which might occur when the market leader is able to set the price of its products for the limited time and amount that it can.

Those controls couldn't be removed because they had never existed. They came into being as a response to the accumulated power of the conglomerates.

They came into existance because politicians wanted to increase their own power. They sold the people a lie and you are apparently still buying.


I'm hardly ignoring it. You presented a self referential argument that the reason that the USA invaded was because of their economic model. I said as much to begin with. But for the US to invade over an economic quarrel is not capitalist, it is mercantilist.

We instigated a coup because they were threatening to become a Soviet satellite nation. We would have done the exact same thing even if no economic interests had of existed in the nation. You're trying to force our actions to fit your preconceived model because it bolsters your arguement, not because its based on historical fact. If you look at the rhetoric and reasoning of the period you will see that the US was highly preoccupied with the aggressive expansion of the USSR. We were willing to take whatever measures necessary to check that expansion, including the overthrow of foreign governments. Something as mundane as concerns about fruit sales would have barely factored into such a decision, if at all.


Like I said, the house is yours. The land is only on rent from the government. If you don't agree with me, try not paying your property tax.


Not every state has property taxes, as I recall no state originally had property tax either; the spirit of the principles of the founding fathers is clear. We are sovereign citizens, we own this country, the government is simply the extension of our will at the moment. In any event the property tax is no proof of lack of sovereign ownership because we pay property tax on houses as well, something you agree belongs to us.

I'm hardly in a position to duplicate the entire text of History on Trial here. The political right in this country is making a concerted effort to write history not as a form of academic discipline but as a tool to promote patriotism and belief in unadulterated capitalism. They don't even deny it, they just don't talk about it a lot.

Making this claim doesn't make it true. Indeed your claim is so vague that its impossible for me to really even discuss it other than to say its totally unsupported. Just because a liberal writes a book proclaiming history supports his ideas doesn't make it any truer than Al Gore writing a book proclaiming the internal combustion engine to be mankind's greatest threat.


There is plenty of superior coffee for much cheaper. And yet the market force hardly seems to dent Starbucks market presence.

Then obviously the market in general doesn't agree with your subjective judgement of Starbuck's service.


A publicly traded company can easily be bought out by a more powerful corporation. It's called a hostile takeover. And only a publicly traded company is likely to get the market power to challenge a monopoly.

Only if the company lets a controlling number of shares leave its possession. No one is forcing them to do so, nor is it necessary for them to do so to become a strong force of competition.

The rest of this thread has devolved into efforts to cling to a cherished ideology despite evidence at hand. It is imossible to for me to present you with the memos that went back and forth between Dole and the White house. Nor can I show you the interviews with the generals who were involved in the event. They all say that it was simply a matter of taking back bannana fields, but you aren't going to believe me until I ressurect the corpse of the president himself and make him admit it to you. If I could do that you would probably still refuse to pay for the train ride. :rolleyes:
So I'll just answer this.

Making this claim doesn't make it true. Indeed your claim is so vague that its impossible for me to really even discuss it other than to say its totally unsupported. Just because a liberal writes a book proclaiming history supports his ideas doesn't make it any truer than Al Gore writing a book proclaiming the internal combustion engine to be mankind's greatest threat.
You seem to be falling prey to a common conservative fallacy. Anything that anyone says that disagrees with conservatives demonstrates that that person is a liberal. Because that person is a liberal their judgement is suspect and their theses can be dismissed out of hand. This is called circular logic. You may notice that liberals use this sort of argument far less often. We don't generally need to resort to it.

The book History on Trial was not written by "some liberal" it was written by the Historians who were put in charge (by the conservative government) of writing the national history standards. Once they were done people on both sides claimed that there were problems with it, especially the conservatives who appointed these historians to the task in the first place. This is very common for conservative politicians who give research jobs to academics and then complain to the academics for coming back with the wrong answers. Nixon did the same thing when he told a bunch of scientists to study marijuana and told them that coming back with information that said that marijuana was no worse than alchohol and tobbacco would be a bad idea.

Liberals comlpained that the history standards focused too heavily on White people and didn't do enough to promote humanitarianism and racial tolerance, even though promoting things isn't histories job.

Conservatives complained that it was outright re-writing history so as to minimize the benifits of the free market system and make America look like it was built on torture and murder.

The difference is that the conservatives who complained were politicians who were in a position to do something about it and started doing so before the standards were even published. Their leader was Lynn Cheney, the Vice-president's wife.

[QUOTE=Domici #249]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Humana
The United States does not coerce other nations into engaging us in commerce. They do so of their own volition because they realize something that you apparently do not; trade benefits everyone envolved. Its like when you go to the grocery store, you exchange something you value less (money) for something you value more (food). Do you think the grocer curses you on the way out for exploiting him? Hardly, both of you gained mutual benefit from your consensual act of trade.

This is completly untrue. Capitalist trade can benifit everyone involved but this is not what happens when the US trades with any other country. Or indeed when any countries of unequal power trade with one another.

Have you ever read about the 1950's invasion of guatemala? We bombed them and replaced their government because they didn't want to sell us BANNANAS! Sure we could have offered them more money, but we decided that bombs were cheaper. This sort of thing still happens all over the world.

The US does not undertake capitalist trade with weaker nations. We undertake mercatilistic trade.

Gee,.. imagine that,.. a powerful country in a time period when such actions were acceptable (if not actually expected) doing those actions that they felt were in their best interest.

Imagine..!

Gee, imagine those Aztecs capturing whole populations of "non-aztecs" and ripping the hearts out of them to satisfy their god.

Imagine..!

Gee, imagine an entire population enslaved by "soviet" mechanisms, where they pretend to work, and the state pretends to pay them.

Imagine..!

Gee, what is the predominant form of "social ecology" in countries that real human beings want to get to, today and always..?

Capitalism.

Why do you suppose that is..? :)

I'm really happy that communism has been discredited and is no longer a major political/economic force in the world. I just hope that capitalism's demise is not too far behind.

[QUOTE=Domici #251]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
They have their platitudes. We have history and the courage not to give in to noisy unreal idealists who claim to be "ENLIGHTENED".

Yes, it's amazing how history seems to support Rightist theories when it's censored for content and made up wholesale wherever no supporting facts can be found. When the Right get's ahold of history McCarthy becomes a hero (the Senator, not the Beatle), and cowboys become noble white rugged adventurers trying to defend civilization from the warmongering saveges. Give it another 20 years and the political right will turn Hitler into a hero too. Once more people start to realize that Bush's grandfather funded him that is.

The winners make the histories. Yet another fact of life.

Heh he he.. your "rightist" sounds much like my "leftist"..! That shouldn't be too much of a surprise, as we both hate fascists.

The right may well generalize some portions of the events of various human struggles to suit their purposes, but the left makes up it's entire philosophy out of thin air, and then takes no responsibility for the inevitable results of that philosophy as it is applied to human society in the real world.

The right is a representation of reality which has it's bad points and negative proclivities, while the left is a utopian dream that always begets a nightmare when in power.

The right, like scientific theory (the theory OF science), is built on the most basic (real) of principles (forces and resources [masses]) as ALL other potential bases are too fragile (an derivative) to be reliable.

The very fact that capitalism (the basis of the right) has NOT EXCLUSIVELY produced a "capitalist nightmare" as envisioned by the left is proof enough for me that capitalism is a good basic foundation for society.

Local "capitalist nightmares" exist, I grant. But which social ecosystems (right or left) do the worlds people gravitate to..?

(( Once again, "humanity" and "the desire to help" is NOT an exclusive capacity of the left. And most "socialists" are, to me, great people for wanting to point out the suffering of the "less fortunate". But their basic view of the universe is so out of touch with reality that they make miserable "operators" of power. ))

The rest of this thread has devolved into efforts to cling to a cherished ideology despite evidence at hand.


Quit pretending that you've proffered evidence when it is abundently clear that you have not. The entire premise of your arguement relies on you ignoring evidence in order to fit what actually happened into your desired version of what happened. The facts are thus: The US was fighting a global war on communism, we were overturning governments all over the world, supporting dictators, rebels, anyone who would resist Moscow. To pretend otherwise is to just blatently play politics. To suggest that generals (or whom ever these mystery people you're citing are) are apolitical and could never have an axe to grind is either naive or yet more blatent political posturing.


You seem to be falling prey to a common conservative fallacy. Anything that anyone says that disagrees with conservatives demonstrates that that person is a liberal. Because that person is a liberal their judgement is suspect and their theses can be dismissed out of hand. This is called circular logic. You may notice that liberals use this sort of argument far less often. We don't generally need to resort to it.

I disagree with the conclusions you come to because they are utterly divorced from any evidence that you or anyone else has presented. Its cute to attempt to spin out words like "falacies" to make it seem as if I'm being illogical or making brash assumptions, but its quite the opposite. You simply state your subjective opinion as if it were the truth, cite some evidence which is vague and totally at the mercy of your interpertation, and then boldly proclaim victory. You then proceed to make snide generalizations about respective political ideologies in a rather offense arrogent manner. I'll leave it to the readers to see through your transparent tactics.

The book History on Trial was not written by "some liberal" it was written by the Historians who were put in charge (by the conservative government) of writing the national history standards.

Who are these historians? You do realize that historians hold political persuasions and those persuasions may influence their work, yes? Don't tell me you're one of those star struck individuals who believes that the so called intellectuals are unbaised seekers of truth?

This is very common for conservative politicians who give research jobs to academics and then complain to the academics for coming back with the wrong answers.

No doubt this sort of thing goes on, but it goes on with both polticial philosophies. The key is to not rely on a single study, but to seek out a perponderance of information to support your position. This is something you are apparently unwilling to do seeing as how you focus in on things like unnamed generals talking about bannanas and waving away the stated national security objectives of the era and the manner in which the US was systematically conducting its foreign policy affairs. This kind of selective use of information is just the sort of falacy you are accusing myself and other conservatives of.

Liberals comlpained that the history standards focused too heavily on White people and didn't do enough to promote humanitarianism and racial tolerance, even though promoting things isn't histories job.

So liberals complained that history was not doing things that history is not designed nor intended to do? Furthermore, things like humanitarianism and racial tolerance are subjective issues; no one owns them or defines them. You seem to be approaching this discussion from a liberal point of view, objecting that something isn't "factual" anytime it disagrees with your own bias. If you want to disagree then do so in a substantiative way.

Conservatives complained that it was outright re-writing history so as to minimize the benifits of the free market system and make America look like it was built on torture and murder.

The difference is that the conservatives who complained were politicians who were in a position to do something about it and started doing so before the standards were even published. Their leader was Lynn Cheney, the Vice-president's wife.

So are you suggesting that Cheney has suppressed historical data? In what way? What data? The history classes I've taken all have had a rather socialist bent; looks like Cheney did a bad job. American history is rife with accounts of abuses against the Natives and the abuses against the slaves. Cheney needs to get her censorship pen out again, her whitewash didn't take hold the first time.

[QUOTE=Domici #252]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your ignorance of capitalism is profound.

(( And I'm "prodding" again, with the leftist=fascist equation. Though "leftism" is inherently fascist, fascism are not necessarily ONLY leftist. ))

Apparently you don't agree with my "trend analysis" of rightist monopoly with leftist monopoly. That's fine.

The truth hurts, and we all generally avoid pain.

And yet I notice again that when called upon your BS you can never defend it, just insult those who disagree with you. You still can't come up with an explanation of how leftism leads to fascism you still trot out self-referential insistances that it be so.

You don't have a "trend analysis." Analysis by definition takes thing apart until the self-evident facts can be demonstrated to amount to your thesis.
You don't do that, you trot out an absurd thesis (leftism = fascism) and then only defend it by saying it again and again in the hopes that insulting those who disagree with you will wander off. Then you accuse them of being afraid to tell you how wrong you are when in truth you're just being dense.

If you think you can see how capitalism protects against monopoly please tell me where all the "robber barons" of the turn of the last century came from? Even in Ming China it became appearant that capitalism causes wealth to consolidate around merchants the way gravity consolidates rocks around iron.



.."You still can't come up with an explanation of how leftism leads to fascism you still trot out self-referential insistances that it be so."..

Leftism will eventually get around to abolishing the right to individual private property ownership. This creates a condition of complete dependence on the "government", as the government is the only "owner" and supplier of resources. That IS fascism, as the "government" is now the sole possessor of power, and as such, will degenerate due to essential human nature into a smaller and smaller group of people possessing this complete power.

There is no "internal pressure" to stop the further concentration of power, until the "self interests" of the "controllers" (their "ownership stake in power", aka their "individual property ownership of power") is such that they "balance" to form a stable structure of interdependence.

But, you'll notice that "individual property ownership" has been magically "re-invented"..!

But only the "more equal" possess it.

.."You don't have a "trend analysis." Analysis by definition takes thing apart until the self-evident facts can be demonstrated to amount to your thesis.
You don't do that, you trot out an absurd thesis (leftism = fascism) and then only defend it by saying it again and again in the hopes that insulting those who disagree with you will wander off. Then you accuse them of being afraid to tell you how wrong you are when in truth you're just being dense."..

I simply throw out my view of the question at hand. I'm not interested in what you do with it, or if you take offense at it. :)

In the area of human society, and the "bases of society", there is no possibility of an analysis that can reduce to "self-evident facts". To think that that IS possible is called delusion, and is the basic mental characteristic of the left.

This is a conversation that I take pleasure in continuing. Prodding ("insulting") my "opponents" is a proven tactic to inciting further conversation. And new people come in all the time, so even when people realise I'm prodding, some newbie gets a jab and starts the process anew, supplying me with new "conversation mates". :)

If you don't find conversation of this kind interesting, don't converse with me. Pretty simple really.

If you do find this conversation interesting, learn from me as I learn from you.

.."If you think you can see how capitalism protects against monopoly please tell me where all the "robber barons" of the turn of the last century came from? Even in Ming China it became appearant that capitalism causes wealth to consolidate around merchants the way gravity consolidates rocks around iron."..

Capitalism, like the predator/prey sub-dynamic (for example) of any animal eco-system, is an ongoing process. Local conditions of the system are simply a temporal situation created by the system in operation.

It's a bummer being the gazelle chased down by the lion, but somehow the gazelle population continues, as does the lions, as do the fly's who need the "digested gazelle remains" that emerge from the lion because they only lay their eggs in lion dung.

Is there local inequity? Of course. That is the real universe. That's how it works. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and we all strive to improve our lot, the lot of our descendants, and the lot of those we find "worthy".

The proof is in the pudding,.. and the pudding at this point in history informs me that capitalism is a success. We apparently have different opinions on what success looks like.

[QUOTE=Ogiek #225]
I live in Orlando, which was recently hit by three successive hurricanes. In each case my "socialist" power company (community owned, not for profit Orlando Utilites Company) was much faster and more efficient in restoring power than the private capitalist power companies servicing surrounding communites.

Cheaper bills. Better service.

I say give me more socialism.

How is that a "socialist organization"..?

It is still "owned", and is still "run" by "knowledgable operators", and still uses MONEY as a measure of operational effectiveness, and still exists embedded in a capitalist society as a capitalist entity (a "corporation").

Show me the "socialism" in that..? :)

Perhaps you are not familiar with what socialism means? The Orlando Utilities Company is a social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively (the very definition of socialism). Socialism does not presuppose the elimination of money (although I think money as we know it will disappear from capitalist societies within 50 years). Yes, my power company exists within a largely capitalist society, but the U.S. economy is not pure capitalism, but rather a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Within that mixed economy I have found the quality and service of this socialist electric company to be quite satisfactory. Neighboring communities using traditional capitalist for-profit utilities companies pay higher prices and have reported less satisfactory service.

This is a pragmatic observation, not an idealogue's argument.

[QUOTE=Domici #254]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And thus chimes in the adolescent who, after having thoughts of robbing his more "prosperous" neighbor, then subsequently having thoughts of being apprehended by the police and punished, comtemplates killing all police officers. And then promotes the idea to all his friends.

Are you at all capable of defending your ideas? Note; insulting those who disagree with you does not constitute a defense.

I don't "defend" my ideas. I simply say them. Your taking insult at my description of (as I see it) a person who has stated their opinion about something is your problem. I am, in the above quip, offering my view of what I see of you in your writings. Learn something from it, or not, as you wish, but my point ("what I'm mean" not "a JFKerry debating point") is simply to describe what I see.


Thus chimes the would-be robber baron who dreams of growing enough fat to fill his gilded throne while oiled-up slave boys have no choice but to feed him "peeled grapes" because they were less successful at playing the stock market.
See? that sort of argument doesn't actually defend a position.

Now there you go..!! :D

And this gives me a great incite into your thinking of capitalism..! It STATES your postion quite well. It describes your view of capitalism perfectly..!

The question is, how does that view help you deal with reality..?


The adolescent is an idealist who thinks that a single, simple theory will sum everything up if only everyone else would stop being so stupid as to disagree. This idea can be capitalism, communism, fascism, or direct democracy. As such you are the adolescent thinker.

I like your definition. It's quite accurate. I don't care if anyone else is stupid (or smart, though smart people hold better conversations), or whether they disagree with me, nor do I think that there is any "unified field theory" of "societal dynamics" (only observably apparent principles), so you'll have to explain how I'm being adolescent in this regard. :)


The realist knows that compromises of ideology must be made to make them practical. eg. Tax cuts must be rescinded in times of war, monopolies established by highly succesful businessmen who use their power to control the market must have their businesses broken up to restore class parity.
The adolescent idealist thinks that capitalism will self regulate or that communism will be embraced by all once the majority see how it would benifit them.

Hear hear..! Though your examples are so dependent on situational conditions that they are meaningless as examples of "ideological compromise".


The realist knows that Democratic Socialism is the only long-lasting form of government and economic practice that will be overturned neither by corporate fascism nor subversive revolution. Socialism is the compromise of the adult. Communism is the hope of the adolescent dreamer, capitalism is the dream of the adolescent bully.

Ah,... I see your thinking, and agree entirely..!

What you label "Democratic Socialism" I call "Actual Human Capitalism".

Excellent..!!

Now what shall we talk about..? :D

And thanks for not running away like a frightened french school girl..!

Hey Bottle..!? Weren't you on the "leftist" side of things in the past, or (more probably) am I going even madder (more insane) than I already am..?!

:D

..it's probably me. Way too much hawai'ian rap music (calypso-reggae beat, hawai'ian language rap vocals, slack-key guitar style instumentation,.. VERY cool..! Though "t'will WARP your mind!")
lol, sorry, but on this one you pretty much are crazy...i have NEVER been a supporter of Communism, and though i once was slightly more socialist-leaning i definitely haven't been that way in years. i'm a classic liberal, not a modern liberal :).

[QUOTE=Domici #255]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Humana
I'm not for governments breaking up monopolies, however, such a free market monopoly so rarely occurs as to make the discussion of them nearly pointless.

They happen so rarely because we live with a socialist economic system that forbids them. Those controls are systematicly being removed. The most obvoius result of which is the cardboard flavor in pop music these days.

Heh he he he... I'd call it "enlightened self interest", myself. When the government is prodded by "rivals" of a monopoly to check into the causes of said monopoly, the anti-market (anti-capitalist) behaviors of said monopoly are exposed, which start a cascade of actions that eventually break up said monopoly.

That IS the market (capitalism) in action.

Quote:
So far you've not offered any real evidence to show this to be true. Your single example of 1950's Guatemala is quite flawed. You make a accusation that the US "bombed" Guatemala because they refused to sell us bannanas. In fact the CIA help instigate a coup of the Soviet leaning Arbenz whose administration had stolen land lawfully purchased by an American company (communists do so love to seize private property don't they). I'm not sure if you are trying to intentionally misrepresent history, or are just unaware of the details.

America recognizes the sovreignty principle which says that no country can be challenged on its laws without its consent. Guatemala payed a price for the land that it thought was fair, but as the government of the land it was ultimatly in control of who was allowed to own it and within its rights to determine that the country needed the land to be turned over to farmers. Capitalist principles demand that Dole's response not be military intervention but simply to offer the farmers enough money that they can buy the rice and beans that they're not growing. America has the same system. You think you own your land? You don't, that's why you pay taxes on it. You may own the house, but the land under it belongs to the USA.

And the use of force to enforce law (the restiction principle upon freedoms) is a basic tenet of capitalism. Your valuation of Guatemala's "right to steal" as greater than America's "right of property" is antithetical to MY sense of justice, but apparently not yours.

Quote:
They came from leftist myth. The robber barons, such as Standard Oil, were never robbers nor barons. A quick example: By the time Standard Oil was broken up the price of oil derived products had dropped drastically and Standard Oil was in the process of losing market share naturally as more competitive corporations eroded their market dominance.

I love this strategy of GOP/Ingsoc. If history doesn't agree with you, make it up. Take a look at the book History on Trial. Historians are liberals because history demonstrates the truth of the position, not the other way around. If conservatives want history to reflect their views they have to exert political pressure to leave disagreeable facts out.

Do you equate "the left" with "liberals"..?

I don't. But if "liberals" are historians, who supposedly WRITE THE HISTORIES, then why is history, in your view, written to accomodate the right..!?

Monopolies do not loose market share unless they are handled incredibly stupidly. Take a look at Starbucks. A couple from Seattle moved to England and begged Starbuck to open a chain there. Starbuck said "everyone knows Brits only drink tea." So the couple opened their own coffee chain. It became hugely successful, but not yet anywhere near the strength of Starbucks. So Starbucks seeing that it had missed a boat simply bought the boat. Sure the couple who started the upstart made out ok from the deal but now Brits are stuck with coffee that tastes like it had a spoon liquified in it.

That's how monopolies work. They have power, so they use it to put rivals out of business.

Are there ANY non-Starbucks coofee sellers in Britain...? If so, and if they sell better-than-Starbuck-tasting coffee, are they doing well financially...?

The fact that you'd forbid a VERY successful business from buying a less-successful-but-growing business and growing it (faster and more effectively due to it's greater resource base [thereby improving the overall economy]) in contravention to your wish they "mustn't" because the aggregate "taste of british coffee" will supposedly suffer, makes me very happy that our ecomomy is based on money (capitalism) and not human taste and whim.

Thanks for sharing. :)

[QUOTE=Dogburg #258]
quote: Some dipshit leftist (Dom.. something?)

"Monopolies do not loose market share unless they are handled incredibly stupidly. Take a look at Starbucks. A couple from Seattle moved to England and begged Starbuck to open a chain there. Starbuck said "everyone knows Brits only drink tea." So the couple opened their own coffee chain. It became hugely successful, but not yet anywhere near the strength of Starbucks. So Starbucks seeing that it had missed a boat simply bought the boat. Sure the couple who started the upstart made out ok from the deal but now Brits are stuck with coffee that tastes like it had a spoon liquified in it.

That's how monopolies work. They have power, so they use it to put rivals out of business. "

I'm British, and let me tell you - I would rather drink coffee from Starbucks (a company which is market leader because it provides so well a service which the populace requires and chooses to buy) than government-mandated coffee whose creators had no incentive to provide a good service - the government would still pay them if they served cow dung in their coffee cups.

But think of the poor cow-dung perveyors..!?

What of THEM..!!?

(( Excellent work Dog..!! :) Please forgive that "UK can be pronounced YUCK you know!" line from a ways back..! Just "prodding british/english leftists" with that stick. Thanks again. Heh he he he... ))

[QUOTE=Domici #260]
Then explain Starbucks. Their coffee tastes like it's made from iron filings instead of coffee grounds and yet it's a corporate giant. How it gets to be a monopoly is less the case in point than what it does once it becomes one. Once you can't get your coffee, or software, or eggs from anyone other than a single provider they become free from market pressures to regulate their prices. Whatever they want to charge you have to pay.

Or (in a capitalist society) you pay nothing, as you don't LIKE them anymore, and refuse to buy. At which point some enterprising entity steps in to satisfy the need.

In a leftist society, you never had the coffee to begin with, as fnerg juice is mandated by the government, and "eveyone loves fnerg juice" whether it actually tastes good or not,.. that day,.. as it's ingredients are entirely dependent on what the impoverished government (the sole providers of every commodity) had most of the day before.


I'm not trying to defend communism. I'm aware that it doesn't work. There are even forms of socialism that don't work. The furthest to the left that socialism can go without becoming communist is that the government owns the business but the people work for money and compete with each other for wages on the basis of skills. This is gone too far and won't work.

The furthest to the right that socialism can go without being capitalist is that government enacts regulatory laws. Most of these that we're familiar with would be laws against false advertising or safety laws.

So this "right-flavored" socialism is called "sensible capitalism..? Excellent..!


I've taken some rather advanced courses in economics. I'm working on a masters. Yes, it's a simple principle, that's why it doesn't work in anything but theory. In reality what happens is that people who already run a monopoly, or even a near monopoly simply use their power to squash up and comers. It's called the Panda Principle, even an inferior product will maintain control if it's big enough. It's why we still have coal powered electric generators.

Happy for you for your credentials. Do they ALWAYS interfere with your understanding of what others say, or just in the area of your "specialty"..?

The "panda principle", known to me as the "beta-max principle" or the "microsoft principle", is a condition often refered to as "emergent phenomena". In a complex system, weird shit sometimes happens.

The leftist, when faced with emergent phenomena, freaks out and calls mommie.

Someone invested in "the system" from which this phenomenon occured, and who understands it's basic dynamic, realizes that something will also emerge (and if they are REALLY interested in rebalancing the system they will "help" as best they can) that will rebalance the system to correct "undesirable" effects of said "bad" emergent phenomenon.

Sounds to like "the socialist" is actually one of these rebalancing emergent phenomena,.. to me.


Quote:
A monopoly imposed by the government is usually a blanket monopoly, and because no private individuals are allowed to trade or develop their superior products, no progress can ever be made. If our ancestors had been communists, we'd still be riding chariots and wearing woolen underwear.

We are, after a fashion. In order to participate in the corporate world you have to wear a suit and tie. The tie that was invented to tie the neck of a shirt closed in a freezing cold British winter before buttons became cheap enough to sew onto every shirt is, in the modern age of central heating and New York summers, wearing woolen underwear.

But I've already mentioned that I'm not defending communism, only socialism.

I hate ties. And I'm not that fond of suits. And I understand your distaste for those who work(ed) as slaves for "big business", but we are actually all trying to reach a point where as many people as possible can have as much as possible and enjoy life as fully as possible, believe it or not.

Whether you believe it is not important to those who are to the right of you, or the left of you. The only thing that is important is that you keep striving.

Your glib "we ARE still primatives" line (which I've used a lot myself) shows me you think we could do and could have done, in the past, a better job of "managing our social ecosystem", which I would agree with more than whole heartedly. The question is how we handle the anger created by knowing of this unfortunate past.

Do we punish humanity by allowing unreality to rule for a time, again,.. or do we observe the nature of society and evolve from an essential good base..?

Is this "base" our point of contention..? If so, we be at an absolute impasse.

[QUOTE=Domici #267]
The rest of this thread has devolved into efforts to cling to a cherished ideology despite evidence at hand. It is imossible to for me to present you with the memos that went back and forth between Dole and the White house. Nor can I show you the interviews with the generals who were involved in the event. They all say that it was simply a matter of taking back bannana fields, but you aren't going to believe me until I ressurect the corpse of the president himself and make him admit it to you. If I could do that you would probably still refuse to pay for the train ride.
So I'll just answer this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Humana
Making this claim doesn't make it true. Indeed your claim is so vague that its impossible for me to really even discuss it other than to say its totally unsupported. Just because a liberal writes a book proclaiming history supports his ideas doesn't make it any truer than Al Gore writing a book proclaiming the internal combustion engine to be mankind's greatest threat.


You seem to be falling prey to a common conservative fallacy. Anything that anyone says that disagrees with conservatives demonstrates that that person is a liberal. Because that person is a liberal their judgement is suspect and their theses can be dismissed out of hand. This is called circular logic. You may notice that liberals use this sort of argument far less often. We don't generally need to resort to it.

A hilarious proposition you give us there..! :D

The book History on Trial was not written by "some liberal" it was written by the Historians who were put in charge (by the conservative government) of writing the national history standards. Once they were done people on both sides claimed that there were problems with it, especially the conservatives who appointed these historians to the task in the first place. This is very common for conservative politicians who give research jobs to academics and then complain to the academics for coming back with the wrong answers. Nixon did the same thing when he told a bunch of scientists to study marijuana and told them that coming back with information that said that marijuana was no worse than alchohol and tobbacco would be a bad idea.

Liberals comlpained that the history standards focused too heavily on White people and didn't do enough to promote humanitarianism and racial tolerance, even though promoting things isn't histories job.

Conservatives complained that it was outright re-writing history so as to minimize the benifits of the free market system and make America look like it was built on torture and murder.

The difference is that the conservatives who complained were politicians who were in a position to do something about it and started doing so before the standards were even published. Their leader was Lynn Cheney, the Vice-president's wife.

And once again, the winners,.. the most effective,.. the most "powerful",.. managed to NOT win in this regard, as YOU are evidence that they have been exposed as "history manipulators".

And yet,.. society proceeds,.. and improves as it does.

Thank you capitalist society, for being as tolerant to the perturbations of humans in power as you are, as any other system would shatter under that pressure.

Iakeokeo, you killed this thread with your rambling, pointless posts. Was that your intent?

Some of those brainwashed americans like Ikaekoakieo (that called me a young one...can you imagine?) that tell people that leftwing is pure evil and defined as fascists. Well, someone who calls leftwing fascists doesn't know the least bit about history and most certainly doesn't of the origin of socialism and why it suddenly popped up. They also tend to confuse communism with socialism (another one of those brainwash ideas). And those people don't have any experience with socialism as a political party in a well balanced political environment, what so ever. Ask the british about the labour party, those are socialists. We have a socialist party (they even ran for a few years and they didn't establish a demonic reign of total control).

We don't have camera's controlling every move of our citizens (like in some american cities) and we don't use people to snitch on their neighbours like in america and in Germany under Hitlers reign. Fascists (extreme right wing) stands for individualism Ikaekoako like you wrote several posts ago. And it also means that one individual or some have absolute control. So they will have to control each and every individual to manage their tyranny. You've already got your CIA, FBI, NSA, ... Ideal to complete the evolution to a totalitary state. I think its about time you had some leftwing to balance things out. To give the working man some more say in politics and not just the major corporations. There would be more interest in the people that actually live IN the US than interest in foreign countries (as in destroy every country that doesn't sell us their oil). Poverty is rising, jobs are declining...and you still support the extremist rightwing individualists. Individualism = don't care about someone other unless he/she can help me get more power/money.

And one last thing Ikaekokie (for now...:)) a person that uses the font "comic sans" all the time, that is PURE EVIL. I'm speaking as a person with taste and creational capacities (as in design).

don't compare what could be socialism(or communism) whit what is capitalism.
P.S. Have you lived in a communist state?

monopolies that provide crap products: microsoft. every windows program since 3.1 has sucked total ass, and yet microsoft still dominates the market. why? because they crush the life out of any possible competitors with their market power.

property as an expression of identity and individuality? have we really come to the point that we are defined by how big our television is, and how fancy our car might happen to be, instead of how we speak, how we treat other people, and how we act?

The US engages in unfair trade all the time because it forces countries to trade with them on formally equal terms. what that means is that the big bully US (and institutions like the IMF and the WTO) beats the crap out of weaker countries. why do you think boxing has weight classes?

Capitalism is just fine for the haves, but the problem with it is that it creates an increasingly large number of have nots. Is it really necessary for me (or you, or anybody) to have a 60 inch plasma screen tv, a rolls royce, a private jet, and a sixty room mansion while there are people starving in the world? Just look at the income differential in the US; the gap is growing wider, not lower.

True, and isn't that a good reason to care for the foreign workers who produce our goods as if they were our countrymen? If not by paying them fair wages (instituting international minimum wages are impossible), then at least by ameliorating their working conditions.


I'm not a socialist. As long as employers aren't using force or fraud, either directly or via governments, they're free to pay what the workers are willing to take. The whole point of going crossing oceans for labor is to cut costs. Although there could be some issues regarding a lack of contract enforcement and liability.


It's difficult to make statements about human nature, but I agree that a state can not force someone to give up his life, liberty and happiness. Therefore socialism should never be imposed on individuals.

Let's make a distinction between state-socialism (the state assumes control of the economy in order to promote the interest of society) and social democracy (the state implements socialist measures through a democratic process). I reject state-socialism: it's uncontrolable, practically inefficient and usually falls into totallitarianism. I do support social-democracy, where social measures are implemented if and only if it has popular support. Sometimes this will mean the government gives priority to the interest of society over the individual interest, but only because the people give the state the mandate to do this.

Well, I don't want any government to have such control over me, but by your standard what I want doesn't matter if the majority disagrees. I would agree that moderate social-democracy is preferable to total planned economy state-socialism, but I'd still rather have neither. One funny thing is that the US is more state-socialist than social-democratic compared with most of Europe. FDR's New Deal instituted all sorts of heavy state controls at the highest level of government. Much of these provisions and the state of emergency under which they were allowed to be instituted still exist.

Why is it that Americans are so adverse to the mention of socialism?
also Hitler. Hitler was a Socialist as well as a nationalist and a racist. he cause many Americans some problems in the mid 20th century, i have read.

we of the terran individualists also have little regard for Socialism in any of its forms, as we are a society that does not mandate slavery, or "employment" as it is called in other nations.

Yes, "Americans" (we of the TI have heard of this "America" -- is it a real place?) have problems with Socialists. it may be the American desire for individualism, even though it is generally a repressed desire it is still a desire.

oh, yeah, Hitler. He was a Socialist and from I read he was not a nice guy.

all the best Doctor V. Jones
international relations
Commonwealth of Terran Individualists

We don't have camera's controlling every move of our citizens (like in some american cities) and we don't use people to snitch on their neighbours like in america and in Germany under Hitlers reign.

We don't have those things here in America either, at least not like you are implying. Cameras are under judicial review right now and its my feeling they will be ruled unconstitutional. People don't run around "snitching" on each other and any comparison to Hitler's Germany is way off base. This is the kind of exaggerations that makes me wonder if the supposed "worldly" Europeans really even have a clue about what is actually going on in the world and what actually constitutes good governance.

You've already got your CIA, FBI, NSA, ...

The CIA and I believe, but am not sure, the NSA have no authority to do anything domestically. The FBI is far from a group of jack booted thugs running about whisking people away at 2 a.m. They are subject to the same Constitutional controls as local law enforcement. Thats the difference between America and Europe; our Constitution stands between us and the totalitarian whims of the government.

I think its about time you had some leftwing to balance things out. To give the working man some more say in politics and not just the major corporations.

How anyone can utter such a thing after the last 60 years of government socialist growth is astonishing. We've had an overbalance of left-wing policies and they've done a deep and pervasive harm to our nation.

There would be more interest in the people that actually live IN the US than interest in foreign countries (as in destroy every country that doesn't sell us their oil).

There is more of that blantent exaggeration approaching slander that makes me wonder if you actually have a clue as to whats going on. The US doesn't destroy any country that doesn't sell us oil, in fact we put up embargos against regimes we don't like who would otherwise want to sell us oil. If oil was our only concern then we would not have invaded Iraq, we'd have bought it from Saddam. Instead we've now got a situation where Iraqi production is limited and prices are high, partly due no doubt to regional instability. The US does what it thinks is right for our own security and for the security of the free world even when it harms our economic interests.

Poverty is rising, jobs are declining...and you still support the extremist rightwing individualists. Individualism = don't care about someone other unless he/she can help me get more power/money.

Unemployment is the same as it was in the 90's, about 5.4%, much much lower than most European nations, economic growth index is at 3.7%. Home ownership is at record highs. I'm not sure what world you're living in, but it isn't the real one.

Michael Badnarik: Libertarian, believes in absolute freeom of the individual in economic and social arenas, virtually no government.


I wouldn't go that far. What I've read of his platform, he's pretty military-strong for a libertarian guy. He's vowed to bring home troops from around the world, but he hasn't promised to fire them. I should point out that his platform/policy wouldn't necessarily 100% his personal idealogy as I would expect him to respect the rule of law and the sovereignty of the states. For instance, he might not like public education, but it would not be his place to liquidate or privatize government schools, only to get rid of federal funding and control of education.

monopolies that provide crap products: microsoft. every windows program since 3.1 has sucked total ass, and yet microsoft still dominates the market. why? because they crush the life out of any possible competitors with their market power.

I use microsoft because I've tried the alternatives, including Linux, and find Windows to be more useable for my daily activities. Their fearsome "market power" doesn't mean anything. If I were running a server or something I'd immediately switch to Linux.

property as an expression of identity and individuality? have we really come to the point that we are defined by how big our television is, and how fancy our car might happen to be, instead of how we speak, how we treat other people, and how we act?

Property isn't an expression of individuality, its an extension of self-ownership. If you can't own the things your body and mind produce then how can you own yourself?

The US engages in unfair trade all the time because it forces countries to trade with them on formally equal terms. what that means is that the big bully US (and institutions like the IMF and the WTO) beats the crap out of weaker countries. why do you think boxing has weight classes?

Here we finally come to the real crux of the matter. It isn't that you are upset at unfair American trade practices; those don't exist. What upsets you is that America insists on fairness and that puts some nations at a disadvantage. You are not in the least bit concerned with fairness when it comes to the playing field, but some sort of twisted equality of outcome. You want the system gamed so that the US starts out at a disadvantage. Sorry, but that is not fairness, fairness is where everyone plays by the same rules not where everyone has a chance to "win."

Capitalism is just fine for the haves, but the problem with it is that it creates an increasingly large number of have nots. Is it really necessary for me (or you, or anybody) to have a 60 inch plasma screen tv, a rolls royce, a private jet, and a sixty room mansion while there are people starving in the world? Just look at the income differential in the US; the gap is growing wider, not lower.

Is it necessary for you to have a computer? Would you like the government to take it away? In the US there is indeed a gap between the rich and the poor, the only difference is that the poor a rich relative to anything a reasonable person would consider poor. The poor in America are the people that have to settle with 1 car instead of two, only eating out 3 times a week instead of daily, have to settle for the basic cable package on a 24 inch TV screen instead of 500 channels on the big screen. The notion that we have heaps of beggers on every street grasping at the gold plated loafers of the superwealthy is a fantasy notion I hear repeated often, but am unable to determine its origin other than to say it doesn't come from reality. I can only imagine that it must be one of those urban legends that becomes widespread like the one about people knocking out other people and stealing their kidneys.

Well, I don't really buy the communist arrangement of those with need versus those with ability. It's entirely subjective. The moral answer is that people ought to own themselves and what they produce, and they have every right to volutarily trade their property with other people. Beyond that, it's up to the owner of property (money, food, whatever) to give at their own discretion. People will naturally help out their loved ones. Some help strangers and foreingers. This charity is, of course, limited by their ability (wealth), and their understanding of the world. Nobody's going to send food to people starving in Somalia if they don't even know people in Somalia are starving.

Your thoughts sum up why I believe socialism would only work in small communities. People would have no trouble giving to those who were unable to work enough to survive, as they would know the other person and their situation on a personal level. At the same time, the wealthy person in the community would not be obligated to give to the slacker as the community would know that the slacker is responsible for his own poverty and is not a victim of circumstance. I think it's interesting that you associate morality with economy the way you do. Reminds me of Ayn Rand, though without the heavy handed aspect of her writings. I think socialism, and perhaps every other economic system, creates problems when it moves outside the community sphere.

It's my opinion that true free trade is what ought to exist accross borders. I think modest tariffs are acceptable. The problem with modern "free trade" agreements is that they're thousands of pages long. If it was true free trade, they would only need one two pages. Those many pages are usually filled with all sorts of price industrial, labor, and price controls. They allow one nation to dictate economic controls on another nation. It's sort of a modern sophisticated version of mercantilism. And beyond that, there's the US Federal Reserve and the related World Bank and IMF. In a nutshell, these banks profit from manipulating money. These parasites are fed by the American and third world work forces, probably among others. Actually, those in and near the public sector (military contractors) benefit from this arrangment, but those far from it (retail, service industry) lose out. That's where corporations come in. That's pretty simplified, but that's about what I see.

I believe that communities, countries, etc. have the right to do business as they see fit. As it stands now, the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas penalizes countries if they attempt to do things like limit industrial pollution or the movement of capital outside a country's borders. One of the reasons why countries nationalise certain industries is so that local business will benefit instead of multinational corporations. Again I return to the idea of the community deciding its economic path.

Sometimes, it's thought that international free trade isn't always the best answer. I'm skeptical of that, but I"m not really sure. Today, the US depends heavily on trade with China, and China profits massively in return. American consumers are able to see lower prices, and the Chinese are rapidly raising their standard of living. The problem is that the Chinese corporations are apparently state owned machines run by military generals. They are well on their way to becoming the other superpower. And then there's all normal issues people have with Chinese labor, on top of the lost American jobs. I don't really know how bad it is, but it would be nice if their people had political and economic freedom, for starters. What I'm getting at though, is that free trade, in this instance seems to have some potentially serious drawbacks.

It's sad how we sell out our future for short term gain.

OTOH, the US/UN had those sanctions (opposite of free trade) against Iraq between the two wars, that reportedly killed a half-million people, and made Iraqis less able to resist their dictator.

I find it odd and uplifting that you and I come to similar viewpoints based on opposing premises. :p

Well,.. unfortunately, the great leftist powers that be in these forums have banned Iakeokeo..

Iakeokeo, an admitted "insulter" and "rightist", and thought provoking (to those interested in "lively conversation") satirist has been silenced.

May you all be happy in your censored leftist wasteland.

Bye-bye now..! :D

There is plenty of superior coffee for much cheaper. And yet the market force hardly seems to dent Starbucks market presence.

Starbucks may have a market presence, but that doesn't prevent them from failing. Everywhere they have a store, they risk competition from local coffee shops, smaller chains, and even book stores. The demand for high-price coffee is subject to the whims of the customers. Starbucks couldn't have been so successful without keeping them happy. It's not like coffee is a necessary comodity like petroleum or food, and I'm sure most Starbucks customers have at least one other way to get their morning fix. You might think their coffee tastes like ass, but a lot of people disagree with you.

also Hitler. Hitler was a Socialist as well as a nationalist and a racist. he cause many Americans some problems in the mid 20th century, i have read.

we of the terran individualists also have little regard for Socialism in any of its forms, as we are a society that does not mandate slavery, or "employment" as it is called in other nations.

Yes, "Americans" (we of the TI have heard of this "America" -- is it a real place?) have problems with Socialists. it may be the American desire for individualism, even though it is generally a repressed desire it is still a desire.

oh, yeah, Hitler. He was a Socialist and from I read he was not a nice guy.

all the best Doctor V. Jones
international relations
Commonwealth of Terran Individualists

Hitler wasn't socialist, he was a extremist right wing national socialist. He blamed the economic problems on the democrats, the socialist party (the real left socialists) and especially the jews. National Socialism was a reaction against socialism and communism. It used some good socialist issues, but twisted them. The people, according to national socialists (extremist right fascists), were no longer every people, but a selection of people: every aboriginal (arian in the case of germany in the early 20th century) that wasn't a political enemy. So no gays, no etnic or cultural groups other than the original Germans (so no gypsies, no jews), no disabled people (bad genes and all). That is the extremist right stamp the national socialists put upon left ideas. A heavy case of individualism. "Our own people are better than other etnic groups", you can hardly call that socialist or left can you? Jews weren't even considered to be real humans. While extremist left considered every man to be equal and left preaches integration of every nationality and equal oportunity for everyone to get a job and a decent life, National socialists wanted those oportunities only for their followers/etnic group. Hitler was an extremist rightist and is still an idol to almost every extremist right political and non political organisation. So your statement is quite incorrect because it failed to see the complete picture of Hitler's National Socialist party.