NationStates Jolt Archive

In reaction to the 'Republicans = Big Brother' thread, I have created a counter-thread.

I am Libertarian, but I would like to point out how wrong this statement is


Traditionally, a Republican calls for:

*a SMALLER government with LESS interference in people's lives
*LESS government spending, and what spending they do is RESPONSIBLE and KEPT to a minumum
*less government interference with the economy; let the people keep their money and spend it as they will
*indeed some of their views on how to fight terror can be debated, but to me one or two concepts actually make some sense (minus its misuse w/Iraq, pre-emptive strikes are actually a good idea to fight war and terror. it = hit terrorists before they can hit us; would you rather wait for them to attack?)

However I feel like a few powerful conservatives (conservative =/= Republican) have perverted this party to their own devices

In reaction to the 'Republicans = Big Brother' thread, I have created a counter-thread.

I am Libertarian, but I would like to point out how wrong this statement is


Traditionally, a Republican calls for:

*a SMALLER government with LESS interference in people's lives
*LESS government spending, and what spending they do is RESPONSIBLE and KEPT to a minumum
*less government interference with the economy; let the people keep their money and spend it as they will
*indeed some of their views on how to fight terror can be debated, but to me they actually make some sense (minus its misuse w/Iraq, pre-emptive is actually a good idea to fight war and terror. it = hit terrorists before they can hit us; would you rather wait for them to attack?)

However I feel like a few powerful conservatives (conservative =/= Republican) have perverted this party to their own devices
Libertarians want Big Business to rule people tho and there were never any terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion

Libertarians want Big Business to rule people tho
Another completely absurd statement.

We want less interference in the economy! We obviously will hold corporations accountable for wrongdoing, but we're not Draconian about it like some liberals are

Yeah, the extreme aspects of both parties are what make Big Brother. This was said many time on the other thread by me and many others but few listened.

Go LP!

Another completely absurd statement.

We want less interference in the economy! We obviously will hold corporations accountable for wrongdoing, but we're not Draconian about it like some liberals are
the libertarian way would have General Electric be the new govt

too bad every republican ive ever heard from favors implementing their own values on the government and limiting everyoens life to how they want it lived

too bad every republican ive ever heard from favors implementing their own values on the government and limiting everyoens life to how they want it lived
Those are Authoritarians, a small but powerful fringe group of "Republicans" - they, like extreme liberals, continue to pollute politics

the libertarian way would have General Electric be the new govt
That offers absolutely no counterrance to my argument

I'm reminded of Barry Goldwater's comment to Bob Dole (during the latter's run for president in 1996):

[loosely paraphrased] "Who would have guessed we'd end up as the liberals of the party?"

And that seems strange considering Goldwater was the conservative opponent to comparatively liberal Nelson Rockefeller for the 1964 Republican primaries.

I blame the Religious Right.

too bad every republican ive ever heard from favors implementing their own values on the government and limiting everyoens life to how they want it lived
Yeah. I feel that the Libertarian Party is a good refuge for those that disagree. That is how I became one. I was tired of how Republicans started doing things and I was not a fan of socialism. The LP fit me best.

I blame the Religious Right.
Even as a Christian I agree with that. I wish the Republicans would go back to their old values.

Yeah. I feel that the Libertarian Party is a good refuge for those that disagree. That is how I became one. I was tired of how Republicans started doing things and I was not a fan of socialism. The LP fit me best.
The LP has the best potential to be a strong third party. They pull members from both the left and the right, Democrats and Republicans.

Unlike the Greens and Constitutionals, who only pull from the wings.

The LP has the best potential to be a strong third party. They pull members from both the left and the right, Democrats and Republicans.

Unlike the Greens and Constitutionals, who only pull from the wings.
And from what I have seen, even the liberals and the conservatives of the LP party get along with each other. I hope by next election they become important.

we definatley need some third party to counter the republicans war against all of humanity--the democratic party is dead in the water and floundering badly

I think the Republican Party fell from greatness when their base moved from the North to the South. Social conservatism (authoritarianism) became the defining mark of the new GOP.

I think the Republican Party fell from greatness when their base moved from the North to the South. Social conservatism (authoritarianism) became the defining mark of the new GOP.
You could also look at the change of the Democrat party. The South has always been into State's Rights. The Republican Party started shifting to that and the Democratic Party shifted towards socialism. But I agree, the South pretty much ruined the party.

the libertarian way would have General Electric be the new govt

Um... so? (CAP, CRE) ;)

You could also look at the change of the Democrat party. The South has always been into State's Rights. The Republican Party started shifting to that and the Democratic Party shifted towards socialism. But I agree, the South pretty much ruined the party.
The Democrat Party went the way of welfare liberalism under Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. But even then, the party base remained in the South. It wasn't until the social liberation of the 60s that social conservatism split the South away from the Dems.

But the Republicans had their own divisions years earlier, with the progressive/liberal/environmentalist faction splitting away under Teddy Roosevelt, and the conservative faction sticking with Taft.

If Teddy was alive today he'd be a Democrat. Although he would be much friendlier with the NRA. ;)

I think the Republican Party fell from greatness when their base moved from the North to the South. Social conservatism (authoritarianism) became the defining mark of the new GOP.
true--the GOP got ruined when they started representing all the old slave states

You could also look at the change of the Democrat party. The South has always been into State's Rights. The Republican Party started shifting to that and the Democratic Party shifted towards socialism. But I agree, the South pretty much ruined the party.
the Bush administration doesnt believe in states rights at all--Ashcroft used the Justice Dept to sue states that enacted laws he didnt like

*indeed some of their views on how to fight terror can be debated, but to me one or two concepts actually make some sense (minus its misuse w/Iraq, pre-emptive strikes are actually a good idea to fight war and terror. it = hit terrorists before they can hit us; would you rather wait for them to attack?)
Just a little heads up, pre-emptive strikes are illegal in the context of the UN charter... though self defense is not. Not to mention you now have Iran threatening to "pre-emptively strike" American forces in the Persian Gulf.
And with that aside over, I have nothing else to say.

Another completely absurd statement.

We want less interference in the economy! We obviously will hold corporations accountable for wrongdoing, but we're not Draconian about it like some liberals are
How is a small goverment supose to control big buisness? If we shrink the gov's controll over buisness it gets stronger and buisness gets stronger, next thing you know the buisnesses are able to buy and sell the gov. Buisnessmen may earn their power through hardwork, determination, and charisma, but the same can be said of Hitler. Power can't be earned it can only be held in trust through the will of the masses, ant other way brings the risk of despotism be it through political means or economic means.

Spoken like a true socialist

I think I am moving twords becoming A Socialist Libertarian.

How is a small goverment supose to control big buisness? If we shrink the gov's controll over buisness it gets stronger and buisness gets stronger, next thing you know the buisnesses are able to buy and sell the gov. Buisnessmen may earn their power through hardwork, determination, and charisma, but the same can be said of Hitler. Power can't be earned it can only be held in trust through the will of the masses, ant other way brings the risk of despotism be it through political means or economic means.
Competition controls business. I am all for the government stepping in when it gets out of hand and making minimum wage laws, but the gov should not control busniess or seize industry.

wow, this is the first thread that i have read in a long time that isn't full of rhetoric. The republicans have now become neo-cons for the most part. Almost imperialistic, but i do not think tht the entire GOP is like that, just like i don't think all the Dems are socialist (zell miller for one).....The GOP faltered when it went to the south...that is true, but not as much as the DEMS did....Clinton tried to breath new life into the party, but it only lasts so long. Now the left has activists in high esteem.....this is not a good thing for the party. Both parties need to become more centrist....

wow, this is the first thread that i have read in a long time that isn't full of rhetoric. The republicans have now become neo-cons for the most part. Almost imperialistic, but i do not think tht the entire GOP is like that, just like i don't think all the Dems are socialist (zell miller for one).....The GOP faltered when it went to the south...that is true, but not as much as the DEMS did....Clinton tried to breath new life into the party, but it only lasts so long. Now the left has activists in high esteem.....this is not a good thing for the party. Both parties need to become more centrist....
For all the talk about how "The two parties are really the same", they've certainly diverged in recent years. The moderates are being routed out of their parties. Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats are a thing of the past.

Competition controls business. I am all for the government stepping in when it gets out of hand and making minimum wage laws, but the gov should not control busniess or seize industry.
So you would support goverment restrictions to prevent monopilies? The goverment is having problems doing that as it is, Microsoft anyone?, how will it manage it if it is weakened in its ability to regulate buisness. You also assume that goverment officials are immune to bribes, if a buisness is strong enough it wouldn't be to hard for them to bribe officials or help sympathetic cannidates to get elected. We have put democratic controles in place to allow the populance more easy controle of political power, it is time to look for methods of placing the same controls in place on economic power.
I say yes absolute power currupts absolutly, but never forget the begining of that saying "Power currupts".

Who is to say the Big Bisnuess dosen't already run this nation?

Who is to say the Big Bisnuess dosen't already run this nation?
No one which is why we shouldn't be weaking the goverments ability to regulate it, but be searching for the economic equivelent of democracy as a means of allowing the people to regulate political power.

I feal that big Binssness in bad peroid.

I feal that big Binssness in bad peroid.
I fyour talking to me I agree, thats why I think we need to develop ways to alow the people to regulate it the way democracy alows us the opurtunity to regulate politics.

Big Buissness and the republican party -> :) :gundge: <-Me.

For all the talk about how "The two parties are really the same", they've certainly diverged in recent years. The moderates are being routed out of their parties. Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats are a thing of the past.

How about John McCain and Jo Lieberman running on the same ticket for President and Vice-president in the next election? I don't care which one is which is President and which is second string. One liberal Republican and one conservative Democrat. Anyone think that would fly?

I feal that big Binssness in bad peroid.

Why?

Why?

Corrept, money making, greddy, republican supporting ass holes.

In reaction to the 'Republicans = Big Brother' thread, I have created a counter-thread.

I am Libertarian, but I would like to point out how wrong this statement is


Traditionally, a Republican calls for:

*a SMALLER government with LESS interference in people's lives
*LESS government spending, and what spending they do is RESPONSIBLE and KEPT to a minumum
*less government interference with the economy; let the people keep their money and spend it as they will
*indeed some of their views on how to fight terror can be debated, but to me one or two concepts actually make some sense (minus its misuse w/Iraq, pre-emptive strikes are actually a good idea to fight war and terror. it = hit terrorists before they can hit us; would you rather wait for them to attack?)

However I feel like a few powerful conservatives (conservative =/= Republican) have perverted this party to their own devices

I think you are correct. I thought of becoming a Libertarian but found to many things I don't like about the party.

I also wonder why people are so against less government interference with the economy. It always amazes me how liberals like .... are so willing to give away my money, and I damn sure aren't "rich" or "wealthy" but are not willing to contribute their own money to the truly needy.

Corrept, money making, greddy, republican supporting ass holes.

And there are no Democrats that fit that same mold?

corporations ruin values and mesmerize the young easily. clearly capitalism is one of the worst systems a free state can have.

corporations ruin values and mesmerize the young easily. clearly capitalism is one of the worst systems a free state can have.



Socialism- Everyone poor equally.

Capitalism- People succeed based on there hard work and determination.

Corrept, money making, greddy, republican supporting ass holes.
Please learn to spell the words corrupt, greedy and how to properly spell assholes.

Anyway... The Kennedys are just the pinnacle of rightousness, aren't they? Not greedy in the least, or corrupt even! *rolls eyes*
Both sides are corrupt. Both sides have certain groups and corporations in their pockets.

How about John McCain and Jo Lieberman running on the same ticket for President and Vice-president in the next election? I don't care which one is which is President and which is second string. One liberal Republican and one conservative Democrat. Anyone think that would fly?
Much sooner than a Guiliani Republican ticket. Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, messy divorce...he wouldn't stand a chance in a GOP primary.

McCain is at least pro-life, but he's pissed off his own party in numerous other ways (and besides, Karl Rove destroyed him 4 years ago.)

Lieberman is similarly hated by his own party (he was the sponsor of those stupid video game ratings).

ok to the John McCain and Jo Lieberman on the same ticket. it is a great idea, who would not vote for them. Hell even i would and i am socialist.

and Big Business such as Wal-Mart needs to be cracked down upon. They pay the majority of their employess the lowest they can. And by doing so they go on Welfare thus drawing more money out of the governmentts pocktes. Big Business is fine as long as it is not out of control

Socialism- Everyone poor equally.

Capitalism- People succeed based on there hard work and determination.

Capitalism is great in the sense that it promotes competition, and competition can actually benefit for the better. But that very same act of competition is what ruins the value of the people to the companies. Not all companies are evil, but humans have a natural tendency to 'want more' thus eventually making the company bad. They "rule" the people. I suggest you watch "Tucker: A Man of His Dreams" to get the sense of what I mean when corporations rule alongside the government.

Capitalism is clearly the winner. Who cares about the morals of the people who head the corporation? Their still employing a ton of people and obviously the companies are making things that people want to buy. We wouldn't be able to communicate over a computer if corporate competition didn't make it possible. Higher technology and lower prices are possible with corporate competition. Its a proven fact.

That's what I said! Capitalism can promote competition which can be to a good benefit. Please read well.
Now, to say that you basically don't care about the moral values a corporation needs to hold for the people just frighten me and such a statement would lean me to never have you as a leader, atleast if you continue thinking that way.
I shudder to think how your administration would treat the people if you ever have the chance. You are easily the type who falls right into the hands of greed.

Ha, "corporate values" are a fantasy. Look, every corporation wants to do one thing and thats MAKING MONEY. Theres no morals, just one goal. How do you make money? You have to beat the competition and that may mean lowering the price of your products and/or making a superior quality product!|

corporations ruin values and mesmerize the young easily. clearly capitalism is one of the worst systems a free state can have.

Have you ever taken an economics course?

Lieberman is similarly hated by his own party (he was the sponsor of those stupid video game ratings).

Video game ratings are like TV and movie ratings. No one pays any attention to them.

You have to beat the competition and that may mean lowering the price of your products and/or making a superior quality product!|

So, in your opinion is that good or bad? :confused:

So, in your opinion is that good or bad? :confused:

Awesome, if your the consumer!

Awesome, if your the consumer!

Which most of us are. :)

Socialism- Everyone poor equally.

Capitalism- People succeed based on there hard work and determination.
Yes the problem is that when these people suceed the gain power and power currupts. This is as true of economic power as it is of political power, since we alowe people to gain economic power based on their charisma and determination maybe we should do the same with political power. We don't do that becaus ewe can see from history that just because someone works hard and is charismatic doesn't mean they deserve power. As I said before power can't be earned it can only be grant through the will of the people, democtacy and representative democracy were developed to see that this principle was perpetuated when it comes to political power, it is time to bring this principle to the economy as well. To repeat power either economic or political can't be earned it can only be freely and fairly granted through the will and wishes of the people.

So your saying that someone who works hard doesn't deserve to succeed because he wasn't elected to do so. Doesn't make the least of sense.

Socialism- Everyone poor equally.

Capitalism- People succeed based on there hard work and determination.

And politicians are nice people who only work for the good of others! And there's no war, and there's no pain or strife, and rainbows come out of people's butts!

And politicians are nice people who only work for the good of others! And there's no war, and there's no pain or strife, and rainbows come out of people's butts!

Naj and Psyker seem to think that corporations are filled with nice people who only work for the good of others! The great thing about corporations is that they can't succeed WITHOUT the little guy to buy all there stuff! The government on the other hand can get away with whatever the hell they want and people will still pay taxes.

Ha, "corporate values" are a fantasy. Look, every corporation wants to do one thing and thats MAKING MONEY. Theres no morals, just one goal. How do you make money? You have to beat the competition and that may mean lowering the price of your products and/or making a superior quality product!|

Are you not realizing that is my point? Corporations hold none or destroys the value of the individual for money. Get it now? Or are you going to reply with the same argument again.

Have you ever taken an economics course?

It shows you have not if you don't actually see the flaws the capitalist economic system contains. And please, don't post crap like I'm an anti-capitalist or pro-socialist or communist. Usually such ignorants are the ones who support the unnoticeably erroneous authorities.

Naj and Psyker seem to think that corporations are filled with nice people who only work for the good of others! The great thing about corporations is that they can't succeed WITHOUT the little guy to buy all there stuff! The government on the other hand can get away with whatever the hell they want and people will still pay taxes.

Are you on crack? Do you even read??? I said the OPPOSITE! Corporations are evil is what I've been saying for the past minutes, you dumbwit. Ignorance irritate me.

Are you not realizing that is my point? Corporations hold none or destroys the value of the individual for money. Get it now? Or are you going to reply with the same argument again.



It shows you have not if you don't actually see the flaws the capitalist economic system contains. And please, don't post crap like I'm an anti-capitalist or pro-socialist or communist. Usually such ignorants are the ones who support the unnoticeably erroneous authorities.

Every system has its flaws, capitalism is the one that has the least of them

So your saying that someone who works hard doesn't deserve to succeed because he wasn't elected to do so. Doesn't make the least of sense.
Hitler worked hard, he got in to power through determination and charisma. He was able to lead Germany in conquring much of Europe the same can be said of most dictators, does that mean it is a good thing for them to hold all of the political power they have seized? I repeat power currupts, be it political or economic. If you are rich enough you can buy and sell the law, just look at the situation at the tun of the century, powerful buisness men were able to use the goverment to cement their positions of power. This is why it is nesesary to have measures in place to make it easier for the people to remove and grant power, we have democracy to do this for political power we need an economic equivalent.

Are you on crack? Do you even read??? I said the OPPOSITE! Corporations are evil is what I've been saying for the past minutes, you dumbwit. Ignorance irritate me.

You haven't realized any of the benefits that corporations bring out for the little guy. I don't think you can prove any argument against corporate competition.
You keep talking about "how corporations need to have moral values" what the hell? The greediness of corporations is exactly why corporate competition succeeds and ultimately helps the little guy. If the corporations werent greedy there would be no fuel to drive the competition.

Every system has its flaws, capitalism is the one that has the least of them

Actually, buddy, the reason it seems it has the least flaws, as you so put it, is because the very fabric of the system is based on marketing and delusions to the consumers. The people will hardly realize they are being tricked into buying products or notice a company's attempt to get their hand on the consumer’s money because we have been raised so much into the system that we just see it as "commercials". But quite in fact, it is the opposite. The capitalist system is the worst, in my opinion, as its very fundamental relies on trickery of persuasion.
But like I said thrice now, the best of the system is that it promotes competition, which encourages better products.

You haven't realized any of the benefits that corporations bring out for the little guy. I don't think you can prove any argument against corporate competition.
You keep talking about "how corporations need to have moral values" what the hell? The greediness of corporations is exactly why corporate competition succeeds and ultimately helps the little guy. If the corporations werent greedy there would be no fuel to drive the competition.

Again, you must have not read my second supporting point on the positive side of Capitalism.

Hitler worked hard, he got in to power through determination and charisma. He was able to lead Germany in conquring much of Europe the same can be said of most dictators, does that mean it is a good thing for them to hold all of the political power they have seized? I repeat power currupts, be it political or economic. If you are rich enough you can buy and sell the law, just look at the situation at the tun of the century, powerful buisness men were able to use the goverment to cement their positions of power. This is why it is nesesary to have measures in place to make it easier for the people to remove and grant power, we have democracy to do this for political power we need an economic equivalent.

You have thinks backwards, we have the economic equivalent and its called capitalism. Germany back in the 1930's is not what America is now.

You have thinks backwards, we have the economic equivalent and its called capitalism. Germany back in the 1930's is not what America is now.

Heh. I can get a few people who would glady disagree with that statement. Obviously there are no direct connections, but there are very close situations going on, and you not seeing this is what many here are trying to prove as the ignorant audience.
History repeats itself, often in the same form or situation, just not the same characters or settings.

Actually, buddy, the reason it seems it has the least flaws, as you so put it, is because the very fabric of the system is based on marketing and delusions to the consumers. The people will hardly realize they are being tricked into buying products or notice a company's attempt to get their hand on the consumer’s money because we have been raised so much into the system that we just see it as "commercials". But quite in fact, it is the opposite. The capitalist system is the worst, in my opinion, as its very fundamental relies on trickery of persuasion.
But like I said thrice now, the best of the system is that it promotes competition, which encourages better products.

Companies don't brainwash people into buying there product(they wish they could). Advertisement is one the ways to get a company noticed. People in capitalism are free to choose what they want to buy, that means they get to see what competing companies have to offer. Example, you can see the benefits between a Dell computer and an HP computer and than ultimately decide which is best for you and for your money.
If somebody buys something they don't need, how is that the companies fault?

Naj and Psyker seem to think that corporations are filled with nice people who only work for the good of others! The great thing about corporations is that they can't succeed WITHOUT the little guy to buy all there stuff! The government on the other hand can get away with whatever the hell they want and people will still pay taxes.
Couldn't be farther from the truth, I don't trust the gov., but thats why we have a democracy so that the people can vote out currupt officials the fact that this doesn't always happen just shows people are stupid. You seem to think that a company has to care for its workers, a guess that is why Walmart is going bankrupt. All that matters to corporations is making money for the major shareholders, the best way to do this would be to establish a monoply and to crush all competitors, hmm sounds like Microsoft. We need strong goverment regulation to be assured of this, because as I have said before if buisnesses get strong enough they can buy and sell the goverment, because as you say goverment officials are buyable and can be untrustworthy wich is why we have a democracy to hopefuly keep such things under control. I don't particularly trust the gov. but at least as a democracy the people have some reasonably direct control, I don't trust buisness because we haven't established even this level of control. And befor one says that people can vote with their dollar, that means those with more dollares have more say, since they are the ones with more economic power, thus meaning they are they ones that nee to be more carefuly watched and controled. You could by that same line of thought say a democratic system were the number of votes one gets are based on how much political power one has, is perefectly fair. I repeate onc a corporation has enough power it become sthe coverment by their ability to buy and sell the system. You can see this in are present sysem buy looking at how much of a chance a canidate has without the support of at least some of the economica;y powerful.

Companies don't brainwash people into buying there product(they wish they could). Advertisement is one the ways to get a company noticed. People in capitalism are free to choose what they want to buy, that means they get to see what competing companies have to offer. Example, you can see the benefits between a Dell computer and an HP computer and than ultimately decide which is best for you and for your money.
If somebody buys something they don't need, how is that the companies fault?

Funny, how you proved two of my points.
First you're saying companies don't brainwash people into buying their products. Yet now I believe you have never heard of successful attempts widely used everyday and exploited in the 70's (secretly, of course) known as 'subliminal advertising', have you? To say companies are innocent makes you too naive for this world.
Second, a most interesting quote... "Example, you can see the benefits between a Dell computer and an HP computer and than ultimately decide which is best for you and for your money." So "ultimately" the companies decide for you? You know, governments practice this as well.
Not only is the capitalist system so corrupt that regulations would be needed (eventually declassifying it as capitalism) but regulations on the part of the government would have to be made as there are many "associated" politicians.

Funny how you proved two of my points...
First you're saying companies don't brainwash people into buying their products. Yet I believe you have never heard of successful attempts widely used everyday (secretly, of course) known as 'subliminal advertising', have you. To say companies are innocent makes you too naive for this world.
Second, a most interesting quote... "Example, you can see the benefits between a Dell computer and an HP computer and than ultimately decide which is best for you and for your money." So "ultimately" the companies decide for you? You know, goverments practice this as well.

Its funny how you can't succesfully argue against capitalism.
What I'm saying is you can compare companies products before buying. You arent forced into buying into a companies claim, you can look for yourself. Nobody is coming to your house and saying that "you must buy this product or die". I would like you to propose a better system.

Companies don't brainwash people into buying there product(they wish they could). Advertisement is one the ways to get a company noticed. People in capitalism are free to choose what they want to buy, that means they get to see what competing companies have to offer. Example, you can see the benefits between a Dell computer and an HP computer and than ultimately decide which is best for you and for your money.
If somebody buys something they don't need, how is that the companies fault?
Yes and the only reason they are free to decide is, because of GOVERMENT regulations preventing monoplies. If we decrease goverment regulations on buisness, buisnesses will be able to get away with more they alreayd get away with plenty, look at the damage Enron was able to get a way with before any thing was done about it. I find it extreamly hard to believe that we hear about every case of economic coruption or that every case is even case same as I doubt that we hear of every case goverment curruption.

Its funny how you can't succesfully argue against capitalism.
What I'm saying is you can compare companies products before buying. You arent forced into buying into a companies claim, you can look for yourself. Nobody is coming to your house and saying that "you must buy this product or die".

You should take that statement and say it to yourself! You are trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, but unfortunately this whole argument had to be based on repetition because you kept mentioning the same point over and over.
You have only 'explained' what capitalism is, not understood or argued my or Psyker's points.

Yes and the only reason they are free to decide is, because of GOVERMENT regulations preventing monoplies. If we decrease goverment regulations on buisness, buisnesses will be able to get away with more they alreayd get away with plenty, look at the damage Enron was able to get a way with before any thing was done about it. I find it extreamly hard to believe that we hear about every case of economic coruption or that every case is even case same as I doubt that we hear of every case goverment curruption.


One of the parts of capitalism is that governments have to make sure that no one is cheating(like Enron). You guys are forgetting.

You know Psyker, and my teachers have agreed to this as well, sometimes I think the best way to have people learn is through experience. Obviously there are too many brats running around thinking they know what they're discussing, but in reality they have only masks on and are only seeing the big picture of communal events.

You should take that statement and say it to yourself! You are trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, but unfortunately this whole argument had to be based on repetition because you kept mentioning the same point over and over.
You have only 'explained' what capitalism is, not understood or argued my or Psyker's points.

I do know what I'm talking about, unlike you, who has not even proposed a proven alternative to capitalism.

One of the parts of capitalism is that governments have to make sure that no one is cheating(like Enron). You guys are forgetting.
We are not forgetting that! We are telling you through our argument! HAVE YOU READ AT ALL???

I do know what I'm talking about, unlike you, who has not proposed a proven alternative to capitalism.

The post was not to propose an alternative (though I have some ideas) but to explain the corruption of the system. You obviously have not learned from anything.
Go back to your MTV

We are not forgetting that! We are telling you through our argument! HAVE YOU READ AT ALL???

Go back to your MTV.

You didn't read what I was saying! I said that that was part of capitalism, yet you guys talk like its not.

Haha, thanks but I loathe MTV. Why you ask? Because the music sucks and when its not playing music, its playing reality tv. I think we can agree on one thing.

You didn't read what I was saying! I said that that was part of capitalism, yet you guys talk like its not.

Then GIVE ME THE QUOTE RIGHT NOW where I said that.

Its funny how you can't succesfully argue against capitalism.
What I'm saying is you can compare companies products before buying. You arent forced into buying into a companies claim, you can look for yourself. Nobody is coming to your house and saying that "you must buy this product or die". I would like you to propose a better system.
How about a democratic form of capitalism were workers elect their imediate supiriors all the way up the chain to the top. The boards could be elect in away similer to congress and the CEO in a way similer to the preseidant. If the people decide to cast their votes unwisely and the company suffers, they have no one to blame bu them selves. If it truly a problem they can elect diferent people to these positions. If they are inteligant they will vote for the most compantant person to be in power, since that will be the most beneficial for them, becaus ein a proper system employees at all levels would benefit from a succesful economic year. If they aren't inteligent in their vote and vote on popularity they have no one to blame but them selves.

Not only is the capitalist system so corrupt that regulations would be needed (eventually declassifying it as capitalism) but regulations on the part of the government would have to be made as there are many "associated" politicians.

(:

It always amazes me how liberals like .... are so willing to give away my money, and I damn sure aren't "rich" or "wealthy" but are not willing to contribute their own money to the truly needy.

Celtlund, do you support the war in Iraq? If so, did you enlist to go help fight it, or are you content to allow others to put themselves in danger?
Do you support the death penalty? If so, are you willing to flip the switch on the electric chair?
Do you donate your money to every cause you agree with?

I hope you see where I'm going with this.

(:

Are you seriously that stupid... really man. You seriously think that says "CAPITALISM DOESNT NEED REGULATIONS"?
The whole blasted statement is based on the NEED for REGULATIONS. Geez

I mean, it even fu*king says it here
"Not only is the capitalist system so corrupt that regulations would be needed"

One of the parts of capitalism is that governments have to make sure that no one is cheating(like Enron). You guys are forgetting.
Yes put the topic of this thread partly dealt with reducing goverment control over the economy which is what I have been arguing about, not to mention that I don't trust any position of power that wasn't gained through democratic means and isn't subject to being lost by those same means.

How about a democratic form of capitalism were workers elect their imediate supiriors all the way up the chain to the top. The boards could be elect in away similer to congress and the CEO in a way similer to the preseidant. If the people decide to cast their votes unwisely and the company suffers, they have no one to blame bu them selves. If it truly a problem they can elect diferent people to these positions. If they are inteligant they will vote for the most compantant person to be in power, since that will be the most beneficial for them, becaus ein a proper system employees at all levels would benefit from a succesful economic year. If they aren't inteligent in their vote and vote on popularity they have no one to blame but them selves.

Governments can regulate companies but CANNOT AND SHOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO DICTATE HOW IT RUNS.

Are you seriously that stupid... really man. You seriously think that says "CAPITALISM DOESNT NEED REGULATIONS"?
The whole blasted statement is based on the NEED for REGULATIONS. Geez

I mean, it even fu*king says it here
"Not only is the capitalist system so corrupt that regulations would be needed"

No, I think the quote said that you think that capitalism and regulation cannot coexist.
Quote me where I said that companies do not need regulation~

Governments can regulate companies but CANNOT AND SHOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO DICTATE HOW IT RUNS.
I'm not talking about democratic goverment's dictating how companies are run, I'm talking about a democratic company where the workers dictate how it is run through the democratic method of voting.

Quote me where I said that companies do not need regulation~

I never said YOU said that! You're the one who's been saying that about MY points! Dude, you are losing it.

Aright, I'm going to sleep guys.

Thanks Naj and Psy for the discussion, nightey night.

No, I think the quote said that you think that capitalism and regulation cannot coexist.


Then you are a moron.

I never said YOU said that! You're the one who's been saying that about MY points! Dude, you are losing it.

Before I go to sleep, I do not like your personal attacks. You can attack my views but you cannot attack me. I have not attacked you. You tell me not to call you a "commie" but you can tell me that "I'm losing it" and referring to me as "ignorant".

Before I go to sleep, I do not like your personal attacks. You can attack my views but you cannot attack me. I have not attacked you. You tell me not to call you a "commie" but you can tell me that "I'm losing it" and referring to me as "ignorant".

Partly that cannot be denied as you proved that yourself.
I'm actually surprised you remembered and read that communist comment on mine.

Then you are a moron.

You have to stoop to personal attacks to get your point across, very sad.

No, I think the quote said that you think that capitalism and regulation cannot coexist.
Quote me where I said that companies do not need regulation~
He isn't talking about you but the neocon/libitarian(sp) idea that the free market will regulate itself with out goverment interference.

too bad every republican ive ever heard from favors implementing their own values on the government and limiting everyoens life to how they want it lived

WOW! You just totally ignored a law of human nature, most humans act in that way. In this political simulation game, the Liberals have more power than the conservatives in the UN, do you guys take that power and not misuse it and not enforce your ideals on us conservative nations? Nope, just a few weeks ago an act was passed allowing Gay Marriage, that proves that people will misuse goverment, no matter who they are.

You have to stoop to personal attacks to get your point across, very sad.

Well unfortunately you have shown intellectual arguments cannot come through to you as you have seemed to missed the basis of every point Psyker and I have made. We understand your view on capitalism, but it seems like you are just skimming through our posts and clicking on the 'reply' button too quickly.

He isn't talking about you but the neocon/libitarian(sp) idea that the free market will regulate itself with out goverment interference.

I have no prob with you Psyker, since your actually argueing against my views and not blatantly calling me a moron. I'm pro-Capitalism, not a libertarian or a neocon.

Well unfortunately you have shown intellectual arguments cannot come through to you as you have seemed to missed the basis of very point Psyker and I have made. We understand your view on capitalism, but it seems like you are just skimming through our posts and clicking on the 'reply' too quickly.

I feel the same way about your arguments, but I didnt call you a "moron". Be a man and apologize.

As a matter of fact, as long as there are people in the world. There will always be someone who disagrees with you, so if you want to pass something in office, you will always be imposing it on someone. So that debunks your whole theory of Repbulicans being the only people who impose their beliefs on others.

I feel the same way about your arguments, but I didnt call you a "moron". Be a man and apologize.

I won't because you are ignorant. Anyone who delcares him or her self "pro" or "anti" something are extremists, and arguing with extremists is practically the same as arguing to a wall. Only moderates can actually take some view into consideration.

I won't because you are ignorant. Anyone who delcares him or her self "pro" or "anti" something are extremists, and arguing with extremists is practically the same as arguing to a wall. Only moderates can actually take some view into consideration.

Its ignorant to call anyone whos "pro" or "anti", an extremist. I obviously agree that companies should be regulated but I am clearly opposed to governments telling a company how it should be run. You called capitalism "the worst economic system", so does that make you an extremist?

Its ignorant to call anyone whos "pro" or "anti", an extremist. I obviously agree that companies should be regulated but I am clearly opposed to governments telling a company how it should be run. You called capitalism "the worst economic system", so does that make you an extremist?

Not at all, simply because I never said I was against it, only disagreed with it. Great difference, buddy.

And no I don’t think it's ignorant to call an anti or pro extremist because when someone classifies themselves under one of those categories, they basically stop from learning the other side's view. Like I said, moderates are the ones who can achieve bi-partisan success.
Case in point, Israel and Palestine disagree and agree with both sides. I'm neither pro or anti Israel nor pro or anti Palestine because I see both POV's. Now, if you DO know you are a Anti or pro something, then you are clearly an ignorant as this means you close yourself from understanding the opponent.
And it is often said the best way to beat (or make peace, for that matter) with an enemy is to know them.

The capitalist system is the worst, in my opinion, as its very fundamental relies on trickery of persuasion.
.

Hmmmmm?

Not at all, simply because I never said I was against it, only disagreed with it. Great difference, buddy.


Can you say "flip flop"?

Thats it, im over with this argument. I'm going to sleep, thanks for the discussion anyways.

Thanks Psy, you actually have some integrity.

Hmmmmm?

Yes, and? I never said I didnt say that

Can you say "flip flop"?

Thats it, im over with this argument. I'm going to sleep, thanks for the discussion anyways.

Thanks Psy, you actually have some integrity.

HAHA.. giving up eh?

I have no prob with you Psyker, since your actually argueing against my views and not blatantly calling me a moron. I'm pro-Capitalism, not a libertarian or a neocon.
Yes but many of the people involved earlier in the discusion were so I think his comments on regulations were more aimed at them.

so i'm procrastinating as is, and haven't actually read the whole thread, so this might be redundant.

but i agree with the basic equation, "republicans do not equal big brother" if only because Big Brother was a character (or a symbol anyway) of George Orwell's, meant to depict the horrors of Stalinist authoritarianism. so big brother is dark satire of a communist absolutist regime, not a heavily religion-abusing, capitalism-loving, family-idolizing right wing regime.

which is not to say that orwell was a capitalist, or even a liberal (hell, i think fighting alongside the Anarchist and radical Socialist militias of the spanish civil war, against the fascists and the stalinists, pretty much disqualifies him from either of those labels) it's just to say that big brother was meant to lampoon stalin, and stalin's particular brand of absolutism.

don't make too much of the fact that similar tactics (distorting reality, empty slogans, restructuring language to suit your needs, fabricating the past, ferocious hatred for a poorly defined enemy, encouraging paranoia) seem to be used by MOST authoritarian fuckwads who want to make their lives easier and their massive power more amassed. It doesn't mean george bush is big brother, or that Fox News is the Screen in your apartment spewing Newspeak. it can be fun to use orwellian rhetoric against them, but they're still just authoritarian fuckwads who want to carry out their agenda and crush dissent. They're not IngSoc, and nobody actually believes that we have Always Been At War With Eurasia.

The democrats still hire john timoney to use military tactics against demonstrators outside the DNC, and support the same horriffic trade policies, and bomb the same countries. They just keep their noses clean and keep it out of the news more. if you insist on using orwellian metaphor, then so be it.
just recognize that the main difference under Democrats was that our chocolate ration was bigger.

Don't call it Big Brother, don't call it Fascism, because then when it actually gets to BE IngSoc, when it actually gets to BE Fascism, you won't have any invectives left to hurl at it, just "quack, quack, quack"

recognize the situation for what it is, and realize you don't need hyperbole to see that it needs to be changed.

he capitalist system is the worst, in my opinion, as its very fundamental relies on trickery of persuasion.

And Socialism/Communism don't rely on trickery (And oppression, and suppression, and fraud, and violence)?

And Socialism/Communism don't rely on trickery (And oppression, and suppression, and fraud, and violence)?

Most definitely! You prove my point that capitalism is not the best.

Die Thread Die

Thanks Psy, you actually have some integrity.
thank you

Most definitely! You prove my point that capitalism is not the best.

That was a rhetorical question.

While Capitalism has its flaws, it is still prefferable to Socialism and Communism. If you take a look at the most powerful nations in the world, you will notice that most of them are... Capitalist!

That was a rhetorical question.

While Capitalism has its flaws, it is still prefferable to Socialism and Communism. If you take a look at the most powerful nations in the world, you will notice that most of them are... Capitalist!

And if you look at the ones with the best standard of living, you'll notice that many of them are... socialist!

Oh, right. Those Scandanavian countries don't exist, do they?

And if you look at the countries with the most freedoms afforded to their citizens?

Capitalist.

I don't care how high a standard of living I can get anywhere else. Without 'freedom' those enifits are simply not worth it.

The Republican party has pretty much always been a big government party.

...
The party began as a coalition of Americans who wanted to expand federal power. Its heritage was with the Hamiltonian Federalist Party, which more or less transformed into the big-government Whig Party. When the Whig Party became defunct, the Republican Party emerged to include centralist big-government Americans and other opponents of the Democrats without a party.

The party also absorbed many folks from the Free Soil Party, which was, itself, a loose coalition of Americans who opposed the extension of slavery into the western territories. Some were genuinely anti-slavery, and even a few abolitionists, with nowhere else to go, joined the Free Soil movement. But the Free Soilers, by and large, only opposed slavery because they found it unfair that free white laborers should have to compete with black slaves. They wanted to keep blacks out of the West. Free Soilers and Republicans who were authentic abolitionists were rare and without influence, much like the libertarians in the GOP today.
...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory40.html

You gotta be kidding me; my thread has deteriorated into stupidity

It shows you have not if you don't actually see the flaws the capitalist economic system contains. And please, don't post crap like I'm an anti-capitalist or pro-socialist or communist. Usually such ignorants are the ones who support the unnoticeably erroneous authorities.

Six semester hours of Economics (3 hrs micro, and 3 hrs macro) were required for my degree. I am not asking you your political philosophy nor am I going to attack your political philosophy. All I asked you is " Have you taken an Economics course?"

Now if you would answer that and also elaborate on some of the flaws in the capitalistic economic system, perhaps we could have a good, intelligent discussion without the need for flaming. Oh, there are flaws in the capitalistic system.

[QUOTE=The Psyker...just look at the situation at the tun of the century, powerful buisness men were able to use the goverment to cement their positions of power. This is why it is nesesary to have measures in place to make it easier for the people to remove and grant power, we have democracy to do this for political power we need an economic equivalent.[/QUOTE]

You are correct in what you said about the “situation at the turn of the century.” The result of those abuses was the rise of the unions. It was the people, through the unions, that were able to turn the situation around and stop a lot of the abuse. Abuse such as child labor, twelve hour workdays, low wages, and seven-day workweeks went away.

In a democracy the power to make the change is with the people. It is the same way with the political process. If the people would quit electing those who do not represent their political ideology and elect those that do, the people can make a difference. How many incumbent politicians are re-elected? Most. Maybe term limits is not such a bad idea.

You have only 'explained' what capitalism is, not understood or argued my or Psyker's points.

Unfortunately, I must be to old or to uneducated because I have not seen a definition of capitalism or a capitalistic economy in any of your posts. So please indulge me and give me your definition of a capitalistic economy. Thank you.

Celtlund, do you support the war in Iraq? If so, did you enlist to go help fight it, or are you content to allow others to put themselves in danger?

Yes, I support the war in Iraq. I spent 26 years on active duty in the U.S. Air Force, so yes I am willing to fight.

[/QUOTE]Do you support the death penalty? If so, are you willing to flip the switch on the electric chair?[/QUOTE]

In the past, I have supported the death penalty. However, some death row inmates have been exonerated thanks to DNA evidence. This has caused me to re-evaluate my position and I haven't come up with an answer yet. However, if I find I still support the death penalty, then I must also be willing to sit on a jury and convict, and even carry out the sentence.

[/QUOTE]Do you donate your money to every cause you agree with?[/QUOTE]

I cannot afford to donate to every cause I agree with, but I do support those I can. I have also worked on the campaigns of candidates I support.

[/QUOTE]I hope you see where I'm going with this.[/QUOTE]

I do believe you are asking if I am willing to support what I believe in, and my answer is absolutely yes.