My view is that this is a natural result of capitalism. Under capitalism, all disputes are supposed to be resolved through the courts. This essentially means that the courts and its associated entities (such as law firms) will become more important--and more powerful. Economic crimes (this is what these are) will be enforced more strictly with heavier penalties. In the past, economic crimes were the least important; in the future, they will be the most important.
In addition to an individual (say an artist) being sued, there are other similar issues. For instance, it is risky to start a small business that is a sole proprietorship in USA. You are pretty much forced to limit your liability in some manner (say by incorporating, or by buying insurance). In many other countries, anyone can literally start a small business if they wanted (although it may be more difficult in other respects eg. corruption, lack of capital).
As countries move closer and closer to pure capitalism (all are), this will be more common. A country like USA is THE most capitalist nation on earth (not counting small countries like Barbados, Monaco, Singapore, etc). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the courts to be involved more. And reality shows this to be true. Courts play a larger role in American society than any other.
You either the follow the path of science or you don't. Everything in between is hypocrisy.
What the theists say (and what you claim in your last paragraph) is true. BUT 99% of science is like that. The vast majority of science is THEORIES (not laws; not facts). You cannot really "prove" many things. For instance, can you prove that the radiation and light emitted by the sun is due to nuclear reactions occuring within the sun? Not really. We have never gotten through the surface (any probe will melt long before it gets through the surface). All we have are theories. For all we know, there might be some aliens living in the center of the sun might be responsible for relasing the radiation and heat.
Can you prove that the techtonic plates underneath the surface of the earth causes earthquakes? Not really. It's just a theory. It's based on our best understanding.
Can you prove that matter is made up of particles? Not really. It's all based on indirect observation and theories. The way things are going, it might even be so that particles don't exist*; all you have are strings. Strings cannot be "proven" but that seems to be our best theories right now (actually, strings haven't been widely accepted yet; however, I expect them to be accepted within 20 years).
The same thing goes for theories relating to biology. Yes, you cannot prove the theory of evolution, natural selection, or anything like that. But that's our best models.
So the point that you are making (i.e. need to emphasize appearance) is totally irrelevant. Stricly speaking, 99% of science is appearance. If you follow the path of science, the theist argument of "evidence" is moot--because you hardly ever prove anything (even observational evidence can be wrong). If anything, the theists will disagree EVEN if someone observed it. After all, theists still don't support the view that the universe is billions of years old (religion says a few thousand (Christianity) to a few million (hinduism)--all wrong).
FOOTNOTE:
* By particles not existing, I'm referring to the view that everything in the universe is composed of strings (re: superstring theory; M-Theory). What we thought of as particles are the results of the oscillation of the strings. NOTE: I'm not a scientist but that's my understanding of it.
Before I start, I must ask you not to take anything personally. I use harsh language and it is not meant as at attack on YOU. So, when I say 'you are wrong', don't take it personally:) I'm only going to debate the main (original) topics. Some of what we are discussing is way off topic and our discussion will go out of control (eg. Is anarcho-capitalism really capitalism?; Debt and capitalism; etc)
I don't think this discussion is going to go well because we are not even agreeing on capitalism itself. My understanding of capitalism is drastically different from yours. The following paragraphs will show...
Capitalism says nothing of politics
No, but the fundamental principles of capitalism require the empowerment of individuals. And well as rule of law. Capitalism is a subsystem of the political system. A semi-stable political system that provides these things is necessary for capitalism to function at all.
You are completely wrong on that. Capitalism has nothing to do with politics (except for a few things like courts). Under (pure) capitalism, you will have a very tiny government. This government will only handle "business" disputes and enforcement of capitalistic principles like private property. Everything else, including schools, libraries, roads, rivers, and land, will be privatized. Even things like the police are supposed to be privatized.
Capitalism says nothing of political issues like equality, abortion, war, homelessness, religion, and so forth. You can just as easily have a racist capitalist society as a multicultural one. You can also have a capitalist society that practices slavery, as well as another that doesn't. In fact many capitalists in the 1700's and 1800's were strongly pro-slavery. The abolitionists were thought to be anti-capitalist (since freeing slaves is equivalent to stripping property--something illegal under capitalism.) I don't know where you get the idea that capitalism is political. You can even tell by looking at the top capitalists, the ones that are influential and powerful. Many of them either don't comment or take both sides on political issues.
Lastly, a semi-stable government is not a requirement for capitalism. Capitalism can work anywhere and at anytime. If anything, capitalists argue that capitalism will stabilize unstable countries (this is actually true IMO--the only positive thing about capitalism). If capitalism required stable governments, it never would have taken off in some European countries, or even USA in its early days. In addition, if what you are saying were true, capitalism would have collapsed whenever the government was under threat (say Civil War in USA; WWI/WWII in Europe). Yet that never happened. You can't really claim that USA was NOT capitalistic during the Civil War.
In summary, capitalism is an economic system. Capitalists, as individuals, may have an opinion one way or another. However, the econopolitical system doesn't. Find me some articles where capitalism is used to justify political issues. You'll find that there are none. You can start with Adam Smith and go all the way down to Milton Friedman, and you'll find that the system largely says nothing about politics.
Capitalism works at all times--according to their supporters
Stable governments don't just pop up over night and work wonders. Actually they can, but only once the right institutions and values exist to allow such a transformation. (Such as West Germany after WWII.)
Capitalism does not need stable governments. Don't get me wrong: stable governments will help, but they are not a requirement. Capital will automatically rectify the problems of this world--if capitalists are to be believed.
If what you are saying (i.e. stable governments required for capitalism) is true, then capitalism would never have taken hold in the first place. Places like England (circa 1700's & 1800's) were NOT stable. France around that time was not
I have a new theory--as usual:) ok it's not so new. I'm sure social scientists have remarked on this already
The naming should indicate the underlying econopolitical system and culture in society. USSR was Communist (however little there was), while USA is capitalist. So USSR names things after people since people (eg. collective) take precedence under communist societies. USA names things after corporations since corporations (and other private businesses) take precedence in capitalist societies. Continuing this line of thought, you can analyze other societies as well. A theocratic society would name things after Gods, and a monarchy will name things after the monarchs. A dictatorship would name things after the dictator. The question is... what would a technologically oriented society (say one driven by geeks) name things after?
DISCLAIMER: What I said is not 100% true because no society fully practices one econopolitical system. For instance, USSR is partly communist, mostly totalitarian (dictatorship) and partly an oligarchy, while USA is mostly capitalist, and partly socialist. So you would see multiple characteristics. In addition, other factors (like nationalism) would impact it (eg. a country practicing nationalism will most likely name things after people)
DISCLAIMER:) : Everything I say is about USA. What I say is about capitalism and can be applied to any country. I am simply using it as an example. Capitalism is not based on countries; it is a global system...
Point 1
1. You cannot disprove a negative (that capitalism is the only way to produce the current level of wealth). OTOH, I can turn that right around and say that certain characteristics that are considered "capitalistic" and "constitutionally democratic" have a very high correlation to a nation's wealth. So while I cannot disprove the possibility of a theoretically better way, I have yet to see anyone offer a better alternative.
I don't know what you mean by "constitutionally democratic." Capitalism says nothing about politics (eg. democracy). If anything, pure democracy is mutually exclusive to pure capitalism. Under a pure democracy, the majority will overthrow the minority capitalist elite (that are wealthy).
You are correct in saying that no one has managed to show an alternative that is better. But unlike you, I am willing to consider alternatives. You clearly are not, because you are conformist. In any case, I agree with your first point. One cannot prove that capitalism is the ONLY one with the results as the original poster deemed. That was my point--I was arguing that you cannot prove it. The original poster claimed that "
Capitalism is the only mode of production capable of producing our current wealth. " If he/she can prove that, I'll switch my anti-capitalist views to a pro-capitalist (at least on certain key ideals).
Point 2
2. The countries you site as example of failures of capitalism (Indonesia, Venezuela and Argentina) were highly corrupt, with very weak judicial systems, and certainly not well established capitalist countries.
Doesn't matter. The point is that they are CAPITALIST failures! You cannot ignore the rest of the world and only look at a few countries (say USA*.) If you want to analyze an econopolitical system, you have to look at the whole system. As long as capitalism does not work in these countries, which happen to be a majority of the countries, you cannot claim the system works.
You are citing the failure of a system that these countries never did manage to implement. Rule of law is a very minimal requirement for capitalism to function, which is why capitalists are not anarchists. In order of incentives to work, the legal system has to be at least translucent and at least vaguely predictable.
These countries have a much better legal system than you are giving credit for. This is especially true when you look at economic issues (which is what capitalism is about). Disputes between business ARE resolved through the courts. There IS enforcement of private property. And so forth. Don't tell me that Argentina did not have rule of law or that its legal system (for economic disputes) was poor. All these countries have decent legal systems. So the failure lies, not with the rule of law, but with corruption. Needless to say, capitalists (like you) always ignore corruption and attempt to pin the blame on the courts, socialists, or some evil alien from outer space;) Let's admit it: the problem in these countries is mainly corruption and your system, capitalism, cannot deal with corruption. Furthermore, the corruption faced by these countries is no different than, say, USA--except for the scope and magnitude.
If you capitalism cannot handle these countries (with potential for greater corruption), stay away. Instead, what you see happening is capitalists meddling in other countries' affairs. If Argentina, Indonesia, or whoever else, is not suitable for capitalism, why are capitalists involved (other than for selfish profits)?
Oh yeah, and U of C economist would never recommend pegging a currency to the dollar.
Milton Friedman, the God of Capitalism, might not. But someone
No offense but that isn't much a prediction... first of all, nothing much has happened. Most of it is just words with very little behind it. Second, 1999 is soooo close to the present day. If you predicted what you did in, say, 1979, that's something.
Capitalism is the only mode of production capable of producing our current wealth.
Can you prove that? Nope. I'm not saying you are lying; what you say is true. However, it doesn't mean anything. One could have said that 'monarchy is the only way of running a country' 250 years ago. In fact, many of the intellectuals in Europe at that time DID say that. Some even said that merchantilism (something abhorred by capitalists) was the only way to run "businesses."
If you can prove that capitalism is the only econopolitical system capable of producing wealth, all of us (meaning the whole human population) can agree on it and just shut up and follow it. But can you really prove it? I'm open to your explanation.
Class War
There can never be a class war.
Why? I agree with you that a strong middle class means a lower probability of a class war. But people like me, who believe capitalism will collapse, envision a scenario where the middle class is eroded. Right before capitalism collapses, you will have the capitalist class and the working class. The middle class will be too small to impact anything. So when I say that there will be a class war, I am implicitly assuming that the middle class dissapears before the conflict.
How I envision a Class War
An example of a class war would be the situation in modern day Argentina, Venezuela, and Indonesia. What is happening in these countries is very similar to what will happen with a class war (note: I'm not saying there is a full fledged class war in these countries--only that there are some elements). When up to 75% of the population is living in poverty, as in some of these countries, there WILL be a class war--regardless of what people say. The path that will lead to the collapse of capitalism will be similar to what Argentina is going through. Let's look at Argentina.
No more than 10 years ago, Argentina was been praised for its pro-capitalist reforms. Argentina was the poster boy of capitalism. Economists from the University of Chicago probably had a greater impact on it than its own citizens. Every developing and poor country was to follow its lead. Markets were opened up. Crown corporations were privatized. And so forth.
Ten years from the past, we see a messed up country that is on the verge of collapse. The only thing holding it up and preventing a mass class war, or regress to dictatorship, are the billions pumped in by the IMF. The currency has plummeted. Millions unemployed with no positive future in sight. Many unable to pay their debts (especially since the currency was pegged to the US dollar). All of this is the fault of the capitalists (many of whom are foreigners from USA and Europe--it wasn't even the Argentinians who came up with these policies). Now, don't get me wrong. The heavy government corruption caused some problems as well. However, one cannot deny that the capitalists created many others. I'm not here to attack capitalism in Argentina; I'm trying to paint a picture of what will happen prior to the collapse of capitalism.
So what's happening there now? Well, there is almost open protests happening on a monthy basis. There is probably no end in sight. The economic situation is bleak. Unemployment is high. Crime is going up. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the middle class is shrinking. As expectedly, more of the middle class is becoming poorer than richer (in other words, this isn't a case where the middle class rises to upper class). And the working class is becoming working poor. And so forth. My prediction is that this will just keep getting worse and worse. In fact, I predict that the middle class will totally dissapear. WHEN that happens, you will end up with a situation where a class war may occur.
That's what I see happening in other places. Let's pick USA, flag bearer of capitalism and the richest country in the world*. The same situation as Argentina will oc
I post so many messages that karma is irrelevant to me:) No joke... but you are right: that message was similar to one I posted before...sorry about that...
This seems to be a very confusing issue. It IS a copyright violation to list the full article without permission. But I see people doing it. For instance, the popular left-wing site, Common Dreams, does it under fair-use. People on message boards do it too. And of course, some anarchists* do it. So I don't know what the deal is. I think it is a violation but the laws aren't enforced it seems...
(* Some (or maybe many) anarchists don't recognize copyrights. They claim it is a government instituted control).
That seems highly unlikely for the following reasons.
Firstly, The US government is very unilateral. This goes for science too (eg. Global Warming--the US govt still does not officially acknowlege this). This is especially true with the Bush administration and its 'with us or against us' ideology. If the US govt really didn't want ISS, they will simply say we are pulling out. No one else can--or will--do anything.
Secondly, if USA is LEGALLY committed to the ISS, then doing this doesn't change anything. They will still be penalized, regardless of what scam they pull. Excuses are just that: excuses. Legal agreements cannot be avoided by using excuses.
Lastly, it is agreed by many that Hubble is a major scientific progress. It has helped the scientific community. Given that, why would it be killed just because of ISS? Why not cook up some other excuse? I don't know what's a good excuse but perhaps you can cnacle the Shuttle program, which will probably be the demise of the ISS. If NASA really cared about the scientific community, shredding Hubble is a big no-no.
So I think you are wrong. All this just indicates to me that the ultimate goal is to shift funding towards militaristic aims. THe US govt is probably trying to get NASA to engage activities that will benefit their Missile Shield, as well as the future potential Star Wars. Bush's space plan announced a few weeks ago is pretty much that.
The US govt is not cutting these programs in order to save money. First of all, the budget for NASA isn't being cut. Second, even if were, it will be miniscule. The savings will probably be 1/10th of what is spent on Iraq in one month.
The real reason these are being cut is because of Bush's new plan that he announced a few weeks ago. These are direct results of that. Bush announced some things and the only way to achieve those is to redistribute funding from one program to another.
As a side note, Bush's whole plan revolves around militarization of space. What I am about to say is speculation. NASA is to be geared more towards that than trying to detect stars/black holes/etc in space, or to send near-space probes. The missile shield is going to cost around $50 billion over 10 years (these numbers keep changing though). If the missile shield is "successful", it will likely be expanded to Star Wars. Building a missile shield without expanding to Star Wars is idiotic and makes no sense. When Star Wars is to be rolled out, it will require NASA to be involved heavily. All of Bush's plans seem to be consistent with that. NASA's priorities are being shifted from scientific endeavours to militaristic ones. If what I am proposing becomes true, NASA will merge with the US military and become a military complex, similar to how the space agencies for China and USSR were.
Redistribution of wealth (as supported by most leftists, including me) has little to do with money per se. It isn't about materialism. I don't care how rich you are, how big your house is, or how many pretty ladies you sleep with. Money isn't so important. WHAT MATTERS is POWER. Under capitalism, money can be translated into power. Therefore, some people who are extremely wealthy are super powerful. For example, YOU (say, middle class) has very little influence over politicians. You can call up your MP or whatever but it isn't a big deal. Most MPs just ignore you, or just send back a form letter (likely created by their assistant). But if you were rich, or were a CEO, or whatever, you have great influence over politics. For instance, many CEOs and wealthy owners have direct access to seniour politicians. Some are even on first-name basis with them. Similarly, you pretty much have to be a millionarie or be able to raise millions (i.e. have contacts and be a part of the elite clique) to run for the US presidency or any senior position. I can't remember the last guy who wasn't a millionaire in the last 50 years and became a president. This is what the issue is.
Power isn't limited to politics either. It extends to the legal system too. Wealthy people can more easily get off after committing crime, or get lesser sentences. I will probably get a longer sentence for breaking into your house and stealing your tv (when you are not home) than if I defrauded you of $100,000. How many years do you think the Enron fraudsters are going to serve in jail? It is taking so long that it wouldn't surprise me if only 2 or 3 people were jailed for 15 years total (combined) (as a side note, one guy is already going ot jail for 10 years).
I have only talked about people so far. But how about non-biological entities like corporations. The same thing there. Corporations are gaining immense power that they will be more powerful than countries (this is already the case for smaller countries. There have been cases where large corporations can basically write laws and have their way in small countries).
Most redistribution schemes is an attempt to block a minority from accumulating huge amounts of power. This is what progressive tax systems (eg. income tax) attempts to do. You are most likely an elitist so you don't care about a few hoarding huge amounts of power. But many others do. Even centrists (who are neither capitalists nor socialists) support curbing of power accumulation. That should say something...
Also this has nothing to do with idiocy. IT is about conflicts between ideals. If we become corporate slaves is that ok? Some would say yes; some would say no.
How much do you want to bet Usama bin Laden is NOT in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? My bet is that he is somewhere else. Don't know where but somewhere other than a place everyone is looking at. If I had to guess, I'd say he is in Africa.
As a side note, UBL said that there would be a major operation in USA(?) within a few months.
That's only true if you are not affiliated with KBR (aka Halliburton), Bechtel, and other similar companies. OR if you are not addicted to oil. OR if you are not an imperialist.
If any of the above is true for you then spending hundreads of billions and getting shot at is well worth it... Suffice to say, the US government fits more than one such condition...
Sorry about nitpicking your argument but this is important... Same sex marriage is FAR MORE important than a billion dollars, or ten billion, or whatever. Same sex marriage deals with equality (from a leftist point of view) or with sin (a right wing point of view).
Social issues are FAR more important than economics. It always has been and always will be. Granting equality to women and blacks (basically non-whites) was of far greater importance than the country becoming richer or poorer by, say, $500 billion. Same sex marriage is somewhat similar (although it impacts less people eg. less than 10% of the population are homosexuals) and is just as important.
Perhaps you don't care; but overall, politics is more important than economics. Don't get me wrong: both are important. BUT giving equality to homosexuals is very important according to most leftists, including me.
The economy lobbyists have such a strong influence on politics.. that's really sad.
That will always be true IMO. Just like how space and time cannot be seperated and hence is called spacetime, you cannot seperate politics and economics. That's why I call it econopolitics.
I can see why people like to seperate them. Over 90% of the world is capitalist. And capitalism is a purely economic system (whereas most other systems are economics+politics). So it might seem that you can seperate them. But in reality, seperating it makes no sense. For instance, a country's welfare policy (politics) will impact economics, and vice versa. A country's minimum wage polices (economic) will impact politics, and vice versa.
Exiling the wealthy is rare--I have never heard of it before. Sparta is what? Greece I think. Right? Were they practicing DIRECT democracy at that time? I can't see it happening under REPRESENTATIVE democracy or something worse than that. Athens at one point, if I'm not mistaken, had direct democracy so perhaps Sparta as well--not sure.
The discrepancy in wealth will continuously increase under capitalism. There is no way around it because capitalism is an elitist system. All elitist systems result in a few hoarding the wealth. As Marx said, capitalism will collapse when the discrepancy gets so large as to cause a class war. Whether you think Marx was a fool (as capitalists claim) or that he was brilliant (as socialists claim), you have to admit that there is a probability of a class war when the discrepancy in wealth gets very large.
I also have this theory that free markets will lead to oligopolies and monopolies, with heavy concentration of power. I think this is already happening (although at a slow pace). There are less corporations dominating a particular market (eg. media, airplane manufacturers, cars, even computers) than EVER. Capitalists always claim that this is due to government intervention. For example, they claim that something like 11 media companies control 90% of the media (print, radio, tv) in USA (300 million pop) because the FCC (federal agency) regulates the airwaves/grant licenses/etc. This is nothing more than an excuse. The truth of the matter is, corporations always monopolize their industry. And capitalists can't stop it. So this is another looming cloud over capitalism.
Since when did North Korea become communist?... oh that's right. Your 15 yr old understanding of communism probably says so. Either that or you have fallen for government propaganda...
Let's face it. Bush's new plan is nothing more than militarization of space. Any space mission is to achieve this goal. Everything else is totally worthless. So, it should not come as a surprise that the US govt is ditching its Hubble Telescope, possibly the Station Station in the future, and maybe even the Mars missions (who cares about Mars when putting weapons in space is a higher priority?).
Here is an editorial on the recently announced space plan by Bush. Conservatives might want to stay away since its from a socialist web site but if you are open, check it out.
With that line of logic, why not link to articles that require subscription (like Wall Street Journal). Perhaps Slashdot should start listing more WSJ links.:(
The point is... if the general audience can't read it, it's useless. Yes, you can ask them to go and register but most--including me--don't. If one only reads NYT then registering isn't a big deal, but if one reads many sources then you have to register at many places (eg. if you want Washington Post, you have to register too--although not all articles it seems).
The problem is that you have to register to a million websites. I mean, it's not just the New York Times that you are trying to read. There are others, including Washington Post, etc. I want an easily accessible way to access many websites. Registering for each one gets lame after a while.
So if you just read one paper, that's cool. But otherwise, it gets tiresome.
Perhaps a better way is for them to show an ad on the first page for those that don't register, and then let them go to regular articles (kind of like Salon.com).
No offense but that's bad advice. His company's main business is VOIP--not writing software. Some of the things that he requires will be very complicated (eg. CRM, SRM, etc). It will take a lot of resources & time to write something that he requires. It will be far cheaper to purchase some off-the-shelf package for a few hundread or few thousand (depends on what you need) than to develop something.
In any case, regardless of costs & time, one should focus on their core competency. In this case, it's going to be VOIP. This company will live and die by that. Whether they develop an amazing internal application is irrelevant (assuming you can find some off the shelf package to suit the company). Instead of wasting time developing this software, the company should be spending time on VOIP issues and how to beat the competition. Every minute and every dollar spent on something other than the core competency (VOIP) is a waste.
Whatever you do in the end, don't make the same mistake that tech-oriented people always make. Namely, putting the technology ahead of the business. There is no point of using OSS just because you want to. What comes first is the business. What is best for the business? If it is Windows, that's what you should go with. If OSS works out better, that's what you should use. Also, don't forget that you can have a mix. For example, you can use some Windows software for the business process tasks (say CRM or something) but use linux (openoffice,etc) for basic desktop use. Depending on what you need, you can pull your customer data from the Windows database (say MySQL, or MS SQL Server, or Oracle) into a linux application (this depends on what your final business software allows).
Slashdot Mirror
My view is that this is a natural result of capitalism. Under capitalism, all disputes are supposed to be resolved through the courts. This essentially means that the courts and its associated entities (such as law firms) will become more important--and more powerful. Economic crimes (this is what these are) will be enforced more strictly with heavier penalties. In the past, economic crimes were the least important; in the future, they will be the most important.
In addition to an individual (say an artist) being sued, there are other similar issues. For instance, it is risky to start a small business that is a sole proprietorship in USA. You are pretty much forced to limit your liability in some manner (say by incorporating, or by buying insurance). In many other countries, anyone can literally start a small business if they wanted (although it may be more difficult in other respects eg. corruption, lack of capital).
As countries move closer and closer to pure capitalism (all are), this will be more common. A country like USA is THE most capitalist nation on earth (not counting small countries like Barbados, Monaco, Singapore, etc). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the courts to be involved more. And reality shows this to be true. Courts play a larger role in American society than any other.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You either the follow the path of science or you don't. Everything in between is hypocrisy.
What the theists say (and what you claim in your last paragraph) is true. BUT 99% of science is like that. The vast majority of science is THEORIES (not laws; not facts). You cannot really "prove" many things. For instance, can you prove that the radiation and light emitted by the sun is due to nuclear reactions occuring within the sun? Not really. We have never gotten through the surface (any probe will melt long before it gets through the surface). All we have are theories. For all we know, there might be some aliens living in the center of the sun might be responsible for relasing the radiation and heat.
Can you prove that the techtonic plates underneath the surface of the earth causes earthquakes? Not really. It's just a theory. It's based on our best understanding.
Can you prove that matter is made up of particles? Not really. It's all based on indirect observation and theories. The way things are going, it might even be so that particles don't exist*; all you have are strings. Strings cannot be "proven" but that seems to be our best theories right now (actually, strings haven't been widely accepted yet; however, I expect them to be accepted within 20 years).
The same thing goes for theories relating to biology. Yes, you cannot prove the theory of evolution, natural selection, or anything like that. But that's our best models.
So the point that you are making (i.e. need to emphasize appearance) is totally irrelevant. Stricly speaking, 99% of science is appearance. If you follow the path of science, the theist argument of "evidence" is moot--because you hardly ever prove anything (even observational evidence can be wrong). If anything, the theists will disagree EVEN if someone observed it. After all, theists still don't support the view that the universe is billions of years old (religion says a few thousand (Christianity) to a few million (hinduism)--all wrong).
FOOTNOTE:
* By particles not existing, I'm referring to the view that everything in the universe is composed of strings (re: superstring theory; M-Theory). What we thought of as particles are the results of the oscillation of the strings. NOTE: I'm not a scientist but that's my understanding of it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Before I start, I must ask you not to take anything personally. I use harsh language and it is not meant as at attack on YOU. So, when I say 'you are wrong', don't take it personally :) I'm only going to debate the main (original) topics. Some of what we are discussing is way off topic and our discussion will go out of control (eg. Is anarcho-capitalism really capitalism?; Debt and capitalism; etc)
I don't think this discussion is going to go well because we are not even agreeing on capitalism itself. My understanding of capitalism is drastically different from yours. The following paragraphs will show...
Capitalism says nothing of politics
No, but the fundamental principles of capitalism require the empowerment of individuals. And well as rule of law. Capitalism is a subsystem of the political system. A semi-stable political system that provides these things is necessary for capitalism to function at all.
You are completely wrong on that. Capitalism has nothing to do with politics (except for a few things like courts). Under (pure) capitalism, you will have a very tiny government. This government will only handle "business" disputes and enforcement of capitalistic principles like private property. Everything else, including schools, libraries, roads, rivers, and land, will be privatized. Even things like the police are supposed to be privatized.
Capitalism says nothing of political issues like equality, abortion, war, homelessness, religion, and so forth. You can just as easily have a racist capitalist society as a multicultural one. You can also have a capitalist society that practices slavery, as well as another that doesn't. In fact many capitalists in the 1700's and 1800's were strongly pro-slavery. The abolitionists were thought to be anti-capitalist (since freeing slaves is equivalent to stripping property--something illegal under capitalism.) I don't know where you get the idea that capitalism is political. You can even tell by looking at the top capitalists, the ones that are influential and powerful. Many of them either don't comment or take both sides on political issues.
Lastly, a semi-stable government is not a requirement for capitalism. Capitalism can work anywhere and at anytime. If anything, capitalists argue that capitalism will stabilize unstable countries (this is actually true IMO--the only positive thing about capitalism). If capitalism required stable governments, it never would have taken off in some European countries, or even USA in its early days. In addition, if what you are saying were true, capitalism would have collapsed whenever the government was under threat (say Civil War in USA; WWI/WWII in Europe). Yet that never happened. You can't really claim that USA was NOT capitalistic during the Civil War.
In summary, capitalism is an economic system. Capitalists, as individuals, may have an opinion one way or another. However, the econopolitical system doesn't. Find me some articles where capitalism is used to justify political issues. You'll find that there are none. You can start with Adam Smith and go all the way down to Milton Friedman, and you'll find that the system largely says nothing about politics.
Capitalism works at all times--according to their supporters
Stable governments don't just pop up over night and work wonders. Actually they can, but only once the right institutions and values exist to allow such a transformation. (Such as West Germany after WWII.)
Capitalism does not need stable governments. Don't get me wrong: stable governments will help, but they are not a requirement. Capital will automatically rectify the problems of this world--if capitalists are to be believed.
If what you are saying (i.e. stable governments required for capitalism) is true, then capitalism would never have taken hold in the first place. Places like England (circa 1700's & 1800's) were NOT stable. France around that time was not
I have a new theory--as usual :) ok it's not so new. I'm sure social scientists have remarked on this already
The naming should indicate the underlying econopolitical system and culture in society. USSR was Communist (however little there was), while USA is capitalist. So USSR names things after people since people (eg. collective) take precedence under communist societies. USA names things after corporations since corporations (and other private businesses) take precedence in capitalist societies. Continuing this line of thought, you can analyze other societies as well. A theocratic society would name things after Gods, and a monarchy will name things after the monarchs. A dictatorship would name things after the dictator. The question is... what would a technologically oriented society (say one driven by geeks) name things after?
DISCLAIMER: What I said is not 100% true because no society fully practices one econopolitical system. For instance, USSR is partly communist, mostly totalitarian (dictatorship) and partly an oligarchy, while USA is mostly capitalist, and partly socialist. So you would see multiple characteristics. In addition, other factors (like nationalism) would impact it (eg. a country practicing nationalism will most likely name things after people)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
DISCLAIMER :) : Everything I say is about USA. What I say is about capitalism and can be applied to any country. I am simply using it as an example. Capitalism is not based on countries; it is a global system...
;) Let's admit it: the problem in these countries is mainly corruption and your system, capitalism, cannot deal with corruption. Furthermore, the corruption faced by these countries is no different than, say, USA--except for the scope and magnitude.
Point 1
1. You cannot disprove a negative (that capitalism is the only way to produce the current level of wealth). OTOH, I can turn that right around and say that certain characteristics that are considered "capitalistic" and "constitutionally democratic" have a very high correlation to a nation's wealth. So while I cannot disprove the possibility of a theoretically better way, I have yet to see anyone offer a better alternative.
I don't know what you mean by "constitutionally democratic." Capitalism says nothing about politics (eg. democracy). If anything, pure democracy is mutually exclusive to pure capitalism. Under a pure democracy, the majority will overthrow the minority capitalist elite (that are wealthy).
You are correct in saying that no one has managed to show an alternative that is better. But unlike you, I am willing to consider alternatives. You clearly are not, because you are conformist. In any case, I agree with your first point. One cannot prove that capitalism is the ONLY one with the results as the original poster deemed. That was my point--I was arguing that you cannot prove it. The original poster claimed that " Capitalism is the only mode of production capable of producing our current wealth. " If he/she can prove that, I'll switch my anti-capitalist views to a pro-capitalist (at least on certain key ideals).
Point 2
2. The countries you site as example of failures of capitalism (Indonesia, Venezuela and Argentina) were highly corrupt, with very weak judicial systems, and certainly not well established capitalist countries.
Doesn't matter. The point is that they are CAPITALIST failures! You cannot ignore the rest of the world and only look at a few countries (say USA*.) If you want to analyze an econopolitical system, you have to look at the whole system. As long as capitalism does not work in these countries, which happen to be a majority of the countries, you cannot claim the system works.
You are citing the failure of a system that these countries never did manage to implement. Rule of law is a very minimal requirement for capitalism to function, which is why capitalists are not anarchists. In order of incentives to work, the legal system has to be at least translucent and at least vaguely predictable.
These countries have a much better legal system than you are giving credit for. This is especially true when you look at economic issues (which is what capitalism is about). Disputes between business ARE resolved through the courts. There IS enforcement of private property. And so forth. Don't tell me that Argentina did not have rule of law or that its legal system (for economic disputes) was poor. All these countries have decent legal systems. So the failure lies, not with the rule of law, but with corruption. Needless to say, capitalists (like you) always ignore corruption and attempt to pin the blame on the courts, socialists, or some evil alien from outer space
If you capitalism cannot handle these countries (with potential for greater corruption), stay away. Instead, what you see happening is capitalists meddling in other countries' affairs. If Argentina, Indonesia, or whoever else, is not suitable for capitalism, why are capitalists involved (other than for selfish profits)?
Oh yeah, and U of C economist would never recommend pegging a currency to the dollar.
Milton Friedman, the God of Capitalism, might not. But someone
So true... If these things really worked, they would be like Viagra for the younger crowd. You'll see them being advertised during Super Bowls ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
No offense but that isn't much a prediction... first of all, nothing much has happened. Most of it is just words with very little behind it. Second, 1999 is soooo close to the present day. If you predicted what you did in, say, 1979, that's something.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Capitalists and their Overconfidence
Capitalism is the only mode of production capable of producing our current wealth.
Can you prove that? Nope. I'm not saying you are lying; what you say is true. However, it doesn't mean anything. One could have said that 'monarchy is the only way of running a country' 250 years ago. In fact, many of the intellectuals in Europe at that time DID say that. Some even said that merchantilism (something abhorred by capitalists) was the only way to run "businesses."
If you can prove that capitalism is the only econopolitical system capable of producing wealth, all of us (meaning the whole human population) can agree on it and just shut up and follow it. But can you really prove it? I'm open to your explanation.
Class War
There can never be a class war.
Why? I agree with you that a strong middle class means a lower probability of a class war. But people like me, who believe capitalism will collapse, envision a scenario where the middle class is eroded. Right before capitalism collapses, you will have the capitalist class and the working class. The middle class will be too small to impact anything. So when I say that there will be a class war, I am implicitly assuming that the middle class dissapears before the conflict.
How I envision a Class War
An example of a class war would be the situation in modern day Argentina, Venezuela, and Indonesia. What is happening in these countries is very similar to what will happen with a class war (note: I'm not saying there is a full fledged class war in these countries--only that there are some elements). When up to 75% of the population is living in poverty, as in some of these countries, there WILL be a class war--regardless of what people say. The path that will lead to the collapse of capitalism will be similar to what Argentina is going through. Let's look at Argentina.
No more than 10 years ago, Argentina was been praised for its pro-capitalist reforms. Argentina was the poster boy of capitalism. Economists from the University of Chicago probably had a greater impact on it than its own citizens. Every developing and poor country was to follow its lead. Markets were opened up. Crown corporations were privatized. And so forth.
Ten years from the past, we see a messed up country that is on the verge of collapse. The only thing holding it up and preventing a mass class war, or regress to dictatorship, are the billions pumped in by the IMF. The currency has plummeted. Millions unemployed with no positive future in sight. Many unable to pay their debts (especially since the currency was pegged to the US dollar). All of this is the fault of the capitalists (many of whom are foreigners from USA and Europe--it wasn't even the Argentinians who came up with these policies). Now, don't get me wrong. The heavy government corruption caused some problems as well. However, one cannot deny that the capitalists created many others. I'm not here to attack capitalism in Argentina; I'm trying to paint a picture of what will happen prior to the collapse of capitalism.
So what's happening there now? Well, there is almost open protests happening on a monthy basis. There is probably no end in sight. The economic situation is bleak. Unemployment is high. Crime is going up. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the middle class is shrinking. As expectedly, more of the middle class is becoming poorer than richer (in other words, this isn't a case where the middle class rises to upper class). And the working class is becoming working poor. And so forth. My prediction is that this will just keep getting worse and worse. In fact, I predict that the middle class will totally dissapear. WHEN that happens, you will end up with a situation where a class war may occur.
That's what I see happening in other places. Let's pick USA, flag bearer of capitalism and the richest country in the world*. The same situation as Argentina will oc
I post so many messages that karma is irrelevant to me :) No joke... but you are right: that message was similar to one I posted before...sorry about that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This seems to be a very confusing issue. It IS a copyright violation to list the full article without permission. But I see people doing it. For instance, the popular left-wing site, Common Dreams, does it under fair-use. People on message boards do it too. And of course, some anarchists* do it. So I don't know what the deal is. I think it is a violation but the laws aren't enforced it seems...
(* Some (or maybe many) anarchists don't recognize copyrights. They claim it is a government instituted control).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That seems highly unlikely for the following reasons.
Firstly, The US government is very unilateral. This goes for science too (eg. Global Warming--the US govt still does not officially acknowlege this). This is especially true with the Bush administration and its 'with us or against us' ideology. If the US govt really didn't want ISS, they will simply say we are pulling out. No one else can--or will--do anything.
Secondly, if USA is LEGALLY committed to the ISS, then doing this doesn't change anything. They will still be penalized, regardless of what scam they pull. Excuses are just that: excuses. Legal agreements cannot be avoided by using excuses.
Lastly, it is agreed by many that Hubble is a major scientific progress. It has helped the scientific community. Given that, why would it be killed just because of ISS? Why not cook up some other excuse? I don't know what's a good excuse but perhaps you can cnacle the Shuttle program, which will probably be the demise of the ISS. If NASA really cared about the scientific community, shredding Hubble is a big no-no.
So I think you are wrong. All this just indicates to me that the ultimate goal is to shift funding towards militaristic aims. THe US govt is probably trying to get NASA to engage activities that will benefit their Missile Shield, as well as the future potential Star Wars. Bush's space plan announced a few weeks ago is pretty much that.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The US govt is not cutting these programs in order to save money. First of all, the budget for NASA isn't being cut. Second, even if were, it will be miniscule. The savings will probably be 1/10th of what is spent on Iraq in one month.
The real reason these are being cut is because of Bush's new plan that he announced a few weeks ago. These are direct results of that. Bush announced some things and the only way to achieve those is to redistribute funding from one program to another.
As a side note, Bush's whole plan revolves around militarization of space. What I am about to say is speculation. NASA is to be geared more towards that than trying to detect stars/black holes/etc in space, or to send near-space probes. The missile shield is going to cost around $50 billion over 10 years (these numbers keep changing though). If the missile shield is "successful", it will likely be expanded to Star Wars. Building a missile shield without expanding to Star Wars is idiotic and makes no sense. When Star Wars is to be rolled out, it will require NASA to be involved heavily. All of Bush's plans seem to be consistent with that. NASA's priorities are being shifted from scientific endeavours to militaristic ones. If what I am proposing becomes true, NASA will merge with the US military and become a military complex, similar to how the space agencies for China and USSR were.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Redistribution of wealth (as supported by most leftists, including me) has little to do with money per se. It isn't about materialism. I don't care how rich you are, how big your house is, or how many pretty ladies you sleep with. Money isn't so important. WHAT MATTERS is POWER. Under capitalism, money can be translated into power. Therefore, some people who are extremely wealthy are super powerful. For example, YOU (say, middle class) has very little influence over politicians. You can call up your MP or whatever but it isn't a big deal. Most MPs just ignore you, or just send back a form letter (likely created by their assistant). But if you were rich, or were a CEO, or whatever, you have great influence over politics. For instance, many CEOs and wealthy owners have direct access to seniour politicians. Some are even on first-name basis with them. Similarly, you pretty much have to be a millionarie or be able to raise millions (i.e. have contacts and be a part of the elite clique) to run for the US presidency or any senior position. I can't remember the last guy who wasn't a millionaire in the last 50 years and became a president. This is what the issue is.
Power isn't limited to politics either. It extends to the legal system too. Wealthy people can more easily get off after committing crime, or get lesser sentences. I will probably get a longer sentence for breaking into your house and stealing your tv (when you are not home) than if I defrauded you of $100,000. How many years do you think the Enron fraudsters are going to serve in jail? It is taking so long that it wouldn't surprise me if only 2 or 3 people were jailed for 15 years total (combined) (as a side note, one guy is already going ot jail for 10 years).
I have only talked about people so far. But how about non-biological entities like corporations. The same thing there. Corporations are gaining immense power that they will be more powerful than countries (this is already the case for smaller countries. There have been cases where large corporations can basically write laws and have their way in small countries).
Most redistribution schemes is an attempt to block a minority from accumulating huge amounts of power. This is what progressive tax systems (eg. income tax) attempts to do. You are most likely an elitist so you don't care about a few hoarding huge amounts of power. But many others do. Even centrists (who are neither capitalists nor socialists) support curbing of power accumulation. That should say something...
Also this has nothing to do with idiocy. IT is about conflicts between ideals. If we become corporate slaves is that ok? Some would say yes; some would say no.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How much do you want to bet Usama bin Laden is NOT in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? My bet is that he is somewhere else. Don't know where but somewhere other than a place everyone is looking at. If I had to guess, I'd say he is in Africa.
As a side note, UBL said that there would be a major operation in USA(?) within a few months.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's only true if you are not affiliated with KBR (aka Halliburton), Bechtel, and other similar companies. OR if you are not addicted to oil. OR if you are not an imperialist.
If any of the above is true for you then spending hundreads of billions and getting shot at is well worth it... Suffice to say, the US government fits more than one such condition...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sorry about nitpicking your argument but this is important... Same sex marriage is FAR MORE important than a billion dollars, or ten billion, or whatever. Same sex marriage deals with equality (from a leftist point of view) or with sin (a right wing point of view).
Social issues are FAR more important than economics. It always has been and always will be. Granting equality to women and blacks (basically non-whites) was of far greater importance than the country becoming richer or poorer by, say, $500 billion. Same sex marriage is somewhat similar (although it impacts less people eg. less than 10% of the population are homosexuals) and is just as important.
Perhaps you don't care; but overall, politics is more important than economics. Don't get me wrong: both are important. BUT giving equality to homosexuals is very important according to most leftists, including me.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The economy lobbyists have such a strong influence on politics.. that's really sad.
That will always be true IMO. Just like how space and time cannot be seperated and hence is called spacetime, you cannot seperate politics and economics. That's why I call it econopolitics.
I can see why people like to seperate them. Over 90% of the world is capitalist. And capitalism is a purely economic system (whereas most other systems are economics+politics). So it might seem that you can seperate them. But in reality, seperating it makes no sense. For instance, a country's welfare policy (politics) will impact economics, and vice versa. A country's minimum wage polices (economic) will impact politics, and vice versa.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Exiling the wealthy is rare--I have never heard of it before. Sparta is what? Greece I think. Right? Were they practicing DIRECT democracy at that time? I can't see it happening under REPRESENTATIVE democracy or something worse than that. Athens at one point, if I'm not mistaken, had direct democracy so perhaps Sparta as well--not sure.
The discrepancy in wealth will continuously increase under capitalism. There is no way around it because capitalism is an elitist system. All elitist systems result in a few hoarding the wealth. As Marx said, capitalism will collapse when the discrepancy gets so large as to cause a class war. Whether you think Marx was a fool (as capitalists claim) or that he was brilliant (as socialists claim), you have to admit that there is a probability of a class war when the discrepancy in wealth gets very large.
I also have this theory that free markets will lead to oligopolies and monopolies, with heavy concentration of power. I think this is already happening (although at a slow pace). There are less corporations dominating a particular market (eg. media, airplane manufacturers, cars, even computers) than EVER. Capitalists always claim that this is due to government intervention. For example, they claim that something like 11 media companies control 90% of the media (print, radio, tv) in USA (300 million pop) because the FCC (federal agency) regulates the airwaves/grant licenses/etc. This is nothing more than an excuse. The truth of the matter is, corporations always monopolize their industry. And capitalists can't stop it. So this is another looming cloud over capitalism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Since when did North Korea become communist? ... oh that's right. Your 15 yr old understanding of communism probably says so. Either that or you have fallen for government propaganda...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Let's face it. Bush's new plan is nothing more than militarization of space. Any space mission is to achieve this goal. Everything else is totally worthless. So, it should not come as a surprise that the US govt is ditching its Hubble Telescope, possibly the Station Station in the future, and maybe even the Mars missions (who cares about Mars when putting weapons in space is a higher priority?).
Here is an editorial on the recently announced space plan by Bush. Conservatives might want to stay away since its from a socialist web site but if you are open, check it out.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
With that line of logic, why not link to articles that require subscription (like Wall Street Journal). Perhaps Slashdot should start listing more WSJ links. :(
The point is... if the general audience can't read it, it's useless. Yes, you can ask them to go and register but most--including me--don't. If one only reads NYT then registering isn't a big deal, but if one reads many sources then you have to register at many places (eg. if you want Washington Post, you have to register too--although not all articles it seems).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The problem is that you have to register to a million websites. I mean, it's not just the New York Times that you are trying to read. There are others, including Washington Post, etc. I want an easily accessible way to access many websites. Registering for each one gets lame after a while.
So if you just read one paper, that's cool. But otherwise, it gets tiresome.
Perhaps a better way is for them to show an ad on the first page for those that don't register, and then let them go to regular articles (kind of like Salon.com).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This is a good post. I agree with everything he/she says.... This post nicely sums up the state of CRM/SRM/etc open-source software...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
No offense but that's bad advice. His company's main business is VOIP--not writing software. Some of the things that he requires will be very complicated (eg. CRM, SRM, etc). It will take a lot of resources & time to write something that he requires. It will be far cheaper to purchase some off-the-shelf package for a few hundread or few thousand (depends on what you need) than to develop something.
In any case, regardless of costs & time, one should focus on their core competency. In this case, it's going to be VOIP. This company will live and die by that. Whether they develop an amazing internal application is irrelevant (assuming you can find some off the shelf package to suit the company). Instead of wasting time developing this software, the company should be spending time on VOIP issues and how to beat the competition. Every minute and every dollar spent on something other than the core competency (VOIP) is a waste.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Whatever you do in the end, don't make the same mistake that tech-oriented people always make. Namely, putting the technology ahead of the business. There is no point of using OSS just because you want to. What comes first is the business. What is best for the business? If it is Windows, that's what you should go with. If OSS works out better, that's what you should use. Also, don't forget that you can have a mix. For example, you can use some Windows software for the business process tasks (say CRM or something) but use linux (openoffice,etc) for basic desktop use. Depending on what you need, you can pull your customer data from the Windows database (say MySQL, or MS SQL Server, or Oracle) into a linux application (this depends on what your final business software allows).
Sivaram Velauthapillai