Home | Community | Message Board


Weed Seed Shop
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineSweat_Pants
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/01
Posts: 17
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: carbonhoots]
    #494458 - 12/18/01 03:55 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

Here is Idea:

Gov offers Social programs...but they are not mandatory, only the citizens using the programs pay for it in taxes, letting those who want Socialism to do so and and those who are Capitalist can do so, everyone is making the decision that is right for them, not the Gov,

LEFT and RIGHT platforms do not belong in Gov. being conservative or liberal should not be a political position, it is a personal choice that you apply only to yourself, not a whole nation.

Separate Political and Personal beliefs!!!

America's failure to do so has led to the erosion of the constitution and our civil liberties, We no longer have a Constitution, we have a supreme courts interpretation of the Constitution, and no one is going to do anything about it, until over many decades we are in a police state, we are becoming more and more Totalitarian everyday, and yes folks, it takes things like genocide to get people to start reacting, if were rich and fat, we let anything slide.

Campaign Reform is our only hope, if we can not have open debates and be able to recognize other options, how can we ever change, if not, private interests and religion will continue to run our country. And of course the Libertarian Party www.lp.org the only political party that seems to understand this and is working to restore the American Dream. (please ignore trier Economic issues, in principle yes, in life...NO) BE a CIVIL libertarian.

RANT RANT RANT...shit, i got work to do

As Judge Learned Hand once said, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."


--------------------
Okoy Ho...Oh Yoko


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,804
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 56 minutes
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: carbonhoots]
    #494690 - 12/18/01 12:02 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

carbonhoots writes:

"How bout American society? It's pretty capitalist."

The debate is not about the current form of American government. It is about pure Capitalism vs. Socialism. That is why in the sub-debate entitled "The Myth of Monopolies" I have been using as examples only companies that are not kept in existence by government regulations, even though those companies are based in America.

"The three richest American citizens, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and John Walton have combined financial assets worth more than the pooret 100,000,000 Americans combined."

So what? Completely irrelevant. What if they were less wealthy? They all were, at one time. What if their combined wealth was only as great ast the poorest 10,000,000 Americans? Or the poorest 1,000,000? Or the poorest 100,000? At what point is it acceptable for someone to have more money than others? What is the magic point beyond which one must stop making money to avoid being called evil?

What IS relevant is that the poorest 100,000,000 Americans have a combined wealth greater than the richest 100,000,000 citizens of any Statist country you can name. Even the crippled form of quasi-Capitalism in place in America today leaves the "poor" better off financially.

"Capitalism is undemocratic because a vote don't count for shit."

Irrelevant. Of course no SINGLE vote is worth more than any other single vote... by definition that is the way Democracy works. What IS relevant is that the vote of a Bill Gates counts no more than the vote of a Welfare Mom.

"The whole point of these "Free Trade Deals" is to further remove the economy from any government (democratic) control."

Of course. Under pure Capitalism there is a total separation of Economy and State, just as there is a total separation of Church and State. In a Socialist society, the reverse is true.

"Under capitalism it's one dollar. one vote."

You are confusing economics with politics. While the two are inextricably intermeshed in a Socialist or "mixed economy", that is not the case under a system where elected officials have no power over the economy.

"It's unfair because by giving exclusive ownership rights to shareholders, and no propriety rights to labour, many men and women give their time and heart and soul for a company that pays them as little as it can, and may just leave them behind when they relocate to some place like Thialand where they can pay workers pennies a day."

How is that unfair? Workers are free at any time to either change jobs, or to go into business for themselves. How many workers are there who give "heart and soul" for their companies vs. how many that just show up to punch a clock and scan the "help wanted" section of the newspaper every night? You say that employers pay as little as they can, but is it not also true that employees take a job (and switch from job to job) to make as much as they can? How many kids right out of school start working for MacDonald's then stay there for the rest of their lives?

"A good example is Edison (inventer of lightbulb). He had a great business in providing DC power. When Tesla discovered AC power, Edison did all he could to supress the technology. Why? Not because he thought DC was better for developing civilization. No. Simply, he was selling DC, and he didn't want to chance losing his money making business. If Edison would have succeeded, he would have held back the progress of the human race. That is evil. "

This is an excellent example in favor of pure Capitalism. Note that at the time all of this was taking place, the US was still very close to being a pure Capitalist society. And, what happened? Even though Edison tried his darndest, he FAILED to get his way. His wealth meant nothing in this battle, because the battle took place in a Capitalist society. Regardless of his genius, his stature, and his economic "power", Capitalism did not give him the tools with which to prevent AC power from supplanting DC power. AC power is now the standard.

BUT... if the same situation arose in today's quasi-socialist America, he could have bribed politicians, spent millions on lobbyists, and probably succeeded in getting legislation passed banning the construction of AC power plants, perhaps on the grounds that it would throw all his workers into the unemployment line, perhaps on the grounds that AC power was "a threat to the environment", perhaps on the grounds that the government would lose all that DC tax revenue... whatever. The government (once sufficiently bribed) would have found SOME way of justifying its protectionism.

Which scenario would have held back the progress of the human race? Which scenario is more evil?

pinky






--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Phred]
    #494946 - 12/18/01 05:00 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

>> I challenge you or anyone else to provide me with a single example of that prediction coming true.

Well, up in Canada there was one big airline carrier(Air Canada) and a couple small ones with the biggest being Canada 3000, since Canada 3000 has gone out of business Air Canada has raised the price to any of the places it used to compete with Canada 3000. There's an example of someone lowering the price to cause another business to go under and then robbing the consumer. Of course that's in Canada, which is a lot further from pure capitalism than the US. Just figured I'd mention that there are examples... not many and I'm sure soon enough another company will step in to compete, but hey right now it's true.


--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Edited by MokshaMan (12/18/01 05:05 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinejihead
addict
Registered: 06/09/00
Posts: 399
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Phred]
    #496256 - 12/19/01 08:53 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

"No one has ever been able to corner the market on wood production. No one ever will. "

no shit, thats because we live in a mixed market. if it were pure capitalism, one company would eventually come to own all rights to lumber in the world.

"Yes, I do. I am typing this post on a Mac. Apple computer received no government assistance. Their success had nothing to do with regulated competiton"

mixed market again. they may not have received grants, but because of our patent laws, it is possible for them to copy ibm's designs and use them in their computers after 5? years. again, if your going to argue about a speculative scenario, dont use real life examples :)

"Apple violated no patent laws in constructing their personal computer. Nor did Sun, or DEC or Honeywell or Hewlett Packard in the mini and mainframe business. And, the reason IBM flubbed the personal computer market so badly has nothing to do with government regulation, and everything to do with bad business decisions and poor product design. "

read up on amerikan patent laws, in our MIXED economy, we make sure competition exists and patents expire after a certain time.

"Nonsense. Computers were developed by private industry. "

learn your history, our government put huge amounts of money into the development of the computer. same with the internet, funded almost entirely by the military.

"Just because a company holds a monopoly (and so far, none does) does not necessarily mean that it will have unlimited funding for advertisements. And, just because a company advertises more than its competitors does not mean it is guaranteed to survive. In the seventies, I used to see TV ads for a soft drink called "Gini" countless times every day for years... more often than I would see Coke or Pepsi ads, and that is saying something! Where is "Gini" today? "

good point. but advertising effects way more people than moral or conscienscious decisions and people are way more willing to buy what they see on tv and what is cheapest as opposed to what is the most moral choice.

"I use existing companies merely as concrete examples of the abstract principles I am describing. While it is not strictly necessary to use concrete examples, it clarifies things."

nope, cant do it, its like citing alice in wonderland for examples in our society.

"Are you saying that a Capitalist society would have no patent laws? Would you care to defend that assertion?"

well, a purely capitalistic society would have no limitations on the way business pursues its goals, so patent laws would be in direct violation of a purely capitalist society as they are in direct conflict with a system that has no government interference. ask innvertigo for an explanation on this, hes the libertatian.

i saw in some of your other responses that you site a lot of examples in our current system, but as ive said before, these are completely irrelevant as we live in a mixed market with regulations out the asshole, which make all current examples void as they cannot be applied to the purely capitalist society you propose.

btw, this is a great thread, no flames and bickering, only intelligent debate on a great topic. my hats off to you pinkshark, youve made this a solid debate and im glad such quality discussions exist on this board. peace.


--------------------
kill white noise


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: jihead]
    #496327 - 12/19/01 10:02 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

****well, a purely capitalistic society would have no limitations on the way business pursues its goals****

Living in a purely capitalistic society does not negate the fact that there are laws....afterall we're not talking anarchy

****so patent laws would be in direct violation of a purely capitalist society as they are in direct conflict with a system that has no government interference. ask innvertigo for an explanation on this, hes the libertatian. ****

You must really like me to not be able to keep me out of this discussion. I believe you're confusing capitalism with anarchy...they aren't even close



--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: carbonhoots]
    #496331 - 12/19/01 10:05 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

****Socialism isn't bad. Many great countries (Sweden, Iceland, not to mention Norway, the 1st best place on earth to live acording to the UN) have what Americans would call a socialist economy. ****

Great??? I'm sure the people are nice but what do you use to determin greatness? The ability to make kick ass hot cocoa? I never trust anything the U.N. says


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekrispyfi
lumber tyrant
Registered: 10/03/01
Posts: 320
Loc: se usa
Last seen: 10 years, 7 days
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: Innvertigo]
    #496362 - 12/19/01 10:34 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

as i was reading thru this thread i was gonna ask about patents (or intellectual property in general), but it seems i got to this thread to late. innvertigo says that patents laws are necesarry (its not anarchy, guys! :-)) but patents are an example of the law putting its hands into the economy, which is a no-no if you want pure capitalism (at least according to my superficial understanding of pure capitalsim). so its okay to mess with the economy some ways, but not others. where is the line drawn? also, would lobbying be disallowed? libertarians say that entities should be able to spend as much as they want on campaigns, politicians etc. if a company was prevented from getting the government to make a monopoly for it, then wouldn't it use its money to get politicians to change the laws that disallow the government from creating monopolies? then pure capitalism would degenerate into what we have today, no?


--------------------


If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free.
Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekrispyfi
lumber tyrant
Registered: 10/03/01
Posts: 320
Loc: se usa
Last seen: 10 years, 7 days
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: krispyfi]
    #496364 - 12/19/01 10:35 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

isnt pure capitalism economic anarchy?


--------------------


If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free.
Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: krispyfi]
    #496377 - 12/19/01 10:46 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

****isnt pure capitalism economic anarchy? ****

No because we live in a society of laws, ie: economic laws..anarchy is the absence of laws.

Ofcourse this only makes sense if you believe that pure capitalism means no rules and kill to get to the top.  Remember without the consumer capitalism doesn't work....we could all switch to Mac's if we wanted and still get by...but man..would that suck.. :smile:



--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekrispyfi
lumber tyrant
Registered: 10/03/01
Posts: 320
Loc: se usa
Last seen: 10 years, 7 days
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: Innvertigo]
    #496381 - 12/19/01 10:49 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

so what is pure capitalism, if not lack of government interference (i.e. laws) in the economy?


--------------------


If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free.
Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekrispyfi
lumber tyrant
Registered: 10/03/01
Posts: 320
Loc: se usa
Last seen: 10 years, 7 days
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: krispyfi]
    #496384 - 12/19/01 10:50 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

and you didnt read my first post. the second was only testing a tautology.


--------------------


If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free.
Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,804
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 56 minutes
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: jihead]
    #496464 - 12/20/01 12:07 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

jihead writes:

"no shit, thats because we live in a mixed market. if it were pure capitalism, one company would eventually come to own all rights to lumber in the world."

Impossible. No company has the time, money, or NEED to corner the market on any single resource, whether operating under a Capitalist economy or a Mixed Economy.

"mixed market again. they may not have received grants, but because of our patent laws, it is possible for them to copy ibm's designs and use them in their computers after 5? years. again, if your going to argue about a speculative scenario, dont use real life examples :)"

First, patent laws last FAR longer than 5 years. Not 100% sure, but I think it is AT LEAST 15 years, maybe 25. And, Apple did not even use IBM's patents. They used Motorola chips, which were based on a different design than the chips IBM developed. Wozniak designed a brand new floppy drive controller that was (and still is) widely admired and copied. I repeat, Apple's success had NOTHING to do with government regulations.

Second, I am aware that this took place in a mixed economy, BUT I have been scrupulously careful to always use real-life examples of companies that are operating in an area that is still essentially free from government interference... a little "pocket" of pure Capitalism in the otherwise mixed economy. In the case of Apple, for example, there were no anti-trust suits, no lobbying, no "fair competition" subsidies, no development grants, no import tariffs, etc. etc. In other words, the development of the Apple II computer took place with essentially the same freedom from government interference (or assistance) as did Edison's invention of the lightbulb.

"read up on amerikan patent laws, in our MIXED economy, we make sure competition exists and patents expire after a certain time."

Again, patent laws are emphatically NOT an invention of a mixed economy. They are, however, an ESSENTIAL feature of Capitalism. Patent laws existed LONG before the virtually pure Capitalism of the early US Republic began its slide into its current incarnation as a quasi-Socialist Welfare State.

"learn your history, our government put huge amounts of money into the development of the computer. same with the internet, funded almost entirely by the military."

I mis-spoke. I meant to type "personal computers". And, to all intents and purposes, government involvement in the invention of electronic computers ceased with the production of Univac. Private industry took it from there. Same with the Internet. Saying that the military was responsible for anything more than the initial limited and crude Arpanet is an exaggeration. The military HARDLY "funded almost entirely" the Internet.

"good point. but advertising effects way more people than moral or conscienscious decisions and people are way more willing to buy what they see on tv and what is cheapest as opposed to what is the most moral choice."

I fail to see the moral dilemma involved in choosing one soft drink over another.

"nope, cant do it, its like citing alice in wonderland for examples in our society."

I disagree. If the companies cited are carefully selected contextually (as I hope I have done so far) then I believe they can be used TO ILLUSTRATE THE POINT, to make it more clear and instantly understandable. I do not use them to PROVE my point -- I do that through abstracts and fundamental concepts -- but it helps people to concretize the concepts. And, I use WalMart from the twentieth century rather than Morgan's Notions and Dry Goods from the early nineteenth century (when the US was closest to pure Capitalism) simply because people are familiar with WalMart.

"well, a purely capitalistic society would have no limitations on the way business pursues its goals..."

Untrue. A company could not, for example, use slave labor, or vent chlorine gas into residential neighborhoods. Companies would be subject to the same "do no harm" restrictions as apply to individuals.

"... so patent laws would be in direct violation of a purely capitalist society as they are in direct conflict with a system that has no government interference."

Quite the reverse. Capitalism cannot exist without laws, ESPECIALLY patent laws. This was recognized by England early in the Industrial Revolution.

"i saw in some of your other responses that you site a lot of examples in our current system, but as ive said before, these are completely irrelevant as we live in a mixed market with regulations out the asshole, which make all current examples void as they cannot be applied to the purely capitalist society you propose."

Again, not all are irrelevant. They simply must be chosen carefully to fit the context of the debate. Note that I do NOT refer to TRW or Northrupp or other military contractors, nor do I use airlines or agricultural companies or power companies. I submit that it is untrue that "ALL current examples" are devoid of value as pure illustration.

"btw, this is a great thread, no flames and bickering, only intelligent debate on a great topic. my hats off to you pinkshark, youve made this a solid debate and im glad such quality discussions exist on this board. peace."

Thanks. I think it's easier to keep one's emotional distance on the more abstract topics. You'll note most of the flaming and bickering occurs in posts regarding religion or politics.

pinky










--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,804
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 56 minutes
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: krispyfi]
    #496487 - 12/20/01 12:38 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

krispyfi writes:

"but patents are an example of the law putting its hands into the economy..."

Not at all. Patents protect property rights: intellectual property. Just as there are laws preventing a thief from stealing your physical property (your stereo system), so laws must exist to prevent a thief from stealing your intellectual property (your invention). It has nothing to do with the "economy" per se, and everything to do with individual rights.

"...which is a no-no if you want pure capitalism (at least according to my superficial understanding of pure capitalsim). so its okay to mess with the economy some ways, but not others. where is the line drawn?"

Whenever the rights of an individual are violated, whether it be by another individual or by a corporation, then the government has the obligation to intervene. Just because the violation took place under the guise of economic activity it cannot exempt the perpetrator from legal retribution.

"also, would lobbying be disallowed?"

Lobbying as we know it would not be disallowed, but it would be a pretty ridiculous waste of time. Since the government has no power to enact an import tariff or grant a subsidy to a failing industry, there would be nothing for a lobbyist to do. There would undoubtedly still be pressure groups trying to persuade Congress to increase (or decrease) defense spending.

"if a company was prevented from getting the government to make a monopoly for it..."

The point is, the government wouldn't have the POWER to assist the company. The economy is completely outside the scope of its mandate.

"... then wouldn't it use its money to get politicians to change the laws that disallow the government from creating monopolies?"

Not possible. The government would be operating under a Constitution that ties its hands in that area. Just as today, even if 99% of the populace wanted to reinstitute slavery, Congress could not do so. It doesn't have the authority to do so.

"then pure capitalism would degenerate into what we have today, no?"

This is exactly what happened. The Founding Fathers were an incredibly intelligent group of men, and the framework they produced is unmatched in human history. They were not perfect, however. They didn't foresee the ultimate consequences of a few tiny loopholes in their work. They THOUGHT they were producing a bulletproof blueprint for the ideal Capitalist Republic, but those seemingly tiny cracks widened under the assault of the greedy.

Probably the two most significant flaws were giving the government the authority to produce currency, and giving the government authority over interstate commerce.

pinky



--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,804
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 56 minutes
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: krispyfi]
    #496512 - 12/20/01 01:00 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

krispyfi writes:

"so what is pure capitalism, if not lack of government interference (i.e. laws) in the economy?"

In a nutshell, pure capitalism (or 'laissez-faire capitalism', which I shall henceforth abbreviate to 'Capitalism') is a system in which the sole function of government is the protection of the individual rights of its constituents. Since the only way the rights of an individual can be violated is through the initiation of physical force, a Capitalist government is restricted purely to the role of policeman.

This can be subdivided into three broad areas:

The military: to protect the society from force initiated by external agents, i.e. an invasion by a foreign country.

The police: to protect society from force initiated by internal agents, i.e. murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.

The courts: to encode, interpret, and enforce a body of law that adheres to the fundamental principle -- that the initiation of physical force is forbidden -- and all of its corollaries: fraud, breach of contract, inadvertent error or misinterpration or just plain disagreement between parties, etc.

That's it.

A Capitalist government has no authority to involve itself in any, repeat, ANY other area. Not education, transportation, energy development, welfare, unemployment insurance, health care, broadcasting standards, prohibition of drug use, space exploration, standards for toothbrushes... not even the minting of currency.

pinky



--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekrispyfi
lumber tyrant
Registered: 10/03/01
Posts: 320
Loc: se usa
Last seen: 10 years, 7 days
Re: Pure Capitalism [Re: Phred]
    #496836 - 12/20/01 12:02 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

this is a great thread! pinksharkmark answered all of my questions in a very satisfying way.


--------------------


If i get into some trouble TURBO BOOST will set me free.
Michael Knight you watch the bass with the K I T T.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinejihead
addict
Registered: 06/09/00
Posts: 399
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Innvertigo]
    #496862 - 12/20/01 12:31 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

"Living in a purely capitalistic society does not negate the fact that there are laws....afterall we're not talking anarchy "

read pinksharks post a few lines down, he does a good job of explaning this. although i dont totally agree with this either, as in any system of capitalism, when capital is put in power, capital calls the tune to which the government dances. in pure capitalism, the government would NOT be allowed to interfer with business as long as no initiation of force or coercion is used. hope this clears things up.

"You must really like me to not be able to keep me out of this discussion. I believe you're confusing capitalism with anarchy...they aren't even close "

you know i love you ;). i just figured since pure capitalism is basically the libertarian philosophy and you are always proud to proclaim you allegiance to the party, that you should answer some of the questions we have. and again, your wrong, pure capitalism are actually the closest neighbors. the only difference is that there is a minimal government and corporations own the individual instead of the state. they couldnt be closer.


--------------------
kill white noise


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,804
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 56 minutes
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: jihead]
    #497049 - 12/20/01 04:55 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

jihead writes:

"in any system of capitalism, when capital is put in power, capital calls the tune to which the government dances."

What tune? What dance? Under Capitalism, the only "plums" the government CAN hand out is to award a contract to the company who builds the courthouse or the one who builds the aircraft carrier or the one who produces police uniforms.

"... {anarchy and} pure capitalism are actually the closest neighbors."

Possibly correct. In the spectrum from the least government regulation to the most, it goes like this: Anarchy, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Dictatorship. Since Capitalism lies between Anarchy and Libertarianism, it is a matter of opinion as to which of the two is "closer" to it.

"the only difference is that there is a minimal government and corporations own the individual instead of the state."

Sigh. In a Capitalist society corporations emphatically DO NOT "own" the individual. Individuals are sovereign entities who remain free at any time to deal with any given corporation or not.

pinky



--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: jihead]
    #497286 - 12/20/01 09:48 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

****i just figured since pure capitalism is basically the libertarian philosophy and you are always proud to proclaim you allegiance to the party,****

just to clear it up (and i know this is off topic so bare with me) I proclaim my allegiance to the philosophy... not the party. The party couldn't win an election because they're too busy trying to proclaim which leader of the party is more american than the other rather then playing the game of politics and the issues at hand...they will never win until this is taken out of the party.

Continue with your discussion


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinejihead
addict
Registered: 06/09/00
Posts: 399
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: Phred]
    #497705 - 12/21/01 11:20 AM (12 years, 4 months ago)

"What tune? What dance? Under Capitalism, the only "plums" the government CAN hand out is to award a contract to the company who builds the courthouse or the one who builds the aircraft carrier or the one who produces police uniforms."

they may not hand out "plums", but (yes im using current examples) look at our current political system. large corporations basically run the country through their power and influence. politicians are much more willing to listen to the CEO putting millions in his pocket than the people proclaiming injustice. the drug war is the best example there is.

"Possibly correct. In the spectrum from the least government regulation to the most, it goes like this: Anarchy, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Dictatorship. Since Capitalism lies between Anarchy and Libertarianism, it is a matter of opinion as to which of the two is "closer" to it. "

i always saw it as a circle, starting on the left with anarchy, socialism, liberals, moderate, conservative, facism, libertarianism, with the libertarian and anarchy curving around to almost meet each other at the back side. an ascii drawing would prob help but im lazy.

"Sigh. In a Capitalist society corporations emphatically DO NOT "own" the individual. Individuals are sovereign entities who remain free at any time to deal with any given corporation or not. "

HA! while im not saying that corporations would officially own people, it is as good as slavery. you would be at the total mercy of the few corporations that would exist, forced to rely on them for your minimal wages only to buy back the products from them that you yourself have produced. wouldnt it me a much nicer place if we could all own whatever we make???

peace.


--------------------
kill white noise


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhredM
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,804
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 hour, 56 minutes
Re: The myth of monopolies [Re: jihead]
    #497828 - 12/21/01 02:41 PM (12 years, 4 months ago)

jihead writes:

"they may not hand out "plums", but (yes im using current examples) look at our current political system. large corporations basically run the country through their power and influence. politicians are much more willing to listen to the CEO putting millions in his pocket than the people proclaiming injustice. the drug war is the best example there is."

It has already been established that our current political system is NOT pure Capitalism. This thread is about pure Capitalism, not about the quasi-Socialist Welfare State into which the United States of America has degenerated. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

"i always saw it as a circle, starting on the left with anarchy, socialism, liberals, moderate, conservative, facism, libertarianism, with the libertarian and anarchy curving around to almost meet each other at the back side. an ascii drawing would prob help but im lazy."

Excuse me? I don't know how you define left and right, then. I prefer my linear explanation, since the criterium for arranging the various political philosophies along the spectrum is easy to understand: least amount of government power = Anarchy. Most amount of government power = Dictatorship.

"HA! while im not saying that corporations would officially own people, it is as good as slavery."

How so? Under pure Capitalism, no one enslaves anyone. Everyone is free to deal with others or not to deal with others as they see fit, on a purely voluntary basis. This is the complete antithesis of slavery. Please elaborate on how possessing total and complete freedom from coercion is "as good as slavery".

"you would be at the total mercy of the few corporations that would exist..."

Why do you keep insisting that only a few corporations would exist? You have never explained why this would happen, never outlined even the minimum logical basis to support your statement, merely asserted baldly that this WILL happen. I call you on it.

In actual practice, the exact REVERSE would be the case... there would be even MORE companies in existence under pure Capitalism (hence broader choice for the consumer) than there are today. The main reason why so many people in today's political system choose to work for others rather than run their own business is the literally CRUSHING amount of government-created paperwork, absurd regulations that must be met, bizarre restrictions that must be adhered to, and just plain bureaucratic BULLSHIT that is involved in starting and running a business. I know this from personal experience. I used to run my own business, and never will again. It just ain't worth it. It is a sad fact that once your business gets to the size where three people are involved, a fourth person becomes necessary whose sole function is dealing with government-generated CRAP! That's a mighty big chunk of overhead (25%) to deal with if you are a small businessman. Think I'm exaggerating? Ask any small businessman if I speak truly. ANY one you care to pick, doesn't matter to me. Go ahead. I dare you.

Sixty or seventy years ago this was not true at all -- America was much more a nation of enterpreneurs and small businessmen. It was government that put a stop to that, not Capitalism.

"...forced to rely on them for your minimal wages only to buy back the products from them that you yourself have produced."

AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, under pure Capitalism, no one can be FORCED to buy anything from anyone. Why is that so hard to grasp? If you don't want to buy a pair of Nikes, DON'T BUY THEM! Buy some leather and make your own shoes. If you don't want to buy a crackerbox house in the burbs, DON'T BUY IT! Buy a plot of land in the country and build your own. If you don't want to clog your arteries with Big Macs, DON'T BUY THEM! Grill up your own burgers. No one can force you to buy ANYTHING you don't want to buy.

"wouldnt it me a much nicer place if we could all own whatever we make???"

You can do that anytime you want, even in today's Welfare State environment. The problem is, very few people have either the time or the skills to manufacture from scratch everything they want. This is why the concept of "Division of Labor" was discovered. And division of labor is a hallmark of ALL human societies, from prehistoric villages in the Tigris-Euphrates valley to hippy communes to modern Communist China.

pinky












--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* ...
( 1 2 3 all )
Component 871 42 12/11/02 12:50 PM
by Evolving
* Rants and Ramblings on Capitalism and Socialism
( 1 2 all )
Silversoul 1,045 30 02/28/05 02:32 PM
by rogue_pixie
* capitalism
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
BrAiN 7,026 149 02/24/05 01:50 PM
by cb9fl
* monopolies...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous 996 61 08/11/03 04:45 PM
by Cornholio
* Capitalism or Communism? Which is better?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
HagbardCeline 1,726 95 06/27/03 02:28 AM
by downforpot
* Corporations are not capitalism Evolving 384 4 10/12/04 01:56 AM
by Worf
* Is worldwide Capitalism impossible?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
PhredM 1,570 80 07/15/03 06:18 AM
by hongomon
* Monopoly Rules.... Capitalism. GabbaDj 599 5 01/02/02 04:14 AM
by Ulysees

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1
4,130 topic views. 1 members, 7 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Azarius
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2014 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.148 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 20 queries.