Is what you are saying is true, why do many Americans (especially on the right and associated with the Republicans) red-bait? Why does it seem that nearly everything coming out of the left is shot down as communist and ignored?
Joe McCarthy may be died but his spirit is still alive and kicking.
I don't think that it's a coincidence that many of the staunchest supporters of Democratic-Capitalism have roots in former Eastern Bloc countries.
I'm not a supporter of any totalitarian system, and what passed for Communism in USSR was definitely one. However, what you said is meaningless. The descendents of the Eastern-Bloc parents may support democracy but the people back in Eastern Europe don't seem to be. The staunchest supporters of democracy has always been Europeans (in the recent era). I don't see any of the former USSR countries supporting democracies. Name one of the former ones that is anywhere near democratic. Nearly all of them are autocracies ruled by dictators. Even Putin in Russia, who has massive support, is a quasi-dictator.
Why anyone would want just one system or the other is beyond me. By themselves, socialism and capitalism both failed.
It is my belief that you cannot have a mixture of systems for long periods of time. In other words, mixing things are unstable. A country like Canada is a capitalist country with some socialist ideals (so is most of Europe). Even USA isn't a pure capitalist nation. This is unstable in my view. It is my view that these countries will shift towards (pure) capitalism.
Observations seem to indicate this. For instance, Canada is shifting towards capitalism. So is USA. Socialist ideals (like nationalized healthcare, schools, libraries, roads, energy, etc) are being privatized. At the rate capitalism is going, I imagine that everything (including schools, police, roads, and parks) will be privatized within 50 years.
Maintaining an unstable system (as it is now) seems impossible. Governments have horrible fiscal problems (even a rich country like USA has $3trillion debt). Attempting to have socialist principles like high wages for employees, worker health and safety regulations, and environmental regulations, seem to be under threat from capitalist forces (eg. global free markets, aka globalization).
So to get back to your question of why someone would want a pure system, well, it is because other possibilities are unstable. Socialism is an enemy of capitalism, and vice versa. Progressive taxes (eg. income tax), for instance, is viewed as evil by capitalists while socialists support it. One has to win. Socialism hasn't failed; neither has capitalism. One will win (or some new econopolitical system will win). My personal belief is that capitalism will collapse within 75 years.
I think the original guy is right. You CAN have free markets. Free market would be a market that is not constrained by any forces (say the government). If you had a market with no government intervention, it would be a free market. USA isn't it but it is closer to it than any other country (not counting little ones like Singapore, Monaco, Bahamas, etc). Because most governments have SOME socialist ideals, there isn't a true free market even in USA. For instance, the existence of minimum wage laws, taxes, and other things mean that the labour market is NOT a true free market. However, there is nothing stopping free markets from existing in the real world.
I don't get your artificial rule/control reasoning. What's so artificial about having a market with no intervention? They can exist.
The Founding Fathers were talking about it but they didn't really implement anything to prevent it. I mean, what you are saying happened (although on a lesser severity). Good examples include freeing of slaves (totally against Constitution since govt can't strip property--slaves were property), and putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps. The majority basically steamrolled the minority in these cases.
So to sum up, there is no mechanism against "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy. Tomorrow, the US govt can start jailing Muslim "terrorist sympathizers" and you can't do anything about it--IF a majority supports it. Or it could start jailing "anti-Americans" and nothing would be done--IF the majority supports it.
Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) IS a republic. I don't see how you can say it isn't. Yes, he was a dictator but that doesn't change anything. For instance, if I take over USA legally (i.e. get elected*) and turn into a totalitarian of some type (say like Stalin), USA would STILL be considered a republic.
The point I'm making is, the type of system does not change just because of corruption. For example, a monarchy could be very "democratic" yet it will still be labelled a monarchy. What matters is the structure.
As a side note, who exactly would be a republic in your eyes (other than USA)? Countries like Iraq and North Korea actually have elections. They are rigged but people really get out an vote. If you say they are not republics, then what criteria are you using? Is it just something YOU made up and something that changes upon your will? These definitions should be based on (somewhat) objective criteria. Using the structure of government is objective. Trying to figure out how corrupt the system is not very objective. Would you consider a country like India (which is very corrupt) to be a republic? How about Zimbabwe?
(* I can't get elected of course. Since I'm an immigrant. Actually I'm not even American. But let's pretend these don't matter).
That's not really true... because... if what you were saying were true, no country can be considered a democracy* (or even democracy-like). Countries that are NOT republics (eg. Canada) also have laws being passed by elected representatives...
I think what you are saying (laws passed by a direct vote) is called a DIRECT democracy. In contrast, all countries that are democracy-like are REPRESENTATIVE democracies.
(* I personally don't consider any country to be democracy. Instead, I call them other names like plutocracy, kleptocracy, etc. In general, I call them 'democracy-like').
Your definition of republic is what Americans use. But the original (and widely used) definition is the one quoted in a reply above (basically highest head is NOT a monarch; power rests with citizens). This definition pretty much means that more than 70% of the countries on earth are republics (and they are indeed called republics eg. Democratic Republic of Korea; Republic of Iraq). Americans mean something very specific when they say a republic (just like how what Americans call Libertarian actually libertarian-conservative).
Anarchy might mean 'without order.' But anarchism isn't. Anarchism is an econopolitical system. The mainstream masses have been brainwashed to think it is based on 'chaos' or 'without order' or some such nonsense, but the fact of the matter is that the system called anarchism has nothing to do with it.
If you want to simplify anarchism to one concept (an always dangerous thing to do with econopolitical systems), think of anarchism as a system without AUTHORITY. Anarchism is pretty much against authority. Right now, the #1 authority is the government so anarchists are against that; in the future, they may be against other forms of authority.
If you don't believe any of this, find some anarchists and ask them how many are in favour of CHAOS (or disorder)? Hardly any true anarchist would be...
Just because someone's earned a doctorate in linguistics doesn't mean he gets to change the definitions of words.
The dictionary definition is totally useless because it is biased. It is made up by elites and the mainstream plutocrats. This goes for most econopolitical systems. Look up socialism, or fascism, or whatever, and tell me if their followers support those definitions. It has always been this way. If you find old "definitions" of democracy (when monarchs were ruling), you would think it was some evil concept. Definitions are twisted by the plutocrats now (and monarchs in the past--not to mention the religious leaders) to suit themselves, and to demonize their opponents*. It's just too bad you don't realize this.
(* As a side note, another definition that is being twisted to suit the rulers of this world is 'terrorism'. The word is going to end up meaning something totally different from what it did 50 years ago.)
That's why we need government. To protect the people from themselves and each other. Because without a system of government, most people pursue single-mindedly - and without regard for others - profit and power for themselves.
Your argument is similar to George Orwell's argument. Orwell basically said that anarchism will lead to totalitarianism. Some guy (or guys) will dominate everyone else and take them over. You are on a similar line of thought... Having said that, I think you, like Orwell, is wrong.
First of all, I'm primarily a socialist (with a bit of anarchism). So I support state intervention to some degree. BUT I don't support the state for the reasons you do. I view your reasons for supporting the state as dangerous! Consider the following:
To protect the people from themselves and each other.
What does that mean? Is that like 'we must destroy the village in order to save it'?:( You don't honestly believe that, do you? How can you really say that when the state (and prior to that, the monarchy) is responsible for more deaths than under even pure "chaos"? I don't need to go into examples; it is so blatantly obvious. Millions have died under state-sanctioned wars, executions, economic miscalculations, and so forth. You don't need to listen to me. You look up history. Also, don't forget that mass genocides are nearly ALWAYS started by the government (eg. Rwanda, Serbia, (Nazi) Germany, etc.) Or do you think that state-sponsored wars are perfectly ok?
People don't need the state to protect each other! They need the state to stop killing them!!!
Lastly, there is nothing preventing anarchists from developing the same institutions as now. For instance, you can still have a school, an inherently socialist institution with order. The only difference, under anarchism, would be that the school will be voluntary. The community will control it--instead of some central authority or some handpicked bunch of elites.
I'm not a Libertarian (i.e. libertarian-conservative) but aren't Libertarians in favour of abortion (because they are for individual freedoms i.e. against state intervention of personal issues)? If I remember correctly, they are also in favour of (human) cloning.
So this isn't really a FEDERAL issue. Some members may say that the party doesn't take a position (or something like that) but I think the party is totally in favour of abortion.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about the Libertarian Party positions...
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an anarchist... but I'm a leftist who is probably 30% anarchist. So take my thoughts for what it's worth...
Also, if a group of people come together (organize) and plan for rules for everyone to follow, that would be government, albeit a small one.
There is something that people don't understand about anarchism: Anarchism isn't against rules per se! Rather, it is against AUTHORITY!!! You can have the same rules under anarchism as now with one exception: they must be VOLUNTARY. It is quite plausible under anarchism to have rules which say that you should drive your car on the left. That isn't against anarchism. What is, and this is important, is someone FORCING you (and your community) follow these rules.
In the scenario you cite, it would be against anarchism because of the following: "...plan for rules for everyone to follow..." This is totally against anarchism because someone (or some group) is making up rules for others!!! A similar thing may be allowed under anarchism IF people ALL agree to the rules for THEMSELVES. That is perfectly ok.
So to recap, if we VOLUNTARILY agree to rules, that's permissible under anarchism. However, if some group of people (you can call them intellectuals, politicians, business leaders, whatever) make up the rules on your behalf, it isn't anarchism.
If not, don't worry about the e-mail. You are too unworthy to receive it;)
If you are, let's talk. Want to take over the world with me? We all know how much of an influence Bush's closest advisors have had on him so far. Maybe we too can influence them;)
I don't track healthcare issues so I'm not sure what happened with that drug issue. Basically, India (or perhaps one province?) was producing generic drugs. You know, the non-brand-name stuff. I think it's still going on but not sure...
And if their healthcare is socialised, does that mean the doctor is more likely to have your interests at heart?
What the article talks about is privatized healthcare for a few elites (the elites being people from the West, who are automatically wealthy compared to Indians.) So the national healthcare system will have no impact. If anything, I would think that these healthcare companies will be US-based with operations performed in India.
I just love how capitalists love to equate capitalism with freedom. If the world wasn't controlled by capitalists, anyone using that argument would be discredited. Freedom has nothing to do with capitalism. Countries like Kuwait are more capitalist than even Canada (eg. markets more open; easier foreign investment; less taxes; etc). Yet, if you ignore US government propaganda, Kuwait is one of the most oppressive countries around. Similarly, Singapore is one of THE most capitalist countries IN THE WORLD! Yet it is totalitarian.
Freedom will help but that's not the cause of prosperity (at all times). The US Constitution is not as "free" as you might think. Don't forget that women and non-whites were subordinates; don't forget that elites (similar to aristocrats) controlled everything early on (the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were extremely wealthy elites); many freedoms (such as freedom of the press) did not exist back then (at least in the form that it does now); and so forth.
So freedom is not the answer to US prosperity. Instead, there are three reasons in my opinion:
Mass Genocide: The settlers in USA basically slaughtered all the native Americans. You would automatically generate wealth by carrying out genocide. You are basically redistributing wealth in such a case. USA was easily able to capture land, resources, etc. USA "re-allocated" wealth from the natives to the settlers. This is just like how Germany prospered under Hitler because he started capturing other countries and stealing all the property from the inhabitants, Jews, and others.
Capitalism: USA is the flag-bearer of capitalism. You can roughly say that USA popularized it. This essentially means that USA will have an advantage over other countries (this is generally true for any econopolitical system.) For instance, the economic policy in USA (by the Federal Reserve for example) pretty much sets everything else in the world. Other examples include the adoption of US dollar as world currency (this would not have happened if USA was not the key driver of capitalism.) Having said that, this comes with a price. Some leftists, like me, argue that a portion of US debt (possibly over a trillion dollars) is actually to prop up capitalism and prevent it from collapsing. According to my view, Americans are actually subsidizing capitalism (via entities like the IMF) whether they realize it or not. In this sense, it is disadvantageous to be the flag-bearer.
Trade: Lastly, the most important reason why USA is prosperous: trade. By trade, I'm not talking about so-called free trade promoted by capitalists. I'm talking about trade of mutual benefit to both countries, where the benefits are shared. Modern "free trade" only benefits one party (usually the capitalists i.e. property owners.) It can be shown (in economics) that countries benefit from trade. I am not a capitalist and don't buy 90% of (capitalist) economics but this trade thing is a basic principle (has nothing to do with capitalism.) Two countries will ALWAYS benefit from trading--even if one country is worse at producing things than the other. If you want something more technical, look up 'absolute advantage' and 'comparative advantage' (basically first chapter of any economics book; easy to find online.) Ancient civilizations (like the Indians, Chinese, most Middle Eastern ones, and even Romans to some extent) became wealthy through trade. USA followed a similar path in the 1700's and 1800's. USA accumulated wealth by trading with Europe (mostly) in the 1800's. This is the main reason for the wealth of USA.
Freedom would make little difference to some of these countries. Don't get me wrong: I FULLY support granting greater freedoms. However, people in countries like India are already somewhat free. It is a kleptocracy but it isn't a dictatorship or totalitarian.
You can keep believing that capitalism is the path to freedom. But just know this: the day will come when your naive beliefs will fall apart. You will become a corporate slave under capitalism. Maybe you already are one...;)
It seems like your conservatism and your capitalism are at odds.
Capitalism holds that investors get paid for their investments, the fact of 1% Discount Rate at the US Federal Reserve puts the lie to the idea that what is going on is capitalism.
What's the problem here? I don't get your point.
If India placed a tariff on US goods/services that caused them to be marked up by 150% (Total Price 250% of Cost)we would clearly say India had a "Trade War" going against the USA. Yet this is in fact what the US Government has done to the US Citizens. Their goods suffer this Tax while none of their competition must pay it.
Actually, every country has taxes. I'm not Indian but India might even have a higher tax than USA. USA has one of the lowest taxes (for a developed country) and one of the lowest overall.
Stop blaming taxes (which are already low in USA) and face the reality of capitalism. It seems as if you are in complete denial about capitalism! The cause is not taxed, but rather the cost of living.
What is happening now is a direct consequence of capitalism. That's why capitalists support so-called Globalization. Many leftists have predicted it decades ago. The standard of living in USA is too high (relative to other countries). Therefore, the cost of living is very high. And consequently, cost of labour, manufacturing, and services is higher too. I'm not a capitalist but my view is that the only way out of this (and sticking with capitalism) is for the US dollar to devalue. The US dollar has already depreciated quite a bit over the last few years. It will keep dropping I think.
Even if taxes were 0% in USA, and even if wages drop by 50%, it would be more expensive to manufacture something in USA than in a country like India or China. There is a huge difference in the cost of living. Even if you assume taxes account for 50% of the costs of a product (say bread) in USA, it will still be more expensive than in say China (which is probably 1/6 to 1/4 of the cost).
Curry refers to the final dish. So it can be anything. BUT curry also refers to the curry leaves (and curry powder that comes from it). So I guess curry leaves are healthy but that goes for any herb. Generally, herbs and spices are healthy for humans...
Drug companies will not have a major impact on national healthcare. Also, you are totally mistaken with your view that an increase in drug company prices will kill the system. It will make it worse, but not kill it. Even in Europe and Canada, the drug companies are not FORCED to sell their drugs for cheap or at a loss. All that happens is that the consumer is one large monopoly (the govt), so they can push prices down (just like how Wal-Mart can get better prices than any other smaller competitor in a fragmented market). If the drug companies didn't like it, they wouldn't sell to Canada, Europe, and others. Yet they do--at a profit too. If USA switches to universal free healthcare, it won't have THAT much of an impact. There will still be drug companies doing the same thing.
Lastly, the amount of research carried out by pharmaceutical companies isn't that large (it's a big chunk but not like 80% of anything). If anything, more research is being carried out in universities, which are publicly funded. If government cuts funding to university research, it will probably have a greater impact than a few pharmaceuticals going out of business.
Yes, Linux is somewhat similar to Unix; however, the distros for Linux all provide the same OS. You can easily switch from, say, Red Hat to Mandrake to SuSE to whatever. They run the same applications, look the same, and behave identically. So I don't think you will see as much fragmentation.
You are right in saying that it is much harder to use--especially for newbies. But things will get better (I think.)
Apple cannot switch to x86 because they make the money off hardware. If they switch, they will go bankrupt.
I really think Apple is going to be under enormous threats. Like I said, if Linux becomes #2 then developers will start developing for Linux instead of Apple.
If you want to cut off this conversation, feel free to do so. Some of these posts are VERY long and it might take up a lot of time. I'm unemployed right now so I have time--but I doubt you do.
I would say that freedom and capitalism are, to some degree, symbiotic. That is one works much better with the other.
Can you justify that? Why does capitalism flourish in countries like Singapore even though it is authoratarian? Why are most European countries relatively "free" even though they have socialist ideals? Why do capitalists ally with totalitarians or dictators of some sort (eg. Chile, Indonesia)?
If capitalism and freedom and "symbiotic" as you say, capitalism will collapse under authoratarian regimes. Yet we don't see that happening. The reason is quite obvious: capitalism is not related to freedom.
You can believe that capitalism protects freedoms. But that is a fallacy. The day will come when you will lose all your freedoms along with your belief. Already, the bogus "war" on terrorism, and the strong influence of politics by corporations is going down that path. Come back to me in 25 years and we'll see who is right (hopefully, we'll both be alive by then:) ).
I would say im a liberal (in the traditional sense)...
Those people are called classical liberals (eg. Thomas Jefferson). It is misleading to call yourself a liberal now. Classical liberals are basically conservatives now. Liberalism changes with time. A liberal 50 years ago is a conservative now (if he remains static). Similarly, classical liberals are conservatives now. I suggest that you stop calling yourself a liberal OR ensure that everyone knows that you are a CLASSICAL liberal.
As an interesting aside, I was simply unable to take your test on the politcal compass website.
heh... someone else I recommened the test to, also said a similar thing:) The questions on Political Compass are there to gauge your feelings and opinions (the FAQ on that site sort of described it--don't read it until you take the test). There is NO right answer*! You should just answer them as best as you can. Whatever you think is the best answer should be chosen. The questions get "worse" in that respect. There are other questions which will be even more controversial in the test. Just take the test and then let me know what your position is (don't let me know if you don't want to.)
The first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." abbruptly ended the test. The reason is, of course, that in my view, that is not an either or question, because it will do both and because fundamentally the "transnational corporations" are owned by humanity. Thus there was no "correct answer" for me to click.:)
I think the answer for you (based on what you are saying) would be TRUE (i.e. serve humanity). Since that is what you seem to value, that is probably what would describe you. Just pick what you think is best (there is no right answer). If you are totally confused, imagine a scenario where the two conflict. Which would you pick?
SIDE NOTE:
* There is no such thing as a right answer when it comes to econopolitics. All you have are ideals and desires. You cannot PROVE anything. For instance, a fascist would prefer fascism, while to me, it is a horrible system. A fascist can easily argue that certain people would be better off under fascism. For example, a fascist can easily show that Germany was better under Hitler than the previous leaders. This is pretty much true (eg. economy was better; "Aryans" had better jobs/more land/etc; and so forth). So an "Aryan" would be better off under Hitler while *I* would not be. Who is right: is fascism good for Germany or not? There is no CORRECT answer!
Will this have any impact on Apple? If Linux's market share increases (especially on the desktop), will we see developers shifting to Linux from Apple? Could this be the end of Apple? Of course, I'm not talking about tomorrow--rather, I'm talking long term (say 5 years from now).
People have always speculated that the end of Apple will come from Windows. Right now, the enemy of Apple looks to be Linux.
Personally, I think the desktop (Linux) is still not ready. The desktop needs to be standardized (it looks like this is happening with the shift to Gnome), help system needs to be improved, package management has to be standardized (Red Hat RPM, Mandrake RPM, Debian DEB, old-school TARBALL), etc. However, Linux is getting there. So far, the office suite, internet tools (browser, ftp, irc), general graphics tools, etc are pretty good. But others still need work.
What this unfortunate incident really shows is that Amazon actually tracks everyone. Even anonymous postings are kept in their histories! This should be alarming to everyone out there. I wonder if Slashdot does this too? What if the anonymous postings on slashdot are not anymous at all? What if Slashdot records everyone's IP addresses? Workers posting stuff anonymously (to prevent them from being fired) might be hurt. Of course, I am speculating. Slashdot may not keep the IP addresses. But if Amazon can, anything is possible...
Now only if I can figure out how to get there...:)
Of course, if someone discovers that much diamond, the price will plummet and it won't be worth that much (as a matter of fact, diamond companies artificially limit the quantity).
I disagree. The scale of modern capitalist societies (such as USA) are unmatched. I'm not an expert in history but my impression is that courts were not used to the extent that they are now. Nowadays, nearly everyone is suing each other (including different government branches suing each other). I don't think that was the case 100 years ago.
I'm not saying your history is wrong--I'm assuming it is. BUT the lawsuits in the early 1900's were limiited to a few entities (few businesses, few citizens, etc). Nowadays it is vastly different. I haven't checked it but my impression is that the amount of money spent by government (per capita) is higher now than in the early 1900's (can someone back this plz?).
Not all of it is bad. For instance, consumers hurt by products have a recourse now, whereas it was largely limited a hundread years ago (not to mention the fact that most people couldn't afford the few lawyers back then--now, you can sue for anything it seems). Having said that, I personally consider it worse overall. Litigation-oriented societies shift power to the wealthy.
Slashdot Mirror
Is what you are saying is true, why do many Americans (especially on the right and associated with the Republicans) red-bait? Why does it seem that nearly everything coming out of the left is shot down as communist and ignored?
Joe McCarthy may be died but his spirit is still alive and kicking.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think that it's a coincidence that many of the staunchest supporters of Democratic-Capitalism have roots in former Eastern Bloc countries.
I'm not a supporter of any totalitarian system, and what passed for Communism in USSR was definitely one. However, what you said is meaningless. The descendents of the Eastern-Bloc parents may support democracy but the people back in Eastern Europe don't seem to be. The staunchest supporters of democracy has always been Europeans (in the recent era). I don't see any of the former USSR countries supporting democracies. Name one of the former ones that is anywhere near democratic. Nearly all of them are autocracies ruled by dictators. Even Putin in Russia, who has massive support, is a quasi-dictator.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Why anyone would want just one system or the other is beyond me. By themselves, socialism and capitalism both failed.
It is my belief that you cannot have a mixture of systems for long periods of time. In other words, mixing things are unstable. A country like Canada is a capitalist country with some socialist ideals (so is most of Europe). Even USA isn't a pure capitalist nation. This is unstable in my view. It is my view that these countries will shift towards (pure) capitalism.
Observations seem to indicate this. For instance, Canada is shifting towards capitalism. So is USA. Socialist ideals (like nationalized healthcare, schools, libraries, roads, energy, etc) are being privatized. At the rate capitalism is going, I imagine that everything (including schools, police, roads, and parks) will be privatized within 50 years.
Maintaining an unstable system (as it is now) seems impossible. Governments have horrible fiscal problems (even a rich country like USA has $3trillion debt). Attempting to have socialist principles like high wages for employees, worker health and safety regulations, and environmental regulations, seem to be under threat from capitalist forces (eg. global free markets, aka globalization).
So to get back to your question of why someone would want a pure system, well, it is because other possibilities are unstable. Socialism is an enemy of capitalism, and vice versa. Progressive taxes (eg. income tax), for instance, is viewed as evil by capitalists while socialists support it. One has to win. Socialism hasn't failed; neither has capitalism. One will win (or some new econopolitical system will win). My personal belief is that capitalism will collapse within 75 years.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think the original guy is right. You CAN have free markets. Free market would be a market that is not constrained by any forces (say the government). If you had a market with no government intervention, it would be a free market. USA isn't it but it is closer to it than any other country (not counting little ones like Singapore, Monaco, Bahamas, etc). Because most governments have SOME socialist ideals, there isn't a true free market even in USA. For instance, the existence of minimum wage laws, taxes, and other things mean that the labour market is NOT a true free market. However, there is nothing stopping free markets from existing in the real world.
I don't get your artificial rule/control reasoning. What's so artificial about having a market with no intervention? They can exist.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The Founding Fathers were talking about it but they didn't really implement anything to prevent it. I mean, what you are saying happened (although on a lesser severity). Good examples include freeing of slaves (totally against Constitution since govt can't strip property--slaves were property), and putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps. The majority basically steamrolled the minority in these cases.
So to sum up, there is no mechanism against "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy. Tomorrow, the US govt can start jailing Muslim "terrorist sympathizers" and you can't do anything about it--IF a majority supports it. Or it could start jailing "anti-Americans" and nothing would be done--IF the majority supports it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) IS a republic. I don't see how you can say it isn't. Yes, he was a dictator but that doesn't change anything. For instance, if I take over USA legally (i.e. get elected*) and turn into a totalitarian of some type (say like Stalin), USA would STILL be considered a republic.
The point I'm making is, the type of system does not change just because of corruption. For example, a monarchy could be very "democratic" yet it will still be labelled a monarchy. What matters is the structure.
As a side note, who exactly would be a republic in your eyes (other than USA)? Countries like Iraq and North Korea actually have elections. They are rigged but people really get out an vote. If you say they are not republics, then what criteria are you using? Is it just something YOU made up and something that changes upon your will? These definitions should be based on (somewhat) objective criteria. Using the structure of government is objective. Trying to figure out how corrupt the system is not very objective. Would you consider a country like India (which is very corrupt) to be a republic? How about Zimbabwe?
(* I can't get elected of course. Since I'm an immigrant. Actually I'm not even American. But let's pretend these don't matter).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's not really true... because... if what you were saying were true, no country can be considered a democracy* (or even democracy-like). Countries that are NOT republics (eg. Canada) also have laws being passed by elected representatives...
I think what you are saying (laws passed by a direct vote) is called a DIRECT democracy. In contrast, all countries that are democracy-like are REPRESENTATIVE democracies.
(* I personally don't consider any country to be democracy. Instead, I call them other names like plutocracy, kleptocracy, etc. In general, I call them 'democracy-like').
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Your definition of republic is what Americans use. But the original (and widely used) definition is the one quoted in a reply above (basically highest head is NOT a monarch; power rests with citizens). This definition pretty much means that more than 70% of the countries on earth are republics (and they are indeed called republics eg. Democratic Republic of Korea; Republic of Iraq). Americans mean something very specific when they say a republic (just like how what Americans call Libertarian actually libertarian-conservative).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Anarchy might mean 'without order.' But anarchism isn't. Anarchism is an econopolitical system. The mainstream masses have been brainwashed to think it is based on 'chaos' or 'without order' or some such nonsense, but the fact of the matter is that the system called anarchism has nothing to do with it.
If you want to simplify anarchism to one concept (an always dangerous thing to do with econopolitical systems), think of anarchism as a system without AUTHORITY. Anarchism is pretty much against authority. Right now, the #1 authority is the government so anarchists are against that; in the future, they may be against other forms of authority.
If you don't believe any of this, find some anarchists and ask them how many are in favour of CHAOS (or disorder)? Hardly any true anarchist would be...
Just because someone's earned a doctorate in linguistics doesn't mean he gets to change the definitions of words.
The dictionary definition is totally useless because it is biased. It is made up by elites and the mainstream plutocrats. This goes for most econopolitical systems. Look up socialism, or fascism, or whatever, and tell me if their followers support those definitions. It has always been this way. If you find old "definitions" of democracy (when monarchs were ruling), you would think it was some evil concept. Definitions are twisted by the plutocrats now (and monarchs in the past--not to mention the religious leaders) to suit themselves, and to demonize their opponents*. It's just too bad you don't realize this.
(* As a side note, another definition that is being twisted to suit the rulers of this world is 'terrorism'. The word is going to end up meaning something totally different from what it did 50 years ago.)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's why we need government. To protect the people from themselves and each other. Because without a system of government, most people pursue single-mindedly - and without regard for others - profit and power for themselves.
:( You don't honestly believe that, do you? How can you really say that when the state (and prior to that, the monarchy) is responsible for more deaths than under even pure "chaos"? I don't need to go into examples; it is so blatantly obvious. Millions have died under state-sanctioned wars, executions, economic miscalculations, and so forth. You don't need to listen to me. You look up history. Also, don't forget that mass genocides are nearly ALWAYS started by the government (eg. Rwanda, Serbia, (Nazi) Germany, etc.) Or do you think that state-sponsored wars are perfectly ok?
Your argument is similar to George Orwell's argument. Orwell basically said that anarchism will lead to totalitarianism. Some guy (or guys) will dominate everyone else and take them over. You are on a similar line of thought... Having said that, I think you, like Orwell, is wrong.
First of all, I'm primarily a socialist (with a bit of anarchism). So I support state intervention to some degree. BUT I don't support the state for the reasons you do. I view your reasons for supporting the state as dangerous! Consider the following:
To protect the people from themselves and each other.
What does that mean? Is that like 'we must destroy the village in order to save it'?
People don't need the state to protect each other! They need the state to stop killing them!!!
Lastly, there is nothing preventing anarchists from developing the same institutions as now. For instance, you can still have a school, an inherently socialist institution with order. The only difference, under anarchism, would be that the school will be voluntary. The community will control it--instead of some central authority or some handpicked bunch of elites.
I'm not a Libertarian (i.e. libertarian-conservative) but aren't Libertarians in favour of abortion (because they are for individual freedoms i.e. against state intervention of personal issues)? If I remember correctly, they are also in favour of (human) cloning.
So this isn't really a FEDERAL issue. Some members may say that the party doesn't take a position (or something like that) but I think the party is totally in favour of abortion.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about the Libertarian Party positions...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an anarchist... but I'm a leftist who is probably 30% anarchist. So take my thoughts for what it's worth... Also, if a group of people come together (organize) and plan for rules for everyone to follow, that would be government, albeit a small one.
There is something that people don't understand about anarchism: Anarchism isn't against rules per se! Rather, it is against AUTHORITY!!! You can have the same rules under anarchism as now with one exception: they must be VOLUNTARY. It is quite plausible under anarchism to have rules which say that you should drive your car on the left. That isn't against anarchism. What is, and this is important, is someone FORCING you (and your community) follow these rules.
In the scenario you cite, it would be against anarchism because of the following: "...plan for rules for everyone to follow..." This is totally against anarchism because someone (or some group) is making up rules for others!!! A similar thing may be allowed under anarchism IF people ALL agree to the rules for THEMSELVES. That is perfectly ok.
So to recap, if we VOLUNTARILY agree to rules, that's permissible under anarchism. However, if some group of people (you can call them intellectuals, politicians, business leaders, whatever) make up the rules on your behalf, it isn't anarchism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Anyone here "closest friends" of those two? ;)
;)
;)
If not, don't worry about the e-mail. You are too unworthy to receive it
If you are, let's talk. Want to take over the world with me? We all know how much of an influence Bush's closest advisors have had on him so far. Maybe we too can influence them
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I want my ashes to orbit Saturn...my favourite planet.. how much will that cost? :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't track healthcare issues so I'm not sure what happened with that drug issue. Basically, India (or perhaps one province?) was producing generic drugs. You know, the non-brand-name stuff. I think it's still going on but not sure...
And if their healthcare is socialised, does that mean the doctor is more likely to have your interests at heart?
What the article talks about is privatized healthcare for a few elites (the elites being people from the West, who are automatically wealthy compared to Indians.) So the national healthcare system will have no impact. If anything, I would think that these healthcare companies will be US-based with operations performed in India.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Freedom will help but that's not the cause of prosperity (at all times). The US Constitution is not as "free" as you might think. Don't forget that women and non-whites were subordinates; don't forget that elites (similar to aristocrats) controlled everything early on (the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were extremely wealthy elites); many freedoms (such as freedom of the press) did not exist back then (at least in the form that it does now); and so forth.
So freedom is not the answer to US prosperity. Instead, there are three reasons in my opinion:
Freedom would make little difference to some of these countries. Don't get me wrong: I FULLY support granting greater freedoms. However, people in countries like India are already somewhat free. It is a kleptocracy but it isn't a dictatorship or totalitarian.
You can keep believing that capitalism is the path to freedom. But just know this: the day will come when your naive beliefs will fall apart. You will become a corporate slave under capitalism. Maybe you already are one...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It seems like your conservatism and your capitalism are at odds.
Capitalism holds that investors get paid for their investments, the fact of 1% Discount Rate at the US Federal Reserve puts the lie to the idea that what is going on is capitalism.
What's the problem here? I don't get your point.
If India placed a tariff on US goods/services that caused them to be marked up by 150% (Total Price 250% of Cost)we would clearly say India had a "Trade War" going against the USA. Yet this is in fact what the US Government has done to the US Citizens. Their goods suffer this Tax while none of their competition must pay it.
Actually, every country has taxes. I'm not Indian but India might even have a higher tax than USA. USA has one of the lowest taxes (for a developed country) and one of the lowest overall.
Stop blaming taxes (which are already low in USA) and face the reality of capitalism. It seems as if you are in complete denial about capitalism! The cause is not taxed, but rather the cost of living.
What is happening now is a direct consequence of capitalism. That's why capitalists support so-called Globalization. Many leftists have predicted it decades ago. The standard of living in USA is too high (relative to other countries). Therefore, the cost of living is very high. And consequently, cost of labour, manufacturing, and services is higher too. I'm not a capitalist but my view is that the only way out of this (and sticking with capitalism) is for the US dollar to devalue. The US dollar has already depreciated quite a bit over the last few years. It will keep dropping I think.
Even if taxes were 0% in USA, and even if wages drop by 50%, it would be more expensive to manufacture something in USA than in a country like India or China. There is a huge difference in the cost of living. Even if you assume taxes account for 50% of the costs of a product (say bread) in USA, it will still be more expensive than in say China (which is probably 1/6 to 1/4 of the cost).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Curry refers to the final dish. So it can be anything. BUT curry also refers to the curry leaves (and curry powder that comes from it). So I guess curry leaves are healthy but that goes for any herb. Generally, herbs and spices are healthy for humans...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Drug companies will not have a major impact on national healthcare. Also, you are totally mistaken with your view that an increase in drug company prices will kill the system. It will make it worse, but not kill it. Even in Europe and Canada, the drug companies are not FORCED to sell their drugs for cheap or at a loss. All that happens is that the consumer is one large monopoly (the govt), so they can push prices down (just like how Wal-Mart can get better prices than any other smaller competitor in a fragmented market). If the drug companies didn't like it, they wouldn't sell to Canada, Europe, and others. Yet they do--at a profit too. If USA switches to universal free healthcare, it won't have THAT much of an impact. There will still be drug companies doing the same thing.
Lastly, the amount of research carried out by pharmaceutical companies isn't that large (it's a big chunk but not like 80% of anything). If anything, more research is being carried out in universities, which are publicly funded. If government cuts funding to university research, it will probably have a greater impact than a few pharmaceuticals going out of business.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes, Linux is somewhat similar to Unix; however, the distros for Linux all provide the same OS. You can easily switch from, say, Red Hat to Mandrake to SuSE to whatever. They run the same applications, look the same, and behave identically. So I don't think you will see as much fragmentation.
You are right in saying that it is much harder to use--especially for newbies. But things will get better (I think.) Apple cannot switch to x86 because they make the money off hardware. If they switch, they will go bankrupt.
I really think Apple is going to be under enormous threats. Like I said, if Linux becomes #2 then developers will start developing for Linux instead of Apple.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
(NOT QUOTED IN ORDER)
:) ).
:) The questions on Political Compass are there to gauge your feelings and opinions (the FAQ on that site sort of described it--don't read it until you take the test). There is NO right answer*! You should just answer them as best as you can. Whatever you think is the best answer should be chosen. The questions get "worse" in that respect. There are other questions which will be even more controversial in the test. Just take the test and then let me know what your position is (don't let me know if you don't want to.)
:)
If you want to cut off this conversation, feel free to do so. Some of these posts are VERY long and it might take up a lot of time. I'm unemployed right now so I have time--but I doubt you do.
I would say that freedom and capitalism are, to some degree, symbiotic. That is one works much better with the other.
Can you justify that? Why does capitalism flourish in countries like Singapore even though it is authoratarian? Why are most European countries relatively "free" even though they have socialist ideals? Why do capitalists ally with totalitarians or dictators of some sort (eg. Chile, Indonesia)?
If capitalism and freedom and "symbiotic" as you say, capitalism will collapse under authoratarian regimes. Yet we don't see that happening. The reason is quite obvious: capitalism is not related to freedom.
You can believe that capitalism protects freedoms. But that is a fallacy. The day will come when you will lose all your freedoms along with your belief. Already, the bogus "war" on terrorism, and the strong influence of politics by corporations is going down that path. Come back to me in 25 years and we'll see who is right (hopefully, we'll both be alive by then
I would say im a liberal (in the traditional sense)...
Those people are called classical liberals (eg. Thomas Jefferson). It is misleading to call yourself a liberal now. Classical liberals are basically conservatives now. Liberalism changes with time. A liberal 50 years ago is a conservative now (if he remains static). Similarly, classical liberals are conservatives now. I suggest that you stop calling yourself a liberal OR ensure that everyone knows that you are a CLASSICAL liberal.
As an interesting aside, I was simply unable to take your test on the politcal compass website.
heh... someone else I recommened the test to, also said a similar thing
The first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." abbruptly ended the test. The reason is, of course, that in my view, that is not an either or question, because it will do both and because fundamentally the "transnational corporations" are owned by humanity. Thus there was no "correct answer" for me to click.
I think the answer for you (based on what you are saying) would be TRUE (i.e. serve humanity). Since that is what you seem to value, that is probably what would describe you. Just pick what you think is best (there is no right answer). If you are totally confused, imagine a scenario where the two conflict. Which would you pick?
SIDE NOTE:
* There is no such thing as a right answer when it comes to econopolitics. All you have are ideals and desires. You cannot PROVE anything. For instance, a fascist would prefer fascism, while to me, it is a horrible system. A fascist can easily argue that certain people would be better off under fascism. For example, a fascist can easily show that Germany was better under Hitler than the previous leaders. This is pretty much true (eg. economy was better; "Aryans" had better jobs/more land/etc; and so forth). So an "Aryan" would be better off under Hitler while *I* would not be. Who is right: is fascism good for Germany or not? There is no CORRECT answer!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Will this have any impact on Apple? If Linux's market share increases (especially on the desktop), will we see developers shifting to Linux from Apple? Could this be the end of Apple? Of course, I'm not talking about tomorrow--rather, I'm talking long term (say 5 years from now).
People have always speculated that the end of Apple will come from Windows. Right now, the enemy of Apple looks to be Linux.
Personally, I think the desktop (Linux) is still not ready. The desktop needs to be standardized (it looks like this is happening with the shift to Gnome), help system needs to be improved, package management has to be standardized (Red Hat RPM, Mandrake RPM, Debian DEB, old-school TARBALL), etc. However, Linux is getting there. So far, the office suite, internet tools (browser, ftp, irc), general graphics tools, etc are pretty good. But others still need work.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What this unfortunate incident really shows is that Amazon actually tracks everyone. Even anonymous postings are kept in their histories! This should be alarming to everyone out there. I wonder if Slashdot does this too? What if the anonymous postings on slashdot are not anymous at all? What if Slashdot records everyone's IP addresses? Workers posting stuff anonymously (to prevent them from being fired) might be hurt. Of course, I am speculating. Slashdot may not keep the IP addresses. But if Amazon can, anything is possible...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Now only if I can figure out how to get there... :)
Of course, if someone discovers that much diamond, the price will plummet and it won't be worth that much (as a matter of fact, diamond companies artificially limit the quantity).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I disagree. The scale of modern capitalist societies (such as USA) are unmatched. I'm not an expert in history but my impression is that courts were not used to the extent that they are now. Nowadays, nearly everyone is suing each other (including different government branches suing each other). I don't think that was the case 100 years ago.
I'm not saying your history is wrong--I'm assuming it is. BUT the lawsuits in the early 1900's were limiited to a few entities (few businesses, few citizens, etc). Nowadays it is vastly different. I haven't checked it but my impression is that the amount of money spent by government (per capita) is higher now than in the early 1900's (can someone back this plz?).
Not all of it is bad. For instance, consumers hurt by products have a recourse now, whereas it was largely limited a hundread years ago (not to mention the fact that most people couldn't afford the few lawyers back then--now, you can sue for anything it seems). Having said that, I personally consider it worse overall. Litigation-oriented societies shift power to the wealthy.
Sivaram Velauthapillai