• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Captialism -- A Crime Against Humanity!

LOL did you even read what you originally wrote? Here it is again:



In other words, you are attempting to argue that he rejected democracy in its entirety which is simply not true. Then you try arguing that you have never said that. Now you're trying to qualify. Where will you back pedal to next?



Oh? And what is a dictatorship of the proletariat like, then?

You've already explained it. It's when the proletariat (or a body of such) has absolute control in judicial, legislative, and executive decisions. That is a dictatorship, though Marx did favor universal suffrage. Personally, I don't think democracy and dictatorship can go together quite well. Perhaps you would like to answer my questions now?
 
This is very similar to Microsoft’s exclusivity agreement with IBM. I have to argue on the side of Microsoft and Apple. Why should they be forced to renege on their peaceful agreements?

Maybe you misunderstood. Apple was applying pressure to keep businesses from agreeing to exclusivity agreements with its competitors.

Geez! Have you ever read the Constitution or the Federalist Papers? Please do before making such an embarrassing statement. So I suppose you actually believe the government should regulate every little organization down to the smallest neighborhood get-together?

I have read the Constitution many times and it never says anything about corporations. You claim that corporations being composed of individuals means restrictions against them constitute a violation of individual rights yet embrace restricting government despite it also being composed of individuals. So clearly being composed of individuals does not mean an entity should be free from restrictions.

Do you mind explaining where the Constitution or Federalist Papers come into play in this question?

You have totally misconstrued my arguments. I never said anything of the sort. I specifically argued that globalized free trade leads to relative peace, not war and imperialism. I’ve dismissed the idea of a permanent monopoly, and have acknowledged the existence of natural monopolies.

I have not misconstrued your arguments. When arguing against monopolies you countered by saying such restrictions prevent us from competing globally and then talk about the impossibility of a global monopoly, clearly indicating that you are allowing the existence of a national monopoly. In fact, you seem to embrace it as a necessity in the globalized world. In claiming this will prevent war and imperialism it seems you fail to understand this is one of the most common traits of imperialism. Various countries created national monopolies like the British East India Company and Dutch East India Company that competed for the control of resources and territory. What you are suggesting is no different and the end result is the same: the merger of state power with corporate power.

And what kind of damage is Apple doing? I don’t think it’s a good idea to compare a private corporation with a massive, oppressive empire.

Of course you don't, that doesn't mean the comparison is wrong. Rather, as I noted just now, it is quite accurate as the two tend to be inseparable. Now, that doesn't mean every monopoly turns out that way or that each is as bad as the next, but certainly you would be wrong to suggest it is rare or impossible.

As the common saying goes, “to each his own.” To many socialists, making profit, all by itself, is a morally wrong decision. Profit, in the minds of many people, equals exploitation. But often, morality is a set of values that is often crammed down people’s throats. Morality is an easy way for the elites to control the people.

I do not have a negative view of "profit" by itself. Rather it is a necessity for any functional entity to have some surplus of resources at its disposal whether out of a need to expand or as a cushion in leaner times. That said, profit leaves plenty of room for corruption and pursuit of greater and greater profits for individuals does lead to exploitation.

I haven’t heard that one. Do you have some sources to cite?

Actually, I think someone posted an article some time back in the Breaking News forum or Environment forum mentioning how much of the oil was sunk underwater. I think I posted a link in one of those threads or some other thread on the spill.

WHY is that a cop-out? What is the alternative? Is it to crush them with force, or to restrict their ability to prosper in order to discourage any disparity in the Gini index? What would you like to do with them? Obviously, your solution to this problem is violence while I seek the nonaggressive approach.

It is a cop-out because it is kind of like saying "if you don't like it here then leave" when someone criticizes the country they live in. Sometimes it just simply isn't that easy for a variety of reasons. As far as alternatives, I am asking for a different example of how the masses can restrict corporations since you are the one who seems to think any and every corporation can be brought down by the masses more easily than governments.

Thank you for proving my point, with detail, that there will always be alternatives to Walmart.

Do not distort what I said. In fact, what I cited would mean a person going to every single one of these stores for something they can get at Wal*Mart and some, like furniture stores, really have plenty Wal*Mart doesn't have because iWal*Mart cannot devote the same amount of space to the product. Also, in smaller towns you find increasingly fewer alternatives because there simply are not enough people to support that many stores.

You actually reject the notion that life isn’t fair?

No, I reject the notion that this somehow means we shouldn't even try to make things fairer. It is funny because even many theories people cite as pushing this idyllic equality actually only insist on a fair distribution of income based on one's contribution and sufficient to satisfy one's needs.

Unless you’re under the age of 18, you’re accountable to yourself, ONLY. That is not a cop-out. That is the honorable way to live life- to ALWAYS take responsibility first for your actions.

Of course, underlying that is an embrace of social Darwinism. Those who fall behind are consumed by the wolves without remorse.

Now, would you mind giving me a serious example of a business coercing you to do things you normally wouldn’t do?

Force need not include physical violence you know.

Was it through force or intimidation?

Intimidation is the most typical means and certainly when the largest force in the industry pressures you there is implied intimidation, that is to say critical damage to one's business.

We’re talking about Lenin’s New Economic Policy and you actually possess an argument to justify that particular program? I am against any governmental pursuit to force massive industrialization upon the public.

The New Economic Policy did not do that, though. Do you know what we are talking about?
 
Here we go again, comparing business to government.

Both have a central governance structure and influence those areas where they are dominant. However, the point here is you asked who is really entrenched, somehow implying they cannot both be entrenched at any level. To put it simply the level of entrenchment of any business is variable just like it is with any system of control be it organized religion, union, or government. In the Northeast, especially states like Pennsylvania, you will find the Roman Catholic Church is heavily influential. Elsewhere other religious organizations have greater power like in Arkansas the Baptist Church is the most influential.

I use the definition above, lifted straight from the dictionary. Which definition are you using?

You obviously don't use the definition above, or the words contained within the definition are yet more examples of words where you have made up your own definition.

Private military companies do not have killing squads, and they are paid for by the federal government (another unintentional consequence of nation-building). Security for a company is NOT a killing squad! Bouncers and security guards getting paid minimum wage to maintain the peace are not killing squads!

This is an old example, but I think it illustrates the point well enough:

Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might look at the intro and try to claim that was all government, but the corporations were already killing people before any soldiers arrived. You say they are not "killing squads" but that seems to really only be a matter of your interpretation. Without question private security forces have carried out massacres, Blackwater is an example, and you can defend them as much as you like by saying they are there to "maintain the peace" or blame it on government somehow, but it just isn't reality.

I’ve never heard of those. Do tell.

Google private police kthx!

There is a difference between consumers and individuals. Consumers are only one-half of the market equation. Individuals are everyone.

Funny, because you are clearly seeking to excuse the individuals running the businesses.

Producers are accountable to their consumers, unless we’re talking about state capitalism.

Accountable how? If a company sells some essential product and they have a monopoly then there is no accountability to consumers. Consumers have to choose between doing without an essential product or buying it from the one who provides it.

When did I ever argue the rights of businesses matter more? That’s the quickest way to terminate this debate.

You haven't said it explicitly, but it is exactly what results. If the corporation has rights and it cannot be restricted by government, then that means countless individual rights can be violated more freely. For instance, here in the U.S. people that work at Wal*Mart who talk openly about unionizing are liable to find themselves fired. Do you support that?

I gave a very personal experience that has helped shape my own view on life and responsibility, and you refuse to answer any of my questions. So, I’ll ask again. Who is responsible for my mother’s living condition, and who should pay the costs?

I am already addressing your social Darwinism in other parts of this debate.

Again, the dictionary goes a long way. The bottom line is that I favor bottom-up, grassroots development while you might prefer a more centralized approach.

I know what it means and you can say as much as you like that you support the "grass-roots" and "bottom-up" development and accuse me of supporting centralization, but your own comments show this is not the case. Rather you believe we should actually have monopolistic corporations with power centralized in a few small hands competing with the monopolies of the world for control of world markets. Do you really call that "grass-roots"?

I suggest, as a supplement to my argument, you examine for just a moment, the most recent penny saver. Just check out how many vocational schools and programs and certificates are available to those who wish to retrain themselves in a new area. What is really making these people incapable of finding a job? The financial aid is already available, so they qualify for the loan if they don’t make enough money. And the programs take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years, with excellent job placement rates. Granted, the job might be boring as heck, but at least they’re employed in a stable career for the time being. You bring a very pessimistic viewpoint to the table. You haven’t realized what individual human beings are capable of.

You call it pessimism, but it is just reality. I am not going to argue that our current system is not in need of reform, because I think it is in need of reform. However, you seem to think there is a high-paying job for everyone, but people are just too lazy to go out and get one. That is not reality, my friend.

All right, I’ll respond directly to that point here. Why did they have to start charging students for education? What was the success rate (graduation rate, dropout rate) of the public school before it became privatized?

What are you talking about? I wasn't talking about public schools becoming privatized. I was talking about how once public schools stopped charging and allowed in people of any economic background many of the wealthy abandoned the public school system for the private system. Children from wealthier families typically perform better than those students from poor families and so the decline in the public school system in that case is definitely understandable.

Now, respond to the facts in the Beautiful Tree. I’m sure if he was fabricating the stories, you would have heard or read about it. But so far, Google isn’t helping me. So, just indulge me and suppose it were a legitimate study. What then would you say about it?

I haven't read the book and, like I said, I cannot find anything comprehensive that isn't from the author of that book. However, the question isn't whether he fabricated anything, but whether he is fairly or honestly portraying the subject.

That is utter nonsense. Even the wealthiest of citizens are affected by changes in the market and currency values. Is it wrong to think of wealth as success?

If they own businesses they will definitely be affected, but things have to get pretty bad for the actual people to be affected. When I read about personal bankruptcies by wealthy individuals it is almost always one of the working rich, meaning people who work in high-paying fields like the movie or music industry and even then it is hardly common even in tough times.

Usually, when someone uses a hypothetical example, the example is at least plausible. But your “hypothetical” example was utterly unrealistic. It’s a waste of time to even elaborate. And btw, the CFS was an example of the one of the wealthiest politician (how did he get so wealthy to buy all that land, hmmm…) buying a piece of property in order to facilitate his imperialistic endeavors.

That he was an official of the government is quite irrelevant honestly. He owned it himself and as such you would say he had the right to decree anything that could be done with it. Also, the hypothetical being unrealistic in your opinion, in reality it isn't at all unrealistic, does not detract from the point. The point being that there is a time where your argument for an individual's right to do with their property as they please has more negative consequences for more people than if the government owned it because at least the government is accountable to someone. Since you think individual rights should not be restricted save those of individuals in government then such a scenario would mean a totalitarian dictatorship.

I never argued that liberty would endure if a government has no obligation to the people. I was quoting Hayek who recognized that there are tyrannical democracies and liberal dictatorships, and it is often better to live in the latter as opposed to the former.

That is not true at all. You are trying to make this a competition between two ideas that really only work when they are both in place.

You've already explained it. It's when the proletariat (or a body of such) has absolute control in judicial, legislative, and executive decisions. That is a dictatorship, though Marx did favor universal suffrage. Personally, I don't think democracy and dictatorship can go together quite well. Perhaps you would like to answer my questions now?

You misunderstand what is meant by dictatorship. It only refers to which group has control. Dictatorship of the proletariat only means that the largest group of people has control.
 
Ah, so now you haven't even put forward a position at all. Right.

I've already told you that I accept your description, and it in fact reenforces my own opinions regarding communism.



What questions?

When I think of representative democracy, I think of a republic. A dictatorship of the proletariat is NOTHING like a republic. Would you care to disagree? Would you, as a confirmed communist, care to argue why we need a dictatorship of the proletariat?

I'm almost 100% sure I had more questions in the preceding pages, but I don't have the time to go back and look them over. We also had a debate that somehow died with you.
 
I would care to disagree - at which point I would just recommend you read State and Revolution or if you whine enough might even paraphrase for you - but I'm not going to "make a case" for socialist revolution on this forum. That's just silly.
 
I would care to disagree - at which point I would just recommend you read State and Revolution or if you whine enough might even paraphrase for you - but I'm not going to "make a case" for socialist revolution on this forum. That's just silly.

Right. It's better to take out to the streets like good ol' Lenin. Good job evading the argument!
 
Maybe you misunderstood. Apple was applying pressure to keep businesses from agreeing to exclusivity agreements with its competitors.

And I’ve been asking you how they’ve been applying this pressure. Is it through legitimate, legal, and non-coercive means? If so, then is it unethical to pressure a potential employer to hire you instead of the guy next to you?

I have read the Constitution many times and it never says anything about corporations. You claim that corporations being composed of individuals means restrictions against them constitute a violation of individual rights yet embrace restricting government despite it also being composed of individuals. So clearly being composed of individuals does not mean an entity should be free from restrictions.

Corporations are associations of individuals that have been spontaneously created through mutual organization. I again state, it is wrong to limit a corporation’s right to free speech just as it is wrong to attempt to limit the right of the AFL to free speech. And yes, I believe the only organization of individuals that NEEDS to be regulated and restricted is the government, because the government is in the business of controlling human beings. THEY, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the technocrats, the czars, and all the rest on CBS, MUST be restricted from forcing their moralistic worldview down all our throats. They are in the business of control, and therefore need to be highly restricted in this power (as the Constitution and Federalist papers explicitly assert). Corporations have success as a major leverage for power, but I’m of the belief that we separate the institutions of state and the market. And besides, pound-for-pound, the corporate body has done wonders for society while the government has wasted trillions (of other people’s money) and killed innocent millions.

Do you mind explaining where the Constitution or Federalist Papers come into play in this question?

They would help you a lot in this debate, especially when attempting to understand the role and boundaries of government. I’m sure you’ve read the Constitution, but all well-equipped debaters have also read the Federalist Papers.

I have not misconstrued your arguments. When arguing against monopolies you countered by saying such restrictions prevent us from competing globally and then talk about the impossibility of a global monopoly, clearly indicating that you are allowing the existence of a national monopoly. In fact, you seem to embrace it as a necessity in the globalized world. In claiming this will prevent war and imperialism it seems you fail to understand this is one of the most common traits of imperialism. Various countries created national monopolies like the British East India Company and Dutch East India Company that competed for the control of resources and territory. What you are suggesting is no different and the end result is the same: the merger of state power with corporate power.

Yes, you have misconstrued my arguments, many times. I still maintain that such restrictions on companies, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, have had detrimental effects on the companies’ ability to compete with global firms. I’ve mentioned this act before specifically, and I suggest you read up on it. It has NOTHING to do with monopolies. The rest of your statement is drivel, unworthy of my time.

Of course you don't, that doesn't mean the comparison is wrong. Rather, as I noted just now, it is quite accurate as the two tend to be inseparable. Now, that doesn't mean every monopoly turns out that way or that each is as bad as the next, but certainly you would be wrong to suggest it is rare or impossible.

If we were comparing fascism to communism, I would be the one arguing that the two were fundamentally identical in their political and economic nature. But we’re comparing business to government, and their fundamental structure is not identical, besides the simple fact that both have generalized “management.” If we wanted an analogy that would satisfy this generalized management criteria, we could compare a colony of ants with Apple, Inc. Other than generalized management, your argument is weak. Businesses and government are fundamentally different in their structure, their mission, and their productivity. If you would like to go on, be my guest. But I’ll leave it at that for now.

I do not have a negative view of "profit" by itself. Rather it is a necessity for any functional entity to have some surplus of resources at its disposal whether out of a need to expand or as a cushion in leaner times. That said, profit leaves plenty of room for corruption and pursuit of greater and greater profits for individuals does lead to exploitation.

How much would you characterize as “some surplus of resources at its disposal?” And profit does not equal corruption. “Pursuit of greater and greater profits for individuals” does not equal exploitation. Of course, we absolutely must agree to disagree on this one because it is a fundamental debate on personal values.

Actually, I think someone posted an article some time back in the Breaking News forum or Environment forum mentioning how much of the oil was sunk underwater. I think I posted a link in one of those threads or some other thread on the spill.

Since you mentioned it, it would be your responsibility to materialize the sources in order to prove your assertions. Assuming that it was true, I would only argue that BP must pay for their fraudulent acts. We would probably agree on that.

It is a cop-out because it is kind of like saying "if you don't like it here then leave" when someone criticizes the country they live in. Sometimes it just simply isn't that easy for a variety of reasons. As far as alternatives, I am asking for a different example of how the masses can restrict corporations since you are the one who seems to think any and every corporation can be brought down by the masses more easily than governments.

When did I ever suggest that you should pack up and leave this country because we have disagreements? I NEVER argued that the corporations can be more easily brought down by the “masses” than the government. And btw, I don’t particularly like to use the word “masses” to describe people. I think it’s truly bad form. Are the people, as individuals, just “masses” to you?

What I did argue was that people do not need large, centralized government in order to eject these corporations, and their products, from their daily lives. If you hate Walmart, then don’t shop there and tell your friends and family. They won’t bother you if you don’t bother them. But it seems, if you hate Walmart, the only option is to put in place some drastic legislative measure that will hurt Walmart. Simply because they are as successful as they are is reason enough to put a cap on their ability to do X, Y, and Z (at least, that’s what your logic implies). The same is true of Apple. Don’t like them? Then don’t give them the time of day. Go about your own life and leave them alone. They’re not preventing you from your own pursuit of happiness, so let the grudge go.

Do not distort what I said. In fact, what I cited would mean a person going to every single one of these stores for something they can get at Wal*Mart and some, like furniture stores, really have plenty Wal*Mart doesn't have because iWal*Mart cannot devote the same amount of space to the product. Also, in smaller towns you find increasingly fewer alternatives because there simply are not enough people to support that many stores.

I understand the very last sentence, but the rest you might need to rephrase. It’s better to debate when you’re sober and the keyboard is clearly visible. Basically, what is your point, in one, sweet simple sentence?

No, I reject the notion that this somehow means we shouldn't even try to make things fairer. It is funny because even many theories people cite as pushing this idyllic equality actually only insist on a fair distribution of income based on one's contribution and sufficient to satisfy one's needs.

And how do you make things fairer? Is it by forcible taking from one individual in order to finance the lifestyle of another? On the one hand, you claimed that businesses should have a “fair” chance in the market, without ever clarifying what a “fair chance” means. And then, you claim it’s a cop-out for me to argue life isn’t fair. Why is it a cop-out? I’m not evading any sort of argument, because you refuse to actually solidify your statement with clarity and empirical evidence. As for the last statement in the above paragraph, I totally disagree. If we look at attempts to equalize society by Western European standards (standards some people wish so desperately were adopted here), then society isn’t equal unless everyone is making roughly the same amount of money and receiving the same cradle-to-grave entitlements from government.

Of course, underlying that is an embrace of social Darwinism. Those who fall behind are consumed by the wolves without remorse.

So, taking responsibility for your own actions = social Darwinism? Give me a break!
 
Force need not include physical violence you know.

Seriously, a dictionary can come in handy around these tight spots.

Force noun, verb, forced, forc•ing.
–noun
1.
physical power or strength possessed by a living being: He used all his force in opening the window.
2.
strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence: to use force to open the window; to use force on a person.


Intimidation is the most typical means and certainly when the largest force in the industry pressures you there is implied intimidation, that is to say critical damage to one's business.

There is a major difference between selling a product or a contract agreement, whereby it becomes very lucrative for a receiving company to sign and possibly detrimental to reject, and FORCING, using physical violence or threats of violence, a developer to sign a contract.

Say you have one, failing business and a larger, more successful business. The failing business is facing crushing debt and inevitable bankruptcy, and the successful business wants to buy out the failing business. If the failing business signs the agreement, it could mean the end of the business but also relieving of their financial obligation. Therefore, there is nothing inherently wrong or immoral if the successful business influences and persuades the failing business to sign over the company. There is no force or coercion going on; unless the successful business owners threaten violence (this has happened before…i.e. Thomas Edison). But to pressure a company to sign a contract without using coercion is possible, legal, and amoral.

The New Economic Policy did not do that, though. Do you know what we are talking about?

That was the intention of the NEP, and your statements regarding the NEP imply that it was a wash, that it seemingly would have worked out had Stalin not screwed everything up.

Both have a central governance structure and influence those areas where they are dominant. However, the point here is you asked who is really entrenched, somehow implying they cannot both be entrenched at any level.

I never stated, or implied that they both cannot be entrenched at any level. Where do you get this nonsense? You said the political intervention was an attempt to prevent Walmart from being entrenched; all-the-while neglecting the fact that the entrenched small business owners were using political force to keep themselves entrenched.

[Quote}To put it simply the level of entrenchment of any business is variable just like it is with any system of control be it organized religion, union, or government. In the Northeast, especially states like Pennsylvania, you will find the Roman Catholic Church is heavily influential. Elsewhere other religious organizations have greater power like in Arkansas the Baptist Church is the most influential.[/Quote}

Yes, I’ve lived in Pennsylvania for six years. The Catholic Church does have a lot of influential power, but nothing is stopping a Catholic Pittsburgher from converting to another religion. Nothing is stopping you from shopping in the stores where you wish to shop. Nothing is stopping you from dropping out of the union. But we really should compare the depth of control that government possesses versus all those other entities. You are free to change religions as you wish, as well as unions and other local organizations. The only way out of government strangulation is death.

You obviously don't use the definition above, or the words contained within the definition are yet more examples of words where you have made up your own definition.

Please elaborate. How am I using ANY of the terms incorrectly?

This is an old example, but I think it illustrates the point well enough:

Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might look at the intro and try to claim that was all government, but the corporations were already killing people before any soldiers arrived. You say they are not "killing squads" but that seems to really only be a matter of your interpretation. Without question private security forces have carried out massacres, Blackwater is an example, and you can defend them as much as you like by saying they are there to "maintain the peace" or blame it on government somehow, but it just isn't reality.

You can’t prove the existence of PRIVATE police killing squads by using a historic massacre that was committed by the NATIONAL GUARD. Is the national guard a private police killing squad? I have heard of some controversies regarding Blackwater, but I’ve never heard of a full-out massacre by Blackwater agents. And FYI, I’m completely against using private mercenaries in foreign wars. I also am against both the Iraq war and the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. And yes, you can blame it on government. It was government that got us into the war, and it was government’s idea to use private mercenaries to finish the job.

Google private police kthx!

All I got was something very similar to private security guards. Is that your idea of a killing squad?

Funny, because you are clearly seeking to excuse the individuals running the businesses.

That is true, but only in your warped mind.
Accountable how? If a company sells some essential product and they have a monopoly then there is no accountability to consumers. Consumers have to choose between doing without an essential product or buying it from the one who provides it.

Again with using vague examples! Give me something real and tangible. Let’s take food. Food is an essential product. Where are the food monopolies? You can make the argument that gas and electricity are essential products that are controlled by a monopoly, but those monopolies have historically been created by government, and I’m quite sure you have no intention of breaking down those monopolies. Again, where is the real example of a business starving a population of the essential products they need to survive? We can talk about price gauging in the areas of natural and man-made disasters where ALL resources become scarce in a given area. Try implementing price controls and see which businesses come to the rescue in those instances.

You haven't said it explicitly, but it is exactly what results. If the corporation has rights and it cannot be restricted by government, then that means countless individual rights can be violated more freely. For instance, here in the U.S. people that work at Wal*Mart who talk openly about unionizing are liable to find themselves fired. Do you support that?

Perhaps you don’t understand my fundamental principles of individual liberty. I believe ALL individuals (not just CEOs and greedy bankers) have the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe these individuals can, and should be allowed to do whatever they want to pursue their happiness, so long as their pursuits do not endanger the natural rights of other human beings. Therefore, I don’t understand how arguing that the individuals who make up a corporation have rights equals allowing the countless violations of other individual rights. Corporations do not have the right to coerce others or to infringe upon their natural rights, so where do you get this nonsense? As for the unionizing at Walmart, I frankly believe it is up to Walmart. The employees do not own their jobs, and Walmart is notorious for their union intolerance. If the workers don’t like it, they’re free to leave. But to force Walmart to keep their employees on the payroll, regardless of the circumstances, is wrong.

I am already addressing your social Darwinism in other parts of this debate.[/Quote}

Would it be fair to call you a Nazi? Because you have just as much merit to call me a social Darwinist as I have to call you a anti-humanist Nazi. So, stop baiting me with your non sequitur hyperboles.
 
I know what it means and you can say as much as you like that you support the "grass-roots" and "bottom-up" development and accuse me of supporting centralization, but your own comments show this is not the case. Rather you believe we should actually have monopolistic corporations with power centralized in a few small hands competing with the monopolies of the world for control of world markets. Do you really call that "grass-roots"?

No. I don’t even know why I bother responding to this nonsense. To me, “bottom-up development” means exactly what it suggests. It means taking the power and putting it back on the individual. Empower society at the individualist level, so that individuals can decide freely what to do and when and where to do it (so long as their actions do not harm an innocent third party). This means putting the responsibility back on the individual. It means allowing the individual, and his or her surrounding community to develop their own way of life, free from outside intrusion.

You call it pessimism, but it is just reality. I am not going to argue that our current system is not in need of reform, because I think it is in need of reform. However, you seem to think there is a high-paying job for everyone, but people are just too lazy to go out and get one. That is not reality, my friend.

Which system are we now talking about? And when I mentioned the vast array of vocational training offered to the public, I never stated the jobs were high-paying, unless you consider 35,000-42,000 starting a high-paying job. These are not high-paying jobs; they’re reasonable jobs that are better than not having a job at all (and far superior than the greeter jobs at Walmart or the cashier jobs at McDonalds).

What are you talking about? I wasn't talking about public schools becoming privatized. I was talking about how once public schools stopped charging and allowed in people of any economic background many of the wealthy abandoned the public school system for the private system. Children from wealthier families typically perform better than those students from poor families and so the decline in the public school system in that case is definitely understandable.

So, where did the poor children go before the public school became free? You still haven’t responded to the study conducted by Tooley.

I haven't read the book and, like I said, I cannot find anything comprehensive that isn't from the author of that book. However, the question isn't whether he fabricated anything, but whether he is fairly or honestly portraying the subject.

I know you will never read the book, so try brushing up on the subject through any arbitrary data. I’ve given you the statistics in the book regarding the percentage of children in public versus private schools and the average amount each working family pays in order to send their children to a private school. So, yes, if there was something seriously wrong with the study, it would be the fabrication of the statistics. I highly doubt he went to all that trouble in order to publish some dubious statistics, and there were various authoritative figures in the places he visited that could argue he was fabricating the data. But nothing shows up on the Internet, and we’ll have to go with our best instinct. With that said, how do you explain the phenomenal role of private education in the developing world? This argument has to do with that whole “bottom-up development.” Leftist thinkers, and political opportunists alike argue that if a developing country is not offering the most state-of-the-art PUBLIC (as in centralized, administered from the top-down) schools, then the citizens of that developing country are failing to teach their kids a proper education. Tooley’s book is entitled, “The Beautiful Tree: A Journey into how the world’s poorest are educating themselves.” Obviously, in places where there is a free public school, you often find the majority of parents in an urban area (roughly 70%) sending their kids to private school. These families are making a dollar a day and spending anywhere from 3-7$ a month to send their kids to a private school. Why? Because the public schools are ****, in terms of quality, and these parents know it. So, despite the rhetoric from the most powerful men on Earth who think public school is the only feasible, the poor are already educating themselves, without any help from government busybodies.

If they own businesses they will definitely be affected, but things have to get pretty bad for the actual people to be affected. When I read about personal bankruptcies by wealthy individuals it is almost always one of the working rich, meaning people who work in high-paying fields like the movie or music industry and even then it is hardly common even in tough times.

You’re forgetting that Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller, and many others were all faced with bankruptcy at one time or another in their career.

That he was an official of the government is quite irrelevant honestly.

He was the frickin’ KING OF BELGIUM!

He owned it himself and as such you would say he had the right to decree anything that could be done with it.

He never possessed the right to exhort money from those who earned it in order to finance his own political and personal gains. Extortion is never a right.

Also, the hypothetical being unrealistic in your opinion, in reality it isn't at all unrealistic, does not detract from the point.

Oh, come on! Having a single individual owning all the property in the U.S.A is a realistic scenario, in your mind?

The point being that there is a time where your argument for an individual's right to do with their property as they please has more negative consequences for more people than if the government owned it because at least the government is accountable to someone. Since you think individual rights should not be restricted save those of individuals in government then such a scenario would mean a totalitarian dictatorship.

Here we go again with your utter nonsense. By the way, state-ownership of land and totalitarian dictatorship go hand-in-hand very well.

That is not true at all. You are trying to make this a competition between two ideas that really only work when they are both in place.

That’s not true. Greece was a democracy, yet the Greeks did not care about individual liberty. And there have been cases in history where a dictator has ruled with (at least) a sympathy for individual liberty (Abe Lincoln and FDR are notable examples).


You misunderstand what is meant by dictatorship. It only refers to which group has control. Dictatorship of the proletariat only means that the largest group of people has control.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, clearly illustrated by the Soviet General Assembly, resembled a body of citizens who had absolute control over the daily lives of the entire public. Of course, Marx wanted the body of citizens to be representative of the proletariat, and in many ways they were. But they were dictators, nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
The quest to destroy capitalism is a sure fire way to gaurantee that few people achieve the rights enumerated in that second bill of rights. The quest to secure those rights for everybody by taking from those you think have too much will gaurantee that the government will soon not have enough money to sustain those rights at an adequate level. Welcome eventually to abject poverty and substandard living conditions for most (See North Korea and Cuba). We already have all of those rights and most people secure them for ourselves until government intervenes so much we can no longer afford them. People don't deserve all of those rights simply because they live and breath.
 
Last edited:
The quest to destroy capitalism is a sure fire way to gaurantee that few people achieve the rights enumerated in that second bill of rights. The quest to secure those rights for everybody by taking from those you think have too much will gaurantee that the government will soon not have enough money to sustain those rights at an adequate level. Welcome eventually to abject poverty and substandard living conditions for most (See North Korea and Cuba). We already have all of those rights and most people secure them for ourselves until government intervenes so much we are unable to secure them rights through our own hard work. People don't deserve all of those rights simply because they live and breath.

there is no "quest to destroy capitalism".
 
People don't deserve all of those rights simply because they live and breath.

Here's what happens in the real world. The 98 percent who can't take care of themselves depend on a boss or the government to do it for them. Those who think they have achieved success all by themselves are only fooling themselves.

It's not about rights. It's about finding ways to make a living.

ricksfolly
 
Back
Top Bottom