Because, as I said before, I am not a Communist/Marxist/Fascist, etc. I do believe in some of the ideals of socialism as well as capitalism, and if you ever managed to read a book, you would know that not all forms of socialism are incompatible with private property. It seems to me that it is you who are putting people in arbitrary categories.
Overall, your arguements lack quite a bit of merit, and do not seem that convincing. Your ideals sound like a disaster in the making, and the libertarian philosophy as you describe it seems only useful in a classroom discussion of what is wrong with an idea.
The problem with your philosophy is that it allows the rights of the majority of people to be trampled by those who have alot of wealth. It doesn't provide people with any incentive to help out others. It really is an unworkable idea, which is why not even Republicans are wrong-headed enough to promote. I'm sure their constituents would love it, but even they know that if you don't keep at least some balance that eventually people will rebel.
I lean more towards libertarian socialism, if you are really curious. I believe that we have already seen libertarian philosophy in 3rd world countries that have very little government. They are absolute disasters, where the rich pay little taxes, and the majority either starves or works in sweatshop conditions. We also had something closer to libertarian capitalist philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century, and again, your philosophy was an absolute disaster. That is enough to convince me that what you are promoting will not work.
Or, you're rewarding intellegent decisions. No matter what you feel about Bill Gates personally, you have to admit that he made good decisions.
There are plenty of people that make intelligent decisions that do not do nearly as well as Bill Gates. You are rewarding someone who was wealthy enough to drop out of Harvard in a cavalier manner and get funding for his own business from his father. That's smart decision making? Hmmm..
Why should a corporation be rewarded extra for the labor of it's engineers? Why not reward the engineer instead?
Here's why: Companies who are running low on cash do this thing called a layoff. Micron, for example did a layoff locally because of crushing profit losses.
I see, so we pay the extortion fee to corporations so that they will be kind enough to not less us starve to death? I guess that's "freedom"..
How about just create a working welfare system with a decent safety net? And pay for it by taxing the shit out of corporations.
Lots of engineers and trained chipmakers are now out of a job. Another reason is that when you tax a company, you aren't taxing the company itself. No company just "takes a hit" and goes on.
That's the problem, corporations are self centered and greedy by their very nature. They will take and take, and when they are done, toss people out like refuse. They are tools of the wealthy, who can do this anonymously and move on when they are finished. We don't allow slavery, but buying groups of people apparently is ok.
What you are saying is that states need to appease corporations so that they will be kind enough to keep us employed. Yes, well, you apparently understand the goal of NAFTA and other "free" trade agreements. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be expressing the appropriate indignation.
What happens when you increase taxes on a company, is that they begin passing it on to consumers and begin decreasing pay raises. It's a standard economic concept known as "indirect taxation". The company that the tax is levied to doesn't REALLY pay the tax, it merely acts as an agent for collecting taxes for the government.
The problem you are describing (passing costs onto customers) is due to lack of competition. You fix the problem by increasing competition, not by giving into their demands in a limp-wristed way. Then, the costs get passed on to those who own the corporations, because they won't be able to AFFORD to pass the costs on to the custoerm. Unless you beleive that corporations that pay $400 million to a CEO are so "cut-throat" that they can't afford to pay their taxes.
Yes, they do pass taxes onto people, but it also eats into their profits, which disproportionately go to support the rich. Lowering their taxes is a regressive tax. By not taxing corporations, you are letting the owners, who are more than likely rich, get away with paying less than their fair share of taxes.
You have to evaluate fair in context of reality. What exactly are you rewarding when you reward someone a gross amount of cash for merely owning a piece of property. How does this get them to work harder? How does the difference in income help those who are willing to work hard, but don't have alot of money, to succeed?
According to your theory, 401k's should be abolished, as a form of economic welfare, because it encourages those lazy retirees from hard work. Once you've worked hard, invested in the right things and done a good job, you should be allowed to sit back and allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labors. According to your theory, people who profit off real estate (whether professionally, or a homeowner who bought a $100,000 house in a neighborhood that grows and sells it at $200,000 when he/she moves out) are deserving of punishment.
I wouldn't say deserving of punishment, just not deserving of profits. And, as we've seen with companies like Enron, 401k's are a horrible way to fund retirement. They require on a strong economy and have no safety net. They also force retirement funds into corporate hands.
The reason he viewed it this was was because people that operate in groups distort competition.
And that's why Adam Smith got bitched by Game Theory.
How so?
Exactly how does keeping wealth concentrated keep unemployment low.
How does taking money from your employer help you keep your job?
If one wants to make more money, and other people have it, then you need to keep your business open. If one has all the money they need, and no way of making more, then they close up shop. If one cannot make a product cheep enough for it to be worth selling to an impoverished nation, then he merely closes up shop and hires a few hungry servants to take care of his needs. This is what happens in the third world. It's call economic stagnation.
The times that the economy has been healthy is when money gets shifted from those who have alot to those who don't.
Or in periods of high demand on multiple levels. I mean, if you're pro-communism, that's cool. Just say it from the start.
High demand means that people actually have money to spend, thus proving my point. There is almsot always high, albeit artificial, demand. If you don't believe me, look at all the people that willingly go into credit card debt. You really need to go to the census beaureau's website to get an idea of how lopsided things are. The top 1% owns 40% of the assets. How much more concentrated can things get before eventually things slow to a crawl?
From highways to the space program, to the creation of telephone networks, computers, the internet, has all started because of government initiative.
Highways? Highways are done by states, not federal government.
Highways are paid for by the Federal Government.
Interstate is federal, but still requires state support to keep people safe. Telephone networks? So...telephone was invented by government...not Alexander Graham Bell? And AT&T...had nothing...to do with it. Hmm... Computers, I'll grant you that, but the Government at most, gave grants to companies who helped get them from the lab to your desktop.
Right, they gave grants to corporations, who haven't paid back a dime to the American people.
Internet started as ARPAnet, which conceptually is the original model, but the people who actually built the internet are the people who were on BBSes. I saved the Space Program for last because just about every promise the Space Program has made in relation to NORMAL people in space has been broken. Did you know that the whole bullshit about only "highly trained pilots" and the "best of the best" going into space is bullshit? The space shuttle is computer controlled mostly from takeoff to landing, except a couple of button presses. For more details, read some books by Richard Feynman, the man credited for figuring out the cause of the Challenger. The only people going up are handpicked pilots and scientists...and those rich people you guys hate so much.
such as what happened with Enron.
Enron was brought to you by a coalition of republicans and democrats who decided that "as long as it all looks good, we're cool with it." Enron is an example of why the status quo isn't working. The status quo is that government regulates those who don't make large donations to republicans and democrats.
Right, the status quo isn't working, and it's corporations that are doing it, not the government. Corporations are greedy by their very nature.
I do, because I've found that I can threaten an insurance company into action alot better than I can threaten the federal government into action. I can sue an insurance company if they refuse to pay me after an accident on their clients property. I can't sue the federal government if they refuse to pay me after an accident on government property.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever tried to sue a corporation? At least with democracy, your vote counts. Or for that matter, have you ever even tried to sue a rich doctor? Good luck. The media makes it sound easy, but is EXTREMELY difficult.
What's worse, is if we allow industries to become monopolized, these tyrannies will be unaccountable.
Note: I never said anything against anti-trust legislation, nor did I mention any loosening of regulation. You inferred that. I brought up Small Government in the context of ending wasteful government programs.
Exactly how is anti-trust legislation supposed to work with small government? Can you explain that? If a state doesn't like what Microsoft is doing, then Microsoft merely takes them to court and bankrupts them. Remember, Microsoft has tens of billions of dollars, enough to eclipse small countries and easily smash states. That's the other big part of NAFTA, by allowing corporations to move around at will, they can use jobs as a way of extorting preferential treatment out of governments. By getting rid of a strong federal government, which is the ONLY democratic institution powerful enough to challenge these corporations, you are actually moving power AWAY from the American people.
It sounds like a far cry from liberty if you ask me.
You mean, being able to decide where your tax dollars go, having a government that listens, and the freedom to be employed and make good financial decisions...is not liberty?
Exactly how is taking power away from people going to give them the freedom to be employed. Once that top 1% gets rich enough, what motive are they going to have to buy your labor? If you want to see what societies with low taxes and small government look like when they allow corporations to take over, just look at South America and how they handle big corporations. The corporations have no obligations and a desperate pool of starving labor. That's what happens when you reduce the size of government and you give people no venue for changing things.
You mean to say that we should have a government that increases our taxes without justification, that doesn't care if we are against it, and makes it impossible to be employed or responsible with our money...is liberty?
I agree that our government is corrupt, but you fix the corruption. You don't get rid of the one institution that has the potential to be democratic and replace it with aristocratic tyrannies which have NO accountability. You are confusing cause and effect. The reason our government is corrupt is due to corporate campaign contributions, which has largeley served to change our government from a democratic government into a capitalist government, where politicians serve those who give them the most money, not the people who vote them into power.
BTW, I am not communist. I am looking into progressive economic models such as parecon, or regulated capitalism, or PROUT, to mention a few. However, I would recommend that you not confuse freedom and rights for wealth and power. When talking about Bill Gate's rights, what most people are talking about is his wealth and power. When you ask,"Who are you to interfere with Bill Gate's right to own his own company?" The question is better phrased as,"Who are you to question Bill Gate's power to have an army of men working under him?". I think the second question fits better. In order to protect freedom, we must make sure that it is distributed in a fair and just manner. So, you could talk about the freedom of Bill Gates to command an army of men under him, or you could talk about my freedom to control my own work and enjoy the fruits of my labor, thus abolishing labor markets completely. These kinds of questions don't make sense out of the context of reality. When thinking about private power and wealth in the context of reality, I see a huge amount of unaccountability, and I see alot of people suffereing due to the fact that they can't compete with a company such as Microsoft. Reducing the size of institutions that can handle microsoft and others, wil not fix this problem.
I have not problem with some differences in wealth. But, when you are talking about differences that are 1,000 to 1, that's too much, and cannot be tolerated in a democratic society.
Not right now, but when you're like Parsec and saying that the rich should pay even more and more and more, you end up with tax rates of 70%, so basically, you're MAKING more money, but you don't TAKE MORE HOME.
You have to ask what you are rewarding when someone finds themselves in these exhorbitant tax brackets. Nine times out of ten, at this level, you are rewarding someone for the priveledge of owning something, not their effort.
I, as a libertarian, am glad to say that I think corporate welfare is bullshit, if it's allowed in the manner it is. If it's something like giving a slight tax break to a company that promises to have a device that'll make our lives better (or a company whose invention now makes our lives better), I think it's warranted. Like BP and Honda from the previous examples, both companies who seem to be very close to practicalizing Hydrogen Fuel cells (I'd put my money on Honda, Honda has the spirit to survive, while BP I think is only doing it for PR). I don't agree with corporate welfare in the case of friends of prominent congressional or presidental figures. President Bush and Nancy Pelosi are perfect examples of the abuse inherent in that system.
Why should a corporation be rewarded extra for the labor of it's engineers? Why not reward the engineer instead?
"Social Safety Net"? I never brought up anything of that sort. I just think that taxes should be applied fairly. "Fairly" meaning that you are taxed in proportion. The best analogy I could apply to "Fair" taxation is to imagine a basketball game. You've got a guy like Kobe Bryant, who is a big star, and you've got some miscellaneous guy. They play and when the "misc. guy" makes a 2-point shot, they give his team 2 points. But when Kobe makes a 3-point shot, the ref only allows him to keep 1 point for his team, since he's so good at what he does, and the other guy isn't doing as good right now.
You have to evaluate fair in context of reality. What exactly are you rewarding when you reward someone a gross amount of cash for merely owning a piece of property. How does this get them to work harder? How does the difference in income help those who are willing to work hard, but don't have alot of money, to succeed?
I mean, if you're not for fair application of taxes, then just say so. You say you support progressive taxes, and that's you're opinion.
I am a firm believer in the ideals of Adam Smith, you know, that guy that you libertarian capitalists always support. Smith promoted something called the labor theory of value. Smith believed that people should only be rewarded for their labor, and that profit should represent the increased value of their labor over the raw materials of a product. He never would have approved of people making a million dollars a year to sit in a leather chair and direct a company. Smith viewed businesses and corporations as market imperfections. In fact, any institution containing more than one person was viewed as a market imperfection. The reason he viewed it this was was because people that operate in groups distort competition. However, he accepted that slight imperfections were ok. He NEVER would have approved of what we have today. Nor would he have approved of the fact that we allowed business to organize in groups, but not labor, thus tilting the balance of competition in favor of businesses. We have progressive taxes to correct these problems.
Here's a list of things I support:
1) A strong economy built on investment and low unemployment- You don't increase investment by taking more money from big investors. You don't increase employment by taking more money from employers.
Exactly how does keeping wealth concentrated keep unemployment low. The times that the economy has been healthy is when money gets shifted from those who have alot to those who don't. Examples include the dotcom boom, any of the wartime booms we've had, as well as increases in minimum wage.
2) Smaller government- Government has yet to solve any problem we've tasked it with, yet private industry is capable of doing it fairly fast for as cheap as possible, rather than extremely slow for as much as a team of government employees can milk from your pocket.
This is complete bullshit, and if you're wondering where the title came from, it's to this statement. From highways to the space program, to the creation of telephone networks, computers, the internet, has all started because of government initiative. The reason that there is so much anti-government propaganda is because the US government has one crucial flaw, it has the potential to become democratic. Corporations have no flaws, they are perfect tyrannies, which is why the mistakes of corporations are only pointed out when they become an absolute disaster, such as what happened with Enron. Those who have the majority of control don't want you to like government. They want you to destroy it, so that they can run the show. They want you to blame your standard of living on taxes, not on the fact that corporations have succeeded in flooding the labor market with NAFTA, and now the balance of competition will allow them to completely dominate labor.
3) Responsible government- Once we've cut down the government to a smaller, leaner, less expensive version of itself, I think the Speaker of the house, or other congressional leader, should make one or two speeches a year, detailing the new government programs they intend to implement at our expense. Call me crazy, but I'd like to know where my money goes without having to plow through 500 House Resolutions, Appropriations Bills, and a slew of current laws. I'd like to know the government is responsible. And I'd like congressional members to understand that if they want to spend our cash on idiotic things, they have to stand up on TV and talk about why it makes sense.
So you attack the beaurocrat in Washington, but not the one in the insurance company? How is that going to fix anything? What's worse, is if we allow industries to become monopolized, these tyrannies will be unaccountable. Is that what you want? It sounds like a far cry from liberty if you ask me.
Have you ever read "Manufacturing Consent"?
on
Salon Asks for Help
·
· Score: 1
Enought said. I do agree with what you are saying, in the sense that they likely will go out of business. However, it definitely is not a good thing. Salon represents a populist viewpoint that has been effectively censored due to the advertising supported model of media that we currently have. What we instead have is corporate, moneyed, elite media, mixed in with tabloid infotainment crap.
They can get some idea of climate changes by looking at rings in trees that are centuries old. Your arguement kind of reminds me of the "it's natural" arguement that states that the weather changes that we are seeing right now are a "natural" and that we shouldn't worry about it. Well, tornadoes, tidal waves, hurricanes, and all sorts of other disasters are "natural" too, but I doubt that you would place yourself in the path of one. Even if it is natural, which I highly doubt, who cares? If we are doing something to contribute to this "natural" phenomena, then we had better stop. Even if we aren't, we had better find a way to reverse this trend. That is, unless we want to live in a "naturally" created desert, with 100,000's of "natural" deaths as a result.
How are they trying to consolidate power? by scolding? Since when was scolding a tactic for power consolidation? So, if the US wants to consolidate power, all we have to do is scold and disagree with other countries? Wow!, I never knew it was that easy.
I suppose you think that we are in Iraq because we want to spread democracy, kind of like the "democracy" that we installed in Afghanistan. But hey, we're liberating the people of Iraq from their mortal coils. I'm sure they'll be greatful that we are sacrificing their lives so that they may gain "freedom".
As far as the French going against "our" policy, who exactly is "we". Are you referring to the American people? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see any grass roots petitions last year begging Bush for a war against Iraq. Theoretically, Bush is supposed to ask people before he sends them to war, but I guess that's not in our best interests. I guess we need a leader who ignores what the American people want. We should focus on our own corruption before trying to fix other countries.
Basicly, what you have done is wonderful example of a straw man fallacy.
That is where someone makes a statement about a subject, much as I did with capitalism, and then the opponent responds by shifting the subject, much as you did by referring to socialism. I never brought up socialism, nor did I promote it, instead I was attempting to criticize capitalism. As far as I can see, you have given me nothing serious to respond to, and so I instead started to criticize what I felt was a deceptive style of debate on your part. This was later proven to be correct as you have shown that in fact you are well versed in debating strategies and you knew what you were doing when you used a straw man to try and criticize my statements about capitalism.
Yes, and you could have chosen to discuss the validity of what I am saying in a rational manner, but I suppose that it is easier to throw a tantrum isn't it?
You can choose to keep things in the realm of feelings if you wish, but I doubt that you will get very far in your understanding of the world around you. As far I am concerned, I would rather discuss things that are based on reality, and use verfiable facts to back up what I am saying.
It seems that at this point, we are at an impasse. You would like to express your feelings, while I would like to find the truth. So, why don't we agree to disagree? You can go ahead and express your feelings and ideologies, and I will continue to debate using verifiable facts and figures.
You really aren't doing yourselves any favors by not reading. You should try picking up a book every once in awhile, and you'd find out that socialism is very different than what we have seen in practice, and the same goes with capitalism.
Yes, ideally capitalism is economic freedom, but then again, using the same criteria that you are, we could also say that the feudal system was freedom of contract, and that slavery also represents freedom of contract. In fact, one of the big blemishes in our history that no one wants to admit to is that capitalism and freedom of contract logically extend to slavery. After all, if we put property rights and freedom of contract above all else, then what right would a government have to limit slavery? Shouldn't one be "free" to be a slave? The reality is that heavily favoring certain kinds of freedoms over others can quickly develop into a society where there is very little freedom. The thing that needs to be remembered is that all oppressive systems have developed out of a free state. Even China and the former USSR developed out of societies that were at one point free(during their revolution). The fuedal system, again, developed out of societies that were at one point in time free. The biggest enemy of freedom is not the imposition of rules that limits the amount of power that an individual has. In fact, rules are necessary to guarantee freedom for everyone. The biggest enemy of freedom is a society that allows for unnecessary hierarchies and power centers to form. We have that in our current version of capitalism. Power has become extremely concentrated, and it interferes with the freedom of opportunity of others.
Another thing that you need to do is look up the word fascism in the dictionary. I really don't wish to educate you on the differences between economic systems. This is very disheartening to try to have an intelligent conversation with someone that confuse fascism, dictatorship, socialism, and democracy with each other.
The problem with free market anarchy isn't that I have a problem with freedom. The problem is that hierarchies naturally develop. Have you ever been inside a corporation? Do you feel free? It's run in top-down authoritarian fashion, is that freedom?
Why change a criticism of capitalism into a pro-socialist arguement? It's a nice trick, but it's a bit deceiving. Has it ever occured to you that there are other ways of doing things?
Don't you know that criticisms of capitalism have sprung up in the US since it's very inception? Don't you know that this is nothing new, and that there is nothing "Anti-American" about criticizing the excesses that capitalism creates?
I agree that a dictatorship is a bad idea, but isn't that one of those statements that goes without saying? I mean, why are you even wasting time pointing out the obvious? Who the hell have you ever met that has promoted a dictatorship over democracy? You know, you can mix socialism with democracy, and you can mix capitalism with dictatorship, and all sorts of other choices and economic systems that you haven't heard of. It amazes me how people here in the US like to boil it down to such a limited number of choices, when the reality is that the choices are wide open.
How about giving Democracy a try? It has a severe dampening effect on concentration of power. Why do you guys always bring up socialism any time someone criticizes capitalism? Is your thinking that narrow-minded? Has your world been reduced to only those two options? Are you trying to live up to the reputation that Americans have for being uneducated and ill-informed? A good question to ask yourself is why the people in control of our society have reduced the choice between economic systems down to two, and now that socialism has self-destructed, cheered about the fact that there is supposedly only one? Are you dumb enough to believe that people in big business push the present form of capitalism because it is good for you? Do you really think they are looking out for your interests?
What you misunderstand about power laws is that they only describe systems of pure anarchy. The problem with systems that have no regulation is that eventually people start getting extremely pissed off as a disproportionate amount of power leaves their hands. Since you are referring to history, you will understand that if power becomes statified enough, eventually a revolution will occur and leave people hanging from lamp posts. And, since you are such a student of economics, you probably already know that wealth concentration is occuring in the US at an alarming rate. The top 1% of the US population owned 33% of the total wealth of the nation in the 1980s, and that has shot up to over 40% by the late 90s, and it's still rising. By contrast, the bottom 40% only own 1% of the wealth. This is where many revolutions start. The function of Democracy is to prevent this from happening. Unforutnately, we have a very limited form of Democracy that is being drowned out by our economic system.
The truth is that you can design any system you want. The thing that it needs is an outlet for the people to voice their needs to government and have them addressed. The other thing that it needs is fair distribution of power and resources as well as opportunity. I would much rather live in a system where: 1. There is true democracy rather than the corporate sponsored plutocracy that we have right now. 2. People are rewarded for work, not for "figuring out the system". 3. Power is distributed in an even manner so that everyone has a voice in society.
That's not true. Democratic forces have a severe dampening effect on concentration of power. As soon as enough people realize their power is being taken away, they simply vote for it to be given back.
What makes you feel we all share your goal of a "just society"?
I think that if the propaganda machines were to be turned off for five years and people still felt the same way, then I might lose some hope. The fact is, getting people to willingly go to a shit job everyday and watch their salary go to reward someone else requires an enormous amount of effort. It's the same amount of effort that is required to get a bunch of people to go to war with a country where there is no evidence of WMD.
What else do you want?
Why are you taking the focus off the ideas? I mean, sure, you can get in as many cheap shots as you want. But a rational person will simply see this sentence as a lead in for cheap ad hominem attacks.
Do you want a just olympics too? Who cares?
Would a just olympic event mean to you that there is no widening gap between the athletes and the couch potatoes. Who cares about the Olympics? Why would you reduce something like life and death down to entertainment that repeats ever 2 years.
Is that your ultimate goal in life? Is your ultimate goal in life to lie and distort the truth?
To make everybody the same? Gee, I don't know, perhaps the way you would have it is with all the athletes working for corporations, and all the medals going to owners. You wouldn't even need people, you could just have Enron, Sony, et al. in the Olympics, with the wealthiest corporations winning. Then all the rewards would go to the corporation. Is that what you want? What you are promoting has all the oppressive and disincentivizing nature of the Soviet dungeon without any of the ideals of trying to help people. But hey, at least you're honest. And no, I don't believe in socialism in it's current versions nor do I believe in your version of Capitalism.
Basicly, you are saying that giving every person an equal amount of opportunity as Adam Smith preached in "The Wealth of Nations" is a bad thing? I'm confused, but don't you believe in capitalism? And, don't you understand that Smith's goal in designing capitalism was not to create a never ending gravy train, or a lottery system, but was instead to reward people for their labor? He made the assumption that with perfect competition there would be perfect equality. What he didn't count on was imbalances in competition that would result in certain people getting rewarded more than others. There was alot of criticism of this effect, and eventually the wealthy decided to spin it into a good thing by saying that Smith had it wrong. They said that the government shouldn't try to live up to Smith's ideals, but instead should let the system run itself. That's where Laissez Faire comes in. It's a disgusting way to excuse a flaw in capitalism that is devaluing labor by an obscene amount while at the same time allowing CEO's to making 100's of millions a year. Is this what you want?
I agree, to a certain extent. However, don't you think that you're going about it the wrong way? I mean, basicly what you are saying is let the government stay corrupt and create another means of distribution. Wouldn't it be easier to clean up the corruption that is causing the hidden redistribution of wealth back to the rich?
That is much more descriptive of socialism (which is extremely heirarchical and stratified; as seen in North Korea).
It's descriptive of both. Or don't you already realize that? Actually, if you view freedom as a scale going from power being highly concentrated to that of economic power being free and democratic, then capitalism and socialism have alot in common. As far as a system that doesn't result in stratification, we haven't seen it, yet.
In capitalism, everyone is in charge of their own economic lives. Economic autonomy; people make their own economic decision and determine what is a fair trade with others.
Right, and suprise, suprise, it actually ends up resulting in the majority of people losing their economic freedom in the long run, much in the same way that those who got in on the internet first have the most freedom and power. I still can't believe that this is a suprise to anyone.
Democracy is a great way to control government, but should not be used to control personal decisions (including economic ones). Those should be left to individuals, not outside coercive forces.
If by "personal", you actually mean personal, then I agree partially. However, if by "person", you are defending the corporate "persons" that rule our society, then I disagree completely. I think that freedom only makes sense in the context with which it is evaluated. So, for example, when talking about Bill Gate's "right" to have 40 billion, we have to step back and ask if we are using the right words. Why use the words freedom and rights, when priveledge and power will fit better? Then it becomes clear why we need limits on wealth consolidation. After a certain point, it's no longer about freedom, it's about power, and limiting the amount of power that any one person has. The reason you do this is so that others will have a chance. You also do this because you realize that allowing any one person to have that much money will allow them to tamper with government, which is what is happening right now.
How many of those who "got here first" are still big and powerful? Yahoo comes to mind, but most of the others that started out back then are long gone and forgotten. Anyone still have a home page on Xoom? Anyone use Pathfinder as a portal?
Good point. Usually they end up being squashed by competition that got their before even they did. This isn't always the case, but it happens often enough that we need to protect the little guy. The only way the free market can work the way it is supposed to is if we keep a healthy level of competition. This requires regulation and requires the break-up of monopolies when they get too big. What is happening with Microsoft, which is a blatant monopoly, is a sign of just how corrupt our government has become.
Is any of this a suprise to anyone? Haven't we witnessed the same thing with the economic anarchy that we call capitalism? In the free market you have the same thing, with certain people in charge and others clamoring for a few crumbs. The internet and any system that promotes this kind of anarchy will be the same way. That is why we need some kind of democratic structure to be applied, so that the needs of everyone don't get trampled by those of the first few whose only accomplishment was getting there first. The sooner people realize this, the sooner we will have implemented a just society.
And you have to KIDDING me if you think that having medical insurance will prevent the scenarios I talked about above. You must be what, 13? 14? If you lived in the real world you would realize what a hassle it is getting insurance companies to pay bills. I'm 28 and in good health, and I have two bills that my insurance company hasn't paid that I am going to have to go to HR to get resolved. In the case I talked about above, I WAS insured. And, in the first case that I described, medical insurance won't write the checks for you if you are in a hospital for an extended period of time. That happened to a friend of mine, he was in the hospital (for an accident that wasn't his fault), got swamped with bills, and by the time he received his settlement, the credit card companies had already closed the accounts and turned them over to collection. Your arguement sounds too similar to the, "Let them eat cake" arguements that I hear all the time. The thing that I wish you would realize is that putting your foot on the necks of people who are already down on their luck will not improve your situation, not to mention that it requires a severe lack of ethics to beat on people that are already down. If you want to wonder where all your money is going, you need only look upward(in the socio-economic ladder, that is).
So, you get in a car accident, spend a month or two i the hospital. In the mean time, the bills come in, but you were unconscious or too sick to be aware of what was going on. You come out of it to find your credit is a mess. It happens to people all the time. Then you spend the next 7 years paying for that "mistake". Or, you have a bill you didn't know about. Maybe you went to the doctor to get some tests done, only one of the tests wasn't billed properly and you never recieved the invoice. So, you pay the invoices you receive and think everything is ok. 6 months later you start getting calls from creditors. Only, after paying the bill in full you see that you have a nice mark on your credit report saying "turned over to collection". Yes, this second scenario happened to me. It's easy to judge, but there are alot of reasonable explanations for bad credit that a simple credit score will not show.
I agree with your post. One statement I am curious about is:
Now anything Madonna, Brittany and co. have sung is too new to fall outside the current monopoly terms but I would say that for a significant number of people, P2P isn't stealing, it's civil disobedience to a privilege grant that should never have been extended into the recording realm in the manner it has been.
Do you think that has always been the case? Or do you think that perhaps copyright has become a problem with advances in the distribution mechanism by the internet?
I do think that copyrights have been extended too far, but I don't think I would have a problem with a limited copyright term of 10 to 20 years. Do you think that perhaps the issue with ten year copyright terms is that then only short-term, high profit music with little staying power will be the focus? If so, I can see this point.
You also don't understand that these people will NEVER get payed more if Ford Motor Company is allowed to lay off the entire staff, when employees start complaining. They've already done this, as have other corporations in the maquiladoras. They'll do anything to participate in the beating down of the weak and defenseless, and you're supporting these corporations, which tells me what kind of person you are. What? This suprirses you? You do know that Henry Ford was one of only four people to be awarded by Hitler with the iron cross, don't you? You think they've changed, that they're a bunch of good guys?
Sure, kind of like the "IT labor shortage" that is market manipulation intended to drive down engineering salaries. We have the biggest wealth differential of any industrialized country, is this what we want to promote? Many countries would get better on their own if we didn't keep arming the local elites. Simply quit giving the local elites loans and help the people out if they decide to over throw their government.
Sure, and how many items around you have "made in the USA" on them vs "made in Taiwan", "made in China", "made in Mexico" etc.?
Just because it's a gradual decrease in standard of living does not mean that it's a good thing. You still haven't convinced me that I should think that this is a good thing.
Re:What good is cheaper if no one has a job?
on
Giant Sucking Noise
·
· Score: 1
That's because people like you have made free trade sound like a good thing. What were they warned about? Who warned them?
You are saying that because people were kept in the dark about NAFTA that they deserve to be screwed over. I think that we are beginning to see what you are all about, and it's becoming obvious what your moral character is like.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Everyone knows that rich people don't earn their money.
Because, as I said before, I am not a Communist/Marxist/Fascist, etc. I do believe in some of the ideals of socialism as well as capitalism, and if you ever managed to read a book, you would know that not all forms of socialism are incompatible with private property. It seems to me that it is you who are putting people in arbitrary categories.
Overall, your arguements lack quite a bit of merit, and do not seem that convincing. Your ideals sound like a disaster in the making, and the libertarian philosophy as you describe it seems only useful in a classroom discussion of what is wrong with an idea.
The problem with your philosophy is that it allows the rights of the majority of people to be trampled by those who have alot of wealth. It doesn't provide people with any incentive to help out others. It really is an unworkable idea, which is why not even Republicans are wrong-headed enough to promote. I'm sure their constituents would love it, but even they know that if you don't keep at least some balance that eventually people will rebel.
I lean more towards libertarian socialism, if you are really curious. I believe that we have already seen libertarian philosophy in 3rd world countries that have very little government. They are absolute disasters, where the rich pay little taxes, and the majority either starves or works in sweatshop conditions. We also had something closer to libertarian capitalist philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century, and again, your philosophy was an absolute disaster. That is enough to convince me that what you are promoting will not work.
Or, you're rewarding intellegent decisions. No matter what you feel about Bill Gates personally, you have to admit that he made good decisions.
There are plenty of people that make intelligent decisions that do not do nearly as well as Bill Gates. You are rewarding someone who was wealthy enough to drop out of Harvard in a cavalier manner and get funding for his own business from his father. That's smart decision making? Hmmm..
Why should a corporation be rewarded extra for the labor of it's engineers? Why not reward the engineer instead?
Here's why: Companies who are running low on cash do this thing called a layoff. Micron, for example did a layoff locally because of crushing profit losses.
I see, so we pay the extortion fee to corporations so that they will be kind enough to not less us starve to death? I guess that's "freedom"..
How about just create a working welfare system with a decent safety net? And pay for it by taxing the shit out of corporations.
Lots of engineers and trained chipmakers are now out of a job. Another reason is that when you tax a company, you aren't taxing the company itself. No company just "takes a hit" and goes on.
That's the problem, corporations are self centered and greedy by their very nature. They will take and take, and when they are done, toss people out like refuse. They are tools of the wealthy, who can do this anonymously and move on when they are finished. We don't allow slavery, but buying groups of people apparently is ok.
What you are saying is that states need to appease corporations so that they will be kind enough to keep us employed. Yes, well, you apparently understand the goal of NAFTA and other "free" trade agreements. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be expressing the appropriate indignation.
What happens when you increase taxes on a company, is that they begin passing it on to consumers and begin decreasing pay raises. It's a standard economic concept known as "indirect taxation". The company that the tax is levied to doesn't REALLY pay the tax, it merely acts as an agent for collecting taxes for the government.
The problem you are describing (passing costs onto customers) is due to lack of competition. You fix the problem by increasing competition, not by giving into their demands in a limp-wristed way. Then, the costs get passed on to those who own the corporations, because they won't be able to AFFORD to pass the costs on to the custoerm. Unless you beleive that corporations that pay $400 million to a CEO are so "cut-throat" that they can't afford to pay their taxes.
Yes, they do pass taxes onto people, but it also eats into their profits, which disproportionately go to support the rich. Lowering their taxes is a regressive tax. By not taxing corporations, you are letting the owners, who are more than likely rich, get away with paying less than their fair share of taxes.
You have to evaluate fair in context of reality. What exactly are you rewarding when you reward someone a gross amount of cash for merely owning a piece of property. How does this get them to work harder? How does the difference in income help those who are willing to work hard, but don't have alot of money, to succeed?
According to your theory, 401k's should be abolished, as a form of economic welfare, because it encourages those lazy retirees from hard work. Once you've worked hard, invested in the right things and done a good job, you should be allowed to sit back and allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labors. According to your theory, people who profit off real estate (whether professionally, or a homeowner who bought a $100,000 house in a neighborhood that grows and sells it at $200,000 when he/she moves out) are deserving of punishment.
I wouldn't say deserving of punishment, just not deserving of profits. And, as we've seen with companies like Enron, 401k's are a horrible way to fund retirement. They require on a strong economy and have no safety net. They also force retirement funds into corporate hands.
The reason he viewed it this was was because people that operate in groups distort competition.
And that's why Adam Smith got bitched by Game Theory.
How so?
Exactly how does keeping wealth concentrated keep unemployment low.
How does taking money from your employer help you keep your job?
If one wants to make more money, and other people have it, then you need to keep your business open. If one has all the money they need, and no way of making more, then they close up shop. If one cannot make a product cheep enough for it to be worth selling to an impoverished nation, then he merely closes up shop and hires a few hungry servants to take care of his needs. This is what happens in the third world. It's call economic stagnation.
The times that the economy has been healthy is when money gets shifted from those who have alot to those who don't.
Or in periods of high demand on multiple levels. I mean, if you're pro-communism, that's cool. Just say it from the start.
High demand means that people actually have money to spend, thus proving my point. There is almsot always high, albeit artificial, demand. If you don't believe me, look at all the people that willingly go into credit card debt. You really need to go to the census beaureau's website to get an idea of how lopsided things are. The top 1% owns 40% of the assets. How much more concentrated can things get before eventually things slow to a crawl?
From highways to the space program, to the creation of telephone networks, computers, the internet, has all started because of government initiative.
Highways? Highways are done by states, not federal government.
Highways are paid for by the Federal Government.
Interstate is federal, but still requires state support to keep people safe.
Telephone networks? So...telephone was invented by government...not Alexander Graham Bell? And AT&T...had nothing...to do with it. Hmm...
Computers, I'll grant you that, but the Government at most, gave grants to companies who helped get them from the lab to your desktop.
Right, they gave grants to corporations, who haven't paid back a dime to the American people.
Internet started as ARPAnet, which conceptually is the original model, but the people who actually built the internet are the people who were on BBSes.
I saved the Space Program for last because just about every promise the Space Program has made in relation to NORMAL people in space has been broken. Did you know that the whole bullshit about only "highly trained pilots" and the "best of the best" going into space is bullshit? The space shuttle is computer controlled mostly from takeoff to landing, except a couple of button presses. For more details, read some books by Richard Feynman, the man credited for figuring out the cause of the Challenger. The only people going up are handpicked pilots and scientists...and those rich people you guys hate so much.
such as what happened with Enron.
Enron was brought to you by a coalition of republicans and democrats who decided that "as long as it all looks good, we're cool with it." Enron is an example of why the status quo isn't working. The status quo is that government regulates those who don't make large donations to republicans and democrats.
Right, the status quo isn't working, and it's corporations that are doing it, not the government. Corporations are greedy by their very nature.
I do, because I've found that I can threaten an insurance company into action alot better than I can threaten the federal government into action. I can sue an insurance company if they refuse to pay me after an accident on their clients property. I can't sue the federal government if they refuse to pay me after an accident on government property.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever tried to sue a corporation? At least with democracy, your vote counts. Or for that matter, have you ever even tried to sue a rich doctor? Good luck. The media makes it sound easy, but is EXTREMELY difficult.
What's worse, is if we allow industries to become monopolized, these tyrannies will be unaccountable.
Note: I never said anything against anti-trust legislation, nor did I mention any loosening of regulation. You inferred that. I brought up Small Government in the context of ending wasteful government programs.
Exactly how is anti-trust legislation supposed to work with small government? Can you explain that? If a state doesn't like what Microsoft is doing, then Microsoft merely takes them to court and bankrupts them. Remember, Microsoft has tens of billions of dollars, enough to eclipse small countries and easily smash states. That's the other big part of NAFTA, by allowing corporations to move around at will, they can use jobs as a way of extorting preferential treatment out of governments. By getting rid of a strong federal government, which is the ONLY democratic institution powerful enough to challenge these corporations, you are actually moving power AWAY from the American people.
It sounds like a far cry from liberty if you ask me.
You mean, being able to decide where your tax dollars go, having a government that listens, and the freedom to be employed and make good financial decisions...is not liberty?
Exactly how is taking power away from people going to give them the freedom to be employed. Once that top 1% gets rich enough, what motive are they going to have to buy your labor? If you want to see what societies with low taxes and small government look like when they allow corporations to take over, just look at South America and how they handle big corporations. The corporations have no obligations and a desperate pool of starving labor. That's what happens when you reduce the size of government and you give people no venue for changing things.
You mean to say that we should have a government that increases our taxes without justification, that doesn't care if we are against it, and makes it impossible to be employed or responsible with our money...is liberty?
I agree that our government is corrupt, but you fix the corruption. You don't get rid of the one institution that has the potential to be democratic and replace it with aristocratic tyrannies which have NO accountability. You are confusing cause and effect. The reason our government is corrupt is due to corporate campaign contributions, which has largeley served to change our government from a democratic government into a capitalist government, where politicians serve those who give them the most money, not the people who vote them into power.
BTW, I am not communist. I am looking into progressive economic models such as parecon, or regulated capitalism, or PROUT, to mention a few. However, I would recommend that you not confuse freedom and rights for wealth and power. When talking about Bill Gate's rights, what most people are talking about is his wealth and power. When you ask,"Who are you to interfere with Bill Gate's right to own his own company?" The question is better phrased as,"Who are you to question Bill Gate's power to have an army of men working under him?". I think the second question fits better. In order to protect freedom, we must make sure that it is distributed in a fair and just manner. So, you could talk about the freedom of Bill Gates to command an army of men under him, or you could talk about my freedom to control my own work and enjoy the fruits of my labor, thus abolishing labor markets completely. These kinds of questions don't make sense out of the context of reality. When thinking about private power and wealth in the context of reality, I see a huge amount of unaccountability, and I see alot of people suffereing due to the fact that they can't compete with a company such as Microsoft. Reducing the size of institutions that can handle microsoft and others, wil not fix this problem.
I have not problem with some differences in wealth. But, when you are talking about differences that are 1,000 to 1, that's too much, and cannot be tolerated in a democratic society.
Not right now, but when you're like Parsec and saying that the rich should pay even more and more and more, you end up with tax rates of 70%, so basically, you're MAKING more money, but you don't TAKE MORE HOME.
You have to ask what you are rewarding when someone finds themselves in these exhorbitant tax brackets. Nine times out of ten, at this level, you are rewarding someone for the priveledge of owning something, not their effort.
I, as a libertarian, am glad to say that I think corporate welfare is bullshit, if it's allowed in the manner it is. If it's something like giving a slight tax break to a company that promises to have a device that'll make our lives better (or a company whose invention now makes our lives better), I think it's warranted. Like BP and Honda from the previous examples, both companies who seem to be very close to practicalizing Hydrogen Fuel cells (I'd put my money on Honda, Honda has the spirit to survive, while BP I think is only doing it for PR). I don't agree with corporate welfare in the case of friends of prominent congressional or presidental figures. President Bush and Nancy Pelosi are perfect examples of the abuse inherent in that system.
Why should a corporation be rewarded extra for the labor of it's engineers? Why not reward the engineer instead?
"Social Safety Net"? I never brought up anything of that sort. I just think that taxes should be applied fairly. "Fairly" meaning that you are taxed in proportion. The best analogy I could apply to "Fair" taxation is to imagine a basketball game. You've got a guy like Kobe Bryant, who is a big star, and you've got some miscellaneous guy. They play and when the "misc. guy" makes a 2-point shot, they give his team 2 points. But when Kobe makes a 3-point shot, the ref only allows him to keep 1 point for his team, since he's so good at what he does, and the other guy isn't doing as good right now.
You have to evaluate fair in context of reality. What exactly are you rewarding when you reward someone a gross amount of cash for merely owning a piece of property. How does this get them to work harder? How does the difference in income help those who are willing to work hard, but don't have alot of money, to succeed?
I mean, if you're not for fair application of taxes, then just say so. You say you support progressive taxes, and that's you're opinion.
I am a firm believer in the ideals of Adam Smith, you know, that guy that you libertarian capitalists always support. Smith promoted something called the labor theory of value. Smith believed that people should only be rewarded for their labor, and that profit should represent the increased value of their labor over the raw materials of a product. He never would have approved of people making a million dollars a year to sit in a leather chair and direct a company. Smith viewed businesses and corporations as market imperfections. In fact, any institution containing more than one person was viewed as a market imperfection. The reason he viewed it this was was because people that operate in groups distort competition. However, he accepted that slight imperfections were ok. He NEVER would have approved of what we have today. Nor would he have approved of the fact that we allowed business to organize in groups, but not labor, thus tilting the balance of competition in favor of businesses. We have progressive taxes to correct these problems.
Here's a list of things I support:
1) A strong economy built on investment and low unemployment- You don't increase investment by taking more money from big investors. You don't increase employment by taking more money from employers.
Exactly how does keeping wealth concentrated keep unemployment low. The times that the economy has been healthy is when money gets shifted from those who have alot to those who don't. Examples include the dotcom boom, any of the wartime booms we've had, as well as increases in minimum wage.
2) Smaller government- Government has yet to solve any problem we've tasked it with, yet private industry is capable of doing it fairly fast for as cheap as possible, rather than extremely slow for as much as a team of government employees can milk from your pocket.
This is complete bullshit, and if you're wondering where the title came from, it's to this statement. From highways to the space program, to the creation of telephone networks, computers, the internet, has all started because of government initiative. The reason that there is so much anti-government propaganda is because the US government has one crucial flaw, it has the potential to become democratic. Corporations have no flaws, they are perfect tyrannies, which is why the mistakes of corporations are only pointed out when they become an absolute disaster, such as what happened with Enron. Those who have the majority of control don't want you to like government. They want you to destroy it, so that they can run the show. They want you to blame your standard of living on taxes, not on the fact that corporations have succeeded in flooding the labor market with NAFTA, and now the balance of competition will allow them to completely dominate labor.
3) Responsible government- Once we've cut down the government to a smaller, leaner, less expensive version of itself, I think the Speaker of the house, or other congressional leader, should make one or two speeches a year, detailing the new government programs they intend to implement at our expense. Call me crazy, but I'd like to know where my money goes without having to plow through 500 House Resolutions, Appropriations Bills, and a slew of current laws. I'd like to know the government is responsible. And I'd like congressional members to understand that if they want to spend our cash on idiotic things, they have to stand up on TV and talk about why it makes sense.
So you attack the beaurocrat in Washington, but not the one in the insurance company? How is that going to fix anything? What's worse, is if we allow industries to become monopolized, these tyrannies will be unaccountable. Is that what you want? It sounds like a far cry from liberty if you ask me.
Enought said. I do agree with what you are saying, in the sense that they likely will go out of business. However, it definitely is not a good thing. Salon represents a populist viewpoint that has been effectively censored due to the advertising supported model of media that we currently have. What we instead have is corporate, moneyed, elite media, mixed in with tabloid infotainment crap.
They can get some idea of climate changes by looking at rings in trees that are centuries old. Your arguement kind of reminds me of the "it's natural" arguement that states that the weather changes that we are seeing right now are a "natural" and that we shouldn't worry about it. Well, tornadoes, tidal waves, hurricanes, and all sorts of other disasters are "natural" too, but I doubt that you would place yourself in the path of one. Even if it is natural, which I highly doubt, who cares? If we are doing something to contribute to this "natural" phenomena, then we had better stop. Even if we aren't, we had better find a way to reverse this trend. That is, unless we want to live in a "naturally" created desert, with 100,000's of "natural" deaths as a result.
How are they trying to consolidate power? by scolding? Since when was scolding a tactic for power consolidation? So, if the US wants to consolidate power, all we have to do is scold and disagree with other countries? Wow!, I never knew it was that easy.
I suppose you think that we are in Iraq because we want to spread democracy, kind of like the "democracy" that we installed in Afghanistan. But hey, we're liberating the people of Iraq from their mortal coils. I'm sure they'll be greatful that we are sacrificing their lives so that they may gain "freedom".
As far as the French going against "our" policy, who exactly is "we". Are you referring to the American people? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see any grass roots petitions last year begging Bush for a war against Iraq. Theoretically, Bush is supposed to ask people before he sends them to war, but I guess that's not in our best interests. I guess we need a leader who ignores what the American people want. We should focus on our own corruption before trying to fix other countries.
Sorry about that. The above post was mine.
Basicly, what you have done is wonderful example of a straw man fallacy.
That is where someone makes a statement about a subject, much as I did with capitalism, and then the opponent responds by shifting the subject, much as you did by referring to socialism. I never brought up socialism, nor did I promote it, instead I was attempting to criticize capitalism. As far as I can see, you have given me nothing serious to respond to, and so I instead started to criticize what I felt was a deceptive style of debate on your part. This was later proven to be correct as you have shown that in fact you are well versed in debating strategies and you knew what you were doing when you used a straw man to try and criticize my statements about capitalism.
Yes, and you could have chosen to discuss the validity of what I am saying in a rational manner, but I suppose that it is easier to throw a tantrum isn't it?
You can choose to keep things in the realm of feelings if you wish, but I doubt that you will get very far in your understanding of the world around you. As far I am concerned, I would rather discuss things that are based on reality, and use verfiable facts to back up what I am saying.
It seems that at this point, we are at an impasse. You would like to express your feelings, while I would like to find the truth. So, why don't we agree to disagree? You can go ahead and express your feelings and ideologies, and I will continue to debate using verifiable facts and figures.
You really aren't doing yourselves any favors by not reading. You should try picking up a book every once in awhile, and you'd find out that socialism is very different than what we have seen in practice, and the same goes with capitalism.
Yes, ideally capitalism is economic freedom, but then again, using the same criteria that you are, we could also say that the feudal system was freedom of contract, and that slavery also represents freedom of contract. In fact, one of the big blemishes in our history that no one wants to admit to is that capitalism and freedom of contract logically extend to slavery. After all, if we put property rights and freedom of contract above all else, then what right would a government have to limit slavery? Shouldn't one be "free" to be a slave? The reality is that heavily favoring certain kinds of freedoms over others can quickly develop into a society where there is very little freedom. The thing that needs to be remembered is that all oppressive systems have developed out of a free state. Even China and the former USSR developed out of societies that were at one point free(during their revolution). The fuedal system, again, developed out of societies that were at one point in time free. The biggest enemy of freedom is not the imposition of rules that limits the amount of power that an individual has. In fact, rules are necessary to guarantee freedom for everyone. The biggest enemy of freedom is a society that allows for unnecessary hierarchies and power centers to form. We have that in our current version of capitalism. Power has become extremely concentrated, and it interferes with the freedom of opportunity of others.
Another thing that you need to do is look up the word fascism in the dictionary. I really don't wish to educate you on the differences between economic systems. This is very disheartening to try to have an intelligent conversation with someone that confuse fascism, dictatorship, socialism, and democracy with each other.
The problem with free market anarchy isn't that I have a problem with freedom. The problem is that hierarchies naturally develop. Have you ever been inside a corporation? Do you feel free? It's run in top-down authoritarian fashion, is that freedom?
Why change a criticism of capitalism into a pro-socialist arguement?
It's a nice trick, but it's a bit deceiving. Has it ever occured to you that there are other ways of doing things?
Don't you know that criticisms of capitalism have sprung up in the US since it's very inception? Don't you know that this is nothing new, and that there is nothing "Anti-American" about criticizing the excesses that capitalism creates?
I agree that a dictatorship is a bad idea, but isn't that one of those statements that goes without saying? I mean, why are you even wasting time pointing out the obvious? Who the hell have you ever met that has promoted a dictatorship over democracy? You know, you can mix socialism with democracy, and you can mix capitalism with dictatorship, and all sorts of other choices and economic systems that you haven't heard of. It amazes me how people here in the US like to boil it down to such a limited number of choices, when the reality is that the choices are wide open.
How about giving Democracy a try? It has a severe dampening effect on concentration of power. Why do you guys always bring up socialism any time someone criticizes capitalism? Is your thinking that narrow-minded? Has your world been reduced to only those two options? Are you trying to live up to the reputation that Americans have for being uneducated and ill-informed? A good question to ask yourself is why the people in control of our society have reduced the choice between economic systems down to two, and now that socialism has self-destructed, cheered about the fact that there is supposedly only one? Are you dumb enough to believe that people in big business push the present form of capitalism because it is good for you? Do you really think they are looking out for your interests?
What you misunderstand about power laws is that they only describe systems of pure anarchy. The problem with systems that have no regulation is that eventually people start getting extremely pissed off as a disproportionate amount of power leaves their hands. Since you are referring to history, you will understand that if power becomes statified enough, eventually a revolution will occur and leave people hanging from lamp posts. And, since you are such a student of economics, you probably already know that wealth concentration is occuring in the US at an alarming rate. The top 1% of the US population owned 33% of the total wealth of the nation in the 1980s, and that has shot up to over 40% by the late 90s, and it's still rising. By contrast, the bottom 40% only own 1% of the wealth. This is where many revolutions start. The function of Democracy is to prevent this from happening. Unforutnately, we have a very limited form of Democracy that is being drowned out by our economic system.
The truth is that you can design any system you want. The thing that it needs is an outlet for the people to voice their needs to government and have them addressed. The other thing that it needs is fair distribution of power and resources as well as opportunity. I would much rather live in a system where:
1. There is true democracy rather than the corporate sponsored plutocracy that we have right now.
2. People are rewarded for work, not for "figuring out the system".
3. Power is distributed in an even manner so that everyone has a voice in society.
That's not true. Democratic forces have a severe dampening effect on concentration of power. As soon as enough people realize their power is being taken away, they simply vote for it to be given back.
What makes you feel we all share your goal of a "just society"?
I think that if the propaganda machines were to be turned off for five years and people still felt the same way, then I might lose some hope. The fact is, getting people to willingly go to a shit job everyday and watch their salary go to reward someone else requires an enormous amount of effort. It's the same amount of effort that is required to get a bunch of people to go to war with a country where there is no evidence of WMD.
What else do you want?
Why are you taking the focus off the ideas? I mean, sure, you can get in as many cheap shots as you want. But a rational person will simply see this sentence as a lead in for cheap ad hominem attacks.
Do you want a just olympics too?
Who cares?
Would a just olympic event mean to you that there is no widening gap between the athletes and the couch potatoes.
Who cares about the Olympics? Why would you reduce something like life and death down to entertainment that repeats ever 2 years.
Is that your ultimate goal in life?
Is your ultimate goal in life to lie and distort the truth?
To make everybody the same?
Gee, I don't know, perhaps the way you would have it is with all the athletes working for corporations, and all the medals going to owners. You wouldn't even need people, you could just have Enron, Sony, et al. in the Olympics, with the wealthiest corporations winning. Then all the rewards would go to the corporation. Is that what you want? What you are promoting has all the oppressive and disincentivizing nature of the Soviet dungeon without any of the ideals of trying to help people. But hey, at least you're honest. And no, I don't believe in socialism in it's current versions nor do I believe in your version of Capitalism.
Basicly, you are saying that giving every person an equal amount of opportunity as Adam Smith preached in "The Wealth of Nations" is a bad thing? I'm confused, but don't you believe in capitalism? And, don't you understand that Smith's goal in designing capitalism was not to create a never ending gravy train, or a lottery system, but was instead to reward people for their labor? He made the assumption that with perfect competition there would be perfect equality. What he didn't count on was imbalances in competition that would result in certain people getting rewarded more than others. There was alot of criticism of this effect, and eventually the wealthy decided to spin it into a good thing by saying that Smith had it wrong. They said that the government shouldn't try to live up to Smith's ideals, but instead should let the system run itself. That's where Laissez Faire comes in. It's a disgusting way to excuse a flaw in capitalism that is devaluing labor by an obscene amount while at the same time allowing CEO's to making 100's of millions a year. Is this what you want?
I agree, to a certain extent. However, don't you think that you're going about it the wrong way? I mean, basicly what you are saying is let the government stay corrupt and create another means of distribution. Wouldn't it be easier to clean up the corruption that is causing the hidden redistribution of wealth back to the rich?
That is much more descriptive of socialism (which is extremely heirarchical and stratified; as seen in North Korea).
It's descriptive of both. Or don't you already realize that? Actually, if you view freedom as a scale going from power being highly concentrated to that of economic power being free and democratic, then capitalism and socialism have alot in common. As far as a system that doesn't result in stratification, we haven't seen it, yet.
In capitalism, everyone is in charge of their own economic lives. Economic autonomy; people make their own economic decision and determine what is a fair trade with others.
Right, and suprise, suprise, it actually ends up resulting in the majority of people losing their economic freedom in the long run, much in the same way that those who got in on the internet first have the most freedom and power. I still can't believe that this is a suprise to anyone.
Democracy is a great way to control government, but should not be used to control personal decisions (including economic ones). Those should be left to individuals, not outside coercive forces.
If by "personal", you actually mean personal, then I agree partially. However, if by "person", you are defending the corporate "persons" that rule our society, then I disagree completely. I think that freedom only makes sense in the context with which it is evaluated. So, for example, when talking about Bill Gate's "right" to have 40 billion, we have to step back and ask if we are using the right words. Why use the words freedom and rights, when priveledge and power will fit better? Then it becomes clear why we need limits on wealth consolidation. After a certain point, it's no longer about freedom, it's about power, and limiting the amount of power that any one person has. The reason you do this is so that others will have a chance. You also do this because you realize that allowing any one person to have that much money will allow them to tamper with government, which is what is happening right now.
How many of those who "got here first" are still big and powerful? Yahoo comes to mind, but most of the others that started out back then are long gone and forgotten. Anyone still have a home page on Xoom? Anyone use Pathfinder as a portal?
Good point. Usually they end up being squashed by competition that got their before even they did. This isn't always the case, but it happens often enough that we need to protect the little guy. The only way the free market can work the way it is supposed to is if we keep a healthy level of competition. This requires regulation and requires the break-up of monopolies when they get too big. What is happening with Microsoft, which is a blatant monopoly, is a sign of just how corrupt our government has become.
Is any of this a suprise to anyone? Haven't we witnessed the same thing with the economic anarchy that we call capitalism? In the free market you have the same thing, with certain people in charge and others clamoring for a few crumbs. The internet and any system that promotes this kind of anarchy will be the same way. That is why we need some kind of democratic structure to be applied, so that the needs of everyone don't get trampled by those of the first few whose only accomplishment was getting there first. The sooner people realize this, the sooner we will have implemented a just society.
And you have to KIDDING me if you think that having medical insurance will prevent the scenarios I talked about above. You must be what, 13? 14? If you lived in the real world you would realize what a hassle it is getting insurance companies to pay bills. I'm 28 and in good health, and I have two bills that my insurance company hasn't paid that I am going to have to go to HR to get resolved. In the case I talked about above, I WAS insured. And, in the first case that I described, medical insurance won't write the checks for you if you are in a hospital for an extended period of time. That happened to a friend of mine, he was in the hospital (for an accident that wasn't his fault), got swamped with bills, and by the time he received his settlement, the credit card companies had already closed the accounts and turned them over to collection. Your arguement sounds too similar to the, "Let them eat cake" arguements that I hear all the time. The thing that I wish you would realize is that putting your foot on the necks of people who are already down on their luck will not improve your situation, not to mention that it requires a severe lack of ethics to beat on people that are already down. If you want to wonder where all your money is going, you need only look upward(in the socio-economic ladder, that is).
So, you get in a car accident, spend a month or two i the hospital. In the mean time, the bills come in, but you were unconscious or too sick to be aware of what was going on. You come out of it to find your credit is a mess. It happens to people all the time. Then you spend the next 7 years paying for that "mistake". Or, you have a bill you didn't know about. Maybe you went to the doctor to get some tests done, only one of the tests wasn't billed properly and you never recieved the invoice. So, you pay the invoices you receive and think everything is ok. 6 months later you start getting calls from creditors. Only, after paying the bill in full you see that you have a nice mark on your credit report saying "turned over to collection". Yes, this second scenario happened to me. It's easy to judge, but there are alot of reasonable explanations for bad credit that a simple credit score will not show.
I agree with your post. One statement I am curious about is:
Now anything Madonna, Brittany and co. have sung is too new to fall outside the current monopoly terms but I would say that for a significant number of people, P2P isn't stealing, it's civil disobedience to a privilege grant that should never have been extended into the recording realm in the manner it has been.
Do you think that has always been the case? Or do you think that perhaps copyright has become a problem with advances in the distribution mechanism by the internet?
I do think that copyrights have been extended too far, but I don't think I would have a problem with a limited copyright term of 10 to 20 years. Do you think that perhaps the issue with ten year copyright terms is that then only short-term, high profit music with little staying power will be the focus? If so, I can see this point.
You also don't understand that these people will NEVER get payed more if Ford Motor Company is allowed to lay off the entire staff, when employees start complaining. They've already done this, as have other corporations in the maquiladoras. They'll do anything to participate in the beating down of the weak and defenseless, and you're supporting these corporations, which tells me what kind of person you are. What? This suprirses you? You do know that Henry Ford was one of only four people to be awarded by Hitler with the iron cross, don't you? You think they've changed, that they're a bunch of good guys?
Sure, kind of like the "IT labor shortage" that is market manipulation intended to drive down engineering salaries. We have the biggest wealth differential of any industrialized country, is this what we want to promote? Many countries would get better on their own if we didn't keep arming the local elites. Simply quit giving the local elites loans and help the people out if they decide to over throw their government.
Sure, and how many items around you have "made in the USA" on them vs "made in Taiwan", "made in China", "made in Mexico" etc.?
Just because it's a gradual decrease in standard of living does not mean that it's a good thing. You still haven't convinced me that I should think that this is a good thing.
That's because people like you have made free trade sound like a good thing. What were they warned about? Who warned them?
You are saying that because people were kept in the dark about NAFTA that they deserve to be screwed over. I think that we are beginning to see what you are all about, and it's becoming obvious what your moral character is like.