The great commie versus Patriot depate

[RogueLeader]

Capitalism does not imply no regulation. A capitalist nation can regulate businesses.

I said businesses support laissez-faire?

The population grows because people are able to scrounge up food by eating garbage, dirt, etc.

How many people can play basketball- anyone who can walk and throw a round object. How many people are willing to suffer in a sweatshop 10-12 hours a day for 20 cents? I doubt anyone here will volunteer.

The argument wasn't about who the U.S. should do business with. I still buy Nike shoes for the very reason you note. The argument is about what form of government is best.

$20 doesn't buy more. THe 20 cents American currency takes the inflation of American currency into account.

Shoes arn't necessary for survival, but you will die faster walking bearfoot over sharp objects, dirt, trash, insects, and hookworms, a lot faster than you will from not watching a basketball game.

Again, you fail to grasp what is Capitalism. IT IS NOT ment to be "fair".
Exactly my point.

Rockefeller ran the biggest oil company in America. The railroads needed the business from shipping his products. So he forced them to give him rebates so he could ship products cheaper.

"Wealthy nation"- Sweden is wealthy, and socialist.

A true communist state, not having a wealthy class, cannot be a plutocracy.

Buying out media outlets? Buying out businesses...sounds capitalists too me.

Indeed, I messed up there, fascism is not capitalism, rather a variation on capitalism. More of a crossbreed between capitalism and socialism, in which the government acts like a business but has does not allow a free market. Definitly the most idiotic government ever concieved in my opinion.

[This message was edited by Rogue Leader on Feb 02, 2001 at 16:50.]

[This message was edited by Rogue Leader on Feb 02, 2001 at 16:52.]

 

[Sebu_NZ]

Capitalism

It seems RogueLeader is out number by all the capitalistic people here, not too many socialistic gun-lovers.

I would like to add my 2 cents on the whole Vietnamese shoe maker.

You call America the superpower of today? fine

You call America the world police? So be it

But you call America the forefront of human-rights? Then why isn’t America boasting equality throughout the world, it is in the Dec. Of Independence or the Constitution which ever it is. That calls of the equality of all American citizens, if then America is the super-power and the world police, then why doesn’t excise its power help more in the area of human-rights.

Now that George W. (duda) Bush is in power and the security of state Colin Powel , will we see a return to neo-isolationism, if one thing we learnt of both WWI and WWII is that America the super-power, and world policeman, cannot stay out of European Affairs. With being the "World policeman and Superpower" come responsibilities, which America needs to fulfill, and cannot be a neo-isolationism country. I for one will definitely miss Madieline Albright, she was an amazing woman, who made some many break through’s that it shows the power that America can do any if it pushing hard enough, and has woman like Albright working for America, I personally hope she gets a high up job in the UN in human-rights. Speaking of the UN, the UN with full American Support and the rest of Europe can change the world drastically, if it has the motivation and is really stands for its believes. You call America "the land of opportunity" and "sweet land of liberty" or is this merely the fact that it is the biggest country that vaguely represents this ideas?

America does not need to own the Media, I wonder how many blind patriots and neo-conservative are in top ranking places in the Media Industry?, 80%+? Who knows. But my personal stand is that media should be an absolute different entity, free from government or political influents.

Every Political ideal has its faults, you pick the one you believe is the lesser or the evils. Capitalism is a totally free-market, without any, ANY government regulations or controls, Capitalism holds the seeds for its own destruction. Capitalism has been an uneven, spasmodic development of a country.

I believe for a Capitalistic state to kept the basic human equality their needs to be some form of centralized government. Basically laissez-faire. Capitalism with a free-market cannot work because it allows for the rise monopolies, and the grossly inequitable distribution of wealth, and exploitation of labour (see Vietnamese shoe-maker lady). The Capitalist fatcats do, in my humble opinion, deserve a social-economic benefit for their hard work and smart thinking, but the exploitation of human rights is not allowed by anyone, no matter what their economic power is, or their political power.

I agree with RogueLeader that Capitalism is not meant to be equal but the basic human rights should not be exploited for the added wealth of another man. Not every person was made to the same intellectual ability, weather they be missing something in another area, but because someone is business smart, should that mean that someone will go without food because their 3 jobs cannot get them milk and bread everyday? No, but I believe that it should make them more wealth, but not at the cost of others basic rights.

 

[jaeg]

You people scare me.

FreeBSD: The Power to Serve - www.freebsd.org

 

[Zundfolge]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I wonder how many blind patriots and neo-conservative are in top ranking places in the Media Industry?, 80%+? [/quote]

What fucking planet do you live on????

The media is probably more like 90%+ liberal democrats (that's from the peeon news boy all the way up to the heads of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, ETC) In survey after survey of journalists less then 5% are registered Republicans. In a recient Zogby poll they found like 2% Republicans, 5% Libertarians, 15% Independents 2% "other" and the rest are Democrats. The only news source I can find that isn't run by the DNC is Fox News.

That's why people like Rogue Leader can run around thinking that communism is not poison.


free market capitalism is far from what Rockefeller practiced. Monopolies are bad, weather they are the government or companies.


Look, I'm not going to get sucked into this argument again. Like I said before, go read Friedrick Hayek's "The Road to Surfdom", Dr, Walter E, Williams "Do the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks" and Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics; The Citizens' Guide to the Economy". Then we'll continue this argument.

(and yes I've read "The Communist Manifesto, Das Capital and several books on economics and politics from a leftist position, plus some book about Che Guevara)

<center>

</center>

 

[RogueLeader]

Conservative media?
/me will not even comment on that...
and btw Zund- liberal doesn't mean communist- the media spreads just as much anti communist propoganda as the government.

 

[Zundfolge]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply liberal=communist (although in some cases... )

No, I just don't think anyone can make the assertion that the media is biased toward conservatism with a strait face.

also I didn't mean to make that last post sound like a direct attack on you (noticed the tone was a bit harsh after re-reading it)

<center>

</center>

 

[Sebu_NZ]

I got crazy like

Yeah i agree that comment on westen media, ****ed, I know, i dont really know what its like in america but, in new zealand, no-one has any balls, media im talking about

 

[sdOK]

Reds under the bed?

Eat the rich.

 

[Sebu_NZ]

Yay, Fozzy!

 

[RogueLeader]

Definition of capitalism:
capitalism, n- an economic system in which the production of goods and services is privatly owned

nothing about regulation. Any economy that lets a private citizen own a business, no matter how regulated that business is, is capitalist.

 

[Sebu_NZ]

There Inlies your problem RogueLeader

With no regualation it leads to the rise monopolies, and the grossly inequitable distribution of wealth, and exploitation of labour.


England, 19th Century

 

[Lord_Bunker]

call me ishmael

i'll call myself a compolist. i don't think either system really works worth a ****. both have pros and cons. what we need is a compromise tween the too. after all, most capitalist societies do some communistic things. look at social security, taxes, welfare and so on. you pay your money to be given to everybody else. i'd think a truely 100% capitalist society would let you keep you money.

i support a basic communistic like economic system with a strong capitalist style buearcracy in place to regulate it. as far as the idea that communism doesn't support compotition well try this, that's what the beuracracy is there for. to make sure nobody gets a job they shouldn't have. contracts would go to those who would do the best job instead of who will do it the cheapist.

FEAR!
http://www.geocities.com/lord_bunker/

 

[Jason]

"Definition of capitalism:
capitalism, n- an economic system in which the production of goods and services is privatly owned
nothing about regulation. Any economy that lets a private citizen own a business, no matter how regulated that business is, is capitalist."

If a company is regulated, then I can say it is not privatly owned-it is a puppet of the government. Think of it in terms of the drug war, if the government can tell you what you can and cannot put in your body.. do you really "own" yourself? Think of the whole abortion fiasco as well.

A while back RL said "Why did the government illegally have communists leaders in America beaten and killed in during the Red Scares?"

Fear, ignorance, or plain stupidity. I can also recall that there were two Anarchists around the same period that were put to death with weak evidence against there involvement in a crime. The judge in the case said "This man, although he may not actually have committed the crime, is nevertheless morally culpable, because he is the enemy of our existing institutions." In fact, some of those arrested and beaten weren't even proven to be Communists(I'm NOT condoning the actions in any way), the public was urged to report those who spoke out against the government.

I never said America was the shining light at the end of the tunnel. Although, the documents of this country come close to laissez-faire. One thing to note, the great failure in the founding fathers thought processes was the notion that rights are self-evident.

"How many people can play basketball- anyone who can walk and throw a round object. How many people are willing to suffer in a sweatshop 10-12 hours a day for 20 cents? I doubt anyone here will volunteer."

Ahhh... if there were as many people capable of what Micheal Jordon is, I gurantee you his income would be down the toliet.

'Again, you fail to grasp what is Capitalism. IT IS NOT ment to be "fair".
Exactly my point.'

Fairness is not only arbitrary, unless a government creates an official definition, but cannot be guarenteed. I can't guarntee this forum won't crash, ending our conversation.

"Rockefeller ran the biggest oil company in America. The railroads needed the business from shipping his products. So he forced them to give him rebates so he could ship products cheaper."

I thought Rockefeller skipped that process(Railroads) by building pipelines. What I wanted to know was, how he forced them to give him special rates?

"Buying out media outlets? Buying out businesses...sounds capitalists too me."

What I originally tried to say was the Russian government is buying local(Russian) media outlets. From what I have read, if the media companies didn't want to be bought out, the government would take them by force.

"Indeed, I messed up there, fascism is not capitalism, rather a variation on capitalism. More of a crossbreed between capitalism and socialism, in which the government acts like a business but has does not allow a free market. Definitly the most idiotic government ever concieved in my opinion."

Fascists think their way of thinking is better than the Socialists because they relise that businesses don't actually have to be owned in order to have complete control over them.

A nation based on laissez-faire cannot be a plutocracy either. This quality is inherent because no one individual or group has political power over another. Thus, it would be impossible for a politician to be "bought", this is because he(the politician) has no power to influence the market, nor anyone else. If a such a politician were to use force, it would violate the principals of the nation and wouldn't be operating on the concepts of laissez-faire.

Giving the government power over the market ALLOWS businesses to influence it. This is the problem with protectionism, interventionism and so forth. It opens the doors to influence of any kind.

Capitalism is not compatible with egalitarianism, as in economic equality. But again, due to less influence by big business, laissez-faire is more competitive. This is due to no price controls, and no regulating of foriegn supply.

I would like to hear a response to the possibility of communes in a Capitalist nation. It cannot be said to be impossible. There is no force limiting the activity of a group of citizens from voluntarily coming together and working for each other.

Also, I would like to know where these examples of Capitalism are coming from. Please, I need to know what country you are talking about. I would like to move there!

I am not being sarcastic when I say that it is not often there is a conversation like this without a great deal of flaming. My last conversation(in another forum) was with a person who started out merely questioning Capitalism. I answered him quite nicely, yet his next response ended with "see you on the battlefield."

I will read "The Communist Manifesto" and other related books. I am not set in my ways, I am objective. If anyone wants some Capitalist readings just go HERE. There are several(free) online texts.

--------------
I am, therefore I think

 

[Unicorn]

The problem with Communism is very simple. When you set up a society with the idea of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs', it's obviously very attractive to those who have large needs and no ability, and extremely unattractive to those with ability. But it absolutely requires those of ability to sustain itself. It is, therefore, impossible except amongst samll groups of ideologues who are dedicated to the cause.

 

[Unicorn]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now that George W. (duda) Bush is in power and the security of state Colin Powel , will
we see a return to neo-isolationism,[/quote]

If only! Bush seems to be setting us up for another war with Iraq as we speak; determined to get his presidency off to the right start with a major debacle.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I for one will definitely miss Madieline Albright, she was an amazing woman, who made some many break through’s[/quote]

ROTFLMAO...Madeleine Half-Bright has been an absolute disaster for America and for the cause of peace in general. Every country in the world now knows that if they're weak and oppose American hegemony they're going to be bombed on trumped-up 'human rights' charges.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I personally hope she gets a high up job in the UN in human-rights.
[/quote]

I do too; then when we close down the UN she'll be living in a cardboard box in New York. The UN is nothing but a tax-funded club for sad old socialist who still dream of imposing a global government on the rest of us; the sooner it's shut down the better.

 

[Unicorn]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With no regualation it leads to the rise monopolies, and the grossly inequitable
distribution of wealth, and exploitation of labour.[/quote]

No, government regulation creates almost all monopolies. Microsoft, for example, is often claimed to be a monopoly; yet it only has its pseudo-monopoly status because copyright law prevents anyone competing with them by selling Windows.

If you disagree:

1. Name one monopoly which has occured without government interference and been able to use its power to increase prices above free market levels?

2. Explain to us exactly why private monopolies are wrong, yet you want to transfer power to a government monopoly? You can't rationally complain about monopolies and then support monopolistic government regulation.

 

[RogueLeader]

The government can tell you that you have to drive below the speed limit, have to have car insurance, and can't drive drunk- but you still own your car. The same goes with businesses in Capitalism.

 

[Jason]

"The government can tell you that you have to drive below the speed limit, have to have car insurance, and can't drive drunk- but you still own your car. The same goes with businesses in Capitalism."

The "rules of the road" only apply to the roads You can drive drunk on your own property, so long as you do not infringe the rights of others in the process.

The difference is the roads are not owned by a paticular person or group.

"1. Name one monopoly which has occured without government interference and been able to use its power to increase prices above free market levels?"

The first part I can answer, Standard Oil was able to become a monopoly without the state's help. The bottom half of your challenge I can not meet. As Standard Oil kept it's prices lower than most competition in history.

On monopoly, the primary difference between government and private monopolies is the component of force. Government monopoly, if-not limited, can and will use force to achieve it's goals. Whereas private men will have to freely-associate with other men in voluntary actions. Simply put, political power=TAKE and economic power=EARN.

--------------
I am, therefore I think

 

[RogueLeader]

There is one reason a monopoly is bad: it can drive up prices and lower quality. What you are thinking of is fascism, in which the government is a capitalist monopoly. In a true socialist system there is no reason to fear a government monopoly as there would be no prices, and without prices on the government making goods as well, quality will be higher than any private industry can achieve. Just look at today's social democracies, like Sweden. Care to guess why they are so well off?

 

[Zundfolge]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In a true socialist system there is no reason to fear a government monopoly as there would be no prices, and without prices on the government making goods as well, quality will be higher than any private industry can achieve. [/quote]

Rogue Leader, now I don't want to be insulting. I don't want to make this discussion a personal flame war kind of thing. But I have to ask, do you honestly believe that statement?
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. I think you're trying to play devil's advocate... let me rephrase that, I hope you're playing devil's advocate because if you honestly believe what you just said then I think there's no hope for you and you need to just off yourself, or maybe I've judged your situation all wrong and you need to call the nice nurse over and tell her to lower your dosages because the drugs they have you on in the mental hospital you live in are screwing up your brain!

I don't know where to begin with how bassackwards that is. With a government monoploy on goods and services what reason at all would the government have to give you quality goods and services? There is only one reason why a government employee would give good service or make quality goods, and that would be the armed police officer that will kill him on the spot for shoddy work.

Without competition ALL manufacturing and services will sink to as low as they possibly can, why should anyone do their best if there is no competition to come and beat them? Sure some people will always put out 110% no matter whether or not they see any reward, but most people (90%+) will not.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Just look at today's social democracies, like Sweden. Care to guess why they are so well off? [/quote]
They still have a (mostly) freemarket economy, plus in Sweden the tax rate is like 80%+!! Just think how productive the Swedes would be if they where allowed to keep their money instead of having it stolen by their government.

When taxes where lowered in the 1980's by the Evil Ronald Regan, our economy shot through the roof, competition created better products, better services, more wealth across the board.
The fastest growing segment of our society was the black middle class.
Charitable giving almost trippled, to the highest point ever seen in the history of humanity.
Because people had more money in their pockets, they invested and ended up growing the economy and making money themselves and thus ended up paying MORE in actual tax dollars!!

See, when government gets the hell outta the way people thrive! Why do you want to put government in people's way?

<center>

</center>