Any other anti-capitalists in the house? A compelling argument against capitalism

[Truth Warrior]

"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

 

[JohnCrabtree]

"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

I certainly do not agree with this statement. This sounds like " The masses are idiots so they need a ruling class of educated people to tell them how to live thier lives. We need SMART people to run up a 10 trillion dollar debt, start half a dozen wars a decade, and increase the size of government so much that the average person works 6 months to pay his tax bill"

This is rediculous. The founders intended for citizen legislatures, and for the citizens to vote for them, and to be ABLE to vote them out when necessary. We have a bill of rights so that a republic, or even a direct democracy can not take these rights away. The only lacking of the Bill of Rights is that there was no economic freedom ammendment stating the the money you earn is yours. That government can not take your money and give to someone else. Without this in a bill of rights, 51% realize that they can steal the money of the 49%.

For citizens to put laws on the ballot they need to collect signatures so there needs to be enough like minded individuals to even propose a law or change a law, then ALL citizens get to vote on it. In Michigan we need 371,000 signatures ina 6 month window to get on the ballot. Then it needs to be voted on to win. This is citizen democracy at its best. You need 371,000 peopple who truly believe in the cause and then you need about 3 million people to vote for it for it to pass.

And maybe, just maybe, those "average voters" who would be deemed too stupid to govern, wouldn't be without compulory education. The State sponsored school system has been actively dumbing down america for generations. This is why Economics and Government are ELECTIVES in high school and even then are sometimes half semester classes. In High school I only received 8 weeks of each. Out of 13 years of forced "education" only 8 weeks of the stuff that truly matters" Pathetic.

 

[forsmant]

I certainly do not agree with this statement. This sounds like " The masses are idiots so they need a ruling class of educated people to tell them how to live thier lives. We need SMART people to run up a 10 trillion dollar debt, start half a dozen wars a decade, and increase the size of government so much that the average person works 6 months to pay his tax bill"

This is rediculous. The founders intended for citizen legislatures, and for the citizens to vote for them, and to be ABLE to vote them out when necessary. We have a bill of rights so that a republic, or even a direct democracy can not take these rights away. The only lacking of the Bill of Rights is that there was no economic freedom ammendment stating the the money you earn is yours. That government can not take your money and give to someone else. Without this in a bill of rights, 51% realize that they can steal the money of the 49%.

For citizens to put laws on the ballot they need to collect signatures so there needs to be enough like minded individuals to even propose a law or change a law, then ALL citizens get to vote on it. In Michigan we need 371,000 signatures ina 6 month window to get on the ballot. Then it needs to be voted on to win. This is citizen democracy at its best. You need 371,000 peopple who truly believe in the cause and then you need about 3 million people to vote for it for it to pass.

And maybe, just maybe, those "average voters" who would be deemed too stupid to govern, wouldn't be without compulory education. The State sponsored school system has been actively dumbing down america for generations. This is why Economics and Government are ELECTIVES in high school and even then are sometimes half semester classes. In High school I only received 8 weeks of each. Out of 13 years of forced "education" only 8 weeks of the stuff that truly matters" Pathetic.

The founding fathers were full of shit. Those citizen legislators would all be white male land owning citizens. All government is bullshit. Thats alright though, we like bullshit in America.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I certainly do not agree with this statement. This sounds like " The masses are idiots so they need a ruling class of educated people to tell them how to live thier lives. We need SMART people to run up a 10 trillion dollar debt, start half a dozen wars a decade, and increase the size of government so much that the average person works 6 months to pay his tax bill"
Nice spin.<IMHO> So how did we get all of this?
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." -- Lord Acton
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton

This is rediculous. The founders intended for citizen legislatures, and for the citizens to vote for them, and to be ABLE to vote them out when necessary. We have a bill of rights so that a republic, or even a direct democracy can not take these rights away. The only lacking of the Bill of Rights is that there was no economic freedom ammendment stating the the money you earn is yours. That government can not take your money and give to someone else. Without this in a bill of rights, 51% realize that they can steal the money of the 49%.
Was the constitution adoption the result of a democratic vote?
For citizens to put laws on the ballot they need to collect signatures so there needs to be enough like minded individuals to even propose a law or change a law, then ALL citizens get to vote on it. In Michigan we need 371,000 signatures ina 6 month window to get on the ballot. Then it needs to be voted on to win. This is citizen democracy at its best. You need 371,000 peopple who truly believe in the cause and then you need about 3 million people to vote for it for it to pass.
Sounds like a SCAM to me. "Complexity is the essence of the hustle."
And maybe, just maybe, those "average voters" who would be deemed too stupid to govern, wouldn't be without compulory education. The State sponsored school system has been actively dumbing down america for generations. This is why Economics and Government are ELECTIVES in high school and even then are sometimes half semester classes. In High school I only received 8 weeks of each. Out of 13 years of forced "education" only 8 weeks of the stuff that truly matters" Pathetic.
It seems like you are making Churchill's case.

Thanks!

 

[Rebel Resource]

Venezuela is run by a dictator who has rigged elections and instituted price controls on food, leading to extreme shortages. If Venezuela was a capitalistic country, people would not be starving in the streets. The oil industry would be controlled better, and rather than subsidiesing its own people with 12 cent gas, it would be exporting damn near all of it and the people of venezuela would profit. The Dictator has taken over private air waves, So the state there controls, your Food, Fuel, and Media, and Government. How in God's name is this close to a Democracy? Those programs you mentioned have no REAL power its an illusion to keep the masses happy. Remember Hitler was running "internment camps" and the big building were shoe factories. DOUBLE speak is the language of tyrants.

I lived there for over a year, so...

1. If he rigs elections, why would he introduce an advanced, accountable electoral system? and why did he lose in December

2. There are no 'extreme' shortages. What shortages there are of milk, sugar etc is due to massively rising demand as a result of people's income shooting way up since Chavez took power.

3. The only media station that got forced out to cable (not shut down) was a channel that played a part in an illegal coup. Try that in America and see what happens to you.

4. In sum, you know practically nothing -- it seems you accept what the MSM tells you, and they are as opposed to Chavez as they are to Ron Paul.

 

[JohnCrabtree]

Truth Warrior:

1. We got to this point by allowing our legislatures to take powers not granted to them under the constitution. If you look at the point I made earlier about Term Limits, this would solve the problem. They only spend the money in Pork so that they can get re-elected. Then, taxpayers pay for them to shout out to thier constituents about the pork they provided.

I completely agree that no "class" is fit to govern" and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that is why we need to shift those in power regularly, by making a congressional or senate seat a temporary visit, rather than a lifetime of a cushy job, with seemilngly unlimited power.

2. The constitution was adopted by a democratic/republic vote. The People voted for delegates in the colonies, and the delegates they chose ratified the constitution.

3. It's not complex and It's not a scam. How do you come to this conclusion? Why should the citizens of a state not be able to ammend the constitution to make neccessary changes? 371,000 is 10% of the people who voted in the last election for governor. That is the amount of valid signatures we need by Michigan Registered Voters. Then it is put to a vote. There are about 7 million registered voters in the state of michigan,e ach one of them can vote either way or not vote on any issue. How is this complex and how is it a scam?

4. I am not making Churchill's case. At the time, the masses in America were much better educated than today. It is "pathetic" that there is so little taught in public schools about politics and economics, but who runs these schools? The State. Who decides the curriculum? both the state and the federal governments. Why do they want to limit knowledge in these fields?
People learn on their own outside of compulory education, and those who don't tend to not vote. There should not be mandatory voting, but people should have a vote on important issues.

So let me understand your point of view. You believe that Republics are superior to democracies, and we need a highly educated ruling class? And you believe that individuals in the country are too stupid to govern themselves and to run thier own lives?

---------------------------------------
Rebel Resource:

When you come into extra money do you buy Milk and Sugar in bulk? You know in truly capitalistic societies there is no such thing as a shortage.


"After the May and July 2000 elections, Chávez backed the passage of the "Enabling Act" by the National Assembly. This act allowed Chávez to rule by decree for one year. In November 2001, shortly before the Enabling Act was set to expire, Chávez enacted a set of 49 decrees. These included the Hydrocarbons Law and the Land Law. Fedecámaras, a national business federation, and the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV), a federation of labor unions, opposed the approval of the new laws and called for a general business strike on December 10, 2001[34] in the hope that the President would reconsider his legislative action and, instead, open a debate about those laws.[35] The strike failed to significantly impact Chávez's decision or policies.[36]"

This is the act of someone who is not a tyrant?

Do I think the U.S. should regime change him? NO
Do I think we should trade with Venezuela? YES
Do I think he is a good person who is truly trying to help citizens in his country? NO



In Sum: you know practically nothing as you claim to support someone who believes in ECONOMIC freedom and Personal freedom, while you actually support someone who does not allow economic freedom or personal freedom.

 

[JohnCrabtree]

Truth Warrior:

1. We got to this point by allowing our legislatures to take powers not granted to them under the constitution. If you look at the point I made earlier about Term Limits, this would solve the problem. They only spend the money in Pork so that they can get re-elected. Then, taxpayers pay for them to shout out to thier constituents about the pork they provided.

I completely agree that no "class" is fit to govern" and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that is why we need to shift those in power regularly, by making a congressional or senate seat a temporary visit, rather than a lifetime of a cushy job, with seemilngly unlimited power.

2. The constitution was adopted by a democratic/republic vote. The People voted for delegates in the colonies, and the delegates they chose ratified the constitution.

3. It's not complex and It's not a scam. How do you come to this conclusion? Why should the citizens of a state not be able to ammend the constitution to make neccessary changes? 371,000 is 10% of the people who voted in the last election for governor. That is the amount of valid signatures we need by Michigan Registered Voters. Then it is put to a vote. There are about 7 million registered voters in the state of michigan,e ach one of them can vote either way or not vote on any issue. How is this complex and how is it a scam?

4. I am not making Churchill's case. At the time, the masses in America were much better educated than today. It is "pathetic" that there is so little taught in public schools about politics and economics, but who runs these schools? The State. Who decides the curriculum? both the state and the federal governments. Why do they want to limit knowledge in these fields?
People learn on their own outside of compulory education, and those who don't tend to not vote. There should not be mandatory voting, but people should have a vote on important issues.

So let me understand your point of view. You believe that Republics are superior to democracies, and we need a highly educated ruling class? And you believe that individuals in the country are too stupid to govern themselves and to run thier own lives?

---------------------------------------
Rebel Resource:

When you come into extra money do you buy Milk and Sugar in bulk? You know in truly capitalistic societies there is no such thing as a shortage.


"After the May and July 2000 elections, Chávez backed the passage of the "Enabling Act" by the National Assembly. This act allowed Chávez to rule by decree for one year. In November 2001, shortly before the Enabling Act was set to expire, Chávez enacted a set of 49 decrees. These included the Hydrocarbons Law and the Land Law. Fedecámaras, a national business federation, and the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV), a federation of labor unions, opposed the approval of the new laws and called for a general business strike on December 10, 2001[34] in the hope that the President would reconsider his legislative action and, instead, open a debate about those laws.[35] The strike failed to significantly impact Chávez's decision or policies.[36]"

This is the act of someone who is not a tyrant?

Do I think the U.S. should regime change him? NO
Do I think we should trade with Venezuela? YES
Do I think he is a good person who is truly trying to help citizens in his country? NO



In Sum: you know practically nothing as you claim to support someone who believes in ECONOMIC freedom and Personal freedom, while you actually support someone who does not allow economic freedom or personal freedom.

 

[Rebel Resource]

Rebel Resource:

When you come into extra money do you buy Milk and Sugar in bulk? You know in truly capitalistic societies there is no such thing as a shortage.


"After the May and July 2000 elections, Chávez backed the passage of the "Enabling Act" by the National Assembly. This act allowed Chávez to rule by decree for one year. [36]"

This is the act of someone who is not a tyrant?

Do I think the U.S. should regime change him? NO
Do I think we should trade with Venezuela? YES
Do I think he is a good person who is truly trying to help citizens in his country? NO

In Sum: you know practically nothing as you claim to support someone who believes in ECONOMIC freedom and Personal freedom, while you actually support someone who does not allow economic freedom or personal freedom.

1. I don't love Ron Paul for his capitalist/libertarian views, though they are better than the corporatist/special interest reality of today. I support him for his anti-Empire stance, his respect for civil liberties, fiscal balance, open trade etc.

2. Chavez passed decree laws, as did other Venezuelan presidents in decades past. Did you know that in today's Venezuela, any law (even if passed by decree) can be repealed by petition and then democratic vote?? I guess you didn't.

3. Please don't read the MSM on Chavez. Chavez and Ron Paul are both on the same side, but with different economic ideology. They are both honest politicians who want people power, just in different ways. Chavez has a lot of executive power, but the Venezuelan people are getting more power every day and that is the focus.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

The founding fathers were full of shit.

Welcome to my ignore list.

The bigger my list gets, the less Im banging my head against the table. My blood pressure is going down too.

 

[colecrowe]

I don't think I'll bother reading an argument against freedom (capitalism=freedom).

Now if by "capitalism" you mean corporatism or fascism, then maybe you should change your wording.

Idiotic.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

One could say that Adam Smith was instrumental in creating today's "free market Capitalism". It could also be said that he was no fool, and never advocated trusting powerful corporate interests. Quite the opposite:

"To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter XI

What we have today is the opposite of what Adam Smith advocated. We have a government where almost all law is written by corporate interests who stand to benefit from it...

 

[Rebel Resource]

I don't think I'll bother reading an argument against freedom (capitalism=freedom).

Now if by "capitalism" you mean corporatism or fascism, then maybe you should change your wording.

Idiotic.

To differentiate capitalism and corporatism is one thing, but to identify how one is going to produce effects notably different from the other is quite different.

By effects I mean

1. the undemocratic nature of corporations running riot - Eg their current projects of dominating the world food supply (GM, etc) and patenting life forms

2. their ability to close barriers to entry to start-ups in the marketplace, and continue to buy each other up and create oligopolies

3. the problem of the mass media, which is dictated to by big business, and kills independent/democratic media because of massive advertising income

among other things. there is no place for idiocy here, these are real issues.

 

[partypooper]

Consumerism, for example, is obscene in my opinion - a massive percentage of what people buy, they simply don't need.

oh yeah? let me know when i can get an appointment with you to approve of my possessions and otherwise instruct me on what i do and do not need.

 

[Rebel Resource]

oh yeah? let me know when i can get an appointment with you to approve of my possessions and otherwise instruct me on what i do and do not need.

We could debate the destructive effect of materialism on the human psyche, the raping of the planet due to rabid consumerism, or the fact that people buy pointless crap on a whim, and rack up massive debt.

But as long as there's freedum, I guess it's OK!! Freedom for corporations to mindfuck people with adverts all day. Lovely lovely freedom.

 

[dvictr]

I CHALLENGE (rebel resource) any socialist to read at least the first few paragraphs here!

argue ANY point in relation to RON PAUL..

Chapter I

The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom


It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of "democratic socialism" by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individuai freedom imposed by "totalitarian socialism" in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.

Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.

A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on. Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.

full text here http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/friedman.htm

 

[asgardshill]

I dare anybody to read past the first few paragraphs of that "wall 'o text". Executive summaries are a good thing.

 

[dvictr]

I dare anybody to read past the first few paragraphs of that "wall 'o text". Executive summaries are a good thing.

well i guess thats what Rudy Guiliani said when Ron Paul gave him the reading assignment.

ITS 10 pages from a book!

 

[asgardshill]

well i guess thats what Rudy Guiliani said when Ron Paul gave him the reading assignment.

ITS 10 pages from a book!

I'm quite aware of that. I've even read a few of them (and I have many more I have never even colored in) Point is, many people are not text-oriented, they're visually-oriented. And you're losing the visually-oriented every time you post a wall 'o text with no context or short summary to grab their attention.

This is not an attack, just an observation.

 

[dvictr]

I'm quite aware of that. I've even read a few of them (and I have many more I have never even colored in) Point is, many people are not text-oriented, they're visually-oriented. And you're losing the visually-oriented every time you post a wall 'o text with no context or short summary to grab their attention.

This is not an attack, just an observation.

yes i agree and i understand that an online message board is not the place to be reading textbooks. but i am a firm advocate and believer in free market and COMPETITIVE capitalism...

the problem with the United States as i see it is that the gov.. interferes TOO MUCH with capitalism.

 

[dvictr]

point is i think that if KARL MARX read Capitalism and Freedom... if he were alive in 1962 would convert!