regardless of political systems, there will always be elites=the smart and strong. the underclass= the middle class and the poor and weak. they want to force equality on every one it won’t work. to make the unequal, equal is crime against nature. the irony of it is, Micheal Moore attacks the very system, that has made that fat slob rich.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
dtheyer wrote:
No country has ever had pure capitalism… Just like there has never been pure communism. Both are great on paper but they need their checks and balances.
Technically, capitalism is by definition a system of checks, while socialism actually requires the absence of checks.[/quote]
While I am a capitalist, an excessively free system will merely result in capitalist warlordism.
We have a very special system here in America; something that should not be lightly destroyed.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
dtheyer wrote:
No country has ever had pure capitalism… Just like there has never been pure communism. Both are great on paper but they need their checks and balances.
Technically, capitalism is by definition a system of checks, while socialism actually requires the absence of checks.
As usual, you’re totally wrong. Socialism itself IS a check, by not allowing excess power to be consolidated in small groups. Unlike capitalism, which inevitably tends toward such concentration.
[/quote]
Socialism by definition is state ownership of capital.
So instead of having economic power separated from political power and spread over thousands of companies you have now one entity that has all of that power combined with a police and a military force.
So yeah, socialism is all about checks and balances.
Obviously.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
dtheyer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dtheyer wrote:
The reason why the rich are better at working the system is because the system itself is constructed to benefit them at the expense of the poor.
So these rich people don’t depend on poor people to mow their lawns and stuff?
You’re a pretty simple fella, ain’tcha?
You make is sound like these rich people do not pay wages.
It is actually government that enslaves people if you have ever paid attention to history lessons…? but yes, they definitely want you to believe it is rich business men with all the power just so it takes all the heat off of them.
Don’t look now but those evil capitalists are at it again with all their interwebz and high-rise buildings and stuff!!!
Dude, you should read Marx. The poor are paid by the rich in low wages. The poor then use these wages to buy food, clothes, rent, for their family. Who sells these products? The rich, thus making them profits. The poor then have to work more for the same money.
Thus the saying, “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”
You tell me to read a history book, but this system has been with us since the dawn of civilization.
Are you not a little bit ashamed of packing so many fallacies in such a tiny space?
And why would you read Marx if you are neither interested in history nor economics?
Do you know that poor people are FAT these days?
Live twice as long as 100 years ago?
Have color tv and cars?
Indoor plumbing, cells phones, and vegimite!
Vegimite I say!
Kings could not have vegemite 100 years ago!
You AGAIN repeat this fallacy of looking for results of a global system in ONE country. If two objects strike each other, they have a certain momentum. If after the collision, you only consider one, it will appear as if conservation of momentum has been violated, when really it’s just that you’re not looking at the whole system.[/quote]
Then let us look at the whole system.
Where exactly are people not better off than they were 200-300 years ago even if the population has risen dramatically?
You say I ignore those third world countries while ignoring the resounding success of India and China.
Those countries that remain poor are those where capitalism is impossible because noone in their right minds would invest in these hell holes but even if we counted the resources we get from them as exploitation they amount to next to nothing compare to the total global economy.
So either there is a whole planet I do not know about that we are exploiting or maybe you can point me to the poor enslaved masses we are supposedly live off of.
I would expect though that those are worse off than before capitalism if our wealth depends on their exploitation.
[quote]valiant knight wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
dtheyer wrote:
No country has ever had pure capitalism… Just like there has never been pure communism. Both are great on paper but they need their checks and balances.
Technically, capitalism is by definition a system of checks, while socialism actually requires the absence of checks.
While I am a capitalist, an excessively free system will merely result in capitalist warlordism.[/quote]
Really?
1: Walmart
2: ???
3: Prof…, I mean Warlords!
Um, how?
And I would like to remind you that the terms “Free Market” and “Laisser faire capitalism” presuppose a government, albeit a small one, because otherwise what would those markets be free from if not government intervention.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:It is actually government that enslaves people if you have ever paid attention to history lessons…? but yes, they definitely want you to believe it is rich business men with all the power just so it takes all the heat off of them.
What’s the difference?
I choose to be enslaved by Microsoft Corporation.
I do not choose to be enslaved by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and her ilk.[/quote]
And AGAIN you miss the point. Not surprising. You are a libertarian after all.
[quote]orion wrote:Socialism by definition is state ownership of capital.
So instead of having economic power separated from political power and spread over thousands of companies you have now one entity that has all of that power combined with a police and a military force.
So yeah, socialism is all about checks and balances.
Obviously.
[/quote]
Why are conservatives always trying to redefine socialism? Socialism means collective control. In the workplace, it means worker control. State ownership by itself is not socialism. On the contrary; far from being antithetical to capitalism, it’s hypercapitalism. An absolute monopoly. If the government is not democratic, not controlled by the people, then state ownership in no way constitutes socialism. It has nothing to do with “the state.” It’s about “the people.” If the people also control the state, so much the better.
Furthermore, you continue this incomprehensible fallacy of seperating “the government” from “private enterprise.” Whoever has the money calls the shots. Private companies have the money.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:It is actually government that enslaves people if you have ever paid attention to history lessons…? but yes, they definitely want you to believe it is rich business men with all the power just so it takes all the heat off of them.
What’s the difference?
I choose to be enslaved by Microsoft Corporation.
I do not choose to be enslaved by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and her ilk.
And AGAIN you miss the point. Not surprising. You are a libertarian after all.
[/quote]
Well, he is not.
So there.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Socialism by definition is state ownership of capital.
So instead of having economic power separated from political power and spread over thousands of companies you have now one entity that has all of that power combined with a police and a military force.
So yeah, socialism is all about checks and balances.
Obviously.
Why are conservatives always trying to redefine socialism? Socialism means collective control. In the workplace, it means worker control. State ownership by itself is not socialism. On the contrary; far from being antithetical to capitalism, it’s hypercapitalism. An absolute monopoly. If the government is not democratic, not controlled by the people, then state ownership in no way constitutes socialism. It has nothing to do with “the state.” It’s about “the people.” If the people also control the state, so much the better.
Furthermore, you continue this incomprehensible fallacy of seperating “the government” from “private enterprise.” Whoever has the money calls the shots. Private companies have the money.
[/quote]
Well let us say that those who have the money call the shots.
Even then it is still better if you have private control of capital because it is unlikely that all capital owners have the same interests. The very fact that competing economic powers have competing interests might keep us somewhat free.
Then I urge you to find me one country where “the people” control the government. Now even if you could find one which you cannot, why would you want to live in a system of a tyranny of the majority?
Anyhow, the fact of the matter is that people never control anything, some oligarchy at the top always does and in the attempt to give power to the people you inevitably hand absolute power to them.
I am still waiting for you to point out the impoverished masses we live off of.
And remember we have been doing this for centuries now and back then they were standing knee deep in rice paddies day in and day out. I cannot imagine their living conditions now if they must have grown increasingly worse to support the ever growing wealth of Europe and the US but you should be able to point us in the right direction.
Where are they?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:It is actually government that enslaves people if you have ever paid attention to history lessons…? but yes, they definitely want you to believe it is rich business men with all the power just so it takes all the heat off of them.
What’s the difference?
I choose to be enslaved by Microsoft Corporation.
I do not choose to be enslaved by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and her ilk.
And AGAIN you miss the point. Not surprising. You are a libertarian after all.
[/quote]
Choice is all that matters. Your system does not offer me one. I do not want it.
And you don’t have a point.
[quote]orion wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
dtheyer wrote:
No country has ever had pure capitalism… Just like there has never been pure communism. Both are great on paper but they need their checks and balances.
Technically, capitalism is by definition a system of checks, while socialism actually requires the absence of checks.
While I am a capitalist, an excessively free system will merely result in capitalist warlordism.
Really?
1: Walmart
2: ???
3: Prof…, I mean Warlords!
Um, how?
And I would like to remind you that the terms “Free Market” and “Laisser faire capitalism” presuppose a government, albeit a small one, because otherwise what would those markets be free from if not government intervention.
[/quote]
An unfortunate choice of words on my part. I should have said, “An excessively free system will lead to warlordism.” There, all better
[quote]valiant knight wrote:
orion wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
dtheyer wrote:
No country has ever had pure capitalism… Just like there has never been pure communism. Both are great on paper but they need their checks and balances.
Technically, capitalism is by definition a system of checks, while socialism actually requires the absence of checks.
While I am a capitalist, an excessively free system will merely result in capitalist warlordism.
Really?
1: Walmart
2: ???
3: Prof…, I mean Warlords!
Um, how?
And I would like to remind you that the terms “Free Market” and “Laisser faire capitalism” presuppose a government, albeit a small one, because otherwise what would those markets be free from if not government intervention.
An unfortunate choice of words on my part. I should have said, “An excessively free system will lead to warlordism.” There, all better
[/quote]
How is a market controlled by warlords a “free market”? “Free” means exactly just that – no outside coercion in any choices we make. Warlords are coercive by definition and hence offer no freedom either.
However, if given the choice between warlords and government I’d take warlords any day. They at least are honest in the harm they cause. Government can only pretend to care about us while causing us harm. Furthermore, a bullet can stop a warlord. It takes too many bullets to stop government and then we would just end up legitimizing government for the sake of “protection” from revolutionaries.
the youth and poor are tierd you, your view of things mean nothing and are rooted in illusions.
[quote]BigMike wrote:
the youth and poor are tierd you, your view of things mean nothing and are rooted in illusions.[/quote]
This is what the Urban Dictionary has to say about “tierd”:
- tierd
what retarded 14 year old kids write to say they’re “tired” in an attempt to look “cool” or “1337”, but they end up looking like a dyslexic piece of poser shit.
myspace update:W0W 1M $0 tierd!!!111ONEONE!1
me and anyone else with a decent understanding of grammar or with a brain:just stop it PLEASE.lrn2spellcheck.
Plus, even if they drop dead that is neither here nor there as far as arguments go.