|
 sir tripsalot
Administrator
Registered: 07/09/99
Posts: 6,487
|
 Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist...  [Re: Phred]
#600679 - 04/06/02 04:06 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Holy land of the long posts. Concision is a main key to getting an effective message across or else you will lose your audience. My communications class is very proving to have some use, Hurray.
--------------------
"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.
|
 EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Phred]
#600701 - 04/06/02 04:47 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"The source of rights is neither divine law nor congressional law, but the law of identity. Aristotle said "A is A" -- and Man is Man."
This is a tautology. It means nothing.
"Rights are conditions of existence required by man's metaphysical nature for his proper survival. If man is to live, it is RIGHT for him to use his mind, it is RIGHT to act on his own free judgement, it is RIGHT for a man to work for his values and to keep the products of his work. If his own life is a man's purpose, he has a RIGHT to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any individual or group who attempts to negate a man's rights is WRONG."
You have yet to demonstrate the metaphysical universe. Your attempt at a defintion ("*Gestures all around himself* There... there is the universe. It exists. You can perceive it with your own senses. You are currently engaged in debate with another inhabitant of the universe") was simply a demonstration of the physical universe, NOT the metaphysical. Metaphysical refers to that which is supersensible, that which transcends the mere physical, a world of pure ideas.
If nature "forbids him the irrational" why have so many people through so much of history been precisely that? If that is the case, nature is supremely incompetent.
Everything you have argued so far is NOT, emphatically not, a demonstration. These are first principles that are grounded in opinion. They are assumptions. They are articles of faith. I don't have a problem with that: every system of belief will have to start at some point with an assumption which cannot necessarily be proven, with an ariticle of faith. It is unavoidable. The only honest thing to do is to admit it as such. To be unable to do so is a symptom of absolutist and dogmatic thinking.
"You cannot even describe what Ayn Rand's philosophy is, so you resort to meaningless and slanderous labels."
Her philosophy skips all the thorny epistemological and ontological issues and takes as its starting point the very tautology you resorted to above. She asserts that man's senses and reason give him full access and understanding of objective reality. From there on in her arguments mirror yours almost to a "t". She was not interested so much in asking questions, which is what "serious" philosophers do, as in creating a philosophical edifice (and a shaky one at that) to justify her economic and political beliefs, which were the product not of some omniscient reason but of her childhood experiences in Soviet Russia. She ripped off a lot of ideas from Nietzsche, but none of his really good ones. Her philosophy spawned a cult, all of whose members claim to be free-thinking rationalists but who are terrified of deviating from her conclusions because they believe, more as an article of faith than anything else, that her own claims to infallibility are correct. Her followers tend to suffer either from delusions of grandeur, or from some strange self-hatred arising from the fact that they cannot live up to the standards set by the comic-book-type heroes described in her novels. Said characters also have really stupid names, like Dagny Taggart (it should be Vaginy Braggart). Rand had no sense of humor, which says a lot. Rand also believed that every man is an island. I'm surprised she didn't take credit for her own conception, carrying herself to term, and raising herself. Or did she?
There's a lot of internecine and factional fighting within Objectivism. Once they have a falling out, objectivists never deign to forgive one another. They just accuse each other of "evasion" and "irrationaity" endlessly, working themselves up into a lather over nothing much. Because Objectivism encourages egotism, absolutism, and incessant moralizing, it tends to put a damper on human relationships in general.
The man of whom Ayn Rand once said, "you understand my philosophy better than anybody" later turned apostate and rethought many of his prior assumptions. His balanced take on her philosophy ("The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand") can be found at http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ayn/ayn03.html
I personally think he takes it much too easy on her, but anyhoo.
I know this is "appealing to authority," but for what it is worth, Ayn Rand is not taken seriously as a philosopher by the vast majority of those who make the study of philosophy their main occupation in life. She is not taken seriously as novelist by the vast majority of those who make the reading and writing of literature their main occupation in life. That said, her books are phenomenal bestsellers (in America), making her, you could say, the "Wal-Mart" of philosophers.
"And it is precisely his epistemology which is fundamentally flawed. His epistemology is flawed because his theory of metaphysics is flawed."
No, epistemology is prior to metaphysics in that it establishes whether we have access to the metaphysical realm in the first place or not.
At any rate, I think we know where the other stands. Given a choice, I prefer to live in a society in which individual rights and the common good are both valued and preserved. I prefer to live in a society in which people are conscious of their responsibilities, first to their children and parents, then to their extended family and friends, and finally to the polity in which they live. The cultivation of that consciousness, it is true, is not a matter of social engineering: it is foremost a product of how one is raised, but it is essential for a society if it is to be humane, peaceable, and livable, that such consciousness exist. It is also necessary in intellectual life that one remain open to possibility while at the same time skeptical of easy certainties. My greatest objection to your pronouncements is that they seem to me devoid of that suppleness that marks a vibrant and breathing intellect. Most everything you say seems like something out of the Ayn Rand or Libertarian playbooks; which is a shame, because you're clearly an intelligent man. I personally think you could put your intelligence to better use than by being a Libertarian cyber attack dog.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: EchoVortex]
#600992 - 04/07/02 12:09 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
echovortex writes:
Metaphysical refers to that which is supersensible, that which transcends the mere physical, a world of pure ideas.
Says Kant. Let's see how neutral references sources define metaphysics:
American Heritage Dictionary: The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary: The science of real as distinguished from phenomenal being; ontology; also, the science of being, with reference to its abstract and universal conditions, as distinguished from the science of determined or concrete being; the science of the conceptions and relations which are necessarily implied as true of every kind of being; philosophy in general; first principles, or the science of first principles.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The science of the ultimate principles and properties of real beings.
highered/McGraw-Hill.com:?The branch of philosophy that studies the nature and fundamental features of being.
utas.edu.au: The study of reality, going beyond the empirical sciences; the study of the nature of things in the broadest sense. Asks questions such as 'what is there?' and 'what is it like?'.
answers.org/apologetics: The study of the nature and structure of "being," or reality.
websyte.com: The branch of philosophy that attempts to understand the fundamental nature of all reality, whether visible or invisible.
I don't have a problem with that: every system of belief will have to start at some point with an assumption which cannot necessarily be proven, with an ariticle of faith. It is unavoidable.
It is not an article of faith that the universe exists. It is, to paraphrase you, a verifiable fact, open to observation. It's existence need not be derived from first principles, it can be demonstrated ostensively.
Her philosophy spawned a cult...
That can be said of almost every philosopher in history, secular or religious.
...all of whose members claim to be free-thinking rationalists but who are terrified of deviating from her conclusions...
"ALL" of them? Hardly. Besides, the fact that SOME of her adherents feel bound to limit themselves strictly to her conclusions does not necessarily prove those conclusions (as far as they went) were wrong. I have said before that I personally find her work incomplete, and that I am not convinced to a certainty of some of her conclusions. Certainly her ideas of psychology are (even by her own tacit admission) erroneous.
Her followers tend to suffer...
What her "followers" are like is irrelevant. Were HER philosophical treatises correct or incorrect? Many of her "followers" have read only her novels, not her philosophical treatises.
She ripped off a lot of ideas from Nietzsche...
Rand (by her own admission) originated very little philosophical theory of her own, with the notable exception of her seminal work in epistemology, specifically her brilliant theory of concept formation. But she was unsurpassed at sifting, extracting, and systematizing coherently the essentials from previous philosophers (Aristotle, Locke, and many others... even Neitzsche). Interestingly enough, though she disagreed with much of Nietzsche's work (as she did with Aristotle's and Locke's as well) she more than once expressed a grudging admiration for many of his ideas.
His balanced take on her philosophy ("The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand") can be found at http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ayn/ayn03.html
I thank you most sincerely for this link. Seriously. I hadn't come across it before. I agree with virtually everything he says in that article. It is heartening to see someone other than myself come to pretty much the same conclusions I had reached.
No, epistemology is prior to metaphysics in that it establishes whether we have access to the metaphysical realm in the first place or not.
Sorry, but no philosophy course I know of will agree with that priority. The progression (in EVERY philo course I am aware of) is: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, esthetics. Since epistemology is the study of knowledge -- more specifically the METHODOLOGY of knowledge -- HOW we know what we know -- it logically follows that there must first be something to know (existence as a whole and the entities which comprise it... i.e. the metaphyical universe) and an entity capable of knowing (the "self", which is also one of the entities of the metaphysical universe) before epistemology can be applied.
My greatest objection to your pronouncements is that they seem to me devoid of that suppleness that marks a vibrant and breathing intellect.
And what suppleness have you demonstrated in your pronouncements? I have stated that what I believe today is not what I believed thirty years ago. It is probable that my beliefs thirty years from now will differ from those I hold today.
Most everything you say seems like something out of the Ayn Rand or Libertarian playbooks...
Probably because most of what they say is just common sense, and relies on neither faith nor public opinion polls.
... which is a shame, because you're clearly an intelligent man.
I will say the same of you.
I personally think you could put your intelligence to better use than by being a Libertarian cyber attack dog.
I personally think you could put your intelligence to better use than by being a Pragmatist-Kantian cyber attack dog.
I also believe that we have digressed far enough from the original topic of this thread: "The US is NOT Capitalist". I would be delighted to continue debating the more fundamental philosophical issues in a separate thread, but not this one.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: sir tripsalot]
#600995 - 04/07/02 12:16 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
sir tripsalot writes:
Concision is a main key to getting an effective message across or else you will lose your audience.
Concision is for the OTD forum. Complex concepts are not always amenable to soundbites.
My communications class is very proving to have some use.
LOL! "Very proving?" C'mon... 'fess up, Crobih. How did you manage to get sir tripsalot's password?
pinky
--------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (04/07/02 12:21 AM)
|
sir tripsalot
Administrator
Registered: 07/09/99
Posts: 6,487
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Phred]
#601094 - 04/07/02 04:57 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Your posts are boring me, can I be more obvious?
--------------------
"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.
|
sir tripsalot
Administrator
Registered: 07/09/99
Posts: 6,487
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: sir tripsalot]
#601095 - 04/07/02 04:58 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe if you'd "sum it up" I'd give A shittaroony. Fancy words and long paragraphs make your point no more valid MMKAY??
--------------------
"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: sir tripsalot]
#601219 - 04/07/02 09:24 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
sir tripsalot writes:
Maybe if you'd "sum it up" I'd give A shittaroony.
Summary: The United States of America is not Capitalist because its government regulates the economy and uses force against its peaceful citizens.
Fancy words...
I'm sorry you don't know the meaning of metaphysics, epistemology, ostensive, or empirical.
... and long paragraphs...
The longest paragraph in my post you replied to is seven lines. The average paragraph is less than three lines.
... make your point no more valid MMKAY??
Nor do they make it less valid. If you have difficulty understanding my posts, feel free to disregard them.
pinky
--------------------
|
sir tripsalot
Administrator
Registered: 07/09/99
Posts: 6,487
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Phred]
#601446 - 04/07/02 04:20 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for summin it up.  That's your first post I read through. I still stand by my advice. BTW my first post was directed at anyone who was making huge posts , but hey I had to click on someones reply button. Guess your just lucky Marky pooh.
--------------------
"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.
|
Just a Punk
Shithawk
Registered: 12/25/00
Posts: 1,145
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: trendal]
#642662 - 05/24/02 02:50 AM (21 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Trendal, I have to disagree with you. Pure Capitalism would not be a good thing. Coporations would be free to wage war upon consumers, other coroporations, and probably the government, which would be severely weakened if it was only capitalist.
In fact, the government would likely cease to function, leaving the corporations in power. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live under laws decided by Coca Cola.
Pure Capitalism would further drive a wedge between the ordinary citizen and the wealthy elite, which has never been a good thing, historically.
The US is so Capitalist already that Microsoft can basically just ignore the government and do whatever they want. Their arrogance never ceases to amaze me.
There is no ideal society, and history has shown that moving too far towards one extreme usually ends in disaster. Even if moving to that extreme has good intentions.
--------------------
-------------------------------------------------
:B
|
Abudiwa
CompleteApparition.
Registered: 08/17/01
Posts: 5,531
Loc: here and there...
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Just a Punk]
#642871 - 05/24/02 06:29 AM (21 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
yes justapunk!
i was going to stay completely out of this discussion in the beginning, because i feel very strongly against capitalism... but i clicked (i was bored) and here i am.
Here's how the free market is supposed to work: people are free to seek their fortunes as they choose, and the ones who work the hardest and provide the greatest value to society are rewarded with the greatest wealth. This system, however, has a crucial flaw: it doesn't actually offer equal opportunities for everyone. Success in the 'free market' depends almost entirely on how much wealth you already have.
When capital is privately owned, an individual's opportunities to learn, work, and earn wealth are directly tied to the amount of wealth she has. A few scholarships can't offset this. It takes resources of some kind to produce something of value, and if a person doesn't have those resources herself she finds she is at the mercy of those who do. Meanwhile, those who already have those resources can make more and more wealth, and eventually most of the wealth of the society ends up in hands of a few. This leaves everyone else with little capital to sell other than their own labor, which they must sell to the capitalists (those who control most of the means of production) to survive.
This sounds confusing, but it's actually pretty easy to understand.
Take Nike for example... Nike is a corporation that has plenty of extra dough to open up a new shoe factory, buy new advertisements, and sell more shoes. This has Nike earning themselves more money to invest. A poor sucker like you or I barely have enough money to open up a lemonade stand, and even if we did we'd probably be run out of business by a larger, more established company like Pepsi which has more money to spend on promotion (sure, there are success stories of little guys triumphing over the competition, but you can see why that doesn't usually happen). Chances are you'll end up working for them if you need to earn a "living." And working for them reinforces their power: for although they pay you for your work, you can be fucking positive they're not paying you for its full calue. That's how they make a profit!
If you work at a factory and you make $1000 worth of machinery parts every day, you probably only will get paid 100 bucks or less for that day's labor. This means someone is cashing in on your efforts. The longer they do that, the more wealth and opportunities they have, at your expense.
-
Oh yeah and just so you guys know... I looked up some definitions for y'all:
capital: wealth (money, property, or labor)... which can be used to create more wealth.
example: factory owners who profit from selling goods created by the labor of workers
in their factories are able to purchase more factories.
captalism: the "free exchange of goods and services"... in which those who have capital
are able to collect more, at the expense of those who do not.
-
That was alot.... heh... I've got more ammo if anyone wants me to write more... 
--------------------
*user out of date*
the only pms pants gets:
<pants> "WTF UR PIKTUR IS SO STIPID WTF FUCK U"
|
Just a Punk
Shithawk
Registered: 12/25/00
Posts: 1,145
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Abudiwa]
#642884 - 05/24/02 06:35 AM (21 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Exactly. A capitlist system makes us all slaves to the corporations. Totally reliant on them for survival, we must buy their products because there is no alternative. America is not supposed to be Capitalist, but they are. Example, Microsoft's monopoly.
There isn't a piece of land these days that isn't owned by someone. You can't just go live somewhere. You have to own something first. And if you own nothing, you are nothing. You are treated like dirt. Can't get a job if you don't have a home, education, car... the list goes on.
--------------------
-------------------------------------------------
:B
|
politikill
journeyman
Registered: 05/23/02
Posts: 72
Loc: THC, Canada
Last seen: 20 years, 8 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Just a Punk]
#643396 - 05/24/02 12:17 PM (21 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
I think that alot of people are missing the point here. Firstly, corporatism has historically seemed to work best with Facism, this should not be a surprise look a the internal structure of corporations. A classic example of this would be Mussolini's Italy, as he and the corporations were in bed with one another ( and I might add that the corporation did and do very well under Facist or totalitarian regimes).
Take a look at what the US has done in Central America, put in puppet regimes in order to ensure that US economic interests are met. Not to mention training, supporting and suppling some very anti-democratic rulers. Corporations are concerned with profits and competative advantage (including sweat shops and things like the lack of environmental regulation), so I guess that I tend to agree with Just a Punk when he says that we all could become slaves to the corporate agenda.
Perhaps a better approach would be to look at how we distribute wealth rather then the Corporate line which tends to stress how much $$ is made total without regard to how it is distributed in society. Just a few thoughts...
--------------------
Censorship: ahh, McCarthyism with a smiley face
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Just a Punk]
#644728 - 05/25/02 11:12 AM (21 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Just a Punk, you only read the first few posts in this thread, didn't you?
you write:
Coporations would be free to wage war upon consumers, other coroporations, and probably the government...
Wage war with what? Advertising slogans? In a Capitalist society, the government controls the military. Tough to wage war without weapons. Besides, WHY would a corporation want to wage war on its customers? No customers, no profits.
...which would be severely weakened if it was only capitalist.
Weakened how?
In fact, the government would likely cease to function, leaving the corporations in power.
Why would it cease to function? Its only legitimate function is the protection of its citizens. In a Capitalist society, government would control the agencies which allow it to perform those functions: police, courts, military.
I don't want to live under laws decided by Coca Cola.
You wouldn't have to. In a Capitalist society, the government makes the laws. Corporations don't.
Pure Capitalism would further drive a wedge between the ordinary citizen and the wealthy elite
How would that occur? Please explain.
The US is so Capitalist already that Microsoft can basically just ignore the government and do whatever they want. Their arrogance never ceases to amaze me.
Microsoft does what it does not because the US is Capitalist, but because it believes it can beat the rap in court.
There is no ideal society...
Correct. Capitalism is however superior to any other system.
... and history has shown that moving too far towards one extreme usually ends in disaster.
Do you have a historical example of a society that has moved too close to the extreme of Capitalism that ended in disaster? Just one will do.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Abudiwa]
#644768 - 05/25/02 11:54 AM (21 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Abudiwa writes:
This system, however, has a crucial flaw: it doesn't actually offer equal opportunities for everyone.
Which system does?
Success in the 'free market' depends almost entirely on how much wealth you already have.
Not even close to being true. How much wealth did Michael Jackson have? Roy Kroc? Steve Jobs? The guy who invented whiteout? The guy that invented the zipper, Rubic's cube? The guy that started MacDonalds (Roy Kroc?) or WalMart?
On the flip side of the coin, there are countless stories of people who won the lottery and were bankrupt a few years later, or those who inherited great wealth and healthy corporations who managed to piss it all away in less than a decade.
When capital is privately owned, an individual's opportunities to learn, work, and earn wealth are directly tied to the amount of wealth she has.
Or to the amount of wealth that individual can persuade others to donate or invest.
It takes resources of some kind to produce something of value...
True. Resources need not always be tangible, however. A good singing voice is a resource. A new idea (velcro) is a resource.
... and if a person doesn't have those resources herself she finds she is at the mercy of those who do.
If you mean she must work in order to support herself until she can accumulate enough capital to risk opening her own business, you are correct.
Meanwhile, those who already have those resources can make more and more wealth...
And the production of wealth is wrong because....?
...and eventually most of the wealth of the society ends up in hands of a few.
How does this follow? Who defines "a few"?
This leaves everyone else with little capital to sell other than their own labor...
Labor is a valuable form of capital. Arguably THE most valuable form of capital. Wealth is produced by HUMAN EFFORT, not by slabs of gold bullion. If I have a million dollars and no laborers to build a new house, the house doesn't get built.
...which they must sell to the capitalists (those who control most of the means of production) to survive.
In a Socialist society, who would they sell their sole capital (their labor) to?
Nike is a corporation that has plenty of extra dough to open up a new shoe factory, buy new advertisements, and sell more shoes. This has Nike earning themselves more money to invest.
True. How does this prevent you from starting up a shoemaking business? Is Nike the only shoemaking company in the world? Nope. As a matter of fact, there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of new shoemaking companies starting up every year.
A poor sucker like you or I barely have enough money to open up a lemonade stand, and even if we did we'd probably be run out of business by a larger, more established company like Pepsi which has more money to spend on promotion
How does that figure? Pepsi hasn't succeeded in running out of business the hundreds of other soft drink making companies that exist today. What makes you think they would run your lemonade stand out of business?
...although they pay you for your work, you can be fucking positive they're not paying you for its full calue. That's how they make a profit!
No human endeavor can exist for any length of time without a profit. That holds true in Socialist systems as well as in Capitalism.
If you work at a factory and you make $1000 worth of machinery parts every day, you probably only will get paid 100 bucks or less for that day's labor.
The only reason your labor is capable of producing $1000 worth of machinery parts every day is because of the factory. If you had to produce them yourself by hand at your blacksmith's forge, you can be certain you would produce less than $100 worth of those same parts in a day, IF you could produce them at all.
This means someone is cashing in on your efforts.
Just as you are cashing in on theirs.
The longer they do that, the more wealth and opportunities they have, at your expense.
The longer you work for them, the more wealth you accumulate. If you feel you are not accumulating capital rapidly enough at the auto factory, you are free to seek other opportunities. Or to create your own.
Oh yeah and just so you guys know... I looked up some definitions for y'all...
Which website supplied those laughably incomplete and obviously biased definitions? Commies 'R' Us?
pinky
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Phred]
#644778 - 05/25/02 12:03 PM (21 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Thank you Pinky, it's amazing you were able to shovel all that manure aside.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Just a Punk]
#644785 - 05/25/02 12:12 PM (21 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Just_a_Punk writes:
A capitlist system makes us all slaves to the corporations.
How so? The Board of directors makes forays into suburbia, rousts people from their beds, chains them together and frogmarches them off to work in their factories?
Totally reliant on them for survival, we must buy their products because there is no alternative.
You are not reliant on them for your survival at all. Billions of people on this planet live their entire lives never buying a single thing that was produced by a corporation.
America is not supposed to be Capitalist, but they are.
You've got it exactly 180 degrees out of alignment. Modern America is presumed to be Capitalist, but is not.
Example, Microsoft's monopoly.
Microsoft's monopoly on what? Operating systems? I don't use Microsoft's operating system. Application programs? I don't use Microsoft's application programs (except Outlook Express, and I COULD choose to use another e-mail program. Plenty to choose from).
There isn't a piece of land these days that isn't owned by someone.
That has nothing to do with Capitalism, that has to do with how long humans have been inhabiting the planet. If you had lived 150 years ago in the "Capitalist" United States, you could have had free land. Ever heard of the "Homestead Act"?
Can't get a job if you don't have a home, education, car.
You don't need an education or a car or even a permanent address to work in a car wash or bus tables in a restaurant or dig ditches.
pinky
--------------------
|
Just a Punk
Shithawk
Registered: 12/25/00
Posts: 1,145
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Phred]
#644811 - 05/25/02 12:49 PM (21 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Pinksharkmark:
It really doesn't matter if you use Microsoft's operating system, or their email client for that matter. 95-99% of computers (not includings Macs) use Microsoft Windows in some form. Microsoft has been using anti-competitive business practices for years. Wake up and smell the silicon.
"You are not reliant on them for your survival at all. Billions of people on this planet live their entire lives never buying a single thing that was produced by a corporation."
Please back this up with some real facts. Western civilization is entirely dependant upon corporations for survival. There aren't many people who can live without a supermarket or a Walmart. Can you? I am sure that there are people in the world living without corporations but the majority of people in this world have been to McDonald's, or if not that have probably worked in a Nike sweatshop.
Large corporations feed off the misfortunes of third world countries by employing desperate people at disgusting wages. Western civilization banned this over a hundred years ago, yet it still happens abroad where government controls are lax.
The Capitalist's dream is to opiate the average citizen, so he will toil night after night in an office. They offer us big screen TVs, alcohol when life's got you down, nicotine for when you need a pick me up. Those two not working? Try a little valium, which by the way is marked up more than 100,000%.
I admit that I have not taken the time to read your extensive and undoubtedly riveting posts in this thread. I am not going to try to push my point on you because I can see that you have already formed your opinion and are not willing to change it.
jHowever, just remember, next time you are filling up your gas tank, or paying $7 for a coffee that you are a slave like everyone else, for we are all enslaved by money. Money is the addiction that nobody likes to talk about. Most people cannot go a day without spending money.
Did you ever stop and think where it all goes?
--------------------
-------------------------------------------------
:B
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Just a Punk]
#644864 - 05/25/02 01:32 PM (21 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Just_a_Punk writes:
Microsoft has been using anti-competitive business practices for years.
Yet they still don't hold a monopoly on operating systems or on application programs.
Western civilization is entirely dependant upon corporations for survival.
No, it's not. Western civilization existed for centuries before there were any corporations to speak of. Even in the US it's only in the last half century or so that there have been mega-corporations, and one can survive quite handily without ever purchasing a thing from one.
There aren't many people who can live without a supermarket or a Walmart. Can you?
I have for the last 14 years. I have never even SEEN a Walmart, much less set foot in one.
...the majority of people in this world have been to McDonald's, or if not that have probably worked in a Nike sweatshop.
The majority of people in this world have probably never SEEN a MacDonald's or a Nike. Majority means greater than 50%. The "Western World" you refer to comprises a minority of the earth's population.
Large corporations feed off the misfortunes of third world countries by employing desperate people at disgusting wages.
Why do you think those people choose to accept such employment? Because the alternatives are worse -- literal starvation, in many cases. If the large corporations were to decide "We should stop exploiting these people. Let's close up our factory and go home," I presume you would approve?
The Capitalist's dream is to opiate the average citizen, so he will toil night after night in an office.
No, a Capitalist's dream is to run a profitable business. In actual fact, due to the way the government handles things these days, the more people he employs the less profitable he becomes. Therefore, a Capitalist's dream is not to employ as many "average citizens" as he can (or "exploit" them, if you prefer), but to automate his business as much as possible.
They offer us big screen TVs, alcohol when life's got you down, nicotine for when you need a pick me up.
The key word is "offer". No one says you have to acept the offer.
I admit that I have not taken the time to read your extensive and undoubtedly riveting posts in this thread.
Or those of the other posters either, apparently.
I am not going to try to push my point on you because I can see that you have already formed your opinion and are not willing to change it.
If you had read my posts, you would know that the opinions I hold today are not the ones I held thirty years ago, when I was your age. If a convincing argument is offered to me that one of my currently-held opinions is incorrect, I will change it. I'm not proud.
As for being willing to change opinions... how willing are YOU to change opinions if you won't even make the effort to read the posts in a single thread?
...you are a slave like everyone else, for we are all enslaved by money.
I am not a slave, I am a free man. I am not enslaved by money, money is my servant.
Most people cannot go a day without spending money.
Human life is sustained by human effort, so if you mean that most people cannot go a day without expending effort, you are correct. Money is nothing more than human effort concretized in a coin or a bar of gold bullion. At least my money was earned by ME, not scrounged from the government (who stole it from someone who DID actually earn it).
Did you ever stop and think where it all goes?
Yes. Did you ever stop and think where it came from?
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: trendal]
#889589 - 09/17/02 08:01 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Bump
--------------------
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,814
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: The United States is NOT Capitalist... [Re: Phred]
#890181 - 09/18/02 02:57 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Forgot about this thread :-)
I still stand by my topic.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Bulk Substrate 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
Mad_Buhdda_Abuser
jux
Innvertigo
Great_Satan
psyphon
chunder
Learyfan