Ralph Nader on American democracy [Archive]

minarchist

13th December 2010, 13:53

I agree with Nader that we're living in a system totally dominated by the two-party system, and that they are really best friends rather than enemies. American politics is more like professional wrestling than a real democratic power struggle. We've been taught that only Democratic and Republican candidates matter, and others can't win... so you should just "choose" which one of them you think is less awful. And it's true. The electoral college and laws are designed to keep people who go against the establishment OUT. It also won't be changing because they've come too far to lose ground now.

But this idea that it's the corporations running the country is kinda silly. It doesn't even make sense -- they wouldn't have even needed a "bailout" if they were the controllers. They could just directly manipulate the money into their pockets quietly. Corrupt corporations ARE a big part of the problem, but it's not all or even most corporations. Most corporations are just companies trying to make good money, and America is full of small corporations run by people who just dreamed big, started their own business and did well -- they've no connection to Washington. It's just a very small few: mostly banks, credit card companies and insurance companies. They are the "thug financiers" of the federal government, not the rulers. We have laws designed to help them out and keep the money flowing to these finance men and then to the government powers -- like the law that forces you to have car insurance. We're also FORCED to use the banks and have credit; otherwise, you can't even buy things. But don't think the empire's tax collectors are the real evil, it's the empire of "Fedtopia" and its rulers.

The ultimate goal is simply power and control. It's not money. The money comes to those with power and control. Eventually, they won't even need money -- if you have total power, money does not exist anyway as it's just something the serfs use. They just tell you to build their mansions and give them what they want. The present system is just a rigged game. The American people don't want X, Y and Z because they would have to give the government more control over life. So the government either creates or uses a crisis to scare everyone into accepting X, Y and Z. Every sacrifice is a step towards the ultimate goal. And this must be kept hushed behind a veil of secrecy. Boy, is Wiki-Leaks a "national security risk"! :cursing: Ahahaha!

This isn't democracy (or even a real republic) we live in. It's also not capitalism. I wouldn't have a Social Security number in a capitalist society, I wouldn't have to use credit cards or use banks controlled by the federal government. My currency would also be notes backed by gold, silver or something with intrinsic value -- not something imaginary that the state just declared as "money". I would be able to trade and engage in commerce freely, something you can't do now. Nope, you're allowed to do a little bit by your own decisions, but you aren't "free" at all in commerce. You're bound to the social institution and their thugs (federal banks, credit, insurance...). You can decide you want to be a car salesmen or a lawyer, but you're going to do it their way or no way. All must pay tribute to the empire and the Caesar. There's no way around it, and all must submit to authority. Almost EVERYTHING is controlled and micro-managed, and some day it literally all will be.

It's to create a sick and diseased form of pseudo-communism. Not the kind you guys advocate, but the kind you see in Orwell's writing. A global, oligarchical pseudo-communist society. There will be one general "class", which will be like today's middle-class. Only the rulers will be afforded luxuries. And the federal rulers will surely keep their loyal friends, the handful of corrupt corporate entities, in high seats in the lap of luxury. They can simply tell the people "We all need these guys". Yeah, we sure do. The rest of corporate America, which was just business run by people like you and I, will be destroyed and absorbed into the government. No citizen can have something like that of their own. No one can "own" anything except the government -- but they will be nice and let us borrow things until we die. We'll give you a good apartment, an iPhone (which will be called a "fedPhone", lol), and some comforts...everything is "fair", yeah! And our government people, those dear leaders of ours, well...they need nice mansions and Rolls-Royces because they represent us. Pfffffttt... Lol.

Yeah, it sounds sick and psychotic. But it's what they dream of creating. All animals want to be at the top of the pecking order, and humans are no different. But absolute power corrupts absolutely. We've given the government so much power and let it become so monstrous that it was inevitable it would start going this way. It's full of aspiring world rulers and world policemen. The leaders of the "free" world -- future big brothers and sisters of Oceana, lol. :laugh:

Note, I've kinda made a mockery of it here and been melodramatic. But you guys are intelligent and get my point, even if you disagree. Blaming the little group of corrupt corporations is like blaming the knife instead of the man who thrust it into your heart. They're the tool, not the creator or puppeteer.

Jimmie Higgins

13th December 2010, 14:56

But this idea that it's the corporations running the country is kinda silly. It doesn't even make sense -- they wouldn't have even needed a "bailout" if they were the controllers.Because the market-system leads to booms and busts and not participating in the boom means being edged out in competition even though participating in the boom only leads to a bust. Capitalists "run" society, the don't "control" it like a puppet-master and so that means they are still subject the the Faustian nature of the market forces.

They could just directly manipulate the money into their pockets quietly.That wouldn't be fair to capitalists in other sectors of the economy:). Notice how the TARP bailout happened in about a week - how long have people wanted universal healthcare in the country - legislatively it's been debated since WWII? So when business needs something... funds, a bailout, etc there is no debate, failure to do so will lead to total ruin (say business, their funded think-tanks, and their bought politicians). But when people want something... relief from foreclosures etc, it is no where to be seen unless people fight for it and force the politicians to do it.

The ultimate goal is simply power and control.Power and control of what and for what purpose? I'd argue markets, trade routes,

It's not money. The money comes to those with power and control.Incomes for the top fraction of a percent have increased incredibly for the last few decades and CEOs make hundreds of times what their workers make. The President, because of his position has more "power" and "control" of the system but makes a fraction of what a mediocre CEO makes. "Power and Control" are meaningless abstractions if that power and control is not connected to anything concrete.

This isn't democracy (or even a real republic) we live in. It's also not capitalism. I wouldn't have a Social Security number in a capitalist society, I wouldn't have to use credit cards or use banks controlled by the federal government. My currency would also be notes backed by gold, silver or something with intrinsic value -- not something imaginary that the state just declared as "money". I would be able to trade and engage in commerce freely, something you can't do now. Nope, you're allowed to do a little bit by your own decisions, but you aren't "free" at all in commerce. You're bound to the social institution and their thugs (federal banks, credit, insurance...). You can decide you want to be a car salesmen or a lawyer, but you're going to do it their way or no way. All must pay tribute to the empire and the Caesar. There's no way around it, and all must submit to authority. Almost EVERYTHING is controlled and micro-managed, and some day it literally all will be.This is pure idealism, there is no Platonic ideal of capitalism, it is a living system like feudalism or slave-societies. We can generalize what features are usually connected with Feudalism, but it doesn't always fit from region to region, province to province. But does it mean that X society isn't feudalism if, say, feudalism in one place required serfs to give up some of what they grew to the lord whereas in other areas the surf had to work for the lord for part of the month? No. And for capitalism it is the same, capitalism has changed and developed over the decades according to how best to increase profits and maintain the system - it is not a series of economic policy requirements.

It's to create a sick and diseased form of pseudo-communism. Not the kind you guys advocate, but the kind you see in Orwell's writing. A global, oligarchical pseudo-communist society. There will be one general "class", which will be like today's middle-class. Only the rulers will be afforded luxuries. And the federal rulers will surely keep their loyal friends, the handful of corrupt corporate entities, in high seats in the lap of luxury. How do you explain higher rates of small business ownership in Social-Democracies where the capitalist politicians there generally uphold much more restrictions on business and tax? I think the US is ranked 19th of industrial countries for small business ownership whereas I think the top countries are in the Northern Europe. I don't support social democracy because it's just another shade of capitalism, but according to your argument, countries with less regulations on business would do better, not worse, right?

http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/selfemployment.png

They can simply tell the people "We all need these guys". Yeah, we sure do. The rest of corporate America, which was just business run by people like you and I,Um, no. CEOs are not worried about being kicked out of their appartment and can choose to work the rest of their life or not - I'm not so lucky as most people are not. They are similar to me in that we are both humans but so are fascists, kings, and "federal rulers".

Yeah, it sounds sick and psychotic. But it's what they dream of creating. All animals want to be at the top of the pecking order, and humans are no different. But absolute power corrupts absolutely. We've given the government so much power and let it become so monstrous that it was inevitable it would start going this way. It's full of aspiring world rulers and world policemen. The leaders of the "free" world -- future big brothers and sisters of Oceana, lol. :laugh:Again power and control for what end? Why didn't Obama take over BP then when the oil spill happened? Why were BP CEOs able to talk to Obama about the situation before the speaker of the house or other legislators? Why would Obama take "Single-Payer" and universal healthcare "off the table" before the debate on it... wouldn't the federal government have more power under that kind of situation? Why does Obama support charter-schools and privatization of public schools?

Note, I've kinda made a mockery of it here and been melodramatic. But you guys are intelligent and get my point, even if you disagree. Blaming the little group of corrupt corporations is like blaming the knife instead of the man who thrust it into your heart. They're the tool, not the creator or puppeteer.THey are not puppeteers and neither were feudal Aristocrats... there is no conspiracy other than the obvious ones. But you have your analogy reversed... government is the tool, a tool for "governing" or "ordering" society in a certain way. But what way is that? In this society, its the best way to maintain a society where trade can continue and that people go to work each day and beyond that to compete with other governments over access to resources and markets and trade routes.

minarchist

13th December 2010, 15:42

Power and control literally over the minds and bodies of people -- that IS something concrete, whereas fiat currency really isn't in many ways. It's a piece of paper and an "I promise!". If you were able to control what everyone thinks and does, why would you need money? You can just take money (by force or by swindling) and use it for whatever you want. You wouldn't even need money to get things like goods and services. Fred is going to build your bridge, Farmer Brown is going to give you grain and it's just too bad if they don't like it. You're right in that it's not like this now, but that was not my point.

You're making the mistake of taking me out of context and misunderstanding too. I'm not saying this is all completely established. They don't yet have 100% control over everything from business to individuals. Obama couldn't absorb BP because that sort of power isn't there yet. But boy, do they WANT that sort of power. And they're ceaselessly working to acquire it through boot-strapping. What better for those who want undying power to ensure it is perpetual? That's something beyond money. Something more filthy and malicious. The very reason people even desire money is because money gives them power. Power is what has been craved by people throughout all of human history -- even in societies when no "money" existed. In ancient times, religion was often the implement of power, especially in subsistence farming societies where everyone chipped in on behalf of the community and family. What could you do to satisfy that human lust? Of course, YOU become the one who can speak to the gods. Then you get control -- control over minds and bodies. We see that today. What else is the "War on Drugs" or laws against prostitution? They WASTE money fighting these things, despite it being unsuccessful, because the power is worth more than that money.

You're basically saying capitalism doesn't exist. That's not true. Capitalism can come in varying flavors, but those are usually nasty and will make me spit them out (Social Democracy ice cream, yuck!). Capitalism is, at its core, the idea that one is allowed to own things that other people can't take away (rightfully) and that you can freely trade what you have with others. Look at what happened when the "cowboys" moved west, outside the US, into frontier towns. Capitalism just naturally happened. People set up their own stores, saloons, some worked (like gold miners and cattle hands) and some were bankers and barbers. The cowboy who didn't work and just wanted to drink, gamble and hook up with the prostitutes couldn't make it there. This sort of thing has happened all over the world for eons. But when governments get very large and powerful, they kill off capitalism and only let it exist in partial form. We were much "capitalist" in the first 200 years of American history. But not really anymore. It's just a welfare state you're forced to participate in. Where on depends on the state, one is weak. I don't think the systems that you guys advocate are "evil" either, and I'm not even trying to attack you. I'm just pointing out that none of us have even seen a truly capitalist society. The state has intervened in our lives since birth, and will do so from cradle to grave.

Are you also saying that you and everyone else here is poor and very unfortunate? I can believe you if you say you are, but I'd find it hard to believe that everyone here preaching the wickedness of capitalism is a lowly proletariat working in a glue factory for 18hrs a day.

Robert

13th December 2010, 18:08

It's to create a sick and diseased form of pseudo-communism. Not the kind you guys advocate, but the kind you see in Orwell's writing. A global, oligarchical pseudo-communist society. There will be one general "class", which will be like today's middle-class. Only the rulers will be afforded luxuries. And the federal rulers will surely keep their loyal friends, the handful of corrupt corporate entities, in high seats in the lap of luxury.

I thanked your post because it was sincere and thoughtful. I disagree with most of it. I don't mean this personally, but you sound paranoid. (I don't say paranoid-schizophrenic.)

I remember when the Iraq war broke out "for oil" and people were absolutely convinced that Bush would use the war and Al Qaeda as an excuse to postpone the 2004 and 2008 elections. Why? To retain power, of course. They were just as informed as you, and just a mistaken. Bush lives quietly in a Dallas suburb these days. He talks to Obama once in a blue moon.

Power and control literally over the minds and bodies of people

Literally? Do you actually know any real politicians? A few are megalomaniacs. Some run because they want to be loved and be popular. Some are totally corrupt and in it for the business opportunities. But most are honest and want what they think is best for the country. All of them run regularly for re-election, usually without corruption or effots to suppress the vote.

Come to think of it, the only recent initiatives in terms of power apportioning have been to impose term limits on elected representatives. Who, other than Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, is trying to extend the terms of office for congressmen and President?

minarchist

13th December 2010, 18:28

I agree, it does sound quite paranoid from the outside. But it's not that they are like movie villains who *want* to harm you. No, it's all based on the belief that they are better than the people and know what is "best" for the individual. Most of them truly do think they are working for the better of the people and humanity. Look at the entire federal branch solely dedicated to the purpose of defeating the so-called "scourge of America" (or humanity): the DEA, drug czar, law enforcement, drug courts, etc. Look at people like Bob Wiener and Joe Arpaio. Yes they really THINK they are doing good and they know what's better for everyone else. Only a few of them are self-aware villains, though villains nonetheless. But make no mistake, some politicians are benevolent and good folks who are making good changes. And good changes are those which reduce their personal and state powers and implement maximized individual liberties.

RGacky3

13th December 2010, 19:42

Obama couldn't absorb BP because that sort of power isn't there yet. But boy, do they WANT that sort of power.

Why would Obama want to socialize BP and have some control over it for probably 2 more years, when he can just do what they say and get a cushy job for him and his loved ones as a lobbyist and make millions of dollars? Also get tons of corporate money for his party by doing their bidding?

If he wanted to socialize BP he sure as hell could have.

Look at what happened when the "cowboys" moved west, outside the US, into frontier towns. Capitalism just naturally happened. People set up their own stores, saloons, some worked (like gold miners and cattle hands) and some were bankers and barbers. The cowboy who didn't work and just wanted to drink, gamble and hook up with the prostitutes couldn't make it there.

I would read up more on the "wild west" if I were you, much of it was federal programs, not the stuff you see in old movies.

We were much "capitalist" in the first 200 years of American history. But not really anymore. It's just a welfare state you're forced to participate in. Where on depends on the state, one is weak. I don't think the systems that you guys advocate are "evil" either, and I'm not even trying to attack you. I'm just pointing out that none of us have even seen a truly capitalist society. The state has intervened in our lives since birth, and will do so from cradle to grave.

Were we Capitalist for the first 200 years?

Really? Because we were doing pretty crappy in the 1800s.

Nowerdays you don't have the option of going back to the happy make believe times where there were mom and pop shops and blacksmiths all trading. Right now we live in a corporatist society, your worried about the "welfare state?" We live in a society where banksters run the entire economy.

Our choices are will we live in a plutocracy or a Democracy.

Capitalism naturally leads to a plutocracy (the more money and power you have the easier it is to get more and disposses and opress everyone else), if you want to live in that type of world then fine. But I want to live in one where people have a say in the economy, and everone has a say in things that effect their lives, its called democracy ... look it up.

Robert

13th December 2010, 21:24

Look at the entire federal branch solely dedicated to the purpose of defeating the so-called "scourge of America" (or humanity): the DEA, drug czar, law enforcement, drug courts, etc.

It's big, alright, but the people could repeal drug laws just as they repealed prohibition on alcohol. But they don't want to. It's hard enough getting marijuana legalized in California.

RGacky3

13th December 2010, 21:28

It's hard enough getting marijuana legalized in California.

You know why that was, it was last minute blatenet lieing scare tactics. I would vote against a bill that would force hostpitals to allow doctors to be high, but that was'nt in the bill, that was a lie.

Robert

13th December 2010, 21:54

This just in, minarchist ... federal judge finds Obama care unconstitutional. Insurance mandate violates commerce clause.

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/13/what-health-care-ruling-means/?hpt=T1

Feel better?

minarchist

13th December 2010, 21:59

Did you just tell me to "read up on" the wild west? Are you unaware that during the first two centuries of American history that vast tracts of land to the west did NOT belong to the United States? And Americans, Mexicans, Chinese and people of all sorts of nationalities went and settled in these non-US territories and formed their own towns. These were not US territory and the US government had no authority there. The people in such towns usually elected their own sheriff, who appointed some deputies, and that sheriff was the law. When accused of a crime, you could be lynched by vigilantes who would not be punished if they had popular support. If you had your day in court, you would usually have your fate decided by all of the towns people or a jury-like panel. Some courts actually worked like they did in the US. I suggest YOU do some reading.

Miner's court
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miners'_court

Deadwood, SD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadwood,_South_Dakota

Not all parts of the "wild west" were outside of US territory during the entire time period. We expanded west with the "Manifest Destiny" idea and eventually made the entire west ours. But people settled there before they were US territories and under federal authority. I have studied history, my friend. And I have only seen a few movies about the "wild west" and never supposed any of it to be true. I'm quite capable of separating historical fact from a Hollywood movie... :rolleyes:

I said we were "more Capitalist" in the early days of American history, because there weren't tons of laws and regulations controlling everything and no social welfare. Contextomy? Also, please demonstrate how we were "doing like crap" then? I wouldn't want to go back to those times, not by any means. They're not something I have some sort of illusion of "greatness" about. But please back that up...

Obama cannot socialize BP because it's outside the limitations of executive power at present? :rolleyes:

RGacky3

13th December 2010, 22:15

Did you just tell me to "read up on" the wild west? Are you unaware that during the first two centuries of American history that vast tracts of land to the west did NOT belong to the United States? And Americans, Mexicans, Chinese and people of all sorts of nationalities went and settled in these non-US territories and formed their own towns. These were not US territory and the US government had no authority there. The people in such towns usually elected their own sheriff, who appointed some deputies, and that sheriff was the law. When accused of a crime, you could be lynched by vigilantes who would not be punished if they had popular support. If you had your day in court, you would usually have your fate decided by all of the towns people or a jury-like panel. Some courts actually worked like they did in the US. I suggest YOU do some reading.

Miner's court
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miners'_court

Deadwood, SD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadwood,_South_Dakota

Not all parts of the "wild west" were outside of US territory during the entire time period. We expanded west with the "Manifest Destiny" idea and eventually made the entire west ours. But people settled there before they were US territories and under federal authority. I have studied history, my friend. And I have only seen a few movies about the "wild west" and never supposed any of it to be true. I'm quite capable of separating historical fact from a Hollywood movie... :rolleyes:

A lor of that expansion was federally funded, i.e. subsidised, also land rights were protected by the military, and the genocide of the indians was largely done by the federal government. Property rights (the basis of capitalism) was protected by the state.

I said we were "more Capitalist" in the early days of American history, because there weren't tons of laws and regulations controlling everything and no social welfare. Contextomy? Also, please demonstrate how we were "doing like crap" then? I wouldn't want to go back to those times, not by any means. They're not something I have some sort of illusion of "greatness" about. But please back that up...

Well, sweatshop labor, 12 hour days, extreme poverty, racism, slavery, poverty, non property owners could'nt vote, i.e. no democracy, child labor, half the women could'nt vote, strikers were just shot, no labor rights and so on and so forth.

Obama cannot socialize BP because it's outside the limitations of executive power at present? :rolleyes:

With congress you can effectively socialize BP.

minarchist

13th December 2010, 22:21

This just in, minarchist ... federal judge finds Obama care unconstitutional. Insurance mandate violates commerce clause.

Feel better?

Even though libertarians are usually against the idea of state health care, I was actually swayed in my opinion when a Canadian provoked the thought that it's no different than public services like fire departments and police. That got me to thinking about it, and how it would tie into the type of system I would like to see. And I believe there should be public health care. How come the police will arrest someone who shoots me in the foot for free, but the hospital will make me pay to have my toe put back on my foot? That just doesn't make sense!

So what I would like to see is public healthcare. But NOT like the Democrats and Obama are pushing for. I don't want anything forced on people. Private health care should exist for those who want to pay -- but it will probably become obsolete if it doesn't come down to reasonable costs. The way to give federal health care a foothold is to open public hospitals, clinics, doctor's offices, etc. And you must ensure the quality is just as good or better than private health care and that they are everywhere. Training for people who want to be public service workers (teachers, doctors, nurses, firefighters, policemen) should be provided by these institutions so more people get into the profession and to improve the quality. I think this is the duty of a minarchist state. It's about the role(s) of government. I think government should only: A) prevent human aggression B) provide infrastructure and public services C) assume managerial responsibility for things like the military, education, etc. How do we pay for all of this? Because in minarchist society, we aren't wasting all of our tax dollars on stupid crap like "Above the Influence" ads kids laugh at, Social Security, wars we don't want/need, over-sized military we don't need, etc. I'm confident that after a while, even the deficit could be cracked and we could have useful things.

But none of my ideas about this are much good without radically changing things. The people should control government, not government controlling people (as it is now). The people can manage the education systems, public services, infrastructure, etc because they manage the state itself. The only "government officials" and bureaucrats would be people put in place to do the public's bidding. When a libertarian thinks of it that way, public health care isn't a bad idea at all; to the contrary, it's a good thing. But the "Obama care" and the crap they're pushing now is forced welfare. And there's nothing good about it, and I oppose it.

RGacky3

13th December 2010, 22:25

The way to give federal health care a foothold is to open public hospitals, clinics, doctor's offices, etc. And you must ensure the quality is just as good or better than private health care and that they are everywhere.

THe healthcare debate was only about the funding, i.e. private or public funding of healthcare, not about the hospitals or whatever.

The people should control government, not government controlling people (as it is now).

As it is now the corporations control both the government and the people.

The people can manage the education systems, public services, infrastructure, etc because they manage the state itself. The only "government officials" and bureaucrats would be people put in place to do the public's bidding.

I want the people to manage everything, I believe in democracy, I believe the economy should be democratic, and the American government is extremely un democractic (America can learn something from Bolivia or Chiapas about democracy), but handing hte power to private corporations won't give power to the poeple.

minarchist

13th December 2010, 22:36

A lor of that expansion was federally funded, i.e. subsidised, also land rights were protected by the military, and the genocide of the indians was largely done by the federal government. Property rights (the basis of capitalism) was protected by the state.

Yes, but you tried to act like I was totally wrong and that there never existed what I was talking about. That claim was false, and was refuted. And you also put it off in a condescending manner as if I was just watched wild west movies and thought it was real. What I was talking about really happened.

Well, sweatshop labor, 12 hour days, extreme poverty, racism, slavery, poverty, non property owners could'nt vote, i.e. no democracy, child labor, half the women could'nt vote, strikers were just shot, no labor rights and so on and so forth.

Economically is what we were talking about, and you knew that. We weren't talking about how "morally well" our country was doing. Those were "values" of the day, and were widespread throughout the world. Those were also primitive times technologically.

Economically, we did pretty damned good. In fact, Jackson (though a tyrant in my book) managed to squash the national debt. That can't happen today, lol. And everything you named has nothing to do with capitalism. That stuff has existed in all sorts of societies that were non-capitalist. Has nothing to do with the economy, but with the "values" people have (such as sexism) and what degree of crime (human aggression) law enforcement can't squash.

With congress you can effectively socialize BP.

Sure, but you said the President! And he is neither congress nor controls it. There are enough people in congress who would oppose that to effectively shoot it down, so it can't happen right now. :)

Robert

13th December 2010, 22:46

How come the police will arrest someone who shoots me in the foot for free, but the hospital will make me pay to have my toe put back on my foot? That just doesn't make sense!Well, it's not free. Taxes pay for police because protection of the citizenry from violent criminals is an essential function of government. (No, paying for medication and bypass operations for morbidly obese diabetics is not; it's secondary at best.)

Also, you can sue the shooter to reimburse you for your foot operation (couldn't you have selected a less disgusting part of the anatomy, like your shoulder, elbow, or upper back? Now my wa lies shattered on the floor.)

Finally, your federal government actually does sometime impose costs of incarceration as part of a sentence on criminals, if they have means to pay. States do not. I don't know why.

Demogorgon

13th December 2010, 23:16

Demogorgon

13th December 2010, 23:28

Well, it's not free. Taxes pay for police because protection of the citizenry from violent criminals is an essential function of government. (No, paying for medication and bypass operations for morbidly obese diabetics is not; it's secondary at best.)

What makes you think one is more essential than the other? A violent criminal and a nasty disease are equally threatening to a person experiencing both and it becomes an arbitrary distinction. You may say that it is a universally recognised part of Government to provide for law and order, but not universally recognised to provide healthcare, but many Governments (all Western European ones) regard their obligation to provide healthcare to be equal to their obligation to provide law enforcement and in some cases this is explicitly written into the constitution.

You may argue instead that a Government not providing healthcare is still recognisably a Government whereas one not providing law enforcement has simply ceased to function, but again this is false, in South Africa for instance the Governemnt has failed to provide law enforcement in many areas and security firms have stepped in, and South Africa is generally regarded as having a fully functioning Government.

To take an even starker example, for many years in Northern Ireland, proper policing simply did not exist in Catholic areas, the police were bullies out to persecute, rarely dealt with crimes against Catholics properly and as a result were not trusted and people didn;t report crimes to them. In many areas a rough and ready form of "justice" was provided by what some posters here insist are heroic freedom fighters and most other people would call gangsters with delusions. Without wanting to get into that debate however the point is that a fully functioning modern Government failed to provide policing in many areas, and as an aside, did manage to provide high quality universal healthcare.

minarchist

13th December 2010, 23:39

I grow weary of nostalgia for versions of the past that never existed. It is easy to look past on an age long before any of us were born and say that they were the halcyon days without really understanding how they worked or realising what it was actually like to live then. Nostalgia for the gold standard is a case in point and one of the less justifiable ones given that the problems associated are within living memory. The reason it doesn't exist anymore was that it was unworkable in a modern economy. Trying to operate modern capitalism without fiat money would be like trying to operate a technologically advanced society without electricity.

That aside, I notice our Libertarian friend here has a nostalgia for the "wild west", but it is built on some very faulty beliefs. First of all I am not quite sure where he is getting the idea that people were entering into stateless territory, after all, almost from the get go the United States was claiming all territory not claimed by one of the European powers (not to mention some that was). With the Louisiana purchase in 1803 and the assumption of sovereignty over the French territory in North America the United States already controlled most of what is the continental US today (with most of the rest being under Spanish control), so exactly what was "free territory" is beyond me.

It is true obviously that a functioning system of justice did not exist in much of these areas, but that is a funny thing for a minarchist to be keen on. What certainly did exist though was major programmes by the US Government to consolidate its hold on the territory. A lot of money was spent on what we are meant to think was pure anarcho-capitalism.

On another note the healthcare thing with Americans is ridiculous. The American Government spends more per capita on healthcare than just about any other country and unlike every other developed country it does not have universal coverage. When the most expensive system in the world (before even factoring in the amount of money individuals pay) is providing the least in absolute terms then perhaps it is time to reflect that universal healthcare might be a bit more effective. Given that once set up costs were met Universal Healthcare could mean a tax cut alongside not having to pay for insurance any more then you have to wonder if its critics are more concerned with keeping others down than helping themselves up.

Really though, go to any other developed country and see how many people would like to be without universal healthcare. It might tell you something.

You did a truly wonderful job of attacking that libertarian straw man who has nostalgic love for the "wild west". Really, I applaud you for that. But now try to go after me! :lol:

Where you are drawing the conclusion that I admire the wild west and want to return to that sort of day and age, I honestly haven't a clue. The whole point was that people move into an unsettled area and that's exactly what they set up. Those days were primitive, harsh and not very fun. Please don't falsely attribute beliefs to me I don't actually have. I AM interested in that period in history, as it is just extremely interesting, and I have read about it in great detail and watched a lot of documentaries on it. My point on the "wild west" was for the sake of an example of where people established a new society. Nothing more. Then my example was denied, and the denial was wrong. I'm not defending the wild west or saying it was "good".

I'm not angry with you, and I don't get angry in debates about politics (silly). But that is a pretty low blow, nonetheless, when you distort my actual position and misattribute words and/or beliefs to me. :bored:

Bud Struggle

13th December 2010, 23:48

when you distort my actual position and misattribute words and/or beliefs to me. :bored:

Welcome to RevLeft! :)

minarchist

13th December 2010, 23:54

Welcome to RevLeft! :)

LOL! :laugh: Well, these guys here are quite nice and cool. If I didn't like them or they made me angry, I wouldn't come here to talk. Everyone seems great so far. :)

Also, in one of my first posts about the "wild west", I said:

I wouldn't want to go back to those times, not by any means. They're not something I have some sort of illusion of "greatness" about. But please back that up...

This must have been ignored, and as to where the conclusions even came from, I'm still in shock and disbelief. :cool:

Robert

14th December 2010, 02:12

What makes you think one is more essential than the other? A violent criminal and a nasty disease are equally threatening to a person experiencing both and it becomes an arbitrary distinction. You may say that it is a universally recognised part of Government to provide for law and order, but not universally recognised to provide healthcare, but many Governments (all Western European ones) regard their obligation to provide healthcare to be equal to their obligation to provide law enforcement and in some cases this is explicitly written into the constitution.It's a matter of philosophy and values, Demo. We are not Europe, and we don't like all the regulation that comes with being European. We're choking on regulations ourselves. (I thought you leftists favored a stateless society too?:lol:)

As for healthcare, you are still (like all the Europeans here) under the mistaken assumption that people without insurance in the USA are dying in the streets for lack of medical treatment. I am not posting any more about all the free (unpaid by the patient, I mean) medical care that is dispensed in the USA to the uninsured, even to undocumented immigrants, because I've showed it all to you here, years ago. You won't read it now any more than you read it then. No offense, but you are pretty self righteous and condescending toward us and I don't like it. Why don't you work on eliminating the British monarchy first and then get back with me on the democratic sermons, mkay?

I will say, again and again, that people who make themselves obese eating sugar and sitting on the couch have forfeited their "right" to healthcare, and I don't care how many Europeans say the contrary. (Our constitution protects an individual right to bear arms, but you don't hear me telling you that yur constitution should do the same.)

But to be clear, we treat the obese uninsured here too. I think our life expectancy is close to yours, even though we are way too fat.

#FF0000

14th December 2010, 02:23

As for healthcare, you are still (like all the Europeans here) under the mistaken assumption that people without insurance in the USA are dying in the streets for lack of medical treatment. I am not posting any more about all the free (unpaid by the patient, I mean) medical care that is dispensed in the USA to the uninsured, even to undocumented immigrants, because I've showed it all to you here, years ago. You won't read it now any more than you read it then. No offense, but you are pretty self righteous and condescending toward us and I don't like it. Why don't you work on eliminating the British monarchy first and then get back with me on the democratic sermons, mkay?

You can go to an emergency room, wait on a massive line, then get a bill. You can ignore the bill. It makes it more expensive for everyone else. That is not a good way to deal with the uninsured.

I will say, again and again, that people who make themselves obese eating sugar and sitting on the couch have forfeited their "right" to healthcare, and I don't care how many Europeans say the contrary. (Our constitution protects an individual right to bear arms, but you don't hear me telling you that yur constitution should do the same.)

In America, corn syrup is in literally almost everything. It's very hard to avoid and it's more expensive to do so. People don't get fat because they want to be fat. They don't think "w/e i'll get healthcare either way lol". Don't be silly.

Not to mention that infrastructure America isn't really given to the active lifestyle. There's hardly any public transportation to speak of and it's very hard to walk to stores and that sort of thing.

Robert

14th December 2010, 02:57

Let's try this: name a non-essential function of government.

And by "essential," I don't mean merely desirable.

In America, corn syrup is in literally almost everything ....

Not to mention that infrastructure America isn't really given to the active lifestyle. There's hardly any public transportation to speak of and it's very hard to walk to stores and that sort of thing.

Isn't "really given to"? We can't take the stairs instead of the elevator? We can't do a couple of pushups in the morning? We can't refuse a supersize offer from McDonalds?

I do not understand this total abdication of the concept of self control. I am sure you do not mean it.

#FF0000

14th December 2010, 03:58

Isn't "really given to"? We can't take the stairs instead of the elevator? We can't do a couple of pushups in the morning? We can't refuse a supersize offer from McDonalds?

I do not understand this total abdication of the concept of self control. I am sure you do not mean it.

It's more than just the things you listed, though. I remember during the short time in Germany that the first thing I noticed was how I hardly ever needed to use a car. In fact I remember how I thought having a car would be a hindrance in the cities I've visited.

What I'm saying is that having a decent public transport system and cities built around the needs of people rather than the needs of the internal combustion engine would probably go a long way in getting people more active.

But hey even if people did choose to get fat, that's not a reason to deny them healthcare, especially because they're definitely going to need it. People choose to smoke, people choose to base jump, people choose to drink and have unprotected sex and not wear their seatbelt and do all sorts of things that come with an inherent risk. If you say you can deny free or even subsidized healthcare for one reason then why can't you deny it for everyone?

Robert

14th December 2010, 04:33

I remember during the short time in Germany that the first thing I noticed was how I hardly ever needed to use a car. In fact I remember how I thought having a car would be a hindrance in the cities I've visited.You also noticed that Germans don't "graze" all day long like we fat Americans do, right? Same with the French and Italians: small meals, small croissants, virtually no snacking ... though that is changing, I hear.

If you say you can deny free or even subsidized healthcare for one reason then why can't you deny it for everyone?Now you're getting it!

But seriously, obesity and diabetes are far more serious, pervasive and growing medical problems in the USA than bungee jumping and unprotected sex. I'm not going to look for the stats. No one disputes this.

And I don't "want" to deny anybody healthcare. I just want all individuals to do everything they can to take care of themselves first, including eating right and exercising, and yes paying for their own treatment, before blaming McDonalds and turning to the polis for a remedy.(Obviously I'm talking about adults, not kids with leukemia or playground injuries.)

I understand that you don't see obesity as a result of recklessness or laziness. Okay.

#FF0000

14th December 2010, 05:07

You also noticed that Germans don't "graze" all day long like we fat Americans do, right? Same with the French and Italians: small meals, small croissants, virtually no snacking ... though that is changing, I hear.

The meals I had were p. big I think. Heavy, at least. Lots of bread for breakfast. But there was a ton of walking, so.

They also spread liverwurst on things.

Now you're getting it!

But seriously, obesity and diabetes are far more serious, pervasive and growing medical problems in the USA than bungee jumping and unprotected sex. I'm not going to look for the stats. No one disputes this.

And I don't "want" to deny anybody healthcare. I just want all individuals to do everything they can to take care of themselves first, including eating right and exercising, and yes paying for their own treatment, before blaming McDonalds and turning to the polis for a remedy.(Obviously I'm talking about adults, not kids with leukemia or playground injuries.)

I understand that you don't see obesity as a result of recklessness or laziness. Okay.

Well whether it is or isn't doesn't really matter to me. I just can't see a reason to not have free public healthcare for everyone.

minarchist

14th December 2010, 05:40

I remember during the short time in Germany that the first thing I noticed was how I hardly ever needed to use a car. In fact I remember how I thought having a car would be a hindrance in the cities I've visited.

I spent about a month in Nuernberg (Nuremburg), and felt the same way. But not because the public transport system was "better". No, because it's a densely populated country, and the cities reflect this. Many streets cannot be driven down and are for pedestrians only. The roads in the middle of cities are often very slow moving and congested. I felt more "free" on foot. That's why I changed my mind about renting a car -- it was just cheaper to walk for 75% of things and pay a couple EUD for a cab when I needed to go a few miles.

I don't think this is at all a compelling argument against the US's public transport system. But we do need those German ICE's (mag-lev trains)! :lol: The US is less densely populated than Europe. We're a HUGE land mass... cities and towns spread over what's mostly rural areas. In Europe, rural areas are spread over what's cities and towns, lol. That's one thing I love about America. I live in a rural area now, having moved away from the city. And I love it. Screw all of the traffic jams and parking my car 2 miles from where I want to be, lol.

About obesity, yes, most of it in the US is caused by overindulgence. Most obese friends of mine freely admit too. In some cases though, it can be a real disorder (physical or mental) which causes it. But nowhere near on the scale we see in the US. I remember the first time this silly idea that "I'm fat because I'm poor" came out... MSNBC did a "special report" on it, and it was met with laughter and counter-studies which debunked it. For instance, they were claiming people on food stamps didn't have access to healthy foods and had to eat McDonalds are junk food. They interviewed a man on the show who said: "Can't find no apple in dis hood!"... :laugh: In fact, that's a lie. The grocery store in the guy's town had plenty of healthy foods, and he was video taped buying bacon, pork rinds, snack cakes and nothing BUT unhealthy foods...passing up any apples, lettuce, etc which are in fact cheaper. This also relies on the idea that eating a little bit of McDonalds makes you fatter than eating huge quantities of "healthier" food. It's political nonsense, and nothing more.

I remember when my mother got food stamps once during a natural disaster. And man, do food stamps HOOK A HOMIE UP! We were eating like some fat cats from those food stamps! LOL! :cool: You aren't going to go hungry or get fat in the US if you're on food stamps. It just matters what YOU choose to use them on. Some of my less fortunate neighbors down the street get food stamps because the mother/grandmother is old and crippled and trying to take care of 9 dependents (her children and their children). Unemployment is a legit problem out here because there's nothing out here, thus nowhere to work. One of them is one of my best friends, close to my age who grew up with me, and he just landed himself a job and the family is doing better. Their house is FULL of good food all the time, and they even invite me over to eat because they have excess they don't want to waste. Only two of them are overweight. They really are a family in legitimate need, and I don't mind seeing my tax help them out and I regularly help them in any way they will accept; but they will refuse unnecessary things or excessive charity. They're in a much more difficult position than most people, and surely most of the people trying to sue McDonald's for being obese.

#FF0000

14th December 2010, 08:21

About obesity, yes, most of it in the US is caused by overindulgence. Most obese friends of mine freely admit too. In some cases though, it can be a real disorder (physical or mental) which causes it. But nowhere near on the scale we see in the US. [qupte]I remember the first time this silly idea that "I'm fat because I'm poor" came out... MSNBC did a "special report" on it, and it was met with laughter and counter-studies which debunked it. For instance, they were claiming people on food stamps didn't have access to healthy foods and had to eat McDonalds are junk food. They interviewed a man on the show who said: "Can't find no apple in dis hood!"... :laugh: In fact, that's a lie. The grocery store in the guy's town had plenty of healthy foods, and he was video taped buying bacon, pork rinds, snack cakes and nothing BUT unhealthy foods...passing up any apples, lettuce, etc which are in fact cheaper.

Eeeeeexcept there are many very real "food deserts" in the poorest areas of the United States where healthy foods are either more expensive, calorie for calorie, than unhealthier foods, or where grocery stores that actually carry decent foods are out of reach somewhere across town.

Then of course there's just ignorance of nutrition, which is common everywhere.

AND THEN OF COURSE there's the fact that folks living in food deserts are probably concerned with a million other things aside from cooking, which leads them to go for the easier to cook stuff anyway.

I mean I'm sure whatever thing you saw on MSNBC was enthralling but whatever it found doesn't hold for universally. Food deserts definitely exist.

It's political nonsense, and nothing more.

Nope.

Anyway I don't know why most people are obese. v:mellow:v But when something is happening on a nationwide scale and people are calling it an epidemic, I am hella skeptical of people telling me it's "individual choice". Is it because we have more people living in rural areas who rely almost entirely on cars? Could the fact that most jobs involving manual labor are mostly mechanized now? Would that mean it's just a disease that comes along with living in an advanced industrial/post-industrial society?

To be honest I think that's all much more likely than saying a hundred million people decided to suddenly get fat.

RGacky3

14th December 2010, 09:36

Yes, but you tried to act like I was totally wrong and that there never existed what I was talking about. That claim was false, and was refuted. And you also put it off in a condescending manner as if I was just watched wild west movies and thought it was real. What I was talking about really happened.

What I wanted to refute was the idea that Capitalism occured naturally, it did not, the only way capitalism can occur naturally is if property rights occured naturally, they did not either, your right the state was'nt out there taking care of sick people helping the poor or other terrible things, but what it was doing was enforcing property laws, THAT is the basis for capitalism, so no the wild west was not some stateless capitalism.

I appologise if I came of condescending, there are a lot of libertarian types around here that are not interested in discussion or debate and really just troll, but you just got here so I can't make that judgement.

Economically is what we were talking about, and you knew that. We weren't talking about how "morally well" our country was doing. Those were "values" of the day, and were widespread throughout the world. Those were also primitive times technologically.

Economically, we did pretty damned good. In fact, Jackson (though a tyrant in my book) managed to squash the national debt. That can't happen today, lol. And everything you named has nothing to do with capitalism. That stuff has existed in all sorts of societies that were non-capitalist. Has nothing to do with the economy, but with the "values" people have (such as sexism) and what degree of crime (human aggression) law enforcement can't squash.

Slavery was a huge part of the economy, as was sweatshop labor, as was union busting, as was extreme poverty, as was 12 hour days, as was child labor, as was monopolies and so on and so forth. These are all part of the economy.

Sure, but you said the President! And he is neither congress nor controls it. There are enough people in congress who would oppose that to effectively shoot it down, so it can't happen right now

I said the government, because you were the one that said the government secretly wants to take over the capitalists.

Demogorgon

14th December 2010, 12:16

You did a truly wonderful job of attacking that libertarian straw man who has nostalgic love for the "wild west". Really, I applaud you for that. But now try to go after me! :lol:

Where you are drawing the conclusion that I admire the wild west and want to return to that sort of day and age, I honestly haven't a clue. The whole point was that people move into an unsettled area and that's exactly what they set up. Those days were primitive, harsh and not very fun. Please don't falsely attribute beliefs to me I don't actually have. I AM interested in that period in history, as it is just extremely interesting, and I have read about it in great detail and watched a lot of documentaries on it. My point on the "wild west" was for the sake of an example of where people established a new society. Nothing more. Then my example was denied, and the denial was wrong. I'm not defending the wild west or saying it was "good".

I'm not angry with you, and I don't get angry in debates about politics (silly). But that is a pretty low blow, nonetheless, when you distort my actual position and misattribute words and/or beliefs to me. :bored:
I did not mean to imply that you wished to go back to the wild west. I do not imagine that you wish to go back to the days of outlaws, shootouts at high noon and drinking a barrel of whisky to deal with snake bites (well maybe the last one...). I did however detect a nostalgia for it alongside your general nostalgia for a glorified past (Gold standard for instance). I also sought to point out your view that there were non claimed parts of the united states was wrong, nobody travelled west to land free of any territorial claims because apart from an area around what is today Seattle everywhere was accounted for long before the US existed.

Now if you wish to lay this topic to rest and debate on other more modern issues then I am all to happy to comply, but in as thread where several of your posts were looking backwards that was what I chose to reply to.

Demogorgon

14th December 2010, 12:30

It's a matter of philosophy and values, Demo. We are not Europe, and we don't like all the regulation that comes with being European. We're choking on regulations ourselves. (I thought you leftists favored a stateless society too?:lol:)

As for healthcare, you are still (like all the Europeans here) under the mistaken assumption that people without insurance in the USA are dying in the streets for lack of medical treatment. I am not posting any more about all the free (unpaid by the patient, I mean) medical care that is dispensed in the USA to the uninsured, even to undocumented immigrants, because I've showed it all to you here, years ago. You won't read it now any more than you read it then. No offense, but you are pretty self righteous and condescending toward us and I don't like it. Why don't you work on eliminating the British monarchy first and then get back with me on the democratic sermons, mkay?

I will say, again and again, that people who make themselves obese eating sugar and sitting on the couch have forfeited their "right" to healthcare, and I don't care how many Europeans say the contrary. (Our constitution protects an individual right to bear arms, but you don't hear me telling you that yur constitution should do the same.)

But to be clear, we treat the obese uninsured here too. I think our life expectancy is close to yours, even though we are way too fat.I do not believe that people are left untreated in emergency situations in America, I do however believe that they are frequently bankrupted as a result. What is common however is for non emergency medical procedures to be denied by inability to pay. Now it may be that you are willing to pay more so that others get inferior treatment but that doesn't seem like good value to me, even on purely individual grounds it is most rational to seek the most cost effective option. Something that amuses me about very right wing commentators in britain is that they call for the NHS to be replaced with state insurance options (so that healthcare remains Universal but is no longer state provided, almost nobody being stupid enough to want to abolish Universal healthcare), what they don't mention is that doing that is way more expensive than the NHS system. Ironically Libertarians are willing to suffer more taxes for the ideological pleasure of privatising the NHS. Similar to how Americans proudly proclaim they are individualists and don't want any of that darn European socialist stuff while supporting an economic system more regulated than almost any European one.

Anyway to go back to the point that I was making, your view of what separates essential and non essential Government functions is arbitrary and makes no sense anyway. presumably you believe that the essential functions of Government are national defence, the maintenance of law and order and the provision of a functioning legal system, but I gave examples of fully functioning Government not providing all of those and while that may represent a definite failure in some areas there are other examples like Costa Rica and Iceland not providing national defence but not being seen as failed Governments at all.

I would argue that rather than speak of essential aspects of Government, at best you can speak of core aspects, those being the three aformentioned functions plus healthcare provision, education and social security. Not every country is going to provide all six, the United States only managing five for instance (and not always very well as its justice system testifies), but in general the success of a system of Government (in capitalist society) is primarily going to be defined by how well it is providing those six core functions. There are plenty of other functions a Government should be providing of course, but I think those six are the key ones.

Robert

14th December 2010, 13:52

There are plenty of other functions a Government should be providing of course, but I think those six are the key ones.Of course.

I'm discouraged to see that your otherwise defensible post makes no reference anywhere to any correlative obligation of the beneficiaries of all these generous services, all of which have to be provided by flesh and blood human beings, on the ground, not by some bureaucrat in Brussels, DC or ... Edinburgh? That doesn't sound fair to me.

I hope that is not because you do not recognize any. But what else can I deduce?

Demogorgon

14th December 2010, 14:52

Of course.

I'm discouraged to see that your otherwise defensible post makes no reference anywhere to any correlative obligation of the beneficiaries of all these generous services, all of which have to be provided by flesh and blood human beings, on the ground, not by some bureaucrat in Brussels, DC or ... Edinburgh? That doesn't sound fair to me.

I hope that is not because you do not recognize any. But what else can I deduce?
I am not entirely sure what you mean here, I think your question regarded the obligations of citizens in return for the services they receive. If not you'll have to ask again because that is the question I am going to answer.

I am slightly hesitant to give too definite an answer here because after all I am not fond of capitalist Governments and believe that people have the right to do away with them but I will try to answer in the context of the situation that exists. If it is to be accepted that people have the right to have those six services provided then it naturally follows that they have to pay for them, that is to say that it implies an obligation to pay the taxes necessary to fund these services. This opens up the whole can of worms about taxes needing to be fair and whether the obligation ceases to exist when taxes are not fair. Also there is the difficulty that while I am prepared to pay taxes for health, education, welfare etc, I am rather less pleased to pay for military adventures in the Middle East. So it is by no means definite that all taxes are justified by the principle I mentioned.

I hasten to add that I do not see the above as ideal, merely as the situation that must exist for a capitalist Government to function properly and provide minimal welfare for people living under it.

Robert

14th December 2010, 17:35

If it is to be accepted that people have the right to have those six services provided then it naturally follows that they have to pay for them, that is to say that it implies an obligation to pay the taxes necessary to fund these services.I am partially happy with that answer.

But now it leaves me wondering what you would do with those who either refuse to work or pay taxes, or those who abuse services (the morbidly obese I have mentioned, plus the cigarette smokers demanding treatment for emphysema, recreational drug users demanding unconditional counseling, or the stars of "Jackass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackass_%28TV_series%29)" demanding continued access to the emergency room for their broken arms).

It seems to me that you cannot simultaneously guarantee: 1) universal and unconditional access to unlimited health care; and 2) attach the "string" of compulsory taxation. Something has to give, there, correct?

Lots of need for interpretation and enforcement. You will need a very coercive state to interpret and enforce your world view. I thought leftists were against that (?)

RGacky3

14th December 2010, 17:53

But now it leaves me wondering what you would do with those who either refuse to work or pay taxes, or those who abuse services (the morbidly obese I have mentioned, plus the cigarette smokers demanding treatment for emphysema, recreational drug users demanding unconditional counseling, or the stars of "Jackass (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackass_%28TV_series%29)" demanding continued access to the emergency room for their broken arms).

There is no evidence that those situations would be a real problem.

It seems to me that you cannot simultaneously guarantee: 1) universal and unconditional access to unlimited health care; and 2) attach the "string" of compulsory taxation. Something has to give, there, correct?

Look its not very hard, look at every other industrialized country of the world there are many models, and none of them have the rediculous problems you predict they will be.

Let me ask you, why is there no tea party in Europe? Even though they get taxed relatively higher, its because most european states don't throw all their money away on military spending.

You don't need a coercive state at all.

minarchist

14th December 2010, 17:55

I did not mean to imply that you wished to go back to the wild west. I do not imagine that you wish to go back to the days of outlaws, shootouts at high noon and drinking a barrel of whisky to deal with snake bites (well maybe the last one...). I did however detect a nostalgia for it alongside your general nostalgia for a glorified past (Gold standard for instance). I also sought to point out your view that there were non claimed parts of the united states was wrong, nobody travelled west to land free of any territorial claims because apart from an area around what is today Seattle everywhere was accounted for long before the US existed.

Now if you wish to lay this topic to rest and debate on other more modern issues then I am all to happy to comply, but in as thread where several of your posts were looking backwards that was what I chose to reply to.

No, my friend. You did not "detect" anything, except maybe the fact that history is one of my best and favorite subjects (especially WWII history). If there was a time machine, sure, I'd go back and take a tour of the "wild west", but I'd be back in time for Family Guy and to tell you how crazy it was. lol

To me a "gold standard" is just the principle of currency which represents something of intrinsic value. Fiat currency is unstable and completely controlled by the state. It just inflates and inflates. Eventually people are carrying wheelbarrows of bank notes to get a loaf of bread. I would go as far as saying a large portion of the economic problems the world is faced with is the abandonment of a "standard" and moving over to fancy printed promise papers. Capitalism in the modern world does not require "promise papers" either. Using a "gold standard" is not devoid of all problems, but I'll take it any day over papers which are worth nothing without the regime. In fact, you'd be surprised how many of us crazy capitalists have a large portion of our liquid assets in gold, silver and other metals/gems of intrinsic value. Hey... I'm watching you buddy! lol :glare:

And for the "wild west" thing... No, no, no, no... It was NOT always US territory, and there are numerous examples of people settling in territories outside of US (and other) authority. It's simply undeniable. It's true there was federally mandated expansion and those lands were absorbed into the US (eventually becoming states), but you're mad if you think people didn't leave "civilization" and go to places outside of the jurisdiction of the US to set up their own towns and settlements. I've already even provided a historical example, and the story was over long ago. -- The end -- ;)

About the claim "capitalism" doesn't happen naturally... Human beings universally recognize the idea that a human can have something which belongs to him/her and cannot be rightfully taken away. Even animals do...go give a dog a bone and see if it doesn't fight to keep that bone away from other dogs (unless the dog is submissive to the other). Try to get an alligator out of its den. Try to eat with a pride of lions with a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" in your hand, and tell them "From each according to his ability..." LOL. Yes, I'm being a smart ass and picking at you. But this is not a difficult concept to grasp. Competition and struggle IS the social order. Whether you agree that it's the correct or "just" one is irrelevant. It exists. No government is necessary to uphold "property rights". No, if you try to take Og's bearskin blanket, he will crack you over the head with his club. You have to go kill your own bear, skin it, salt the hide and make a blanket if you want to be cozy in winter time. Now if that's what you want to change to create a better world and advance humanity, then I can respect that. But don't suggest it hasn't always been that way by the very social nature of humans and many animals.

Demogorgon

14th December 2010, 18:05

I am partially happy with that answer.

But now it leaves me wondering what you would do with those who either refuse to work or pay taxes, or those who abuse services (the morbidly obese I have mentioned, plus the cigarette smokers demanding treatment for emphysema, recreational drug users demanding unconditional counseling, or the stars of "Jackass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackass_%28TV_series%29)" demanding continued access to the emergency room for their broken arms).

It seems to me that you cannot simultaneously guarantee: 1) universal and unconditional access to unlimited health care; and 2) attach the "string" of compulsory taxation. Something has to give, there, correct?

Lots of need for interpretation and enforcement. You will need a very coercive state to interpret and enforce your world view. I thought leftists were against that (?)
You are arguing in the abstract for something that has plenty of real world examples, we know that what I sketched out there does not reply an especially coercive or restrictive state by the simple fact I live in such a state and it is less coercive and restrictive than the one you live in. That is not to say for a moment that I support the British State, there is not enough time in the day to list all its defects and even the good aspects do not go anywhere near far enough, but nonetheless it fulfills the minimum requirements I sketched out while being less coercive than the Government of the United States.

This empirical proof means that I do not have to make an abstract argument as to why there is no need for restriction or coercion, but to clarify. First of all the nasty little fact about smokers is that they are financially speaking good for a welfare state, their tobacco taxes more than pay for their treatment and they aren't around claiming pensions for so long, I do not claim for a moment that that means smoking should not be discouraged, but I can't help but wonder if that is why many European Governments have not made a great deal of effort to discourage smoking.

As for drug addicts, they exist in every society, and more so in ones with poor social provisions and it is of good value to society to attempt to cure them for reasons I hope should be obvious and as for the obese whom you seem to dislike, morbidly obese people (as opposed to simply overweight) are usually suffering from a pretty horrible affliction that is not their fault. Even when it comes to "ordinary" fatness, it is clear that there are socio-economic matters affecting this so a welfare state will naturally lower the problem. That may conflict with your world view that people should be made to take individual responsibility but it does not change the fact that social policy has a direct effect on obesity.

RGacky3

14th December 2010, 18:35

And for the "wild west" thing... No, no, no, no... It was NOT always US territory, and there are numerous examples of people settling in territories outside of US (and other) authority. It's simply undeniable. It's true there was federally mandated expansion and those lands were absorbed into the US (eventually becoming states), but you're mad if you think people didn't leave "civilization" and go to places outside of the jurisdiction of the US to set up their own towns and settlements. I've already even provided a historical example, and the story was over long ago. -- The end -- ;)

Sure, of coarse I know that happened, but in those areas there was no capitalism and no real property laws. So your still wrong when assuming that capitalism is a natural occurance.

About the claim "capitalism" doesn't happen naturally... Human beings universally recognize the idea that a human can have something which belongs to him/her and cannot be rightfully taken away. Even animals do...go give a dog a bone and see if it doesn't fight to keep that bone away from other dogs (unless the dog is submissive to the other). Try to get an alligator out of its den. Try to eat with a pride of lions with a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" in your hand, and tell them "From each according to his ability..." LOL. Yes, I'm being a smart ass and picking at you. But this is not a difficult concept to grasp. Competition and struggle IS the social order. Whether you agree that it's the correct or "just" one is irrelevant. It exists. No government is necessary to uphold "property rights". No, if you try to take Og's bearskin blanket, he will crack you over the head with his club. You have to go kill your own bear, skin it, salt the hide and make a blanket if you want to be cozy in winter time. Now if that's what you want to change to create a better world and advance humanity, then I can respect that. But don't suggest it hasn't always been that way by the very social nature of humans and many animals.

When I talk about property rights, I'm talking about capitalist property, i.e. land beyond personal use and capital, not your cothes, not your home, not your tooth brush, you don't need property laws for this things, but those things will not create capitalism, or a real market, to have a real market you NEED state protected capitalist property laws, otherwise wage labor would'nt work (why would someone pick apples on someone elses farm for a wage worth less than the apples when he could just keep the apples).

Your ignorance of what is ment when taked about property just shows you hav'nt really done your homework before coming to this website.

As far as your appeal to human nature, do some research on human nature. here I'll give you a foot up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpN8K-WIIDM. Humans are not naturally competative as you guys presume, infact they are more likely to be cooperative, however human nature always shifts based on circumstances.

To me a "gold standard" is just the principle of currency which represents something of intrinsic value.

Do you know what would happen with a "gold standard," the exact same stuff that happens now, right now gold is speculated on, as are currencies, which either grows or diminishes the "intrinsic value" which is realy absolutely meaningless in a market economy. At that point we might as well base our economy on Disney stock. Not only that but there is absolutely no way you can impliment a gold standard in todays economy, as soon as the Fed announces its buying gold guess what happens to the price of gold? Lets say the have a fixed rate, well if its not above the current market rate who's gonna buy into it? Then what happens if banks start hoarding gold to manipulate the currency? Which will most likely happen, remember when gold was the standard banks were not nearly as powerful as they are now. Then what happens when the Fed raises the value of gold to get more money in the system? The same problem.

You might as well base the economy on tooth picks, its not gonna chanage a damn thing, there is no intrinsic value in gold its speculative value.

Demogorgon

14th December 2010, 18:38

No, my friend. You did not "detect" anything, except maybe the fact that history is one of my best and favorite subjects (especially WWII history). If there was a time machine, sure, I'd go back and take a tour of the "wild west", but I'd be back in time for Family Guy and to tell you how crazy it was. lol

To me a "gold standard" is just the principle of currency which represents something of intrinsic value. Fiat currency is unstable and completely controlled by the state. It just inflates and inflates. Eventually people are carrying wheelbarrows of bank notes to get a loaf of bread. I would go as far as saying a large portion of the economic problems the world is faced with is the abandonment of a "standard" and moving over to fancy printed promise papers. Capitalism in the modern world does not require "promise papers" either. Using a "gold standard" is not devoid of all problems, but I'll take it any day over papers which are worth nothing without the regime. In fact, you'd be surprised how many of us crazy capitalists have a large portion of our liquid assets in gold, silver and other metals/gems of intrinsic value. Hey... I'm watching you buddy! lol :glare:This is simply not true and I think you may wish to brush up on your economics, first of all it is nonsense that fiat money leads us to a situation where we are filling wheelbarrows with money, we live under fiat money and that does not happen. Moreover it does not put the currency fully under Government control, it is actually heavily controlled by Private Banks (as was money under the gold standard), if it were brought fully under public control that would be a major improvement.

Furthermore you might claim that the problems we experience today are caused by abandoning the gold standard, yet there is no problem today that was not even worse back then. You are looking at the past through rose tinted spectacles.

And for the "wild west" thing... No, no, no, no... It was NOT always US territory, and there are numerous examples of people settling in territories outside of US (and other) authority. It's simply undeniable. It's true there was federally mandated expansion and those lands were absorbed into the US (eventually becoming states), but you're mad if you think people didn't leave "civilization" and go to places outside of the jurisdiction of the US to set up their own towns and settlements. I've already even provided a historical example, and the story was over long ago. -- The end -- ;)What territory exactly? At the time the United States was formed anything to the west of its territory was French and after the Louisiana purchase it want up to Spanish territory. I can only conclude that you are confused by the fact that most of this territory was unorganised and lumps of empty space as far as the Government was concerned (native Americans living there didn't count by and large as far as the US Government was concerned), there was never any point when people were leaving territory claimed by the US without entering into territory claimed by another nation.

About the claim "capitalism" doesn't happen naturally... Human beings universally recognize the idea that a human can have something which belongs to him/her and cannot be rightfully taken away. Even animals do...go give a dog a bone and see if it doesn't fight to keep that bone away from other dogs (unless the dog is submissive to the other). Try to get an alligator out of its den. Try to eat with a pride of lions with a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" in your hand, and tell them "From each according to his ability..." LOL. Yes, I'm being a smart ass and picking at you. But this is not a difficult concept to grasp. Competition and struggle IS the social order. Whether you agree that it's the correct or "just" one is irrelevant. It exists. No government is necessary to uphold "property rights". No, if you try to take Og's bearskin blanket, he will crack you over the head with his club. You have to go kill your own bear, skin it, salt the hide and make a blanket if you want to be cozy in winter time. Now if that's what you want to change to create a better world and advance humanity, then I can respect that. But don't suggest it hasn't always been that way by the very social nature of humans and many animals.
I did not talk about whether capitalism was natural or indeed whether competition was just, but to answer you. First of all capitalism is a particular form of social organisation of which there have been several over the course of human history, it was natural in that it was the natural result of the bourgeoise responding to feudalism but it is blatantly not the only natural way that humans live. Furthermore even under capitalism much of our economic activity is not based on competition, so to say it is the only way we function is absurd. That is not to say that all competition is intrinsically bad, but it is simply not true to say it is the only way we function.

#FF0000

14th December 2010, 18:56

That is not to say that all competition is intrinsically bad, but it is simply not true to say it is the only way we function.

Yeah Demo's right here. The whole "Humans are inherently selfish" meme is one based on flimsy evidence and reasoning. Lots of studies are coming out on how humans and animals alike cooperate with others of the same species.

Have you heard of Peter Kropotkin, Minarchist?

Amphictyonis

14th December 2010, 19:09

corporations corporations corporations evil evil evil should be switched to capitalism capitalism capitalism evil evil evil. there has always been monopolies in capitalism. the state has always been the tool/weapon of the large capitalist.

nader needs to quit pussy footing around. blaming everything on corporations suggets the capitalist system is salvageable. everything is as it should be. this is capitalism.

ComradeMan

14th December 2010, 20:03

Yeah Demo's right here. The whole "Humans are inherently selfish" meme is one based on flimsy evidence and reasoning. Lots of studies are coming out on how humans and animals alike cooperate with others of the same species.

Only inasmuch as it serves their own "selfish" genetic goals of replicating their own genetic material.

Bud Struggle

14th December 2010, 20:10

Yeah Demo's right here. The whole "Humans are inherently selfish" meme is one based on flimsy evidence and reasoning. Lots of studies are coming out on how humans and animals alike cooperate with others of the same species.

And the best way that cooperation is espressed is in corporations. :)

ComradeMan

14th December 2010, 20:13

And the best way that cooperation is espressed is in corporations. :)

Which in their "altruism" exist to serve people's individualistic self-serving agenda. ;)

RGacky3

14th December 2010, 20:21

And the best way that cooperation is espressed is in corporations. :)

STFU Bud, don't be a troll.

Bud Struggle

14th December 2010, 20:50

STFU Bud, don't be a troll.

Well maybe a little. But corporations are co-ops of people all working togethere for one end. It's no different than a union or a country or a town or fans of a football team.

Realistically corporations may be the most effecient way for people to co operate--each person not only enjoys the benefits of working with others, but also gets rewarded (weekly) for doing so.

Corporations provide the social as well as the personal incentive.

RGacky3

14th December 2010, 20:56

But corporations are co-ops of people all working togethere for one end. It's no different than a union or a country or a town or fans of a football team.

Realistically corporations may be the most effecient way for people to co operate--each person not only enjoys the benefits of working with others, but also gets rewarded (weekly) for doing so.

Corporations provide the social as well as the personal incentive.

Bud you know thats not true at all, corporations are people investing in a company, they don't work together, they do not work for the company, they are not a part of the company, they do not RUN the company, what they are doing is speculating on the company, what corporations really are, is a way for the ruling class to spread out risk, get funding while keeping most of the benefits.

Corporations have nothing to do with cooperation, there is no cooperation, there is no working with others, there is no reward really except for the speculation, i.e. selling your stock (unless you get some dividends).

Your full of it.

Bud Struggle

14th December 2010, 21:01

Bud you know thats not true at all, corporations are people investing in a company, they don't work together, they do not work for the company, they are not a part of the company, they do not RUN the company, what they are doing is speculating on the company, what corporations really are, is a way for the ruling class to spread out risk, get funding while keeping most of the benefits.

Corporations have nothing to do with cooperation, there is no cooperation, there is no working with others, there is no reward really except for the speculation, i.e. selling your stock (unless you get some dividends).

Your full of it.

I was speaking about the way that people who WORK for corporations function. "I'm a proud member of the General Motors Team", The investors are improtant to corporations--but it's the employees that make it work! (I'm telling you this. :) )

People tend to identify VERY closely with their jobs and the company they work for. That kind of dedication is what makes corporation so formidable. It isn't just the money--it's the dedication.

RGacky3

14th December 2010, 21:03

I was speaking about the way that people who WORK for corporations function. "I'm a proud member of the General Motors Team", The investors are improtant to corporations--but it's the employees that make it work! (I'm telling you this. :) )

People tend to identify VERY closely with their jobs and the company they work for. That dind of dedication is what makes corporation so formidable.

So where is the cooperation? If anything its the same "cooperation" as a dictatorship, which is people are compelled to "cooperate" with the authority by fear of punishment. THats not cooperation bud, thats domination.

Bud Struggle

14th December 2010, 21:07

So where is the cooperation? If anything its the same "cooperation" as a dictatorship, which is people are compelled to "cooperate" with the authority by fear of punishment. THats not cooperation bud, thats domination.

Maybe in some blue collar jobs, but white collar jobs are all about committment to the corporate culture and corporate success.

Even in places like WalMart "associates" are steeped in corporate culture.

#FF0000

14th December 2010, 21:17

And the best way that cooperation is espressed is in corporations. :)

I think I could make the exact same statement about a fascist dictatorship and it'd be more or less the same thing. Workers are important to a corporation but they're still at the bottom rung. Managers are important but they're still getting paid much less than any executive. Executives have the real power and privilege but direct the company towards whatever.

You could replace the word company with state and that's pretty much the Fascist conception of a society. Everyone's important but they all have their place in the strict hierarchy and everyone from Il Duce himself to the lowly laborer are all working towards and are committed to the success of the Nation.

The point is that we can all agree that a fascist society is a repressive and oppressive one, so don't we consider corporate culture the same way?

Bud Struggle

14th December 2010, 21:23

The point is that we can all agree that a fascist society is a repressive and oppressive one, so don't we consider corporate culture the same way?

I was just pointing out how rediculous the statement that "studies have shown that people rather co-operate than compete is.) It's: well yea. People ARE social animals. We all know that--that's how you can get an army of a million people together to kill another army of a million people. The problem is that you can draw lines very easy in the cooperation and THEN the competition begins.

And on another note--I remember back when there was no "human nature."

RGacky3

14th December 2010, 21:25

Maybe in some blue collar jobs, but white collar jobs are all about committment to the corporate culture and corporate success.

Even in places like WalMart "associates" are steeped in corporate culture.

You don't have any facts on that, nor do you have any statistics, its just your gut. But again, a Boss/worker relationship is not cooperation at all, its authoritarianism.

As far as the Walmart "associates" read up on Soviet propeganda.

Again, it has nothing to do with cooperation, its authoritarianism.

And on another note--I remember back when there was no "human nature."

Read up the work on "human Nature" there is no contradiction between those 2 statements.

Bud Struggle

14th December 2010, 21:35

You don't have any facts on that, nor do you have any statistics, its just your gut. But again, a Boss/worker relationship is not cooperation at all, its authoritarianism. You've never worked for a corporation--have you? Neither have I. But I've seen enough of it when I was in NYC to see it wasn't just a boss/worker relationship. People BUY INTO the companies they work for.

As far as the Walmart "associates" read up on Soviet propeganda. What isn't propaganda?

Again, it has nothing to do with cooperation, its authoritarianism. No it's teamwork. I'm not talking about some grunt in a factory--but the real people that make companies work--the middle mamagers. They buy into the company.

Read up the work on "human Nature" there is no contradiction between those 2 statements. Of course there is. If people can be "anything" then all options are open to them.

ComradeMan

14th December 2010, 21:37

No it's teamwork. I'm not talking about some grunt in a factory--but the real people that make companies work--the middle mamagers. They buy into the company..

Bud, my grandmother worked in a factory from the age of 14 and was also a union shop steward, and devout catholic, she wasn't a "grunt".

Bud Struggle

15th December 2010, 18:57

Bud, my grandmother worked in a factory from the age of 14 and was also a union shop steward, and devout catholic, she wasn't a "grunt".

My dad worked in a factory, too and also belonged to the union. Sorry about the use of that word.

ComradeMan

15th December 2010, 19:36

My dad worked in a factory, too and also belonged to the union. Sorry about the use of that word.

Cool. :thumbup1:

Robert

15th December 2010, 20:50

I'll bet that no one here who complains about their "right to free health care!" exercises regularly or eats right. To you I can only say: Drop and give me twenty!

I'll be in the bar. :cool:

No, I really am in good health and have maybe two glasses of wine per week. My most recent sonograph confirms that: a) I am NOT pregnant; but b) I have a little fat accumulated around my liver.:(

Paté de foie gras à la Robert, anyone?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDCJKJ7vd_QGC7oNFCmC1xsPRcM98Np 1uK6kP02SjpFRdbZe-8

Robert

15th December 2010, 20:56

What territory exactly? At the time the United States was formed anything to the west of its territory was French and after the Louisiana purchase it want up to Spanish territory. I can only conclude that you are confused by the fact that most of this territory was unorganised and lumps of empty space as far as the Government was concerned

Demogorgon, you need to actually visit the USA someday instead of reading about it in leftist periodicals. Spend some time in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana when you are here. Then try to imagine what those areas were like just 100 years ago, then 200 years ago, regardless of whose "flag" flew over them.

Robert

15th December 2010, 20:58

Which in their "altruism" exist to serve people's individualistic self-serving agenda. ;)

Their profits are incidental to their success.

Their raison d'être is to provide goods and services that people will buy.

ComradeMan

15th December 2010, 21:02

Their profits are incidental to their success.

Their raison d'être is to provide goods and services that people will buy.

I am afraid I have to disagree- without profits there is no success.

Their raison d'être is to make money for their shareholders through selling goods and services that people foolishly buy in many cases.

#FF0000

15th December 2010, 21:12

I was just pointing out how rediculous the statement that "studies have shown that people rather co-operate than compete is.) It's: well yea. People ARE social animals. We all know that--that's how you can get an army of a million people together to kill another army of a million people. The problem is that you can draw lines very easy in the cooperation and THEN the competition begins.

Yeah we aren't saying competition doesn't exist. We're just saying the world isn't an every-man-for-himself-battle-royal from the cradle to the grave.

And on another note--I remember back when there was no "human nature."

Still isn't.

Bud Struggle

15th December 2010, 21:30

Yeah we aren't saying competition doesn't exist. We're just saying the world isn't an every-man-for-himself-battle-royal from the cradle to the grave. But I don't think "every man for himself" IS Capitalism. There is a LOT of cooperation in Capitalism. One of the best ways to succeed in Capitalism is to work together with other people. People have always worked together in small and large groups. There is nothing new in cooperation.

The question Communism asks that hasn't been answered is: can the entire world work to gether in cooperation?

Business with 2 to 1000 people spring up all over the place. There are millions of them in the world. People woking together and yes there is some authitarian structure--but in the 4end it's people's interactions that make the business work.

ON THE OTHER HAND there has yet to be on fisrt rate example of Communism to pop up. The CNT had a little and the EZLN has a little and Cuba and the SU and you can name whatever you want--but the cooperation hasn't been REAL Communism.

Still isn't. We disagree. :)

minarchist

15th December 2010, 22:57

When I talk about property rights, I'm talking about capitalist property, i.e. land beyond personal use and capital, not your cothes, not your home, not your tooth brush, you don't need property laws for this things, but those things will not create capitalism, or a real market, to have a real market you NEED state protected capitalist property laws, otherwise wage labor would'nt work (why would someone pick apples on someone elses farm for a wage worth less than the apples when he could just keep the apples).

"Wage labor" does not require any laws whatsoever. It's a simple concept -- you do X, and I will give you Y. "why would someone pick apples on someone elses farm for a wage worth less than the apples when he could just keep the apples"? Because that would be universally recognized as stealing, across all cultures, and if you're out there with no law enforcement, farmer Brown is going to shoot you with his 45-70 rifle for taking his apples. If there IS law enforcement, a legal system, etc, you're probably going to get detained, returning the apples, and then punished. This doesn't require "capitalist laws" or "property laws". Working for a wage/salary or payment in goods can be as simple as a social contract between two people -- could go on a hand shake. You're not going to be able to shoot this down, I don't believe. If you can, go for it... I'm all ears.

Your ignorance of what is ment when taked about property just shows you hav'nt really done your homework before coming to this website.

Yeah, ok...

As far as your appeal to human nature, do some research on human nature. here I'll give you a foot up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpN8K-WIIDM. Humans are not naturally competative as you guys presume, infact they are more likely to be cooperative, however human nature always shifts based on circumstances.

Erm... That was NOT an Appeal to Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature) fallacy. I am a capitalist, but I never said it was "right" and "good" because it's natural. And I in fact invited you/everyone to say that it wasn't and explain your position. Either you didn't understand or just twisted it. If the former, present your case and explain how we can overcome it. But competition is natural. Humans do cooperate and we are social, but our cooperation with others is for the sake of competing as a team against others. If you were right, capitalism would have never happened and no one would like it.

Do you know what would happen with a "gold standard," the exact same stuff that happens now, right now gold is speculated on, as are currencies, which either grows or diminishes the "intrinsic value" which is realy absolutely meaningless in a market economy. At that point we might as well base our economy on Disney stock. Not only that but there is absolutely no way you can impliment a gold standard in todays economy, as soon as the Fed announces its buying gold guess what happens to the price of gold? Lets say the have a fixed rate, well if its not above the current market rate who's gonna buy into it? Then what happens if banks start hoarding gold to manipulate the currency? Which will most likely happen, remember when gold was the standard banks were not nearly as powerful as they are now. Then what happens when the Fed raises the value of gold to get more money in the system? The same problem.

You might as well base the economy on tooth picks, its not gonna chanage a damn thing, there is no intrinsic value in gold its speculative value.

I have no idea where you're trying to go with this, except that you don't like the idea of a "gold standard". Gold remains extremely stable in value. When the "price" of gold goes up, it's actually not the price going up...it's the currency inflating. Just like it seems oil is going sky high, it's mostly the US dollar falling into oblivion. It takes more of, US dollars for example, to get X amount of gold. After my grandfather died, I found his secret "stash" of silver. There's about 50-60lbs of silver. IIRC, he paid $1.50 (+/- $0.18) per ounce (one coin -- and this was in the 60s/70s). Now it's worth about $14 - $20 per ounce. It's proportional to the inflation of the dollar, and if I sell a silver coin/bar, I can get roughly the exact same amount of goods or groceries with it that he got in his day. It's because it indeed does have intrinsic value. Gold doesn't "inflate", nor does silver. The worth of goods/services can shift over time, and change what X amount of gold gets you, per supply & demand. But the intrinsic value itself is stable. Look at what's been going on since the 70s.

minarchist

15th December 2010, 23:24

This is simply not true and I think you may wish to brush up on your economics, first of all it is nonsense that fiat money leads us to a situation where we are filling wheelbarrows with money, we live under fiat money and that does not happen. Moreover it does not put the currency fully under Government control, it is actually heavily controlled by Private Banks (as was money under the gold standard), if it were brought fully under public control that would be a major improvement.

Oh, I see... I guess when the world fought in Dumb War I (WWI), and countries abandoned gold standards and hard currency to try to gear up for over-spending, that this wasn't what took place. No, 1914-1930-ish is a lie! :) Now excuse me, I'm off to buy some Weimar bread...

http://goldcoin.org/wp-content/uploads/DM-wheelbarrow.jpg

:lol:

This was a horrible situation, and people went to extreme lengths to get food. It shows the major flaw in abandoning "gold standards" and hard currency to finance needless war. With fiat currency, you can just print more and more and hyper-inflate like this. Of course, you can print more and more notes for gold/silver, but they would just be counterfeit. You've got to have the gold/silver there, which is the real money.

The only reason fiat is "needed" is to finance over-spending, ridiculous warfare, monstrous social welfare programs, a massive government and everything else we don't need and I don't want. When you want to be the world's police (like my own country -- the US), sure, you need imaginary money to go play in other people's sandboxes.

Furthermore you might claim that the problems we experience today are caused by abandoning the gold standard [...]

Firstly, I didn't claim everything (problems) are the result of it. I actually said a great deal of them are. What could $1 get you in 1900? 1920? 1930? 40-50? 70? And how about now? See anything going on? :)

You are looking at the past through rose tinted spectacles.

Erm, no... I wish you'd stop trying to discredit me by claiming I'm reminiscing about the "good ol days" that I'm all "nostalgic" about. Simply isn't the case, good sir.

Regards,

empiredestoryer

16th December 2010, 00:10

american democracy is like nazi democracy of the 1930s.... please dont insult the world......america..........

ComradeMan

16th December 2010, 00:12

american democracy is like nazi democracy of the 1930s.... please dont insult the world......america..........

Stupid hyperbole and throwing the word "nazi" around does not help. There's a lot wrong with America but to say it's like Nazi Germany in the 1930s is just stupid.

minarchist

16th December 2010, 02:50

Stupid hyperbole and throwing the word "nazi" around does not help. There's a lot wrong with America but to say it's like Nazi Germany in the 1930s is just stupid.

Agreed. Definitely nothing close to Nazi Germany.

Robert

16th December 2010, 02:54

I am afraid I have to disagree- without profits there is no success.

Yes, and without satisfied customers there are no profits.

#FF0000

16th December 2010, 03:16

This was a horrible situation, and people went to extreme lengths to get food. It shows the major flaw in abandoning "gold standards" and hard currency to finance needless war. With fiat currency, you can just print more and more and hyper-inflate like this.

Yeah you can. That doesn't mean for a second that one will. People are conscious to what printing too much will do and people who work on monetary policy actively work to keep the supply of money under control.

The only reason fiat is "needed" is to finance over-spending, ridiculous warfare, monstrous social welfare programs, a massive government and everything else we don't need and I don't want. When you want to be the world's police (like my own country -- the US), sure, you need imaginary money to go play in other people's sandboxes.

Well, duh. But the American government really needs those armed forces to force foreign markets open so the business interests can get their fill of cheap labor and new, exciting places to ravage for resources. And those government programs are keeping people fed or in a job. I mean, not even considering welfare and things like that, but do you know how many people have jobs because of the Government in Texas alone?

I mean I'm not saying this is how things should be run. I'm a communist and I'm opposed to all this because it comes part-and-parcel with capitalism. I'm just saying... this is capitalism! This is how it works and things are done this way for a reason -- because the workers would have taken power otherwise.

But you know what? Go ahead. Please. You go ahead and gather up some supporters and campaign to reinstate the gold standard and end the fed and all that. I'll be over here handing out the rifles and pitchforks.

minarchist

16th December 2010, 03:58

Well, duh. But the American government really needs those armed forces to force foreign markets open so the business interests can get their fill of cheap labor and new, exciting places to ravage for resources and markets. And those government programs are keeping people fed or in a job. I mean, not even considering welfare and things like that, but do you know how many people have jobs because of the Government in Texas alone?

I mean I'm not saying this is how things should be run. I'm a communist and I'm opposed to all this because it comes part-and-parcel with capitalism. I'm just saying... this is capitalism! This is how it works and things are done this way for a reason -- because the workers would have taken power otherwise.

But you know what? Go ahead. Please. You go ahead and gather up some supporters and campaign to reinstate the gold standard and end the fed and all that. I'll be over here handing out the rifles and pitchforks.

You have some good points, but then you dilute it by going off the deep end. :rolleyes: heheh

Yes, sooo many government jobs, excellent point. But it's ultimately a causal factor of the whole freakin problem, lol. That's how Washington "creates jobs" and "fights unemployment". They just make the government bigger and more powerful. Then they say, "Hey, we need to get some more money. Wanna invade some *****es or just go print some?" :laugh: This is the kind of crap Libertarians like me are repulsed by.

No, this is NOT capitalism. If it was, I would be happy as a lark and shouting "Hail, hail Obama, lion of America!", lol. This is imperialism and authoritarianism, and we're economically a mix of semi-socialism and pseudo-capitalism. I mean, c'mon, man... You guys call it "evil capitalism", and voices on the economic right (the actual capitalists) reject it and call it (semi-)socialism. So what does that tell us? It ain't actually capitalism, and it ain't communism or "real" socialism. You're actually winning (economically) the tug-of-war, in my opinion. It's coming your way, bit by bit. It seems collapse is inevitable (maybe desired), and then you'll be able to rebuild it how you like...

"the workers would have taken power", eh? Why do they keep voting for Democrats and Republicans then, instead of taking power through a revolution? ...or at least voting for someone else...? :p

Pitchforks and rifles? I've got enough weaponry, thank you very much. The way to ultimately win out over fiat is NOT through violence, revolution or any of that hopeless crap. The best RESOLUTION would be to begin scaling down the federal government, cutting all the crap and Americans buying and investing in gold and silver. Ultimately what will win out is what we want. We can, if we want to, wean ourselves off fiat and get to real money which doesn't depend on the existence of the Republ-ocratic Empire.

Robert

16th December 2010, 04:24

Why do they keep voting for Democrats and Republicans then, instead of taking power through a revolution? ...or at least voting for someone else...?

They don't know how many good commie candidates are out there because the Republicrat machine and the corporate dominated media suppress the truth.

#FF0000

16th December 2010, 04:48

You have some good points, but then you dilute it by going off the deep end. heheh

Things like social security, welfare, social programs, and government jobs are concessions to keep people who are hungry, poor, and jobless from revolting. There's nothing "off the deep end" about that. Are you telling me that you don't think there wouldn't be any unrest if you just did away with all these things?

Yes, sooo many government jobs, excellent point. But it's ultimately a causal factor of the whole freakin problem, lol. That's how Washington "creates jobs" and "fights unemployment". They just make the government bigger and more powerful. Then they say, "Hey, we need to get some more money. Wanna invade some *****es or just go print some?" This is the kind of crap Libertarians like me are repulsed by.

Yeah, I'm well aware that Libertarians are repulsed by it, but that hardly matters. The fact is that this is what capitalism is, and there are reasons why capitalism ends up resorting to imperialism. There's a quote by Cecil Rhodes I like to bring up in discussions like this...

""The Empire as I have always said is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.""

Like I said. There's a reason capitalism is the way it is.

No, this is NOT capitalism. If it was, I would be happy as a lark and shouting "Hail, hail Obama, lion of America!", lol. This is imperialism and authoritarianism...

Imperialism and authoritarianism have been tied pretty close to capitalism for a couple hundred years now, boyo.

and we're economically a mix of semi-socialism and pseudo-capitalism.

No. We're economically Keynesian. Not "semi-socialist". Not "pseudo-capitalism". It is capitalism. It is Keynesianism, and it is capitalism.[/quote]

I mean, c'mon, man... You guys call it "evil capitalism", and voices on the economic right (the actual capitalists) reject it and call it (semi-)socialism

Who?

So what does that tell us? It ain't actually capitalism, and it ain't communism or "real" socialism

I'd say it tells us that whoever calling it socialism doesn't know what the hell socialism is.

You're actually winning (economically) the tug-of-war, in my opinion.

Well, that's fine if you think that, but it's very wrong. Folks like Keynes and Mises or Friedman might seem worlds apart to you, but from the Socialist perspective, they're just two wings on the same bird. Marxists have a totally different worldview with a different basis from folks like Keynes, Krugman, Bernanke, or whoever.

"the workers would have taken power", eh? Why do they keep voting for Democrats and Republicans then, instead of taking power through a revolution? ...or at least voting for someone else...?

I think you missed my point. Like I said above, the point I was making is that things like social security, welfare programs, and things like this are there more to keep order than anything else. I suppose you'd going to tell me that Otto Von Bismarck was red too for enacting his social programs in 1880!

Pitchforks and rifles? I've got enough weaponry, thank you very much. The way to ultimately win out over fiat....

Nah I'm saying that if the government honestly enacting what minarchists want to see, then there would be massive unrest which could end up being a very good thing for socialists and a catastrophic thing for the capitalist class and proponents of capitalism.

#FF0000

16th December 2010, 04:48

They don't know how many good commie candidates are out there because the Republicrat machine and the corporate dominated media suppress the truth.

They don't know of any good commie candidates because there is no such thing. What do you think Rev stands for up there? :lol:

minarchist

16th December 2010, 05:16

Things like social security, welfare, social programs, and government jobs are concessions to keep people who are hungry, poor, and jobless from revolting. There's nothing "off the deep end" about that. Are you telling me that you don't think there wouldn't be any unrest if you just did away with all these things?

Yes, because no one in their right mind tries to just trash and abolish them overnight when we've become dependant on them (and thus weak). It will take an awakening in America and a broad movement to come in my direction. It starts by reducing state power and authority, not by causing mass upheavals and catastrophe. I think you're trying to paint a picture of me as someone who wants to start shooting, bombing and abolishing lol. And that can't be any further from the truth. It only works by Americans reclaiming authority from the government and doing it themselves. But as of right now, most Americans are complacent and just fine with the government's fingers in every aspect of their lives. As long as they kill our rights and seize more authority "softly" and slowly, people don't raise too much hell. As long as the last batch of freedoms we lost were from the last generation, the next one doesn't care.

The fact is that this is what capitalism is, and there are reasons why capitalism ends up resorting to imperialism. There's a quote by Cecil Rhodes I like to bring up in discussions like this...

""The Empire as I have always said is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.""

Like I said. There's a reason capitalism is the way it is. Imperialism and authoritarianism have been tied pretty close to capitalism for a couple hundred years now, boyo.

As are dictators, gulags, death camps, purges and genocide PLUS imperialism and authoritarianism with communism, boyo... Now tell me what this could mean for the both of us?

Well, that's fine if you think that, but it's very wrong. Folks like Keynes and Mises or Friedman might seem worlds apart to you, but from the Socialist perspective, they're just two wings on the same bird. Marxists have a totally different worldview with a different basis from folks like Keynes, Krugman, Bernanke, or whoever.

What? Where did I attribute these sorts of views to you/communism/marxists? I don't think I did, but if it seemed so, my bad. I fully understand you here, but it ain't actual capitalism, my friend... You're wanting to demonize it as that, and I think performing some mental gymnastics here. "Capitalism" ceases to be capitalism when the government controls it, especially in the extreme degree it is today.

Nah I'm saying that if the government honestly enacting what minarchists want to see, then there would be massive unrest which could end up being a very good thing for socialists and a catastrophic thing for the capitalist class and proponents of capitalism.

The government doesn't "enact" minarchist ideals. The whole point is to remove these excessive powers from the state. The people themselves, the consumers, the workers, the corporations, etc can self-regulate and make the economy as egalitarian as they want. I'd rather live in an anarcho-communist society than an authoritarian fence-straddling society. Economic policy should be set by the people buying, selling, producing and trading stuff, not the government. That's what a "free market" and capitalism is. A government which sets "economic policy" and "enacts" things is NOT capitalism.

#FF0000

16th December 2010, 05:35

What? Where did I attribute these sorts of views to you/communism/marxists? I don't think I did, but if it seemed so, my bad.

I fully understand you here, but it ain't actual capitalism, my friend...

Well, because you're defining capitalism as a totally free market with no government interference. Which has never existed in history ever, unless you can correct me?

You're wanting to demonize it as that, and I think performing some mental gymnastics here. "Capitalism" ceases to be capitalism when the government controls it, especially in the extreme degree it is today.

Eh, no because communists have opposed this system since the 1800s.

But you know what, I think there's going to be a miscommunication here. I think I remember you saying you aren't too well-versed in leftist theory anyway, so.

Let me just point out real quick that I think we're using different definitions. You're defining capitalism as a total free market system. When communists argue against capitalism, they aren't arguing against that specifically, but against the capitalist mode of production. That is to say, a society in which workers must sell their labor-power to make a wage, while bosses get their income from their labor. How "free" the market is is irrelevant here, and the capitalist mode of production can exist within many different kinds of societies and with many different government structures.

So, maybe this clears up something?

minarchist

16th December 2010, 06:44

Well, because you're defining capitalism as a totally free market with no government interference. Which has never existed in history ever, unless you can correct me?

Never permanently, afaik. It's somewhat happened a few times when people settled in places with no existing society/"civilization", until government made its way in. I don't think it's possible to maintain, nor do I think anarchism is possible. But I believe both of these are the direction which gives individuals the highest degree of freedom. That's why I'm a minarchist, and not an anarcho-capitalist. As I understand, communism has never really existed in history either.

But you know what, I think there's going to be a miscommunication here. I think I remember you saying you aren't too well-versed in leftist theory anyway, so.

Let me just point out real quick that I think we're using definitions. You're defining capitalism as a total free market system. When communists argue against capitalism, they aren't arguing against that specifically, but against the capitalist mode of production. That is to say, a society in which workers must sell their labor-power to make a wage, while bosses get their income from their labor. How "free" the market is is irrelevant here, and the capitalist mode of production can exist within many different kinds of societies and with many different government structures.

So, maybe this clears up something?

Yes, excellent post. And I'm wanting you to realize that you're railing against my thinking of "capitalism" as if the US and other countries actually represent it -- they don't. That's why I commented about gulags and purges, not to falsely demonize communism, but to point out that Stalin's purges no more represent you than the US government represents me. If we call what the US and other western nations have "capitalism", then it's by your definition, not mine. What's going on today and what has gone on in the past is against, not in agreement, with my ideology. It has a few bits and pieces here and there, but by its very nature it's not MY "capitalism", and it's not capitalism at all to me.

But now I know what your definition actually is, so I can explain myself -- I'm glad you met me half-way here. I can explain my own thinking on the matter, but it will need its own post. But maybe we have some clarity now. And maybe I should use a term other than "capitalism" here with you all, since it carries a different definition to Marxists and has a rather negative connotation.

NOTE: The way I view the range of economic thought on a "left-right" scale; the absolute "left" is total collectivism/communism, and the absolute "right" is a totally free market (which is what complete capitalism is to me; and when you move too far away from it, you're no longer capitalist).

Revolution starts with U

16th December 2010, 07:10

Here's the problem tho. Capitalism as a word was designed to describe a historical phenomena, and only later the theories behind it. Socialism was used to describe a theory, and only later applied to history. We can say socialism has never existed, because it was theory first. And nothing has yet matched up with the theory.
Capitalists can't do that though. Because capitalism is alredy well defined. Youc can call yourself a marketeer, or propertarian, or market liberrtarian, or anything along those lines. But what you advocate is not capitalism. It is only market economics.
The US is capitalist. Im sorry you cant accept that, but its true.

Revolution starts with U

16th December 2010, 07:13

.NOTE: The way I view the range of economic thought on a "left-right" scale; the absolute "left" is total collectivism/communism, and the absolute "right" is a totally free market (which is what complete capitalism is to me; and when you move too far away from it, you're no longer capitalist).

This is what I mean. You are trying to claim the owners of Lockheed Martin are not capitalists, because they are largely funded with government subsidies. An'cap/austrian definitions of capitalism are entirely ahistorical, and only further shows that they are merely intellectual psychophants.

Demogorgon

16th December 2010, 11:17

"
I have no idea where you're trying to go with this, except that you don't like the idea of a "gold standard". Gold remains extremely stable in value. When the "price" of gold goes up, it's actually not the price going up...it's the currency inflating. Just like it seems oil is going sky high, it's mostly the US dollar falling into oblivion. It takes more of, US dollars for example, to get X amount of gold. After my grandfather died, I found his secret "stash" of silver. There's about 50-60lbs of silver. IIRC, he paid $1.50 (+/- $0.18) per ounce (one coin -- and this was in the 60s/70s). Now it's worth about $14 - $20 per ounce. It's proportional to the inflation of the dollar, and if I sell a silver coin/bar, I can get roughly the exact same amount of goods or groceries with it that he got in his day. It's because it indeed does have intrinsic value. Gold doesn't "inflate", nor does silver. The worth of goods/services can shift over time, and change what X amount of gold gets you, per supply & demand. But the intrinsic value itself is stable. Look at what's been going on since the 70s.
This is nonsense, before I provide the theory I must point out that the example you provide shows you are mistaken. Over the last forty years inflation in the United States has been such that a dollar is worth around one fifth of what it was back then. You have just shown the price of silver going up tenfold, and that is just silver, gold has increased by more again.

That pointed out, where does this "intrinsic" value of gold come from? Depending on your preferred economic theory it must either be coming from the subjective value people are attaching to it or from the effort that is being expended to provide it, certainly by any economic theory I know of, it borders on the absurd to say that the value of it will remain fixed regardless of the amount in circulation. Further if the value of gold a silver are both intrinsic then why does their value fluctuate so much vis-a-vis one another? That was what provided such difficulties for India in the nineteenth century, the Rupee was pegged to silver whereas most other currencies, and in particular Sterling, were pegged to gold. When the value of silver fell drastically in relation to gold the country was left in severe difficulty. If the value of each was somehow fixed that could never have happened.
Oh, I see... I guess when the world fought in Dumb War I (WWI), and countries abandoned gold standards and hard currency to try to gear up for over-spending, that this wasn't what took place. No, 1914-1930-ish is a lie! :) Now excuse me, I'm off to buy some Weimar bread...

[Image removed to save space]

:lol:

This was a horrible situation, and people went to extreme lengths to get food. It shows the major flaw in abandoning "gold standards" and hard currency to finance needless war. With fiat currency, you can just print more and more and hyper-inflate like this. Of course, you can print more and more notes for gold/silver, but they would just be counterfeit. You've got to have the gold/silver there, which is the real money.

The only reason fiat is "needed" is to finance over-spending, ridiculous warfare, monstrous social welfare programs, a massive government and everything else we don't need and I don't want. When you want to be the world's police (like my own country -- the US), sure, you need imaginary money to go play in other people's sandboxes.

Hyper inflation in the Weimer Republic was caused by the severe war reparations imposed on Germany by the victors. The only conceivable thing the country could have done was to try to print money to pay it off. Once the payment obligations were relaxed and a new currency established, the hyper-inflation ended.

Anyway you seem to have bought into conspiracy theories as to where fiat money comes from. Most new money is not printed. Indeed where the Government prints banknotes it is generally to replace damaged ones (they often don't withstand more than about six months of circulation). It might be better if it did work like that, but it doesn't. New money is entering the economy primarily from private lending, the Government's involvement being through the central bank (which is often independent of the political Government) setting a base interest rate that then controls how much banks will learn. None of this was different under the gold standard, you don't believe all banknotes (not to mention cheques, bank transfers and the rest) were backed by gold, do you? That is where the fractional reserve system originated.

No doubt you will say you don't support that either and want all money to be 100% backed by gold. Not only would that make the currency a hostage to fortune depending on how much gold was mined, not to mention the demand for it to be used in electronics and such, but the economic damage that would cause would be devastating. What happens if our capacity to produce goods and services increases but we don't have enough gold to keep prices and wages constant? In theory prices and wages would adjust downwards with nobody being worse off as the purchasing capacity of the new wages would still be identical to the old wages. However practice tells us that that would not happen due to the fact that prices and particularly wages are "sticky". What would actually happen is that they would hold constant leading to excess supply meaning unemployment and the inability to sell what has been produced. Recession in other words.

Firstly, I didn't claim everything (problems) are the result of it. I actually said a great deal of them are. What could $1 get you in 1900? 1920? 1930? 40-50? 70? And how about now? See anything going on? :)

Sure there has been inflation, but inflation occurs under the gold standard too (though of course the risk of deflation is greater). Furthermore, moderate inflation is good for the economy, so saying that its existence proves that we need a different monetary system is not a good argument.

Erm, no... I wish you'd stop trying to discredit me by claiming I'm reminiscing about the "good ol days" that I'm all "nostalgic" about. Simply isn't the case, good sir.

Regards,
I am not attempting to discredit you, I am asking you to avoid looking backwards for solutions. Arguments for the gold standard boil down to "it was better before" and that is an intellectual dead end.

Robert

16th December 2010, 12:33

They don't know of any good commie candidates because there is no such thing. What do you think Rev stands for up there? :lol:

Well, let the record reflect that you asked, but I think "Rev ... up there" stands for nothing.

Any one of you 18 or over could run for elected office on a communist platform if you really believed in collectivism and in the democratic process.

I do have fun here and thank the mods for letting me stay on.

ComradeMan

16th December 2010, 12:50

Well, let the record reflect that you asked, but I think "Rev ... up there" stands for nothing.

Any one of you 18 or over could run for elected office on a communist platform if you really believed in collectivism and in the democratic process.

I do have fun here and thank the mods for letting me stay on.

Robert actually does make a point which needs to be addressed.

In Italy one of the main parties the Rifondazione Comunista has seen a steady decline from about 130,000 members in 1997 to just over 35,000 as of 2010- the maximum % vote it has ever received is 8.5% and averages around 5%. So? What the matter? Is the party wrong or are the people wrong? It seems people just don't want to vote for them- are they all reactionaries? Or is there something vital that is being missed?

#FF0000

16th December 2010, 15:26

Any one of you 18 or over could run for elected office on a communist platform if you really believed in collectivism and in the democratic process.

Except that even if a socialist was elected, there is literally almost nothing he could do to bring us any closer to socialism other than use his office as a bully pulpit. You can't vote socialism into power.

Are there benefits to running candidates? Maybe. A lot of parties do. The SPUSA does, the PSL does. But even they don't think that they're being elected so that they can implement socialist policy. If anything they're running to let people know that socialism's an option.

Communists believe that revolution is a social thing, not a political (or military) one.

Also we don't have any faith in the "democratic process" of liberal democracies.

In Italy one of the main parties the Rifondazione Comunista has seen a steady decline from about 130,000 members in 1997 to just over 35,000 as of 2010- the maximum % vote it has ever received is 8.5% and averages around 5%. So? What the matter? Is the party wrong or are the people wrong? It seems people just don't want to vote for them- are they all reactionaries? Or is there something vital that is being missed?

This is total conjecture but it might have something to do with looking really stupid calling for revolution while campaigning for an election and then quietly holding your office and maintaining the status quo.

minarchist

16th December 2010, 20:45

This is nonsense, before I provide the theory I must point out that the example you provide shows you are mistaken. Over the last forty years inflation in the United States has been such that a dollar is worth around one fifth of what it was back then. You have just shown the price of silver going up tenfold, and that is just silver, gold has increased by more again.

It seems you fail to understand why that is, and why it's a good thing. If you just compare the dollar to X amount of gold/silver, you're thinking in black and white terms -- and the dollar is a wild variable. Just saying "Gee, $14 / 1.50 is a ten-fold gain!" is kinda naive if you think that's all there is to it. You have to think of the entire scope of the issue, and it comes down to the amount of "buying power" gold/silver has. It has apparently seen an increase, but so has our industrial capacity to produce vast supplies of goods. How much was a candle worth in 1650? How many candles could you get with 1oz of gold in the 1600s? And how about now? Back in the 1600s, only wealthy people had candles, and the peasantry had to either do without or burn tightly wrapped straw bundles soaked in oil. Is that because gold is almost immeasurably more valuable? No, it's because candles are cheap and we have tons of them. True enough, the stock of silver I have locked away has seen a decent gain. But it's because the buying power has shifted, as production/supply increases. The actual supply of gold/silver does have an effect, but usually a positive one.

The value of gold/silver is very sheltered, and if anything, our existing supply will usually become more valuable (in terms of power). The very nature of precious metals like gold and silver (rare, hard to find, difficult to mine, must mine deeper and deeper) makes them "self-protective". They are just naturally a good choice for "money". They aren't free of all problems, and of course they CAN fluctuate. But those of us who embrace it, like me, will enjoy the benefits of the fluctuations, especially as technology grows, goods are here in bigger supplies and fiat inflates. Our gold and silver, having almost the same, stable "intrinsic value" will just be worth a whole lot more when I exchange it into Uncle Sam's economy. People can go ahead and put their faith in fiat currency and big governments, but I'll put mine in the gold and silver plus responsibility and realism. Which one do you want? A bunch of little variable rate "promise papers", or something which has been universally recognized as money for thousands of years and has remained a stable form of wealth? I'll stick to backing myself up with gold and silver, thank you very much. The rest of the world can revolve around fiat, spend money they don't have and keep digging their own graves -- it'll just make my backup investments worth a fortune anyway!

That pointed out, where does this "intrinsic" value of gold come from? Depending on your preferred economic theory it must either be coming from the subjective value people are attaching to it or from the effort that is being expended to provide it, certainly by any economic theory I know of, it borders on the absurd to say that the value of it will remain fixed regardless of the amount in circulation. Further if the value of gold a silver are both intrinsic then why does their value fluctuate so much vis-a-vis one another? That was what provided such difficulties for India in the nineteenth century, the Rupee was pegged to silver whereas most other currencies, and in particular Sterling, were pegged to gold. When the value of silver fell drastically in relation to gold the country was left in severe difficulty. If the value of each was somehow fixed that could never have happened.
Hyper inflation in the Weimer Republic was caused by the severe war reparations imposed on Germany by the victors. The only conceivable thing the country could have done was to try to print money to pay it off. Once the payment obligations were relaxed and a new currency established, the hyper-inflation ended.

Several factors give it a "hard" or "intrinsic" value. A big part of it is the value it holds in the eyes of people around the globe, yes. It's pretty, has unique properties and can be extremely valuable in industry. It's also something which can't be manufactured, grown, copied/printed, hatched from an egg or mirrored in binary. We can only dig up so much of it at a time, and we've gotten most of the "easy" gold on the surface layer of earth's crust. It's harder, more time consuming and requires better technology to find it, go deeper and get it out of the ground. This keeps it from making any giant leaps in supply, and the existing supply won't sublimate into thin air. This is why these metals have been used as currency anyway. I would think it's possible to even create a mathematical formula to represent gold/silver's projected stabilities -- just like the formula which represents how the complexity/computing power of CPUs will increase. I've never called it a constant. Of course the supply and circulation can change and they can shift. But you obviously aren't grasping that I don't think gold/silver is perfect and 100% faultless -- it's simply the most secure and stable concrete thing we have. Nuff said.

Yes, that is what happened to Weimar Germany. That's what I said. But what enabled that was the abandonment of standards and moving to fiat currencies to fund a global war we didn't need. Yes, when you want to fund global imperialist ambitions, you can't sit around and wait on people to dig up more metals. You know before the war, many world leaders thought the war was impossible because everyone would run out of money to fund it? It should have been! And we see where it leads to.

Anyway you seem to have bought into conspiracy theories as to where fiat money comes from. Most new money is not printed. Indeed where the Government prints banknotes it is generally to replace damaged ones (they often don't withstand more than about six months of circulation). It might be better if it did work like that, but it doesn't. New money is entering the economy primarily from private lending, the Government's involvement being through the central bank (which is often independent of the political Government) setting a base interest rate that then controls how much banks will learn. None of this was different under the gold standard, you don't believe all banknotes (not to mention cheques, bank transfers and the rest) were backed by gold, do you? That is where the fractional reserve system originated.

No, don't start making "conspiracy theory" accusations... I've done my homework, and never pushed any "conspiracy theory", so I don't know where you're even going with this...

No doubt you will say you don't support that either and want all money to be 100% backed by gold. Not only would that make the currency a hostage to fortune depending on how much gold was mined, not to mention the demand for it to be used in electronics and such, but the economic damage that would cause would be devastating. What happens if our capacity to produce goods and services increases but we don't have enough gold to keep prices and wages constant? In theory prices and wages would adjust downwards with nobody being worse off as the purchasing capacity of the new wages would still be identical to the old wages. However practice tells us that that would not happen due to the fact that prices and particularly wages are "sticky". What would actually happen is that they would hold constant leading to excess supply meaning unemployment and the inability to sell what has been produced. Recession in other words.

When did I EVER say I wanted all money to be 100% backed by gold? I don't think that's really possible. You don't even know what I really believe, you just know I support the notion of a widespread "hard currency" backed by gold/silver. And you're attacking the economic ideas you've essentially made up for me. I've never even explained my actual position/theory -- I offered to DO so, but no one even asked. So all we're fighting about is a tiny piece of the pie and a made-up economic theory that's not even mine.

Sure there has been inflation, but inflation occurs under the gold standard too (though of course the risk of deflation is greater). Furthermore, moderate inflation is good for the economy, so saying that its existence proves that we need a different monetary system is not a good argument.

I have no idea where you're getting these ideas from. Do we want to disagree that badly? Again, I'm willing to share my economic ideology if anyone actually wants to listen. I'll need some time and it would be better in its own thread. But I don't think you want to hear it, and you just want to keep swinging the hammer at nails that aren't there.

The existence of inflation alone doesn't "prove" anything (this isn't even a "hard science" and is based on beliefs anyway). The larger scheme of things does demonstrate that the current system is prone to devastating catastrophes though. And everything is in the hands of the state. All great empires are destined to fall -- it's the people, like you and I, who will stick around. We're the ones who'll have to suffer when the empire and their systems collapse. And we're better off NOT depending on the empire's imaginary money.

I am not attempting to discredit you, I am asking you to avoid looking backwards for solutions. Arguments for the gold standard boil down to "it was better before" and that is an intellectual dead end.

Well, throw away the Marxist ideology because it's old...was written long ago by an old, dead guy. Don't look to anything good the Soviets or other socialist countries did in the past either, since you'd be "looking at the past through rose-tinted spectacles". And of course, that would be an "intellectual dead end". ;)

...no, that's a ridiculous notion. I never claimed it was "better back then", but we did once use an idea which was good. That's like suggesting if you do X, but then change to Y, you can't go back to X; even if Y is total, unsustainable crap, and X is an methodology which can work with improvement and adjustment.

This isn't going anywhere because we're fighting over gold and fiat, not my own beliefs but just an attribute thereof. You saying it can't work and will be a disaster is true, but you're applying it to a contrived scenario which isn't even what I advocate. I don't want to see the US government "enact" a gold standard. I want the people themselves to awaken and realize we can't keep going on like this. People and businesses should make changes and move into a more secure and stable future. That can start just by investing in gold/silver like I've done. Fiat currency is going to die a slow and agonizing death anyway -- I just don't want it to be agonizing for you and me. A lot of people ARE coming to this realization and putting their money in safe places. We've got all these commercials on TV now; companies wanting to buy your gold or let you buy some. If people don't wake up, oh well... I'll be sitting on a gold and silver mine (pun intended?). ;)

Anyway, no hard feelings here, bro. It's just arguing over politics. I hope I haven't come off as being rude/dick-ish toward you, even if I can sound a bit harsh and sarcastic. Too bad I can't sit down with you and the other guys here and have a round of beers, on me, and argue all night long! :cool:

ComradeMan

16th December 2010, 20:49

.

Communists believe that revolution is a social thing, not a political (or military) one.

The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall. Che Guevara

Yeah, like the Cuban revolution.... LOL!!!

.This is total conjecture but it might have something to do with looking really stupid calling for revolution while campaigning for an election and then quietly holding your office and maintaining the status quo.

It's not perhaps because for some reason the majority of voters are not/no longer interested in the policies being proposed? This is something that needs to be looked at.

#FF0000

16th December 2010, 21:33

Yeah, like the Cuban revolution.... LOL!!!

Depends on whether or not you see Cuba as a socialist state or not, I guess.

It's not perhaps because for some reason the majority of voters are not/no longer interested in the policies being proposed? This is something that needs to be looked at.

Yeah communism isn't really the "in" thing. It seems to me, where I'm from at least, communists just don't know how to make themselves relevant.

Demogorgon

16th December 2010, 21:54

This isn't going anywhere because we're fighting over gold and fiat, not my own beliefs but just an attribute thereof. You saying it can't work and will be a disaster is true, but you're applying it to a contrived scenario which isn't even what I advocate. I don't want to see the US government "enact" a gold standard. I want the people themselves to awaken and realize we can't keep going on like this. People and businesses should make changes and move into a more secure and stable future. That can start just by investing in gold/silver like I've done. Fiat currency is going to die a slow and agonizing death anyway -- I just don't want it to be agonizing for you and me. A lot of people ARE coming to this realization and putting their money in safe places. We've got all these commercials on TV now; companies wanting to buy your gold or let you buy some. If people don't wake up, oh well... I'll be sitting on a gold and silver mine (pun intended?). ;)

I'm not really in the mood to answer your whole post tonight, perhaps that can be a task for tomorrow, but I think I should make a point here, because this is something that is putting a lot of people in jeopardy in the real world. I am aware that American television has been carrying a lot of adverts encouraging people to put their money into gold and that this has lead a lot of people to believe that the Dollar is at risk. But here's the rub, these adverts aren't being shown anywhere else. No effort is being made to market gold to ordinary people elsewhere, if it were such a prudent investment, why wouldn't they? I'll tell you why, it is because some of the right wing pundits in the American media have been talking about the gold standard and have started telling people to buy gold. Obviously this has increased demand for gold and those selling it are taking advantage of this. Because such pundits don't really exist elsewhere there is no rush to buy gold, hence little point in advertising it.

Once you realise that this is the basis behind the talk of investing in gold in America, it should put a different spin on things, because what is actually happening is that there is a mild version of panic buying going on creating yet another market bubble, when the pundits get bored of the topic and go for something else and demand for gold falls, what do you think is going to happen? Why do you think sellers are pushing so hard to sell their gold now while the price is high?