NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a thought. If you had to chose one over the other as being more important, which would it be?

Just a thought. If you had to chose one over the other as being more important, which would it be?

Humanitarianism, you know, thinking of the other as being a person like yourself.
Between the two I would chose capitalism, but I have always lived in a democratic society, so I have no real concept of what it is like not to.

While I don't disagree with a certain amount of capitalism, I'm not thrilled with America's apparent willingness to return to the era of the robber barons of the 19th century.

Humanitarianism, you know, thinking of the other as being a person like yourself.
Between the two I would chose capitalism, but I have always lived in a democratic society, so I have no real concept of what it is like not to.
But if you follow that, then it almost completely leads to democratic socialism - giving the other person a voice, and giving them an equal economic opportunity.

But if you follow that, then it almost completely leads to democratic socialism - giving the other person a voice, and giving them an equal economic opportunity.

I am afraid it does not. Thinking of the other as a human being like yourself, was badly phrased on my part. What I meant to say is that the other is also human. This does not mean that they are your equal in everything, nor that you are their equal in everything. Vive la diferance.

It actually leads to full blown ethical libertarianism (A strange strange concept to many).

But if you follow that, then it almost completely leads to democratic socialism - giving the other person a voice, and giving them an equal economic opportunity.

You should really read up on Pinochet and his economic policies and what it was like living in Chile during his rule.

You could have all the free market you could have but the cost too freedom would be too high.

In a democratic state you are more likely to have even-handed economics (you still need business to run a country and supply jobs) that are held up to standards that protect people's well-being and not the well-being of the company.

The choice was obvious to me. Democracy.

I am afraid it does not. Thinking of the other as a human being like yourself, was badly phrased on my part. What I meant to say is that the other is also human. This does not mean that they are your equal in everything, nor that you are their equal in everything. Vive la diferance.

It actually leads to full blown ethical libertarianism (A strange strange concept to many).
So it's possible to acknowledge that a human being, very similar to yourself, does not deserve anywhere near the same amount of priveliges and opportunities that you have gotten?

Besides, you went way off topic. Democracy or capitalism.

As the preliminary results of this poll have shown, far more people have voted for democracy. But, since that is the case, this means that far more people would rather be free and poor than rich and oppressed.

Doesn't this say something about the United States today?

Democracy has far too many definitions. If we're talking about it in the conventional sense - the one people generally talk about when they're talking in a discussion rather than a real debate of ideas, then I think that any limitation of democracy is also a limitation of capitalism. Therefore, if I choose capitalism I could be advocating any form of government while if I choose democracy I must also be advocating capitalism as being superior to itself... while I should like to advocate democracy, I don't think I can quite force myself into such a peculiar position. I pick both.

But if you follow that, then it almost completely leads to democratic socialism - giving the other person a voice, and giving them an equal economic opportunity.
Not necessarily, as democratic socialism is enforced, while humanitarianism is voluntary.

And Democracy and Capitalism, in their pure forms are creatures of two totally different realms.

And Democracy and Capitalism, in their pure forms are creatures of two totally different realms.
That is, essentially, what I was discussing. Is the pure form of democracy better than the pure form of capitalism?

I'd certainly say so.

Just a thought. If you had to chose one over the other as being more important, which would it be?

Why can't we have both? seems to have worked in the past. But, if I have to choose, I'll go with capitalism. Democracy is great, but political freedom means nothing without the economic freedom to make use of it. Hell, even the USSR had elections.

Why can't we have both? seems to have worked in the past. But, if I have to choose, I'll go with capitalism. Democracy is great, but political freedom means nothing without the economic freedom to make use of it. Hell, even the USSR had elections.

An election does not a democracy make. Even Saddam's Iraq had elections.

An election does not a democracy make. Even Saddam's Iraq had elections.

Exactly my point.

You can't have a functioning, liberal democracy without a free market. Period. End of story.

I would pick captialism because it implies freedom to live, work, and buy whatever you want and can afford. Plus with a free market, it is esasier to obtain the resources to dismount the current leadership of the country if it becomes unsatisfactory.

You can't have a functioning, liberal democracy without a free market. Period. End of story.

You missed out the middle of the story, the explanation of why not.
I am interested to hear it.

I could get into a lengthy reasoning of why, but I've not the time at the moment, so I'll stipulate with one fact and one quote.

Fact: There are no functioning, liberal democracies with centrally-planned economics, on this planet.

Quote, Milton Friedman: Freedom is indivisible.

Why can't we have both? seems to have worked in the past. But, if I have to choose, I'll go with capitalism. Democracy is great, but political freedom means nothing without the economic freedom to make use of it. Hell, even the USSR had elections.

You have to admit that if the election is not legitimate then its not really democracy. Even still, I voted capitalism because even in a legitimate election you could elect a fascist or a communist. Hitler was legitamately elected in the thirties. But really, I would be perfectly content living in a capitalist dictatorship since capitalism requires a great deal of freedom to be afforded to citizens. In reality though, dictatorships would rarely allow capitalism, however, that's not the question.

I could get into a lengthy reasoning of why, but I've not the time at the moment, so I'll stipulate with one fact and one quote.

Fact: There are no functioning, liberal democracies with centrally-planned economics, on this planet.

Quote, Milton Friedman: Freedom is indivisible.

Do you call France free-market... cause I don't. Relative to the USSR they are capitalist but I think Adam Smith (and Milton Freidman for that matter) would call them more socialist than capitalist.

wasn't it mussalini (sorry, im a terrible speller) who said something along the lines of "facism should be rightfully called capitalism"

While I don't disagree with a certain amount of capitalism, I'm not thrilled with America's apparent willingness to return to the era of the robber barons of the 19th century.
Erm, I don't know where to begin. :confused:

This isn't even a contest.
Captialism = Freedom
Democracy = majority rule... which could be as arbitrary as the majority so wishes.

Anyone who disagrees with me (and is not a socialist) should read Frederic Bastiat, is a great libertarian philosopher who hated decocracy. The US (for example) is a free and prosperous nation because of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution not from our elected officials.

I go with democracy, power over the people, political or economic, can only be rightly given through the will of the people.

wasn't it mussalini (sorry, im a terrible speller) who said something along the lines of "facism should be rightfully called capitalism"
No, he said corporatism, which is quite, QUITE different from capitalism.

I would pick captialism because it implies freedom to live, work, and buy whatever you want and can afford.

actually, it merely implies private ownership of the means of production and a market in human beings who have to rent themselves out to those owners in order to live (wage labor).

Well, I suppose I would say democracy because then the people could vote in capitalism if they wanted to. But the only thing I'm really sure of is that not having either would really suck.

You have to admit that if the election is not legitimate then its not really democracy. Even still, I voted capitalism because even in a legitimate election you could elect a fascist or a communist. Hitler was legitamately elected in the thirties. But really, I would be perfectly content living in a capitalist dictatorship since capitalism requires a great deal of freedom to be afforded to citizens. In reality though, dictatorships would rarely allow capitalism, however, that's not the question.

The Nazis won about 30% of the popular vote, Hitler wangled his way into the Chancellorship & then became a dictator through brute force & fear. He wasn't exactly elected as dictator, it was more a weakness of the Weimar Republic.

I vote democracy, I like the idea of being able to have at least some say in choosing the government, even if it effectively may be very little.

You know, this result is mildly surprising for the NS General Forum...

This isn't even a contest.
Captialism = Freedom
Democracy = majority rule... which could be as arbitrary as the majority so wishes.

Anyone who disagrees with me (and is not a socialist) should read Frederic Bastiat, is a great libertarian philosopher who hated decocracy. The US (for example) is a free and prosperous nation because of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution not from our elected officials.

*applauds* :)

Democracy > Capitalism

But what about Democratic Capitalism? :D

actually, it merely implies private ownership of the means of production and a market in human beings who have to rent themselves out to those owners in order to live (wage labor).
No, free market capitalism demands exactly what was stated, in its entirity.

No, free market capitalism demands exactly what was stated, in its entirity.

no. first off, nobody said 'free market capitalism' in the post i responded too, or in the poll, or in the original post. thus we can assume that they meant actually existing capitalism (both in the present and the past), as opposed to the anarcho-capitalist idealized version of it.

what is required for real capitalism to exist in all the places people like to say that it does and has is exactly what i said it requires. otherwise you are going to have to hold that capitalism doesn't exist and never really has. at which point you aren't even speaking the same language as me.

Captialism = Freedom

define your terms. because on the face of it, this is so utterly wrong that it isn't even funny.

no. first off, nobody said 'free market capitalism' in the post i responded too, or in the poll, or in the original post. thus we can assume that they meant actually existing capitalism (both in the present and the past), as opposed to the anarcho-capitalist idealized version of it.

what is required for real capitalism to exist in all the places people like to say that it does and has is exactly what i said it requires. otherwise you are going to have to hold that capitalism doesn't exist and never really has. at which point you aren't even speaking the same language as me.
Actually someone has said that we're dealing with the pure form of capitalism.

That is, essentially, what I was discussing. Is the pure form of democracy better than the pure form of capitalism?

I'd certainly say so.

define your terms. because on the face of it, this is so utterly wrong that it isn't even funny.
capitalism = freedom of economic choice

define your terms. because on the face of it, this is so utterly wrong that it isn't even funny.

Laissez-capitalism is freedom because under such a system, you are generally free to try and earn money as you wish and perform whatever activity you wish, provided you don't hurt or steal from anybody else.

Judging by your nation's name, I'm guessing your idea of freedom involves being bossed around by a totalitarian regime which controls all of industry, business and society.

Judging by your nation's name, I'm guessing your idea of freedom involves being bossed around by a totalitarian regime which controls all of industry, business and society.

ah, yet another person that has no idea what 'soviet' means, or what calling for free soviets meant during the russian revolution. you should look it up sometime. always better to not argue from ignorance, ya know.

capitalism = freedom of economic choice

without any sembelence of equality of opportunity, and with the vast majoirty disposessed of independent means to make a living and 'bargaining' from a position only slightly better than if they were being mugged, the freedom of economic choice rings pretty damn hollow.

without any sembelence of equality of opportunity, and with the vast majoirty disposessed of independent means to make a living and 'bargaining' from a position only slightly better than if they were being mugged, the freedom of economic choice rings pretty damn hollow.
The people can unionize and protest. They can refuse to work and buy goods from a certain company, if they feel the company is in the wrong.

Strong unions are very important to a succesful laissez-faire capitalist situation.

Actually someone has said that we're dealing with the pure form of capitalism.

and my definition is the pure form of capitalism. purity is what you get when you remove all the excess bits and get down to the basic elements that make up something.

i know this isn't exactly standard usage for the term "pure capitalism", but the standard usage is stupid and intentionally misleading - its a way of changing the subject from capitalism to something else entirely. besides, as my mutualist and individualist friends are fond of saying, capitalism could not exist with a truly free market.
http://www.mutualist.org/

Actually someone has said that we're dealing with the pure form of capitalism.
Thank you. It was I, after all, who started this thread...

Maybe this is a better question
If you had to pick between a place where there was great wealth but no freedom, or a place where there was little wealth, but a great deal of freedom, which would it be?

Economic freedom or political freedom, to the exclusion of the other in bother cases.

But, I view this debate as highly unrealistic. We know that there can be no pure capitalism, and no pure democracy, it's just not practical in either form. So, yeah, that's what I'm going to say, I'm done with the thread.

Maybe this is a better question
If you had to pick between a place where there was great wealth but no freedom, or a place where there was little wealth, but a great deal of freedom, which would it be?

Economic freedom or political freedom, to the exclusion of the other in bother cases.

in either place i wound up, i would fight for both. yay libertarian socialism.

But, I view this debate as highly unrealistic. We know that there can be no pure capitalism, and no pure democracy, it's just not practical in either form. So, yeah, that's what I'm going to say, I'm done with the thread.
If we don't argue about theory, then how can any progress be made?

Besides, I didn't want a real debate, just a measure of whether people prefer economic freedom or political freedom.

ah, yet another person that has no idea what 'soviet' means, or what calling for free soviets meant during the russian revolution. you should look it up sometime. always better to not argue from ignorance, ya know.

The Soviets were worker's unions of a sort in revolutionary Russia weren't they? Obviously you're a fan of the Russian revolution though, which is why I made my assumption about your idea of freedom.

When I said "judging by your name", I imagined it implied admiration for post-revolutionary Russia. You could have been referring to the Soviets which jointly ruled Russia alongside the Kerensky's provisional government in 1917. Was that its implication?

At that point they were nicely balanced by the P.G., but Lenin turned the Soviets against it, which lead to his totalitarian rule. That's how Russia managed to be such a pit for most of the 20th century. Do you think the Soviets taking power from Kerensky was good?

By the way, I conceed that the Tsar's Russia was also appauling, but the eventual outcome of the revolutions wasn't much better.

Capitalism, as long as it's real capitalism (i.e., none of that protectionist shit espoused by the Whigs in the nineteenth century and by some Republicruds today).

in either place i wound up, i would fight for both. yay libertarian socialism.

Libertarian Socialism is a complete contradiction. Socialism inherently reduces economic freedom, because if the government is allowed to have any kind of extensive industrial control, well, that's not economically free is it?

Libertarians believe in government leaving both business and society alone. Economic freedom is not having the government redistributing wealth and controlling trade and industry.

Socialism is the government having a greater extent of control on the economy, by taxation and the provision of a public sector.

Libertarian Socialism is a complete contradiction. Socialism inherently reduces economic freedom, because if the government is allowed to have any kind of extensive industrial control, well, that's not economically free is it?

Libertarians believe in government leaving both business and society alone. Economic freedom is not having the government redistributing wealth and controlling trade and industry.

Socialism is the government having a greater extent of control on the economy, by taxation and the provision of a public sector.
You can't take that literally. Libertarian socialism is just a code-name for anarchy. Believe me, I know some, and that's what they have to identify themselves as so people don't call them a bunch of bomb-throwing punks.

I'll refer to Wikipedia on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Libertarian Socialism is a complete contradiction. Socialism inherently reduces economic freedom, because if the government is allowed to have any kind of extensive industrial control, well, that's not economically free is it?

capitalism inherently reduces economic freedom, as it allows the economy to be controlled by (and therefore run for the benefit of) a tiny minority who have no legitimate claim on it. libertarian socialism means having the economy run by and for all of the people involved in it, not just the elite.

I'll take Capitalism. I can live with a constitutional monarchy. don't need "a democracy".

You can't take that literally. Libertarian socialism is just a code-name for anarchy. Believe me, I know some, and that's what they have to identify themselves as so people don't call them a bunch of bomb-throwing punks.

I'll refer to Wikipedia on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Well that's news to me. I would never have considered that something with the word "socialism" in its name could condone the exact opposite of what "socialism" with no extra words means.

By the way, having read that article - abolishion of private property and means of production can't happen in conjunction with abolision of government. If there's no government, who's going to enforce the private property ban?

In the event that anarchy did arise, I'm certain people would quickly obtain private property - it would just be via pillaging instead of trade.

capitalism inherently reduces economic freedom, as it allows the economy to be controlled by (and therefore run for the benefit of) a tiny minority who have no legitimate claim on it. libertarian socialism means having the economy run by and for all of the people involved in it, not just the elite.

Actually capitalism allows the economy to be controlled and exploited by absolutely everybody. The idea of capitalism is that everyone can trade freely, not just on the say-so of a socialist government. What's a government again? Oh yeah, a tiny minority.

capitolism simply doesn't work...

First I would choose Democracy, then I would work my heart out to convince my fellow citizens that given a choice of economic systems, Capitalism is way better for the vast majority of hard-working people who want opportunity. America is the choice of immigrants because of our unlimited opportunities and relatively low taxation compared to socialist economies.

capitolism simply doesn't work...

Really?

Compare Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, or Chile under Allende to Chile under Pinochet, or Cuba under Batista to Cuba under Castro. Capitalism does work.

For many years the British ruled Hong Kong and gave it Capitalism but not democracy. See how it has prospered! Anyone who says that Capitalism does not work, is not aware of the facts.

Actually capitalism allows the economy to be controlled and exploited by absolutely everybody. The idea of capitalism is that everyone can trade freely, not just on the say-so of a socialist government. What's a government again? Oh yeah, a tiny minority.

and yet capitalism always results in wealth being distributed so that the top 5% own about half of the total wealth in the population we are looking at, with a significant percentage of that going to the richest 1%. and 80+% of the total wealth winds up held by 20% of the population, with the poorest 50% holding less than .5% of the total. so while in theory anybody could wind up in the elite, the elite can only ever be a ridiculously tiny minority.

and it should probably be pointed out that a government that i would be willing to recognize would not be an instrument of elite rule such as the state, but would be made up of everyone and no one would have more say than anyone else. so there is no tiny minority running things in any system i would support.

collective ownership and collective decision making for collective projects.

The pure form of democracy, per se, would be mob rule.

I don't think i'd like to see rich people being lynched and the resulting failed economy run by commoners sans the brains, education or drive to run the companies.

Give me pure capitalism over pure democracy any day, and twice on Sundays.

I like financial freedom. If I am successful and provide tons of jobs, I don't think I should be punished by being lynched by those whom I choose to employ.. lol at the paradox.

capitolism simply doesn't work...

"Capitolism"[sic] is what built your computer. It's probably the ideology of the people who made your clothes, your chair, the meals you will consume today. It's what advances technology, acts as a catalyst for innovation and competitive quality. Capitalist nations rule the world. How does capitalism not work?

democracy, no choice

Capitalism, although both unrestrained aren't attractive.

"Capitolism"[sic] is what built your computer.

no, people made his computer. capitalism is what took a significant percent of the money involved in the exchange and gave it to people who were not involved in the construction and distribution of any computers.

and yet capitalism always results in wealth being distributed so that the top 5% own about half of the total wealth in the population we are looking at, with a significant percentage of that going to the richest 1%. and 80+% of the total wealth winds up held by 20% of the population, with the poorest 50% holding less than .5% of the total. so while in theory anybody could wind up in the elite, the elite can only ever be a ridiculously tiny minority.

and it should probably be pointed out that a government that i would be willing to recognize would not be an instrument of elite rule such as the state, but would be made up of everyone and no one would have more say than anyone else. so there is no tiny minority running things in any system i would support.

collective ownership and collective decision making for collective projects.

Human nature is that man strives for more than others. There will always be a tiny minority with either power and/or wealth, even in so-called socialist regimes. At least with Capitalism, the pie is allowed to grow bigger so even those with less can have more.

I choose Capitalism because, frankly, you CAN live in a dictatorship with a free-market system(look at China, for example). I think people wont care what kind of leadership they have as long as they have money in their pockets and can sell and buy whatever they want and make cash. If the government takes away a few rights, at least they can still live good lives. If a democratic government takes away a free-market, then everyone will be pissed and poor.

no, people made his computer. capitalism is what took a significant percent of the money involved in the exchange and gave it to people who were not involved in the construction and distribution of any computers.

Capitalism was the ideology of those who built his computer. It was what drove whatever company built his computer to compete with other companies to produce a higher quality product at a better price.

Just a thought. If you had to chose one over the other as being more important, which would it be?

Democracy is actually impossible without capitalism. History convincingly demonstrates that lack of respect for private property leads to genocide.

Democracy is actually impossible without capitalism. History convincingly demonstrates that lack of respect for private property leads to genocide.

Yep, LIFE, liberty and property go together. Take away any of the three and you have none.

I mean it is even theoretically impossible to devise a system without private property AND without mass murder at the same time.

Democracy is actually impossible without capitalism. History convincingly demonstrates that lack of respect for private property leads to genocide.


So. . .

We can't give a voice to the people, without giving power to the rich?

So. . .

We can't give a voice to the people, without giving power to the rich?

Every time you choose a product you give power to the rich. That is the reward you give to the Capitalist for giving you what you want, when you want it, giving you the best choice. These choices are freedom too and lets not forget this.

Capitalism is democracy. Most people "vote" more often with their wallet than at the ballot box. Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

So. . .

We can't give a voice to the people, without giving power to the rich?

No, we can't. Property empowers people. And that property can be distributed among a huge and very diverse group of individuals all competing with each other (some will have more, some will have less, but all will have a voice - even those who don't have property) or it can be controlled by a small disciplined hierarchical clique aka "Communist Party" (or "Nazi Party" or "Fascist Party" or "Trade Union" or "Mafia" or whatever). One has to be extremely naive about human nature to believe that such a mind-boggling concentration of so much power over so many in the hands of so few will not inevitably result in horrible abuses of that power.

So. . .

We can't give a voice to the people, without giving power to the rich?

In our society there are millions of buyers for every seller. This makes the sellers the "price setters." In some societies there are streets lined with merchants and pedallers and the ratio of buyers to sellers is more one-to-one. In this setting you see bartering and haggling becuase the buyer is the "price setter." They are still capitolist

Prove to me that there is causation between democracy and capitalism rather than just a correlation between the two at this point in time.

Frankly I don't see where all this "freedom" stuff comes from in relation to capitalism either. Capitalism is simply a system where private property exists as well as wage labour.


capitalism
n : an economic system based on private ownership of capital [syn: capitalist economy] [ant: socialism]

Now if you want to argue for something other than the dictionary definition of capitalism, that's another matter though I would not change my answer away from democracy.

Not everyone shares the same idea of "economic freedom" as all the people who picked capitalism. Personally I believe there can be real economic freedom in anti-capitalist economies but that is another thread.

I know I'd still rather be rather poor and free.

When a person places the proper value on freedom, there is nothing under the sun that he will not do to acquire that freedom.
Whenever you hear a man saying he wants freedom, but in the next breath he is going to tell you what he won't do to get it,
or what he doesn't believe in doing in order to get it, he doesn't believe in freedom.
A man who believes in freedom will do anything under the sun to acquire...or preserve his freedom.

I love these sorts of debates because these so-called "democratic socialists" try to have it both ways. Democratic Socialism is a failed system and can not sustain itself. The welfare state will eventually collapse since it is nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme.

a small disciplined hierarchical clique aka "Communist Party" (or "Nazi Party" or "Fascist Party" or "Trade Union" or "Mafia" or whatever).
It doesn't matter if you call them Fascists or Republicans, naming evil groups for emotional impact don't really have anything to do wiht your point. you could give it to the Red Cross or the ACLU and have positive results instead.

Easy vote. Capitialism will always include a democratic form of government. Democracy, without any other qualifications, is just another name for mob rule, i.e. "will of the majority".

One has to be extremely naive about human nature to believe that such a mind-boggling concentration of so much power over so many in the hands of so few will not inevitably result in horrible abuses of that power.

Isn't irony sweet?
A believer in a system that concentrates the vast majority of the wealth in a small group critiques his own beliefs without knowing it!

Every time you choose a product you give power to the rich. That is the reward you give to the Capitalist for giving you what you want, when you want it, giving you the best choice. These choices are freedom too and lets not forget this. Capitalism is pure democracy. I vote more often at the store with my wallet than I do at the ballot box with my vote between the lesser of two evils.

Isn't irony sweet?
A believer in a system that concentrates the vast majority of the wealth in a small group critiques his own beliefs without knowing it!

When poor people start signing my paycheck, I might see the error in the Capitalist way.

When poor people start signing my paycheck, I might see the error in the Capitalist way.

Very good. A Capitalist signs my paycheck and I am very very happy for that Capitalist and hope he continues to prosper and keep me employed. Happily!!

Isn't irony sweet?
A believer in a system that concentrates the vast majority of the wealth in a small group critiques his own beliefs without knowing it!
Capitolism has nothing to do with who has the money, it simply says people are aloud to do as they please with what they have. It doen't inherantly benifit the wealthy because when a wealthy person wants something they must distribute their wealth to others. Once the others have their own wealth to do as they please with, they can see to their own wants. Its like trickle down econimics. Give the rich money and they'll spend it (give it to the poor in return for goods/services). Once the poor have it, they'll spend it again to get what they want. Capitolism benifits the person who plans not just the person with the biggest pile of cash.

Human nature is that man strives for more than others. There will always be a tiny minority with either power and/or wealth, even in so-called socialist regimes.

objectively false. explain the existence of a wide range of human societies, such as the !kung or mbuti or batek, where this was not the case.

Very good. A Capitalist signs my paycheck and I am very very happy for that Capitalist and hope he continues to prosper and keep me employed. Happily!!

and you could feel exactly the same as long as your local god-king continued to allow you to keep some of the grain you farmed for him.

objectively false. explain the existence of a wide range of human societies, such as the !kung or mbuti or batek, where this was not the case.

Well those that do not strive are so economically insignificant that it is no surprise I have never even heard of them. Those who strive, generate wealth, prosper and experience the great democracy that is Capitalism.

objectively false. explain the existence of a wide range of human societies, such as the !kung or mbuti or batek, where this was not the case.

It is hard to distinguish who has what when you're dirt poor.

and you could feel exactly the same as long as your local god-king continued to allow you to keep some of the grain you farmed for him. Well, I get a lot of grain and that is OK. Under the alternative economic systems, I would be getting much less. Under socialism I would be getting the same from my god-king, but then 70% would be taken away and given to those who didn't work for any grain.

Every time you choose a product you give power to the rich. That is the reward you give to the Capitalist for giving you what you want, when you want it, giving you the best choice. These choices are freedom too and lets not forget this.




But. . . A lot of the time they are neither the best choices or what you want.

Take, for isntance, a computer. . . It's production cost is 30$, it's sell cost is about 3'000$, how is this the best choice? And due to market sells, the only computers you can get now have WindowsXP on them, which is not something you want.

Or a car, it's production cost is something like 500$, it's sell cost is something like 30'000$. . . Again, best choice? And if I want a cheap, clean electric hybrid, I can't buy it, because the only thing that isn't severly overtaxed is a polluting SUV.

Explain to me this?



In our society there are millions of buyers for every seller. This makes the sellers the "price setters." In some societies there are streets lined with merchants and pedallers and the ratio of buyers to sellers is more one-to-one. In this setting you see bartering and haggling becuase the buyer is the "price setter." They are still capitolist



But, in our society, people have also found that neglecting information allows for higher product prices (If they don't know how much it's worth, they'll pay much, much more) and that minupulating all of society for personal gains (Commercials, anyone?) is a much, mych more effective way of getting money then doing things for the good of society. Price setters are more likely to be subvert and producers then they are to be the actual buyers, who have more in common with the % above the price sellers want to sell at then anything.




Easy vote. Capitialism will always include a democratic form of government. Democracy, without any other qualifications, is just another name for mob rule, i.e. "will of the majority".



Then how can you also say it goes hand and hand with democracy? "Will of the people" is a complete opposite of "Will of the minority" which capitalism falls under.



Capitolism has nothing to do with who has the money, it simply says people are aloud to do as they please with what they have. It doen't inherantly benifit the wealthy because when a wealthy person wants something they must distribute their wealth to others. Once the others have their own wealth to do as they please with, they can see to their own wants. Its like trickle down econimics. Give the rich money and they'll spend it (give it to the poor in return for goods/services). Once the poor have it, they'll spend it again to get what they want. Capitolism benifits the person who plans not just the person with the biggest pile of cash.


But what they have is either the majority or the extreme minority, how does that not benefit the rich? As well, if the rich spend their money by giving the majority either to other rich people, or holding it locked up, and give a small minority of it back to the people, isn't this trickled down economy like a having a few drops of water drop from a jug onto a side walk that is being baked by the sun? Meaning it will only stay there for a small amount of time before it burns up? As for you poor hypothesis, there's a problem - the poor are usually the people who get nearly no money, or no money. How do they spend what they do not have?

Well, I get a lot of grain and that is OK. Under the alternative economic systems, I would be getting much less. Under socialism I would be getting the same from my god-king, but then 70% would be taken away and given to those who didn't work for any grain.


So, you're more content with you king receiving 95% or your grain and you receiving 5%, as opposed to you receiving 9% and everyone else getting the 91% left over?

...Take, for isntance, a computer. . . It's production cost is 30$, it's sell cost is about 3'000$, how is this the best choice? And due to market sells, the only computers you can get now have WindowsXP on them, which is not something you want.

Or a car, it's production cost is something like 500$, it's sell cost is something like 30'000$. . . Again, best choice? And if I want a cheap, clean electric hybrid, I can't buy it, because the only thing that isn't severly overtaxed is a polluting SUV.

Explain to me this?

Where in the world did you get figures like this? I don't think we can make a case for Capitialism in the world where you live.


.Then how can you also say it goes hand and hand with democracy? "Will of the people" is a complete opposite of "Will of the minority" which capitalism falls under.

Read more carefully. Now you know I wasn't in favor of democracy, but democratic government. What we have in the US suits me. Would you mind explaining that little bit about "will of the minority"?

Uzuum,

Explain to me this?

Here is the explaination:

Sure, you picked really bad examples, because the profit margin on both computers and cars is very small -- your examples are way off. These two industries are very competitive at least in the American market. I don't know where you live. Actually, you are wrong about the hybrid. Here in California the hybrids are selling very well and are only about $3000 more than their non-hybrid counterparts. I actually own a Honda Civic Hybrid ($21,000) myself as I am not only a Capitalist but believe in conserving our resources.

As far as the computer is concerned. I can buy a computer at Fry's Electronics for only $600 and load it whatever Intel-based operating system I want.

Where in the world did you get figures like this? I don't think we can make a case for Capitialism in the world where you live.



Read more carefully. Now you know I wasn't in favor of democracy, but democratic government. What we have in the US suits me. Would you mind explaining that little bit about "will of the minority"?


1) I live in Canada, and I got those figures from a few people I know who work in those sectors.

2) Some people want to keep economy going towards oil, so instead of assisting in better automobiles and the such, subsidues are given to SUVs and more crude oil powerplants are being produced.

So, you're more content with you king receiving 95% or your grain and you receiving 5%, as opposed to you receiving 9% and everyone else getting the 91% left over?
I hate entering into these stupid analogy things, but here goes anyway. In fact, let's just do away with the whole thing because it's stupid and didn't apply after the first rebuttal.

In any society, I have certain abilities. Maybe that's raising hogs, maybe it's programming computers, maybe it's making hypoid gears. There are others that find my ability desirable. I can market these abilities and receive payment. If I do a better job than most, I will have more profit. What I get to keep, I knew I had a point somewhere, is based on my skill. Not on what the state decides I'm worth.

and you could feel exactly the same as long as your local god-king continued to allow you to keep some of the grain you farmed for him.

Under a free-market capitalist society, you can stop working for your local god-king, go work for a different god-king, or open a business and become a god-king yourself. Under full socialism, you answer to a god-king who dictates not only your pay but all the laws of your life. And you can't quit your job.

1) I live in Canada, and I got those figures from a few people I know who work in those sectors.

2) Some people want to keep economy going towards oil, so instead of assisting in better automobiles and the such, subsidues are given to SUVs and more crude oil powerplants are being produced.

You are actually going to defend the proposition that a car costs $500 to produce? I'll even go as far as saying $500 US is so silly I can't stop laughing. You haven't ever worked on the production end of anything, have you?

Uzuum,

Explain to me this?

Here is the explaination:

Sure, you picked really bad examples, because the profit margin on both computers and cars is very small -- your examples are way off. These two industries are very competitive at least in the American market. I don't know where you live. Actually, you are wrong about the hybrid. Here in California the hybrids are selling very well and are only about $3000 more than their non-hybrid counterparts. I actually own a Honda Civic Hybrid ($21,000) myself as I am not only a Capitalist but believe in conserving our resources.

As far as the computer is concerned. I can buy a computer at Fry's Electronics for only $600 and load it whatever Intel-based operating system I want.

Actually, I saw a report on that. California is one of the few places in america were hydrids sell in any way, shape or form.


As for your computer, is 600$ close to 30$ production costs? It's still a very, very big increase in production to buying margins.

So, you're more content with you king receiving 95% or your grain and you receiving 5%, as opposed to you receiving 9% and everyone else getting the 91% left over?

Uzuum, you are the master of exaggeration. I work on a sub-contract for my employer to another Corporation. My wage is 80% of my labor rate on the contract to my prime contractor. Out of that 20% my 401k, medical, dental and other benefits are paid. My employer probably only makes less than 10% of my total labor rate.

I hate entering into these stupid analogy things, but here goes anyway. In fact, let's just do away with the whole thing because it's stupid and didn't apply after the first rebuttal.

In any society, I have certain abilities. Maybe that's raising hogs, maybe it's programming computers, maybe it's making hypoid gears. There are others that find my ability desirable. I can market these abilities and receive payment. If I do a better job than most, I will have more profit. What I get to keep, I knew I had a point somewhere, is based on my skill. Not on what the state decides I'm worth.


And the person who cheated, lied and most likely stole his way into a higher position then you is worth oh so much more to society? As far as it goes as well, connections and name get you places much faster then work ethics and capabilities do.

Actually, I saw a report on that. California is one of the few places in america were hydrids sell in any way, shape or form.


As for your computer, is 600$ close to 30$ production costs? It's still a very, very big increase in production to buying margins.

I don't know the production cost of a desktop computer, but I really doubt it is less than $450 (of course, it depends on the features and such) I think even one Celeron CPU would cost more than $30. For example,

No democracy means you own nothing, the government owns you, your dog, and your possessions. At least with a democracy you have freedom to do some things, like in Canada.

And quit putting in other options, its democracy or capitalism. :headbang:

No democracy means you own nothing, the government owns you, your dog, and your possessions. At least with a democracy you have freedom to do some things, like in Canada.

And quit putting in other options, its democracy or capitalism. :headbang:

Life, Liberty and Property go together. Take one away, they all are lost. The question is a false question. You have to have both democracy and capitalism, but without Capitalism you don't have democracy.

And the person who cheated, lied and most likely stole his way into a higher position then you is worth oh so much more to society? As far as it goes as well, connections and name get you places much faster then work ethics and capabilities do.
That is so insignificant that I don't worry about it. Bosses have favorites, sure, but the really incompetent can't hide for long.

Back to my hogs. If I raise hogs very efficiently and sell them for the market price, I'll make a profit. How can some person lie, cheat and steal my profit from me in the manner that you describe?

Life, Liberty and Property go together. Take one away, they all are lost. The question is a false question. You have to have both democracy and capitalism, but without Capitalism you don't have democracy.


So. . .

The indians, who had no idea of possesion, were both dead and oppressed?

No democracy means you own nothing, the government owns you, your dog, and your possessions. At least with a democracy you have freedom to do some things, like in Canada.

...replace 'democracy' with 'capitalism', and you would be correct.

That is so insignificant that I don't worry about it. Bosses have favorites, sure, but the really incompetent can't hide for long.

Back to my hogs. If I raise hogs very efficiently and sell them for the market price, I'll make a profit. How can some person lie, cheat and steal my profit from me in the manner that you describe?


He may not hide, cheat and steal from you, but you may be hiding, cheating and stealing from others. Meat today is drastically over priced, it is watered down, jammed full of steroids and growth hormones and cluttered with fat. If you can grow 5 generations of 20 pound hogs using steroids, by letting them only eat and not roam free, and by not bleedding them of their water, you can get 20 times the profit of the guy who grew 2 to 3 generations of 20 pound hogs the other way, and had an totality of twice the meat you did.

So. . .

The indians, who had no idea of possesion, were both dead and oppressed?

It is a myth that the Indians did not have a concept of ownership. The Chief owned everything belonging to the tribe. So your premise is false. This applies the the vast majority of tribes to include the more "advanced" indian civilizations. This did lead to ritual killing of children and other atrocities.

He may not hide, cheat and steal from you, but you may be hiding, cheating and stealing from others. Meat today is drastically over priced, it is watered down, jammed full of steroids and growth hormones and cluttered with fat. If you can grow 5 generations of 20 pound hogs using steroids, by letting them only eat and not roam free, and by not bleedding them of their water, you can get 20 times the profit of the guy who grew 2 to 3 generations of 20 pound hogs the other way, and had an totality of twice the meat you did.
So, now you accuse me of cheating! I think you're having a hard time coming up with rational arguments. Bye.

It is a myth that the Indians did not have a concept of ownership. The Chief owned everything belonging to the tribe. So your premise is false.

So, the chief was alive, and his tribe was dead and oppressed?

So, now you accuse me of cheating! I think you're having a hard time coming up with rational arguments. Bye.

I don't accuse you of cheating, I say that if most people could have superior profit in a capitalistic society, they would, if it involved cheating, stealing and the such. If it's all divided equally however, cheating the system only cheats themselves.

So, the chief was alive, and his tribe was dead and oppressed?

Some tribes had more benevolent dicatorial Chiefs than others. Some practiced ritual killing of children and did put their people under their thumb.
Anyway the vast majority of tribes were neither Capitalistic nor Democratic therfore not really being a valid point of contention in this debate.

collective ownership and collective decision making for collective projects.
Collective ownership and collective decision make for collective tyranny.

Collective ownership and collective decision make for collective tyranny.

yes, because having everyone affected by a decision involved in the making of that decision is tyranny, while having an elite minority make decisions for everyone else is the definition of freedom...

It is a myth that the Indians did not have a concept of ownership. The Chief owned everything belonging to the tribe.

source?

yes, because having everyone affected by a decision involved in the making of that decision is tyranny, while having an elite minority make decisions for everyone else is the definition of freedom...

Well, when they tried to do collective projects in the real world, the elite minority bypassed the regular people and made the decision.

Yeah, real nice.

But. . . A lot of the time they are neither the best choices or what you want.

Take, for isntance, a computer. . . It's production cost is 30$, it's sell cost is about 3'000$, how is this the best choice? And due to market sells, the only computers you can get now have WindowsXP on them, which is not something you want.

Or a car, it's production cost is something like 500$, it's sell cost is something like 30'000$. . . Again, best choice? And if I want a cheap, clean electric hybrid, I can't buy it, because the only thing that isn't severly overtaxed is a polluting SUV.

Explain to me this?
Explaination: You're an idiot with no concept of business operations. A computer costs one HELL of a lot more than $30 to produce, and a car costs one HELL of a lot more than $500 to produce!

Some tribes had more benevolent dicatorial Chiefs than others. Some practiced ritual killing of children and did put their people under their thumb.

And I suppose all countries that are capitalistic are always high and righteous, nothing wrong ever came from such places as Isreal, Pakistan and Congo?

The question needs to be Socialism/Communism or Capitalism

Democracy leads to capitalism because it gives the right to own property (a bussiness)

yes, because having everyone affected by a decision involved in the making of that decision is tyranny,

Prohibiting the ownership of private property, and outlawing individual economic decisions IS tyranny.

while having an elite minority make decisions for everyone else is the definition of freedom...
In a free market system, everyone makes decisions for THEMSELVES.

...replace 'democracy' with 'capitalism', and you would be correct.
Capitolism is all about ownership. Thats where the "Capitol" part comes from.

And I suppose all countries that are capitalistic are always high and righteous, nothing wrong ever came from such places as Isreal, Pakistan and Congo?
None of those countries have exceptionally free economies.

But. . . A lot of the time they are neither the best choices or what you want.

Take, for isntance, a computer. . . It's production cost is 30$, it's sell cost is about 3'000$, how is this the best choice? And due to market sells, the only computers you can get now have WindowsXP on them, which is not something you want.

Or a car, it's production cost is something like 500$, it's sell cost is something like 30'000$. . . Again, best choice? And if I want a cheap, clean electric hybrid, I can't buy it, because the only thing that isn't severly overtaxed is a polluting SUV.

Explain to me this?


Explaination: You're an idiot with no concept of business operations. A computer costs one HELL of a lot more than $30 to produce, and a car costs one HELL of a lot more than $500 to produce!


I'll say
you find both extremes of the intellegence on the internet
I just found the low and high ends

Explaination: You're an idiot with no concept of business operations. A computer costs one HELL of a lot more than $30 to produce, and a car costs one HELL of a lot more than $500 to produce!

A 5$ big mac costs .11 $ to make, so why should a computer cost more then 30$ to make? A .01$ gummy worm costs .01$ to make 100. Profit margins are higher then a few percents in society.

A 5$ big mac costs .11 $ to make, so why should a computer cost more then 30$ to make? A .01$ gummy worm costs .01$ to make 100. Profit margins are higher then a few percents in society.
Its a false analogy to assume that because some industries, like food or clothing, have huge profit margins, every industry does.

In a free market system, everyone makes decisions for THEMSELVES.
There is some truth in the statement of the person you quoted. Large corporations have more decision making power because they have so many customers. They are the price setters of the system

I don't accuse you of cheating, I say that if most people could have superior profit in a capitalistic society, they would, if it involved cheating, stealing and the such. If it's all divided equally however, cheating the system only cheats themselves.
That's where the government steps in and protects the population from force and fraud. Then it steps back and lets capitalism flourish.

But then you think that cars cost $500 Cdn to produce. I don't stand a chance of using logic or facts in the face of that assertion.

Its a false analogy to assume that because some industries, like food or clothing, have huge profit margins, every industry does.
None of you understand production. There is a gross margin and then there is profit. If a company can turn a 10% profit and increase profitabitly year after year, that is a GREAT company. Go read some 10K filings for major companies and then come back here to tell me what large profit margins they have.

A 5$ big mac costs .11 $ to make, so why should a computer cost more then 30$ to make? A .01$ gummy worm costs .01$ to make 100. Profit margins are higher then a few percents in society.

Now there is some flawless logic, backed up with unrelentless research. Let's see if we can debunk the big mac figures. Time to make a Big Mac - six minutes, 0.1 hours. Cooks hourly wages - $5/hr. 5.00X0.1 = $0.50. That's five time more than your claim. And although it is very crude, it also doesn't include any overhead or materials. So blow it out your...Sorry, I forgot there are children present.

None of you understand production. There is a gross margin and then there is profit. If a company can turn a 10% profit and increase profitabitly year after year, that is a GREAT company. Go read some 10K filings for major companies and then come back here to tell me what large profit margins they have.
People aren't talking about companies.

edit : Even though wrong terminology is being used.

People aren't talking about companies.

edit : Even though wrong terminology is being used.

Sorry. I quoted you out of place. Damn point and click anyway.

I say democracy. Although TRUE democracy is nonexistant(techincally, what is called "democracy" nowadays is a republic since citizens vote for people to represent them rather than having EACH AND EVERY PERSON vote on each issue) nowadays, it's still important. This is, of course, assuming that there is no corruption in the voting process(that INCLUDES intimidating people into voting for you). Captialtism is nice, but only when the inequalities it creates are relatively controlled. Which they aren't in, say, the US.

People who do next to nothing are rich while those who work hardest get little? That's just wrong. Why should a football player get paid millions while a teach gets paid much less? The teacher is more important, there are lots of people that can do what they do but that doesn't change the fact that teachers matter, but football players don't. Why does the CEO of a company earn millions despite doing very little real work while the lower employees slave away and get piad much much less? The money goes to the people who don't deserve it, and that sucks.

Just a thought. If you had to chose one over the other as being more important, which would it be?
Personally I'd like to do away with both...

A 5$ big mac costs .11 $ to make,

1. A Big Mac doesn't cost $5.
2. A Big Mac costs more than eleven cents to make.


so why should a computer cost more then 30$ to make?

BECUASE HAMBURGERS AREN'T MADE OF ALUMINUM, SILICON AND PLASTIC, YOU BRAIN-DEAD OXYGEN THIEF!

Why should a football player get paid millions while a teach gets paid much less?
Because 50,000 people won't pay $200 a ticket to watch a sixth-grade English class.

1. A Big Mac doesn't cost $5.
2. A Big Mac costs more than eleven cents to make.


BECUASE HAMBURGERS AREN'T MADE OF ALUMINUM, SILICON AND PLASTIC, YOU BRAIN-DEAD OXYGEN THIEF!

LOL!! Couldn't you put it a little more plainly?

If you don't want to pay 200 buck for a football ticket, don't. Nobodys forcing you to go. Football is not a right.

My Friend wants me to emphasise that Football is NOT a right.

If you don't want to pay 200 buck for a football ticket, don't. Nobodys forcing you to go. .
...What's your point?

Football is not a right
Freedom of association, mate. ;)

I'd take pure capitalism over pure democracy any day. I'd rather be free than subjected to the whims of the mouth-breathing majority,

I'm really not as much of a pr*ck as that makes me sound.

...What's your point?


Freedom of association, mate. ;)
There were people complaining about football salaries vs teachers. look at the last page.

You can't have a functioning, liberal democracy without a free market. Period. End of story.

Actually yes you can.....You just give your citizens Western Europe/U.S. Grade political Freedoms, then use a socialist type system for your economy

Why can't we have both? seems to have worked in the past. But, if I have to choose, I'll go with capitalism. Democracy is great, but political freedom means nothing without the economic freedom to make use of it. Hell, even the USSR had elections.
Never happened, we have never had a TRUE democracy
closest we have is a democratic republic Here is the difference
Democracy: Nothing happens unless a majority of people want it to
Democratic Republic: We elect people to take care of the decision making and we just hope they don't screw things up before we can vote them out of office.

I said it once I I'll say it again, all power over the people, economic and political, can only rightly be given the will of the people. If someone has economic power they can buy political power, and if someone has political power they can seize or sell it for economic power. Power curupts, and therefore anyone with power that wasn't placed there by the free will of the people and who can't be easily removed by the peoples will can't be trust.

Those that say you vote with your dolar are insane, that gives the rich far more say then the poor and everyone else. Would you agree to let the goverment elected that way, with everyone having as many votes as they have dolars?

Isn't irony sweet?
A believer in a system that concentrates the vast majority of the wealth in a small group critiques his own beliefs without knowing it!

What is the irony?! Compared to Communism, wealth distribution in capitalist societies is almost equal. But more importantly, I did not critiue my own beliefs. That "small group" that you refer to is incomparably bigger than the group which controls everything in a communist society (usually just a fraction of a per cent) and, even more importantly, is not monolithic but rather is composed of competing interests (on differences of which even people without any property can successfully play to guarantee their own freedom) while without private property everything is controlled by a very well-organized small group which pursues a common interest, which is always their own interest, detrimental to everybody else.

Actually yes you can.....You just give your citizens Western Europe/U.S. Grade political Freedoms, then use a socialist type system for your economy
No, you can NOT. The socialist government will soon take all those freedoms away. It is absolutely inevitable.

Actually yes you can.....You just give your citizens Western Europe/U.S. Grade political Freedoms, then use a socialist type system for your economy
And then your society will collapse.

Well, when they tried to do collective projects in the real world, the elite minority bypassed the regular people and made the decision.

Yeah, real nice.

this is supposed to argue against my position how, exactly? it seems to me that your sarcastic sentiment of "yeah, real nice" would mean that you agree with my position.

and do you even know what the word 'collective' means? anything done by more than one person is a collective project - as opposed to being an individual project. quite simple really.

Now there is some flawless logic, backed up with unrelentless research. Let's see if we can debunk the big mac figures. Time to make a Big Mac - six minutes, 0.1 hours. Cooks hourly wages - $5/hr. 5.00X0.1 = $0.50. That's five time more than your claim. And although it is very crude, it also doesn't include any overhead or materials. So blow it out your...Sorry, I forgot there are children present.


And the fast food industry makes tons and tons of profit, tell me where they get that profit if the cost for their product is nearly the same as the cost that they sell it for?



1. A Big Mac doesn't cost $5.
2. A Big Mac costs more than eleven cents to make.


BECUASE HAMBURGERS AREN'T MADE OF ALUMINUM, SILICON AND PLASTIC, YOU BRAIN-DEAD OXYGEN THIEF!

I would normaly agree with you, but this is macdonald hamburgers. And Christiania, the Information industry makes huge ammounts of profit and looks for more and more ways to increase this profit, at the expense of the consumer. Look at CDs at the very least, I have a 10 year old CD that's completely beat up, nearly punched through at places and the thing will still work (nearly) perfectly. Today, I let a CD get dust and a few scratches on it and it nearly stopped working (I have to reload it five to six times usually).

Prohibiting the ownership of private property, and outlawing individual economic decisions IS tyranny.

who want's to outlaw individual economic decisions? not me.

but anyway, private property is tyranny (and to head this off at the pass, in discussions with me or other anarchists, property is distinct from possessions; possessions are the things you use, property is the stuff you charge others to use). private property allows an elite to become the lords and masters of those without property.

in order to live a person must have access to the means to provide for themselves, either directly by foraging/farming or indirectly by producing things they can trade for food. both of these options require a person to own property. the vast majority of people either own no property at all or not nearly enough to make a living for themselves with. their only option is to sell themselves off to those who do own the things necessary to make a living. then the propertyless are required to pay the property owning elite rent for the 'privilege' of not starving to death or being homeless, purely because they are the property owning elite (and this certainly isn't extortion...). additionally, the propertyless are required to follow the arbitrary commands of the property owners or else face punishment in various forms. and, of course, the propertry owners have set the entire thing up to make sure that the overwhelming majority of the wealth being created winds up back in the hands of the elite, perpetuating the system indefinitely.

In a free market system, everyone makes decisions for THEMSELVES.

maybe. but we are talking about capitalism. just how frequently do you think people working on an assembly line get to have input into the corporate decisions about what to make and how much of it? or how much they are going to get paid? or their working hours and conditions? are not all of these things decided for them by others?

maybe. but we are talking about capitalism. just how frequently do you think people working on an assembly line get to have input into the corporate decisions about what to make and how much of it? or how much they are going to get paid? or their working hours and conditions? are not all of these things decided for them by others?

Have they not agreed to a working contract? And are they not free to look for a better job opporunity? Why should the employees dictate the terms of the work that they are getting *from the employer* :confused:

I said it once I I'll say it again, all power over the people, economic and political, can only rightly be given the will of the people. If someone has economic power they can buy political power, and if someone has political power they can seize or sell it for economic power. Power curupts, and therefore anyone with power that wasn't placed there by the free will of the people and who can't be easily removed by the peoples will can't be trust.

Those that say you vote with your dolar are insane, that gives the rich far more say then the poor and everyone else. Would you agree to let the goverment elected that way, with everyone having as many votes as they have dolars?
And I repeat again why capitilism gives the rich to much power.

Socialism seems like the most right-infringing system of all. It takes away one of the rights listed in the Dec of Ind, the pursuit of happiness. For all you students, think of it this way. Imagine you have 4.0 GPA. However, your roomate has a 2.0 GPA. So in the name of "fairness" 1 point is taken of yours to give it to hime. Not really so fair after all is it? I find it odd that most people who sympathize with liberals, who are for human rights ABOVE ALL ELSE, would support such an infringing sytem.

And I repeat again why capitilism gives the rich to much power.

Which was the last president of the USA who was not a millionaire? Where is the power to the poor in democracy. Just hand the power to the media and have done with it. Oh, and in a non capitalist system, who controls the media? Answer - The government. That group that are in power, and by your own argument corrupted. Sort of an end to Democracy anyway.

Democracy does not depend directly upon capitalism, but it does depend upon freedom of the press and freedom of information. Without capitalism, these are extremely unlikely to exist.

And I repeat again why capitilism gives the rich to much power.

What we need is a more informed public. Then they could not be taken in by the rich, and thus no robber barons could exist. But look at our education system. However, to say everyone who is rich, abuses there power is... well I think you know what it is. One business that does need to be taken down immediatly, however is WalMart. Their predatory practices drive all competitors out of business, and that to me is a clear cut case for antitrust.

Socialism seems like the most right-infringing system of all. It takes away one of the rights listed in the Dec of Ind, the pursuit of happiness. For all you students, think of it this way. Imagine you have 4.0 GPA. However, your roomate has a 2.0 GPA. So in the name of "fairness" 1 point is taken of yours to give it to hime. Not really so fair after all is it? I find it ood that most people who sympathize with liberals, who are for human rights ABOVE ALL ELSE, would support such an infringing sytem.

Only if your socialist system is concerned to equalize outcomes, which makes it communist, not socialist. I am a libertarian, and strongly opposed to the social controls necessary for socialism to work, but it is not as extreme as you have indicated.

For the students, it is not a matter of transferring points from GPAs, but a matter of making sure that all the students had access to the best text books, making tutorial advice available at any time to everyone, etc. Very expensive, and impractical, but fair.

What we need is a more informed public. Then they could not be taken in by the rich, and thus no robber barons could exist. But look at our education system. However, to say everyone who is rich, abuses there power is... well I think you know what it is. One business that does need to be taken down immediatly, however is WalMart. Their predatory practices drive all competitors out of business, and that to me is a clear cut case for antitrust.

As you have just posted against socialism, but are now pleading for an anti-trust case against a non monopoly company, you have me severely confused. Just what are your political views?

I know this is an extreme example, but its the principle. Even making you 3.75 and 2.25 would still be wrong. Now if you want to give him that .25 b/c he is roomate, then thats good and by all means do it. (I know college doesn't work this way)

Which was the last president of the USA who was not a millionaire? Where is the power to the poor in democracy. Just hand the power to the media and have done with it. Oh, and in a non capitalist system, who controls the media? Answer - The government. That group that are in power, and by your own argument corrupted. Sort of an end to Democracy anyway.

Democracy does not depend directly upon capitalism, but it does depend upon freedom of the press and freedom of information. Without capitalism, these are extremely unlikely to exist.
And look at what I said about money allowing one to buy power. I don't trust the gov. completly, which I have democratic control over. So I see no reason why I should trust buesness exec. that I have no control over. Would you trust a gov. that came to power the same way that exec. come to power?

Capitalism, with fail-safes, albeit not too many. But monopolies actually, hinder capitalism, as they restrict fre market. Unbridled capitalism doesn't work as October of 1929 showed.

Which was the last president of the USA who was not a millionaire?
Jimmy Carter. And Reagan was a self-made man.