Funny how a system designed to concentrate wealth in those who already control is does so little for the end consumers.
If capitalism concentrated wealth in those who already controlled it, the Forbes 400 would not show substantial turnovers in a decade, and a massive turnover in a generation.
Property rights are a merely an agreed upon convention among peoples. States formalize that convention. Property rights have no independent reality outside of what groups of people agree upon.
If that was true, then governments would be able to make property rights "disappear" with a mere stroke of the pen. The history of the 20th century shows us that property rights are innate in the nature of man. In places where the government refused to support property rights, private property did not disappear, and in places where the government tried to forcibly suppress it, they found it necessary to terrorize and murder large amounts of people.
You're redefining the ordinary meaning of words in order to twist reality, in order to justify totalitarianism. If one is able to switch jobs, and are paid money, it's quite obvious that they are not slaves.
Most Republicans are aghast at the actions of the 30 senators that shot down the no rape clause bill. Even though those 30 senators are for rape, most Republicans are not.
The purpose of Franken's amendment was to change arbitration laws, not to prevent the legalization of rape. Those who say that those 30 senators are "pro-rape" are stupid, evil demagogues of the lowest order. I suspect that, on the contrary to what you say, most Republicans see through this sort of bullshit.
Unions, even though they are a product of free association
As long as there are laws such as the National Labor Relations Act, etc. that require private businesses to recognize unions, and require workplaces to be unionized, unions are not the product of free association.
Communism is closer to democracy than America is (the US is a constitutional republic, which is why it has more power over it's citizens rather than vice-versa). The whole point of communism is to disperse power as much as possible.
Marx himself envisioned the destruction of democracy, and sought the imposition of totalitarianism.
Can Adam Smith be quoted honestly as being in favor of government regulation, or are all these quotes supposedly in favor of government regulation actually pieces taken out of context or misattributed to Adam Smith? I suspect the latter, since communists and socialists, for instance, have routinely used the technique of pastiche to claim that Adam Smith endorsed something akin to Marx's labor theory of value.
A free market cannot exist without regulation. Without regulation, everything becomes a monopoly as the largest companies erect barriers to entry for their competitors.
That is Marxist fantasy. True long-term monopolies only exist due to government regulation.
And of course, "free" markets make use of good old-fashioned tyranny to make their products in places where the workers have all the social status of slaves.
Slaves don't get paid for their work.
Back when places like China really were slave States, people like you cheered them on, and declared them to be wonderful examples of workers' participatory democracy and true freedom.
In case there are people who remain unaware of it, Fox News sued and won for the right to lie to you.
Untrue.
First, this was a Fox affiliate, not the cable channel.
Second, the two reporters were probably trying to do a hatchet-job on Monsanto. When the Fox station asked them to balance it out with Monsanto's side of the story, they refused, and were fired. They sued under a Florida "whistleblowers" statute, and lost. The court did not decide whether or not the report was truthful. The court did not say that WTVT had a right to lie. The court simply said that no law was broken. There is no evidence that WTVT asked Wilson and Akre to lie.
The rich establishment does not have to set soup kitchens on fire to destroy them. It can be done more insidiously-- by supporting an economic distribution that erodes the middle class and forces more people into poverty.
What is this "economic distribution" that "they" are "supporting"? Those who say stuff like that presuppose that there are people somewhere who arbitrarily assign and dole out wealth to others, and how, if we just had the "right people" (such as yourself) in charge of it all, we would have a utopia.
Unregulated capitalism is like a race car without brakes. It can go really fast, but is prone to horrific crashes.
Compare the panics and crashes of the 19th century under "unregulated capitalism" with the Great Depression.
And unregulated capitalism essentially means NO middle class. If you want to see what unregulated capitalism looks like, look at what it was like in the United States at the turn of the 20th century (or look at China today). You had two classes of people...the haves and have-nots.
China is not "unregulated capitalism", but insofar as capitalism is left alone in China, a large Chinese middle class is growing.
The lower class had to work 14-16 hours a day, 6 days a week, for slave wages, with no job security (you get hurt, you get fired). Don't like working like a slave? Tough luck! It was good for the economy though. Sick people didn't live long enough to be much of a drain on the economy.
14-16 hours a week for 6 days is 84 to 96 hours per week. In fact, the average workweek for manufacturing, coal mining, railroads, building trades and postal employees was around 52 hours, according to this (page 48).
The so-called "socialist" policies put in place during the 1930's resulted in the expansion of the middle class in the 40's and 50's. Otherwise, you'd likely still be working in a sweatshop right now.
Highly unlikely. How many "sweatshops" do you see in places like Hong Kong and Singapore?
If by "nothing more serious than an unpaid tax or unfilled-out form regarding certain firearms laws" you mean "stockpiling illegal weapons," then, yes, the Branch Davidians did nothing wrong.
None of the firearms or weapons possessed by the Branch Davidians were "illegal" as per Amendment II, which trumps all federal firearm laws.
That destruction of private property rights in the means of production is directly responsible for some 120 million deaths is fact.
To claim that capitalism had anything to do with the Iraq War, or to claim that capitalism is responsible for Muslims murdering other Muslims, is lunacy.
Under the Bill of Rights, specifically Amendments I and V, "discrimination" is perfectly legal. People have the right to peaceably assemble with whom they choose, and cannot be deprived of their property without due process, or have their property taken for public use without just compensation.
As for your "flatline spending on entitlements" line, you are either pig-ignorant or selfishly evil, as there are many people who paid into those systems in good faith and expect (rightly) to recieve the benefits they were promised. To put it in marketardspeak for you, imagine if you went to the burger shack and paid for a burger, fries, and a shake and they only gave you an unpeeled potato and told you to bootstrap yourself because they had to balance their budget.
One is a contract for specific services. Taxes are defined as a compulsory payment for which no specific benefit is received in return.
Slashdot Mirror
Sanders is on the "extreme far left" by his own admission. He's a self-identified socialist.
Cuba is not free. Any statistics coming out of Cuba are automatically suspect, as speaking the truth tends to be fatal under totalitarian regimes.
If you believe ordinary Cubans have access to better health care than Americans, you're seriously deranged.
If capitalism concentrated wealth in those who already controlled it, the Forbes 400 would not show substantial turnovers in a decade, and a massive turnover in a generation.
If that was true, then governments would be able to make property rights "disappear" with a mere stroke of the pen. The history of the 20th century shows us that property rights are innate in the nature of man. In places where the government refused to support property rights, private property did not disappear, and in places where the government tried to forcibly suppress it, they found it necessary to terrorize and murder large amounts of people.
You're redefining the ordinary meaning of words in order to twist reality, in order to justify totalitarianism. If one is able to switch jobs, and are paid money, it's quite obvious that they are not slaves.
Property rights exist independent of the State, and do not depend on the State for their existence.
The purpose of Franken's amendment was to change arbitration laws, not to prevent the legalization of rape. Those who say that those 30 senators are "pro-rape" are stupid, evil demagogues of the lowest order. I suspect that, on the contrary to what you say, most Republicans see through this sort of bullshit.
As long as there are laws such as the National Labor Relations Act, etc. that require private businesses to recognize unions, and require workplaces to be unionized, unions are not the product of free association.
Marx himself envisioned the destruction of democracy, and sought the imposition of totalitarianism.
Can Adam Smith be quoted honestly as being in favor of government regulation, or are all these quotes supposedly in favor of government regulation actually pieces taken out of context or misattributed to Adam Smith? I suspect the latter, since communists and socialists, for instance, have routinely used the technique of pastiche to claim that Adam Smith endorsed something akin to Marx's labor theory of value.
That is Marxist fantasy. True long-term monopolies only exist due to government regulation.
Slaves don't get paid for their work.
Back when places like China really were slave States, people like you cheered them on, and declared them to be wonderful examples of workers' participatory democracy and true freedom.
Untrue.
First, this was a Fox affiliate, not the cable channel.
Second, the two reporters were probably trying to do a hatchet-job on Monsanto. When the Fox station asked them to balance it out with Monsanto's side of the story, they refused, and were fired. They sued under a Florida "whistleblowers" statute, and lost. The court did not decide whether or not the report was truthful. The court did not say that WTVT had a right to lie. The court simply said that no law was broken. There is no evidence that WTVT asked Wilson and Akre to lie.
What is this "economic distribution" that "they" are "supporting"? Those who say stuff like that presuppose that there are people somewhere who arbitrarily assign and dole out wealth to others, and how, if we just had the "right people" (such as yourself) in charge of it all, we would have a utopia.
Compare the panics and crashes of the 19th century under "unregulated capitalism" with the Great Depression.
China is not "unregulated capitalism", but insofar as capitalism is left alone in China, a large Chinese middle class is growing.
14-16 hours a week for 6 days is 84 to 96 hours per week. In fact, the average workweek for manufacturing, coal mining, railroads, building trades and postal employees was around 52 hours, according to this (page 48).
Highly unlikely. How many "sweatshops" do you see in places like Hong Kong and Singapore?
Or, when they sent agents to investigate, the Branch Davidians were shot at.
None of the firearms or weapons possessed by the Branch Davidians were "illegal" as per Amendment II, which trumps all federal firearm laws.
You're right, the Manhattan Project would never have happened, as private industry has no reason or incentive to kill large numbers of people.
Or Zimbabwe.
That destruction of private property rights in the means of production is directly responsible for some 120 million deaths is fact.
To claim that capitalism had anything to do with the Iraq War, or to claim that capitalism is responsible for Muslims murdering other Muslims, is lunacy.
UPS and FedEx are prohibited by law from offering mail services, or charging less than a certain amount of money for delivery of letters.
Under the Bill of Rights, specifically Amendments I and V, "discrimination" is perfectly legal. People have the right to peaceably assemble with whom they choose, and cannot be deprived of their property without due process, or have their property taken for public use without just compensation.
Anything that says otherwise is unconstitutional.
FDR prolonged the Great Depression by at least 7 years with the New Deal.
One is a contract for specific services. Taxes are defined as a compulsory payment for which no specific benefit is received in return.