Libertarianism in TWO lessons [Archive]

ShakeZula06

12th January 2007, 02:00

This guy is a joke.

In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
While obviously government certainly isn't the form of coersion libertarians are against all coersion and thus oppose the state just as you should oppose a theif or a slave owner.

Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
All one must do is look at the record. Think about how much shittier people are because of government and how much better people are because of the simple economics that the market relies on. The market is a possitive sum game, the government is negative sum game. Which do you think I should support?

We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
The 'rest' are much better in terms of absolute wealth in a free market stateless society then with the elitist rule any type of government naturally creates.

Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things.
Sure governments can own things. Just that everything it 'owns' it only owns through the means of theft (or taxation if you prefer).

Parents cannot choose a government for their children
False. You can do whatever you like, just don't force me to partake in it.

Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US...
What is 'the US'? Did they buy the house I live in? If some thugs force me pay them protection money is it now OK since they *are* protecting me? What about if these same thugs now say they have a right to conscript me for their fights with other thugs?

...and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.
Oh I see now. So if they provide me some product (especially one that the market can provide) that gives them a right to steal from me. So if I steal $100 from you and then give you a hot dog and then call that $100 an obligation for my services it's suddenly not wrong. Riiight.

Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia.
No one claims that a stateless society leads to utopia (unless your talking to a communist that thinks true communism has no state, in which case most likely he's going to claim that). Simple strawman from a simple mind.

minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals.
Some libertarians are minarchists who think government's only job is to provide law, police, and defense. Some are free market anarchists who want entire elimination of the state. It's not a riddle, it's differing opinions, dumb fuck.

Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.
Where most support government intervention in the market to fix government intervention in the market, libertarians go to the source of the problem.

Only government is force,
No one claims this.

Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the economy.
Money coercizely taken by the government is money that has been distributed to areas where there was no demand.

Private education works, public education doesn't.
Private education better assesses consumer demand; public education is incapable of measuring it's efficiency.

Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies...
...are assertions made by small minded statists that want to hold on to their dear nanny that is the state. Oh, and those who benefit from the state's presence.

Central planning cannot work.
Because without a profit system it cannot correctly measure demand and allocate resources to the best abilities, which is exactly why the USSR collapsed.

Paternalism is the worst thing that can be inflicted upon people, as everyone knows that fathers are the most hated and reviled figures in the world.
Think to yourself why children need fathers. Might it perhaps be because they are not morally autonomous, something that adults have? What if say your father said he was going to impose laws on you your whole life? Let's say even if you moved out he'd hire agents to enforce his rulings. But you can move far, far away to escape his grasp, but BOOM another guy says he's your father and he's going to impose those rules on you. Get the picture yet?

The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.
No, but it is responsible for the horribly high and ridiculous regulations that are in place only to serve those companys that slide politicians an envelope.

The "Party of Oxymoron": "Individualists unite!"
That's not an oxymoron, you moron.

Flip answers are more powerful than the best reasoned arguments, which is why so many libertarians are in important government positions.
Emotional illogical rhetoric are the best 'arguments' because we see that's the best plan to get elected in most democracys.

It's time the new pro-freedom libertarian platform was implemented; child labor, orphanages, sweatshops, poorhouses, company towns, monopolies, trusts, cartels, blacklists, private goons, slumlords, etc.
What makes you think libertarians want this?

Government is "moving steadily in a libertarian direction" with every change libertarians approve of; no matter if it takes one step forward and two steps backwards.
I don't know any libertarians that think that government is moving in the right directions. I doubt the author does either, unless he thinks the voices in his head are libertarians.

Count only the benefits of libertarianism, count only the costs of government.
If there was a benefit to government maybe we'd count them.

The most heavily armed libertarian has the biggest dick and thus the best argument.
You do realize it is the statists that rely on might makes right, not us right?

The best multi-party democratic republics should be equated to the worst dictatorships for the purposes of denouncing statism. It's only a matter of degree.
Does this hack of a writer realize these two statements are mutually exclusive?

Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany, Czarist and Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China.
Yes, you're right the actions of socialist totalitarian dictatorships is a perfect example of why private ownership in a stateless society wouldn't work. What a fool.

Require perfection as the only applicable standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly judged to have flaws.
I don't need perfection, I'd settle for a government that provided better results then what it would have been without one. If your wondering, I'm an anarchist.

Part 2 to come soon....

CCCPneubauten

12th January 2007, 02:26

You took that a little too seriously considering it was meant to be a joke. Nor did much of your "criticism" of his jokes make much sense.

"If your wondering, I'm an anarchist."

You're probably not.

ShakeZula06

12th January 2007, 02:39

Harry Browne had it right in his 2000 campain. Trust to the efficacy of the market! As soon as you threaten to put a bounty on the head of a terrorist, all your terrorism problems will be solved.
yeah, better to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives invading nations, and still not get to them.

We cannot trust government to get anything right.
We can trust that whatever the government does (remember, it's a monopoly, how efficient can a monopoly be) will not be as effiecient and meet demand as well as the market.

Forget that voting crap: it's initiation of force!
Actually, if you're voting for government intervention, it is.

Libertarianism is based on natural rights; no, neutrality; no, non-aggression; no, responsability; no, self ownership; no, property rights; no, ....
You do realize a political philosophy can be based on mutliple things, right? Not to mention that natural rights, self ownership, property rights all run together as do non-agression and neutrality.

When is it legitimate to initiate the use of force against others? Never! Unless, of course, you really need to initiate force... then it's pre-emptive protection of property rights.
Huh?

Of course libertarianism is compatible with Christianity! Just substitute "the market" for "Jesus", and ask "What would the market do?"
There's still christians?

Net funding for charitable works and public goods will increase when the taxes that currently support them are abolished. After all, don't we all donate our tax refund checks to charity?
Yeah, because if no one wants to fund something government should make us!

Trendy buzzwords like 'chaos theory' irrefutably prove that Government interferes with the 'spontaneous order' of free people.
Does the author even know what chaos theory is?

Criticism of libertarianism is destructive. Criticism of society by libertarians is constructive.
I think he just decided to make things up now that don't even slightly resemble libertarians. Because the political philosophy that shouts down debate is libertarianism, not the various political systems where speaking out against it results in death.

Nostalgia for bygone "golden eras" will guide us better than the actual historical record of their suffering, corruption, cruelty, inequality of rights, and primitive standards of living....
created by the state.

Nobody has a right to free food or medical care or other amenities. Children are thus either imaginary or property.
Who said that? You want to help someone in need? Go ahead just don't steal from me to do it. Are you that much of a selfish bastard that the only 'help' you'll give some one is if it's taken from someone else?

Our libertarian ideas are boldly nonconformist, yet conveniently reaffirm our desire to do nothing but complain.
Who's complaining?

Public schools are a monopoly: a staggering 80% of American children attend them in thousands of independently run school districts. Microsoft is not a monopoly: only 95% of computers use MSWindows.
When microsoft starts making me pay for there services I'll call them a monopoly.

Since they have a monopoly on law, Government allows pollution, crime, discrimination, slavery, poverty, and all the other evils of the world.
fixed.

Taxation is slavery, but rent is not.
Well, taxation is forced, rent is not.

even if you have also chosen where you pay taxes.
Ahh, so if I get to choose which thugs get to be my masters, It's then suddenly ok.

DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT the fact that the Internet came from a government project.
Cool, so the government actually produced something on accident that was nice. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT the fact the internet would not be so awesome if it was regulated or 'owned' by the government or the gobs of advancements in technology created by the free market. That one exception about the internet PROVES that the government is amazing, and better then the market.

Gang rape is democracy. Five people say "Yes," one person says "No," and the majority rules. Which is why gang rape is legal in every state.
This is the dumbest logic I've ever heard. If five for every one person supported gang rape, it would be legal. Is he that dense?

America was much more libertarian 150 years ago, before Big Government, when women, children, and slaves were the property of white males...
Wait, hold on, certainly these laws weren't enforced (or encouraged) by government were they? The whole time government was like "come on guys, that's not nice". It's so funny when statists confuse correlation with causation.

and killing indians for their land was Manifest Destiny.
Is this a joke? Who carried out killing indians and manifest destiny? Certainly not the government.

Pay for government services? Insufferable!
Exactly, why should I be forced to pay for these services?

All government activity is use of force, and thus volence. Yes, this includes public libraries: don't you see the violence inherent in the creation of public libraries?
I see theft, don't you?

..and difficulty finding good servants.
Yes, because libertarians would agree with slavery, obviously.

Which is why we should abolish corporations, patents, copyright and other intellectual property; they are established by government interference with free markets.
All these things will likely exist, just in different forms. Just another stupid fallacy by a statist thinking that if a government provides something, it's the only one that can provide such a thing.

Consider this idiot's rambling and strawmen officially ***** slapped.

ShakeZula06

12th January 2007, 02:42

You took that a little too seriously considering it was meant to be a joke....
...meant to be insulting towards libertarians.

Nor did much of your "criticism" of his jokes make much sense.
such as...

"If your wondering, I'm an anarchist."

You're probably not.
You're right I don't advocate getting rid of the state. You can tell in my posts here that I'm a big supporter of government....

CCCPneubauten

12th January 2007, 20:27

You took that a little too seriously considering it was meant to be a joke....
...meant to be insulting towards libertarians.

I laugh at jokes that insult political positions of myself all the time. I suppose I have a sense of humor, though.

such as...

Where do you want to start?

Then again, considering the things said were for humor, rather than criticism...I see this as you being too pompous.

You're right I don't advocate getting rid of the state. You can tell in my posts here that I'm a big supporter of government....

That's not all Anarchism is about.

Speaking of political realism...you are actually an 'anarcho' capitalist?

That's just too cute.

Publius

12th January 2007, 20:29

Don't "objectivists" and libertarians hate each other more than stalinists and trots?

Sort of.

Objectivists, who have to be some of the most ignorant people on earth, as a rule, hate libertarians with a passion.

Libertarians generally are sympathetic to objectivism, it's objectivists who are truculent.

Objectivists claim Libertarians stole their political philosophy without taking the moral one with it; this is, of course, fucking absurd, because 'libertarianism' has existed, in one form or another, for hundreds of years, and objectivism came into existence in the 30-40s when that no-talent hack Rand made it up.

That is, as I understand it, the story.

CCCPneubauten

12th January 2007, 20:51

What moral values does Objectivisism claim to have that Libertarianism doesn't?

Just curious.

colonelguppy

13th January 2007, 00:58

Publius

13th January 2007, 04:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:51 pm
What moral values does Objectivisism claim to have that Libertarianism doesn't?

Just curious.
the source of man's natural rights, apparently they exist because man knows how to reason or some bullshit. the philosphy is such a joke.

Yeah, that's basically it.

It doesn't make any fucking sense at all, period. "Because Man has reason, he has rational self-interest, because he has rational self-interest, he should pursue it."

That's the 'morality'.

Demogorgon

13th January 2007, 08:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:51 pm
What moral values does Objectivisism claim to have that Libertarianism doesn't?

Just curious.
Oh ho ho. Abandon hope all ye who enter here. You arew not asking a question with a sane answer. That's for sure. Objectivism claims to have the monopoly of all mral truth. The fact is however it is full of silly contradictions and what was probably delibirate false logic. Rand just made up a philosophy to suit herself.

Actually when it comes to Libertarianism in general for all I love to make fun pf them, they are a rather diverse bunch. They range from people on the Centre Right who are too lliberal to vote for Conservative parties to very strange people indeed. From the saner end you will here arguments such as there is nothing in principle wrong with taxation, it's just that a low tax economy is effdicent. That's a position I don't agree with but there is nothing logically wrong with it. On the other hand you'll here them say things like Government is evil, stealing from people, but corporations no matter how poiwerful are fine. Rarely seeing the irony of their own position.

JKP

13th January 2007, 09:39

Keep in mind that the word libertarianism was adopted by Anarchists to escape persecution pack in the 19th century; Long before right wing capitalists appropriated the term for themselves out of ignorance.

Libertarianism still means Anarchism in most of the rest of the world thankfully.

Demogorgon

13th January 2007, 10:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:39 am
Keep in mind that the word libertarianism was adopted by Anarchists to escape persecution pack in the 19th century; Long before right wing capitalists appropriated the term for themselves out of ignorance.

Libertarianism still means Anarchism in most of the rest of the world thankfully.
I think it was less out of ignorance they took the term, but more out of a deliberate attempt to subvert it.

They claim to represent Liberty and then offer us a definition of Liberty far at odds with what most people would regard it as.

Nusocialist

15th January 2007, 14:27

Those are good articles excpet they perpetuate the idea that libertarianism and the american decidely unlibertarian movement of that name are the same thing.
Libertarian=anarchist.

Nusocialist

15th January 2007, 14:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:34 am

They claim to represent Liberty and then offer us a definition of Liberty far at odds with what most people would regard it as.
It is mainly they are ignorant just how much gov't intervention is pro-capitalist in capitalism and how neccesary it is to corporations and how neccesary it has always been to capitalists.
They equate capitalism with free markets which is not true at all.

Many Marxists don't seem to understand this as well.

Demogorgon

15th January 2007, 18:23

Originally posted by Nusocialist+January 15, 2007 02:34 pm--> (Nusocialist @ January 15, 2007 02:34 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 10:34 am

They claim to represent Liberty and then offer us a definition of Liberty far at odds with what most people would regard it as.
It is mainly they are ignorant just how much gov't intervention is pro-capitalist in capitalism and how neccesary it is to corporations and how neccesary it has always been to capitalists.
They equate capitalism with free markets which is not true at all.

Many Marxists don't seem to understand this as well. [/b]
You make a very good point there. A completely free market with no government intervention would actually be less capitalist (although I doubt such a thing could exist) than what we have now. Government is the friend of the capitalists. Look at Bush giving billions to general motors recently.

I tend to regard capitalism without government as rather like fish without water.

Matty_UK

15th January 2007, 20:29

The State is a tool of class domination, period. The state in bourgeois society is granted more autonomy than in earlier class societies because of the fact the bourgeois is an internally divided class with conflicting interests. The state is in Engels (iirc) words "the perfect bourgeois collective." It was more obvious in the past when only the bourgeois could vote but they still control the state in other ways, most obviously through debt but also through laws that only allow only bourgeois to be judges, through inherited "old money" control of military forces, and higher positions in the civil service require you to have taken certain university courses that only those with a "classical" education (the bourgeoisie, then) would realistically have taken.

colonelguppy

15th January 2007, 20:46

so basically you guys are pissed because of their name.

real winners....

t_wolves_fan

15th January 2007, 21:11

and higher positions in the civil service require you to have taken certain university courses that only those with a "classical" education (the bourgeoisie, then) would realistically have taken.

What do you advocate, that we hire high-school graduates or even drop-outs to work in senior-level positions?

You do understand that in some cases, higher-level education and expertise tend to payoff in higher-level positions, right?

La Comédie Noire

15th January 2007, 21:20

What do you advocate, that we hire high-school graduates or even drop-outs to work in senior-level positions?

You do understand that in some cases, higher-level education and expertise tend to payoff in higher-level positions, right?

No, hes not arguing that high level education positions should be open to everyone regardless of exprience. Hes saying that the education required to retain these positions are only avalible to those who can afford it/ or are in a class that can have it, whihc is wrong.

I'd have to say i enjoyed that.

t_wolves_fan

15th January 2007, 21:30

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15, 2007 09:20 pm

What do you advocate, that we hire high-school graduates or even drop-outs to work in senior-level positions?

You do understand that in some cases, higher-level education and expertise tend to payoff in higher-level positions, right?

No, hes not arguing that high level education positions should be open to everyone regardless of exprience. Hes saying that the education required to retain these positions are only avalible to those who can afford it/ or are in a class that can have it, whihc is wrong.

I'd have to say i enjoyed that.
Except that that isn't the case. I've met and known quite a few colleagues and fellow graduate students who have come from the lower class. In fact I am one myself.

But, you know, whatever.

Matty_UK

15th January 2007, 23:09

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 15, 2007 09:30 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 15, 2007 09:30 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 15, 2007 09:20 pm

What do you advocate, that we hire high-school graduates or even drop-outs to work in senior-level positions?

You do understand that in some cases, higher-level education and expertise tend to payoff in higher-level positions, right?

No, hes not arguing that high level education positions should be open to everyone regardless of exprience. Hes saying that the education required to retain these positions are only avalible to those who can afford it/ or are in a class that can have it, whihc is wrong.

I'd have to say i enjoyed that.
Except that that isn't the case. I've met and known quite a few colleagues and fellow graduate students who have come from the lower class. In fact I am one myself.

But, you know, whatever. [/b]
Of course you can be a working class and a student. That's not what I'm saying. Civil Servants, at least in this country, have to pass examinations. That sounds very democratic, but higher positions require degrees in things like, for example, Classics. There isn't a single state school I know about that teaches Latin and Greek. And Classics and similar vanity courses are not useful at all in the civil service.

Certain courses are very elitiest. For example, my girlfriend does performing arts-singing, dancing, and acting; despite being talented (she got the highest mark ever in the north-east of England in her singing exam) a Drama School in London (she refers to it as "Central" but I'm not sure what it's full name is) refused her entry. Why? On the application form you have to give your political views. She is a marxist so without even auditioning her they turned her down, giving the explanation that with her political views she might not feel comfortable in their environment.

There's also another drama school called Rada, apparently one of the best in the world. Applying there is incredibly expensive and being a theatre actor is so unrewarding the only people who go there are upper bourgeoisie with guaranteed income from daddys company who rarely even become actors and do it simply as a vanity course. I imagine there are similar guards to prevent people who aren't supportive of the ruling class all throughout the upper echelons of the state.

But that's minor, there is more obvious bourgeois control of the state through the fact almost anything it does is paid for through taking loans off banks and the fact that military commanders and judges must be bourgeois.

PRC-UTE

15th January 2007, 23:33

haha, thanks for posting. even the anti-commie bits were funny.

ShakeZula06

16th January 2007, 02:15

I laugh at jokes that insult political positions of myself all the time. I suppose I have a sense of humor, though.
Sure I have sense of humor. I just object to my positions being strawmanned so that they may be made fun of. Especially when it's done in such a highly uninformed/ignorant manner.

Where do you want to start?
Wherever you want.

Then again, considering the things said were for humor, rather than criticism...I see this as you being too pompous.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. If you want to say I'm pompous go ahead although I don't see it that way.

Speaking of political realism...you are actually an 'anarcho' capitalist?
If you want to quibble over defintions you can say I'm a free market anarchist if that clears it up. I really don't see much of a difference, not to say there isn't one.

That's just too cute.
a/s/l? :D

ShakeZula06

16th January 2007, 02:27

A completely free market with no government intervention would actually be less capitalist

I'm not sure what you people think capitalism is but here's what websters says-

"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

Now if you guys are using a different defintion you should probably say what that is, but the quoted above when using this defintion is completely oxymoronic.

Government is the friend of the capitalists.
Just because you label certain people that interact with the government 'capitalists' doesn't make the government 'capitalist'.

Look at Bush giving billions to general motors recently.
What exactly is 'capitalist' about that?

Matty_UK

16th January 2007, 03:14

It's useless defining political/economic systems as if they were a sort of consumer choice and it merely leads to political idealists creating selective definitions. The definition you offer is pretty poor as means of production were owned by private individuals in slave and feudal societies. However under capitalism production is done for the sake of profit which is it's main difference to previous societies, which your definition ignores. Capitalism is perhaps best defined as the epoch where capital is the source of wealth and prestige, but I'll think a bit more on this definition after having some sleep because it doesn't seem completely accurate to me.

Demogorgon

16th January 2007, 10:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:27 am

A completely free market with no government intervention would actually be less capitalist

I'm not sure what you people think capitalism is but here's what websters says-

"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

Now if you guys are using a different defintion you should probably say what that is, but the quoted above when using this defintion is completely oxymoronic.

Government is the friend of the capitalists.
Just because you label certain people that interact with the government 'capitalists' doesn't make the government 'capitalist'.

Look at Bush giving billions to general motors recently.
What exactly is 'capitalist' about that?
I always know when I see people with views like yours, that they must know about as much about economics and capitalism in particular as the average pidgeon does about quantum physics. You see, it's pretty clear that there are two broad schools of thought within the defenders of capitalism. The first one, and the only one that actually matters is the one you see in the real world. The talk of capitalism being the most efficient system due to various reasons. Discussions of how market forces work to achieve the most desirable result etc.

The second one, is one found almost exclusively on the internet. This one isn't based on an understanding of economics, it is based upon: "the cool kids at school wore Che Guevara T-Shirts and bullied me, so I am going to come up with an ideology the exact opposite of theirs to spite them". Your sort of defence of capitalism isn't based on any kind of understanding of it. It's just a parody of Marxism created by reversing every one of it's assertions but not bothering to change it's internal logic code. Hence it ends up being something which silly people argue about on the internet but can't survive contact with the real world.

The reality of capitalism is that it is based on a mixed economy. Nothing else is possible under capitalism. Of course many like to see a strong emphasis towards the private sector, but without the public sector it can't exist. After all who is it that defends the property rights that keeps capitalism ticking over? Who is it that corrects the market failures stopping it from self destructing? Who is it that maintains the power of the monopolists? and so on.

Matty_UK

16th January 2007, 11:47

Another problem with anarcho-capitalism; a monetary system based on different national currencies, a unified national market, and national and international law are all necassary for capitalism to even slightly work, and they do not spring out of the ground they come from a state acting in the interests of the bourgeois ruling class. (you should read some history. capitalism replaced feudalism when the Bourgeoisie seized political power from the Nobility for themselves)

Matty_UK

16th January 2007, 11:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:01 am
I always know when I see people with views like yours, that they must know about as much about economics and capitalism in particular as the average pidgeon does about quantum physics. You see, it's pretty clear that there are two broad schools of thought within the defenders of capitalism. The first one, and the only one that actually matters is the one you see in the real world. The talk of capitalism being the most efficient system due to various reasons. Discussions of how market forces work to achieve the most desirable result etc.

The second one, is one found almost exclusively on the internet. This one isn't based on an understanding of economics, it is based upon: "the cool kids at school wore Che Guevara T-Shirts and bullied me, so I am going to come up with an ideology the exact opposite of theirs to spite them". Your sort of defence of capitalism isn't based on any kind of understanding of it. It's just a parody of Marxism created by reversing every one of it's assertions but not bothering to change it's internal logic code. Hence it ends up being something which silly people argue about on the internet but can't survive contact with the real world.

The reality of capitalism is that it is based on a mixed economy. Nothing else is possible under capitalism. Of course many like to see a strong emphasis towards the private sector, but without the public sector it can't exist. After all who is it that defends the property rights that keeps capitalism ticking over? Who is it that corrects the market failures stopping it from self destructing? Who is it that maintains the power of the monopolists? and so on.
*applause*

That is THE last word on teenage right wing idealogues.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 15:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:09 pm
Certain courses are very elitiest. For example, my girlfriend does performing arts-singing, dancing, and acting; despite being talented (she got the highest mark ever in the north-east of England in her singing exam) a Drama School in London (she refers to it as "Central" but I'm not sure what it's full name is) refused her entry. Why? On the application form you have to give your political views. She is a marxist so without even auditioning her they turned her down, giving the explanation that with her political views she might not feel comfortable in their environment.

There's also another drama school called Rada, apparently one of the best in the world. Applying there is incredibly expensive and being a theatre actor is so unrewarding the only people who go there are upper bourgeoisie with guaranteed income from daddys company who rarely even become actors and do it simply as a vanity course. I imagine there are similar guards to prevent people who aren't supportive of the ruling class all throughout the upper echelons of the state.

First, requirements by governments that certain classes be taken are absurd. I assure you that the decision by your government to mandate such strict requirements are not required by capitalism, since in the United States we have no such requirements. At most levels of government, we simply require a certain level of education (i.e. bachelor's degree or master's degree) to be considered, which I hope even you accept as reasonable.

Other requirements, like mandating residency for applicants or employees, are equally absurd political decisions made for political reasons but neither are they required under capitalism, which is obvious because most units of government have no such requirements.

Your problem, in other words, is that you take these individual requirements and assume they are a requirement of capitalism when they are not. The fact is, such absurd requirements that reward certain constituencies are unlikely to disappear under any political or economic system, even communism, because interest group politics is an inherent feature of life. It's pretty easy to imagine for example some commune or collective setting up certain protective requirements that reward the people it wants to protect.

Now, with specific regard to colleges, if they are private colleges I believe they have the right to set up whatever requirements they see fit. That is not to say that I agree with these kind of requirements, because I don't, I just believe that if people want to create a certain kind of private organization they should be allowed to do so, because I may want to do the same thing some day.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 15:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:01 am
The reality of capitalism is that it is based on a mixed economy. Nothing else is possible under capitalism. Of course many like to see a strong emphasis towards the private sector, but without the public sector it can't exist. After all who is it that defends the property rights that keeps capitalism ticking over? Who is it that corrects the market failures stopping it from self destructing? Who is it that maintains the power of the monopolists? and so on.
You are partially right but on your point about General Motors, you are wrong. Government assistance to failing companies is provided for political reasons, not economic reasons. Intelligent government policy would allow GM to fail, and then use public resources for the public good to take care of its laid off workers until they could find new work.

You are correct that teenage super-capitalists think the way they do mainly to feel cool and piss off certain people without knowing much about anything, which makes them no different than teenage communists.

The fact is, for all its inefficiencies, the market is vastly more efficient than would be a centrally-planned economy. A central planning authority could not possibly know with any accuracy how much of every single product and service is demanded at any given time and could not possibly react in time to meet swiftly-changing economic conditions. The reason, besides the staggering amount of information required, is that a public institution like a government takes far, far longer to make decisions due to the requirement that public involvement be taken into account. A private company can identify changing conditions and make changes on a dime, while a government has to take comment, gain approval, make changes, and then implement policy.

Worse, making every single economic decision a matter of public policy is a terrible idea because it puts people's individual wants and needs up for public scrutiny. If I have the money to buy something, I should not have to gain the community's approval to buy it.

Demogorgon

16th January 2007, 15:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:30 pm

You are partially right but on your point about General Motors, you are wrong. Government assistance to failing companies is provided for political reasons, not economic reasons. Intelligent government policy would allow GM to fail, and then use public resources for the public good to take care of its laid off workers until they could find new work.

You are correct that teenage super-capitalists think the way they do mainly to feel cool and piss off certain people without knowing much about anything, which makes them no different than teenage communists.

The fact is, for all its inefficiencies, the market is vastly more efficient than would be a centrally-planned economy. A central planning authority could not possibly know with any accuracy how much of every single product and service is demanded at any given time and could not possibly react in time to meet swiftly-changing economic conditions. The reason, besides the staggering amount of information required, is that a public institution like a government takes far, far longer to make decisions due to the requirement that public involvement be taken into account. A private company can identify changing conditions and make changes on a dime, while a government has to take comment, gain approval, make changes, and then implement policy.

Worse, making every single economic decision a matter of public policy is a terrible idea because it puts people's individual wants and needs up for public scrutiny. If I have the money to buy something, I should not have to gain the community's approval to buy it.
We've had thois discussion before, and I can assure you I have no interest in defending the centrally planned economy. It is simply too inefficent to be much use beyond certain specific cases.

Incidsentally as per General motors, of course it is capitalism causing the government to bail it out. That's not to say it makes good economic sense, it doesn't, bt then again capitalism isn't a perfect system. Companies like General Motors spend years getting into politicians good books, giving political candidates of all stipes funding etc, so that when the going gets tough they can expect the favour to be returned. That's how they keep control over the political system. There's no conspiracy to it. They simply control the campaign purse strings. So yes, of course it is polical, but capitalism works it's way quite happily into politics.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 15:51

Incidsentally as per General motors, of course it is capitalism causing the government to bail it out.

No it isn't, it's the political system.

Capitalism does not require that GM be bailed out. Pure capitalism would rather GM be allowed to go under. You cannot refute that.

Bailouts are an act of the political system within capitalism. Simply because the government decides to bail out GM to protect jobs does not mean the capitalist system has required that GM be bailed out. It's like you're claiming that if I were in a swimming pool and chose to swim laps, the swimming pool made me swim laps. It didn't.

That's not to say it makes good economic sense, it doesn't, bt then again capitalism isn't a perfect system.

No system is perfect.

Companies like General Motors spend years getting into politicians good books, giving political candidates of all stipes funding etc, so that when the going gets tough they can expect the favour to be returned.

Right, a symptom of our political system. Our political system could tomorrow mandate that nobody can give political contributions and the government cannot provide any bailouts and we'd still have capitalism.

Again, you're taking political decisions and deciding that they are required by capitalism when they aren't. If I said purges like those ordered by Stalin were requirements of Communism, what would you say? Same thing, ace.

That's how they keep control over the political system. There's no conspiracy to it. They simply control the campaign purse strings. So yes, of course it is polical, but capitalism works it's way quite happily into politics.

And politics could at any time decide to keep capitalist interests out, if it wanted to.

You have no leg on which to stand.

Demogorgon

16th January 2007, 16:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:51 pm

Incidsentally as per General motors, of course it is capitalism causing the government to bail it out.

No it isn't, it's the political system.

Capitalism does not require that GM be bailed out. Pure capitalism would rather GM be allowed to go under. You cannot refute that.

Bailouts are an act of the political system within capitalism. Simply because the government decides to bail out GM to protect jobs does not mean the capitalist system has required that GM be bailed out. It's like you're claiming that if I were in a swimming pool and chose to swim laps, the swimming pool made me swim laps. It didn't.

That's not to say it makes good economic sense, it doesn't, bt then again capitalism isn't a perfect system.

No system is perfect.

Companies like General Motors spend years getting into politicians good books, giving political candidates of all stipes funding etc, so that when the going gets tough they can expect the favour to be returned.

Right, a symptom of our political system. Our political system could tomorrow mandate that nobody can give political contributions and the government cannot provide any bailouts and we'd still have capitalism.

Again, you're taking political decisions and deciding that they are required by capitalism when they aren't. If I said purges like those ordered by Stalin were requirements of Communism, what would you say? Same thing, ace.

That's how they keep control over the political system. There's no conspiracy to it. They simply control the campaign purse strings. So yes, of course it is polical, but capitalism works it's way quite happily into politics.

And politics could at any time decide to keep capitalist interests out, if it wanted to.

You have no leg on which to stand.

No it isn't, it's the political system.

Capitalism does not require that GM be bailed out. Pure capitalism would rather GM be allowed to go under. You cannot refute that.
Yes I can. Capitalism is more than just cmpetition in a free market. It gives a degree of power to those at the top. And those at the top like to have an insurance policy in case they go under and that is what government is. I don't think it is accurate to describe capitalism as being a completely free market where firms compete fairly, it is more corporitist than that. Contrary to what certain Libertarians like to believe, let capitalism go unchecked and it would probably end up looking like Spain under Franco than any free enterprise utopia they dream of.
No system is perfect.Cheers Captain Obvious, must say I learned something entirely new there.
Right, a symptom of our political system. Our political system could tomorrow mandate that nobody can give political contributions and the government cannot provide any bailouts and we'd still have capitalism.Yeah it could say that and you'd still have capitalism, but then again that wouldn't possible would it?
Again, you're taking political decisions and deciding that they are required by capitalism when they aren't. If I said purges like those ordered by Stalin were requirements of Communism, what would you say? Same thing, ace.Naturaly I would disagree with that assessment. Of course if you were to say that the purges where a requirement of a centrally controlled state with a cult of personality I would have to concede the point.
And politics could at any time decide to keep capitalist interests out, if it wanted to.Now that's ridiculous, they would have no more success keeping capitalism oout, than the Medievel kings did when they tried to keep the Church out of politics-despite their very frequent attempts.

When Capitalists want the Government to do something badly enough they can force them to do it. Look what happened when Britain joined the ERM?

Or even more clearly what happened in the late seventies when they disliked the path the government was taking.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 16:22

Capitalism does not require that GM be bailed out. Pure capitalism would rather GM be allowed to go under. You cannot refute that.
Yes I can. Capitalism is more than just cmpetition in a free market. It gives a degree of power to those at the top. And those at the top like to have an insurance policy in case they go under and that is what government is. I don't think it is accurate to describe capitalism as being a completely free market where firms compete fairly, it is more corporitist than that. Contrary to what certain Libertarians like to believe, let capitalism go unchecked and it would probably end up looking like Spain under Franco than any free enterprise utopia they dream of.

No, you cannot.

You continue to make the same mistake: you assume that because certain political policies protect or enhance the power of those at the top, those political policies are by definition requirements of capitalism. They are not.

It's like you're looking at a car with a green interior. You keep shouting that because this car has a green interior, all cars have to have green interiors. No, they don't.

Capitalism left unchecked would not work very well, I completely agree. To be realistic, I completely agree that the government has to get involved in the economic system to prevent abuses, to provide some subsidy to the less fortunate, and to stimulate growth. What it does not have to do is subsidize the already wealthy. It does, in many cases. But it is not a requirement.

Do you get that yet, or are you just going to decide reality for yourself?

Right, a symptom of our political system. Our political system could tomorrow mandate that nobody can give political contributions and the government cannot provide any bailouts and we'd still have capitalism.Yeah it could say that and you'd still have capitalism, but then again that wouldn't possible would it?

It would absolutely be possible and it's not that hard to imagine. After all, governments do not bail out every single failing enterprise, do they?

The flaw here is not capitalism: it's our political system. Policy-makers are rewarded for short-sighted pandering to certain constituent groups, in this case auto-makers and their employees (don't think for a second that GM's employee unions don't love bailouts too).

Now that's ridiculous, they would have no more success keeping capitalism oout, than the Medievel kings did when they tried to keep the Church out of politics-despite their very frequent attempts.

They cannot strictly keep capitalism out, but they do not have to make the decisions they make. It's that simple.

Unless you accept reality instead of defining it to suit your opinion, I don't see much reason to continue.

Matty_UK

16th January 2007, 16:26

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 16, 2007 03:20 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 16, 2007 03:20 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 11:09 pm
Certain courses are very elitiest. For example, my girlfriend does performing arts-singing, dancing, and acting; despite being talented (she got the highest mark ever in the north-east of England in her singing exam) a Drama School in London (she refers to it as "Central" but I'm not sure what it's full name is) refused her entry. Why? On the application form you have to give your political views. She is a marxist so without even auditioning her they turned her down, giving the explanation that with her political views she might not feel comfortable in their environment.

There's also another drama school called Rada, apparently one of the best in the world. Applying there is incredibly expensive and being a theatre actor is so unrewarding the only people who go there are upper bourgeoisie with guaranteed income from daddys company who rarely even become actors and do it simply as a vanity course. I imagine there are similar guards to prevent people who aren't supportive of the ruling class all throughout the upper echelons of the state.

First, requirements by governments that certain classes be taken are absurd. I assure you that the decision by your government to mandate such strict requirements are not required by capitalism, since in the United States we have no such requirements. At most levels of government, we simply require a certain level of education (i.e. bachelor's degree or master's degree) to be considered, which I hope even you accept as reasonable.

Other requirements, like mandating residency for applicants or employees, are equally absurd political decisions made for political reasons but neither are they required under capitalism, which is obvious because most units of government have no such requirements.

Your problem, in other words, is that you take these individual requirements and assume they are a requirement of capitalism when they are not. The fact is, such absurd requirements that reward certain constituencies are unlikely to disappear under any political or economic system, even communism, because interest group politics is an inherent feature of life. It's pretty easy to imagine for example some commune or collective setting up certain protective requirements that reward the people it wants to protect.

Now, with specific regard to colleges, if they are private colleges I believe they have the right to set up whatever requirements they see fit. That is not to say that I agree with these kind of requirements, because I don't, I just believe that if people want to create a certain kind of private organization they should be allowed to do so, because I may want to do the same thing some day. [/b]
I don't know the details of exactly what it is, but it is part of capitalism because it is an attempt to keep the state under bourgeois influence. Even if I'm wrong on that one point, (because I'd admit I'm not too sure...) would you deny that bourgeois influence on the state is a necessity for capitalism? The bourgeois have the capability of crippling a state simply by refusing to loan money, or by using the armed forces. It is not so much a centralisation of bourgeois power as making sure that the people with the right sort of ideology have power. But you're picking on one point of my argument which is insufficient to prove it wrong.

To put in simple terms for you:

1-Would you agree early bourgeois democracy (where only the bourgeois could vote, by law) designed to ensure politics would act in the interests of the bourgeois?

2-Was universal suffrage granted a) out of the good hearts of the bourgeois or b) to justify taxation of the proletariat to compensate for the troubles capitalism faced at the time?

3-Do you really think universal suffrage was really a total sacrifice of bourgeois political power?

Demogorgon

16th January 2007, 16:37

You continue to make the same mistake: you assume that because certain political policies protect or enhance the power of those at the top, those political policies are by definition requirements of capitalism. They are not.

It's like you're looking at a car with a green interior. You keep shouting that because this car has a green interior, all cars have to have green interiors. No, they don't.
You are deliberately misinterpreting my point to make it look weaker than it is.

I am not saying that an aspect of capitalism is that the Government bails out every failing firm. I am saying that an aspect of capitalism is that large firms have a large degree of control over the government such that the Government will almost always act in their interests. On the very rare occasion that it does anything else. Well as I said to you, and you ignored, look what happened to Britain in the seventies.

You have some cheek saying I am defining reality to suit my preferences when you are redefining it in weird and wonderful ways. It is utterlky ridiculous to claim that the government will not act in the interest of those who hold economic power in the country. It is impossible not to without immediately losing office.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 17:26

I don't know the details of exactly what it is, but it is part of capitalism because it is an attempt to keep the state under bourgeois influence. Even if I'm wrong on that one point, (because I'd admit I'm not too sure...) would you deny that bourgeois influence on the state is a necessity for capitalism?

All that is necessary is for the state to protect property rights, but yes it is an inevitability that the bourgeoise will seek to influence the state, but that's the inevitability of politics. Everyone seeks to influence the state.

The bourgeois have the capability of crippling a state simply by refusing to loan money,

Then the state can raise taxes or look elsewhere. If a state seeks policies that will antagonize business and harm the economy, that's their choice.

or by using the armed forces.

The bourgeoise do not operate the armed forces, the state operates the armed forces.

It is not so much a centralisation of bourgeois power as making sure that the people with the right sort of ideology have power. But you're picking on one point of my argument which is insufficient to prove it wrong.

With all due respect, I can't find anything in your argument that is correct or that even makes a whole lot of sense. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just saying.

1-Would you agree early bourgeois democracy (where only the bourgeois could vote, by law) designed to ensure politics would act in the interests of the bourgeois?

Not exactly. In the United States is was precisely the opposite: the view was, only those with property will have a significant stake in society, and therefore their involvement would ensure the common good in a superior manner. In other words, those who owned property (and remember that group is always fluid) would be the most interested in ensuring society ran well because they had the most to lose. If those without property had a say, they could be expected to ruin the government because they had nothing to lose and no comprehension of the costs of their policy choices. Now I am sure you disagree with the logic and the means, but that doesn't change the motive.

2-Was universal suffrage granted a) out of the good hearts of the bourgeois or b) to justify taxation of the proletariat to compensate for the troubles capitalism faced at the time?

It was the result of various political pressures. You do understand that in the states there were a wide variety of voting restrictions and that some states allowed anyone who simply paid taxes to vote, right? As far as taxation goes, at the time that suffrage was expanded the largest share of federal revenues came from tarrifs on imports, which would have been paid indirectly by everyone who consumed them.

3-Do you really think universal suffrage was really a total sacrifice of bourgeois political power?

No, but it certainly diluted it. Look how much we in the United States spend on entitlement programs and welfare now vs. what we spent then. Super-capitalists bemoan this development to no end, something you probably don't even realize.

What exactly is your argument, in a nutshell, anyway?

Demogorgon

16th January 2007, 17:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:26 pm

The bourgeoise do not operate the armed forces, the state operates the armed forces.

Salvador Allande found otherwise. And he was not the only one.

Demogorgon

16th January 2007, 17:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:26 pm
No, but it certainly diluted it. Look how much we in the United States spend on entitlement programs and welfare now vs. what we spent then. Super-capitalists bemoan this development to no end, something you probably don't even realize.

This is an interesting one, because Marx explored the very theme in some of his earliest writing. By the 1830s several states in America already had universal male suffrage and consequently Marx was able to analyse that.

The conclusion he came to was obvious. Even if property owners are not the only voters, it is still property which controls the government, as it is property the government is there to defend.

With an extra 170 years of experience incidentally I find it interesting that despite America moving towards universal suffrage faster than just about any other country, the capitalist class actually ended up being more powerful than in many other countries. Of course these days that's easily explained with the US's ridiculous electoral system, but in the past all countries were holding elections like that. Plainly ending property qualifications does not weaken capital's power.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 17:48

You are deliberately misinterpreting my point to make it look weaker than it is.

No, it's actually that weak.

I am not saying that an aspect of capitalism is that the Government bails out every failing firm. I am saying that an aspect of capitalism is that large firms have a large degree of control over the government such that the Government will almost always act in their interests.

You say control, I say influences. If big business controlled the government, they'd get everything they want wouldn't they? If they have "control", considering the additional environmental and other regulations and significant amount of excise taxes we've put on business in the past 30-50 years, they're pretty lousy at excercising their control.

In a democratic republic such as ours, why wouldn't the government routinely act in the interests of business? Business creates our jobs and pays us, so even you must understand that it makes some sense to be good to them, right?

On the very rare occasion that it does anything else. Well as I said to you, and you ignored, look what happened to Britain in the seventies.

Wow, two whole events. Two instances definitely prove that big business has total control. That makes a ton of sense.

Do me a favor and tell me what happened to corporate tax loopholes in the late 1980s here in the United States, under President Reagan of all people. I'll give you a little hint: big business didn't do a very good job of excercising its complete and total control over our federal government.

You have some cheek saying I am defining reality to suit my preferences when you are redefining it in weird and wonderful ways. It is utterlky ridiculous to claim that the government will not act in the interest of those who hold economic power in the country. It is impossible not to without immediately losing office.

You are without question predetermining reality to suit your ideology with a false dichotomy (if government acts on behalf of those with economic power, it's screwing the rest of us) and a pretty insufficient sample (the economically powerful once got a policy overturned! That means they're in complete control!!! aaaarrrggghhh!!!). I already said that in a capitalist system the government will often act in the interests of those with economic power, because often it makes sense to do so. But that does not mean they have to make those decisions, nor does it mean they always adopt the big-business agenda.

Your complaint, if you boil it down to something resembling reality, is that the economically powerful seem to get their way an awful lot. My response, in a nutshell, is that while sometimes it sucks, so what?

Demogorgon

16th January 2007, 18:19

Tell me, do you believe coming across as a **** helps your point? Anyway stuff like this:

Wow, two whole events. Two instances definitely prove that big business has total control. That makes a ton of sense.It would not have taken you long to check up on what I was referring to. And if you had you would not just have made an idiot of yourself. The 1970's example wasn't an example of the Government having an anti-Business policy overturned. It was an example of businesses using their influence to put enough pressure on the government that they were forced to go to the world bank and have every last one of their policies overturned. There are members oif the Cabinet at the time who now have a political outlook probably to the left of mine as they say the experience opened their eyes as to how little control an elected government has.

Now before we cry "only one example", let's have a look around the world. When Gough Whitlam had some policies stopping the businesses doing what they wanted, the nicieties of the Australian constitution were no obstacle HE HAD TO GO. Whether you take the view that the particular unconstitutional bit was the Senate blocking supply or the Governor General dismissing him (or indeed both) you cannot deny that both Senate and particularly Governor General were acting on the basis of who their real masters were.

At least that wasn't bloody though, compared to what happened when Salvador Allande thought being elected to help Chile's poor actually meant he could do things to help him. You know what happened there?

Or when Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal. Wasn't long before Britain and France were making war for corporate benefit. Fortunately that one fell through.

And I could go on like this all day. But I will have to stop to talk about this one

I'll give you a little hint: big business didn't do a very good job of excercising its complete and total control over our federal government.I sense two possibilities here. The first is that you have the reading comprehension of a six year old, the second is you are twisting my point to make it look bad. You try to make my ideas look like conspiracy theories when they are nothing of the sort. You change me asserting the simple fact that corporate power has huge influence over the government to me believing they are some illuminati like group controlling the world.

Whether you are doing this deliberately or if your head is simply so far up your own arse that you can't see people's real views for determination to attack what you think they are I don't know. What I do know however is that every time we have crossed swords, it has taken no more than a couple of posts for you to make a long drawn out attack on a set of opinions that bare no resemblance whatsoever to what I believe.

It's a pity coming from someone who claims to be so intelligent and knowledgeable about the world that every argument you get into you have to either make up a set of views for the other person to allegedly hold or pull out your tired old one horse pony of "you are trying to piss off your parents". (For the record if I wanted to do that I would be better off adopting your world view).

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 18:28

I'll give you a little hint: big business didn't do a very good job of excercising its complete and total control over our federal government.You change me asserting the simple fact that corporate power has huge influence over the government to me believing they are some illuminati like group controlling the world.

You're changing your story. Above in your litany of examples you said a bunch of Brits have learned just how little control an elected government has. In another post you said big business controls the campaign purse strings and excercises control over policy-makers.

But now, suddenly, it's not some big conspiracy, it's just that business has a lot of influence.

I tell you what. Instead of continuing this long, drawn out attack of what you seem to believe, why don't you just tell me explicitly and concisely just what the problem is. Is it that big business has any "control", or "influence" at all? Or too much? And whatever it is that big business has that you wish they didn't have, explain why you wish they didn't have it.

Finally, explain what you think should be done about it.

Thank you.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 19:23

The conclusion he came to was obvious. Even if property owners are not the only voters, it is still property which controls the government, as it is property the government is there to defend.

With an extra 170 years of experience incidentally I find it interesting that despite America moving towards universal suffrage faster than just about any other country, the capitalist class actually ended up being more powerful than in many other countries. Of course these days that's easily explained with the US's ridiculous electoral system, but in the past all countries were holding elections like that. Plainly ending property qualifications does not weaken capital's power.

Which is unsurprising considering protection of property has been and still is one of the foundations of our law, for good reason.

ShakeZula06

16th January 2007, 23:40

It's useless defining political/economic systems as if they were a sort of consumer choice and it merely leads to political idealists creating selective definitions.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, can you re-intereate? I use that defintion because that's what the defintion for it is. As I said, if you're talking about a different defintion, go ahead and tell me, and we'll work with that.

The definition you offer is pretty poor as means of production were owned by private individuals in slave and feudal societies.
Good point. The point I'd imagine is to contrast it with collectivist systems and centrally planned ones.

However under capitalism production is done for the sake of profit which is it's main difference to previous societies, which your definition ignores.
Huh? Societies before capitalism didn't attempt to gain wealth?

Capitalism is perhaps best defined as the epoch where capital is the source of wealth and prestige...
You're describing a society, not a economic system.

ShakeZula06

16th January 2007, 23:57

I always know when I see people with views like yours, that they must know about as much about economics and capitalism in particular as the average pidgeon does about quantum physics.
Ah, I see, I write out four posts (2 of them considerable length) and all you're possible of doing is being insulting. You're a credit to your idealogy. Not to say that most collectivists are capable of actually forming an argument. Bravo.

You see, it's pretty clear that there are two broad schools of thought within the defenders of capitalism. The first one, and the only one that actually matters is the one you see in the real world. The talk of capitalism being the most efficient system due to various reasons. Discussions of how market forces work to achieve the most desirable result etc.
I fall under this camp.

The second one, is one found almost exclusively on the internet. This one isn't based on an understanding of economics, it is based upon: "the cool kids at school wore Che Guevara T-Shirts and bullied me, so I am going to come up with an ideology the exact opposite of theirs to spite them".
heh, I live in Missouri and those t-shirts aren't too popular, nor am I someone that was 'bullied' (not that I bullied others either). I have friends that are very socialist because I don't make friends based on what their political idealogy. We also get the benefit having political discussions every once in a while (inbetween doing stuff young guys like me are supposed to, go party, have sex, drink etc). My friends are based off of who I have fun with, not if they have they come from the same school of political philosophy as me.

But, low and behold, a socialist that in the midst of an argument, doesn't make a counter-argument, but rather hurls insults. Good job.

Your sort of defence of capitalism isn't based on any kind of understanding of it. It's just a parody of Marxism created by reversing every one of it's assertions but not bothering to change it's internal logic code.
Libertarianism has little relation to marxism, not sure why you'd think such a thing.

The reality of capitalism is that it is based on a mixed economy.
Is this a joke? A 'mixed' economy is just a mix of two economys, in most cases today both capitalism and socialism. What you're saying doesn't make sense (not that this is something different).

After all who is it that I falsely believe defends the property rights that keeps capitalism ticking over? Who is it that corrects the market failures stopping it from self destructing?
fyp. These are assertions that have never been proved, except in brainwashed socialist's minds.

Who is it that maintains the power of the monopolists?
Show me a monopoly that has existed without government intervention.

Too bad, gotta try again. Maybe this time try it sans the emotional rhetoric and insults. You might gain the respect of an intelligent person if you do.

ShakeZula06

17th January 2007, 00:10

Another problem with anarcho-capitalism; a monetary system based on different national currencies, a unified national market, and national and international law are all necassary for capitalism to even slightly work,
assertion.

and they do not spring out of the ground they come from a state acting in the interests of the bourgeois ruling class.
A state would not arise in a stateless society that rejected the idea of a state.

you should read some history. capitalism replaced feudalism when the Bourgeoisie seized political power from the Nobility for themselves
Ok, I don't want any political power for anyone.

ShakeZula06

17th January 2007, 00:20

I am not saying that an aspect of capitalism is that the Government bails out every failing firm. I am saying that an aspect of capitalism is that large firms have a large degree of control over the government such that the Government will almost always act in their interests. On the very rare occasion that it does anything else.
I agree. The problem lays with government. People are programmed by nature and evolution to act in their best interests. As long as you give an organization the power to act in it's best interests to the detriment to others, you'll have this problem. And that's what happens in every government.

Demogorgon

17th January 2007, 09:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:28 pm
You're changing your story. Above in your litany of examples you said a bunch of Brits have learned just how little control an elected government has. In another post you said big business controls the campaign purse strings and excercises control over policy-makers.

But now, suddenly, it's not some big conspiracy, it's just that business has a lot of influence.

I tell you what. Instead of continuing this long, drawn out attack of what you seem to believe, why don't you just tell me explicitly and concisely just what the problem is. Is it that big business has any "control", or "influence" at all? Or too much? And whatever it is that big business has that you wish they didn't have, explain why you wish they didn't have it.

Finally, explain what you think should be done about it.

Thank you.
Changing my story, don't be ridiculous. I said in my first post that there was no conspiracy. You want to believe that what I am saying is simplistic b ecause you are only capable of arguing with simplistic arguments.

Of course Business doesn't have absolute control over Government. How could it? There are different interests at play within the corporate aristocracy itself as well as other outside this loop. However they still exercise huge amounts of influence over the government, to the point where, while they will not get their way all the time, particularly in issues where they themselves are not united, when they are determined something is going to happen, it will usually happen. Whether this be by economic blackmail against the Government or by more subtle measures such as financing the opposition.

No need to take my word foor it here. This is from Tony Benn, a former member of the British cabinet, and at one time thought to be in the running to be Prime minister. Back when he bacame a minister, he was on the right wing reforming end of the Labour Party. His experience as a minister pushed him right along to the far left however. Here is what he had to say:

"As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that Britain is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our politicial system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum."

Again this isn't coming from some left wing theorist. This is fromt he man whose Cabinet portfolio was to deal with the corporate powers that be (much of his time in Cabinet was as Minister For Trade and Industry).

Demogorgon

17th January 2007, 09:21

Ah, I see, I write out four posts (2 of them considerable length) and all you're possible of doing is being insulting. You're a credit to your idealogy. Not to say that most collectivists are capable of actually forming an argument. Bravo.Oh Lordy Lord. YOu are using the word collectivist. I always know there is trouble brewing when I see that word :lol:

I fall under this camp.Don't be ridiculous. That camp would laugh you half way around the world. Your views are ridiculously utopian.
But, low and behold, a socialist that in the midst of an argument, doesn't make a counter-argument, but rather hurls insults.Well what do you want me to say here? I have met your kkind before and there is little reasoning with someone who thinks that just because they managed to trudge through John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged that they are the expert on every subject known to man.
Libertarianism has little relation to marxism, not sure why you'd think such a thing.Libertarianism's logic structure is flawed at various points, leading me to suspect that people come to the conclusion first and then work backwards to find premises to suit them. And look at these conclusions. The best argument against Libertarianism I ever heard from a non-socialist was simply to put a Marxist and Libertarian argument side by side and show they were just mirror images of each other. All Libertarianism does is reverse Marxist assertions. It offers nothing of it's own.
Is this a joke? A 'mixed' economy is just a mix of two economys, in most cases today both capitalism and socialism. What you're saying doesn't make sense (not that this is something different).Here you show yourself to have no understanding of economics. I think it was on my second ever economics lesson back when I was fourteen that I learned what a mixed economy was. It's hard to get much further in economic understanding if you don't even know simple ideas like these.
These are assertions that have never been proved, except in brainwashed socialist's minds.I suppose Milton Friedman was a brainwashed Socialist then? You make yourself ridiculous by claiming such things don't exist.

Matty_UK

17th January 2007, 12:56

t_wolves_fan

17th January 2007, 14:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:26 pm

All that is necessary is for the state to protect property rights, but yes it is an inevitability that the bourgeoise will seek to influence the state, but that's the inevitability of politics. Everyone seeks to influence the state.

Well....it's an inevitability of politics in a class society.

I was under the impression that a goal of your classless society was to get everyone involved in politics.

In a capitalist economic system and democratic republic such as that of the United States, along with other political systems that operate in capitalist countries, the bourgeoise have a right to engage in politics just like anyone else, do they not?

Then the state can raise taxes or look elsewhere. If a state seeks policies that will antagonize business and harm the economy, that's their choice.

Where else can they look other than other big businesses?

Small businesses or themselves. If they want to go the route of Cuba and Venezuela so be it. I do not support American foreign policy that punishes countries for choosing their own economic and political system so long as it does not threaten our security (and by that I do not mean the economic security of our corporations, I mean our physical security. So if United Fruit Company says take out this democratically-elected government in Guatemala because they want to kick us out, I'd tell them to live with it.)

Not only are taxes not enough, but taxes don't come in every day; reception of taxes happens in just one period of the year whilst expenditure is continuous. There isn't a single capitalist state today that can afford all expenditure simply through taxes, to avoid being in debt you'd have to tax astronomic amounts.

:lol: You don't know much about government finance do you.

First of all, when there is an income tax the government gets money all year long through withholding. I don't know if that's what they do in the UK, but here in the U.S. they withhold an amount from our paychecks for our income taxes and then we settle up in the spring - if they withheld too much, we get a refund and if they withheld too little we send them a check.

In other systems and other levels of government, yes the primary source of revenue often comes in all at once (such as property taxes to local governments here in the U.S.). The local government knows beforehand how much it's going to get because it bases this year's taxes on last year's property values, and so it creates a budget based on that known amount. Now there are other taxes such as sales tax and revenues from fees charged for services that will come in all year long. The government makes an estimate of these fees and lives within its means. That's the way it should be - if government doesn't have the money, it shouldn't spend it. Unless of course there is a severe emergency, then deficit spending can be forgiven.

The fact that revenues from major tax sources comes in all at once is actually a positive thing. Why? Because if the government takes in $120 at the beginning of the year and spends $10 a month, it can take the $90 it expects to spend later in the year and put it into interest-baring accounts that bring in even more money without taxing people. And before you get your undies in a bunch, understand that these investments are in fixed income instruments with low fees and no risk to the principal, so it's not like the people's tax money is being risked on Wall Street.

The bourgeois do not control the army, the state controls the army

Wrong. The military is controlled by it's Generals who come from bourgeois families.

Who cannot act without authorization from the elected government in every western Capitalist country.

In this country the Generals and the Judges, people outside of Parliament and outside of universal suffrage, are all Sirs and Lords.

That's your country's problem and it's a political one. I assume you're trying to change it.

USA they won't be Sirs and Lords but I can bet they are all from bourgeois families.

They're not. Colin Powell is from a working-class family in New York City. You seem to think our military operates like that in Europe where rich guys sign up to be generals as an act of vanity, but they don't. Our commanders attend the military academies right out of high school and they aren't paid huge sums of money. Most of them, I'm willing to bet, come from military families and so aren't exactly among the wealthiest families in the land.

You really need to stop making up reality to suit your opinions.

And it's very naive to say the state controls the army; how, exactly, can they be certain of authority over it? With a bigger army to discipline it? And how would they control that one?

:lol:

The Army answers to the Secretary of Defense who answers to the President who was elected. Further, the military cannot do anything without money and it is Congress that determines how much the military receives.

Are you really under the impression that in the United States, Halliburton is commanding soldiers in the field?

If you need proof of the effectiveness of this, look at all the times an elected government hostile to bourgeois interests has been overthrown by the military.

Those countries were overthrown because they have weak political systems. We are the most capitalist country on earth and to date our government has not been overthrown by the military.

That was their justification; do you really believe that?

Yes.

They may have most to lose but they also have most to fall back on if things go tits up. They probably did convince themselves of that, doesn't make it justified and doesn't change the fact the propertied classes didn't want the proles ruining their business.

I wouldn't want the proles running the businesses either. Proles are proles for a reason.

Interestingly enough, however, proles are free at any time in our country to start their own business. There are plenty of prole-owned enterprises that are quite successful.

The state was not founded on a social contract. Only the bourgeois decided that society would be most suited run by them, they did not ask the lower classes.

That's an interesting proclamation, considering it was the lower classes that happily signed up to kick the British's ass out of here.

Please remember that your proclaiming it doesn't make it true.

No, but it certainly diluted it. Look how much we in the United States spend on entitlement programs and welfare now vs. what we spent then. Super-capitalists bemoan this development to no end, something you probably don't even realize.

That's true; there's also the factor that bourgeois ideology (that initially justified their absolute control of the state; similar to how it was important for nobles to make sure the rightful heir of the throne was in power, as otherwise it would call their right to property into question) dictates you can only vote if you pay taxes that comes into it.

Secondly, there's the necessity of easing socialist countries. In western europe, radical socialist parties were elected post ww2; none of these followed through on their radical promises and instead eased class tensions by increasing social security; perhaps because they were impotent to do much else. Surely that is testament to the reality that Parliament cannot challenge bourgeois supremacy?

Or perhaps it's a testament to the reality that socialist policies don't work very well, and so once they actually had to govern the radicals realized they'd end up destroying the country? No, it couldn't be that could it?

Frankly your arguments here don't make a whole lot of sense. Can you maybe rephrase them concisely?

What exactly is your argument, in a nutshell, anyway?

That real capitalist political power exists outside parliament and can't be rid of through a democratic process.

Of course, if it's in the economic realm that's how the system works. But their power exists only so long as customer's needs and wants are met.

colonelguppy

17th January 2007, 23:28

Originally posted by Demogorgon+January 16, 2007 05:01 am--> (Demogorgon @ January 16, 2007 05:01 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 02:27 am

A completely free market with no government intervention would actually be less capitalist

I'm not sure what you people think capitalism is but here's what websters says-

"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

Now if you guys are using a different defintion you should probably say what that is, but the quoted above when using this defintion is completely oxymoronic.

Government is the friend of the capitalists.
Just because you label certain people that interact with the government 'capitalists' doesn't make the government 'capitalist'.

Look at Bush giving billions to general motors recently.
What exactly is 'capitalist' about that?
I always know when I see people with views like yours, that they must know about as much about economics and capitalism in particular as the average pidgeon does about quantum physics. You see, it's pretty clear that there are two broad schools of thought within the defenders of capitalism. The first one, and the only one that actually matters is the one you see in the real world. The talk of capitalism being the most efficient system due to various reasons. Discussions of how market forces work to achieve the most desirable result etc.

The second one, is one found almost exclusively on the internet. This one isn't based on an understanding of economics, it is based upon: "the cool kids at school wore Che Guevara T-Shirts and bullied me, so I am going to come up with an ideology the exact opposite of theirs to spite them". Your sort of defence of capitalism isn't based on any kind of understanding of it. It's just a parody of Marxism created by reversing every one of it's assertions but not bothering to change it's internal logic code. Hence it ends up being something which silly people argue about on the internet but can't survive contact with the real world.

The reality of capitalism is that it is based on a mixed economy. Nothing else is possible under capitalism. Of course many like to see a strong emphasis towards the private sector, but without the public sector it can't exist. After all who is it that defends the property rights that keeps capitalism ticking over? Who is it that corrects the market failures stopping it from self destructing? Who is it that maintains the power of the monopolists? and so on. [/b]
congradulations on your descent to irrelevence.