Communism & Democracy

[Capitalist]

Socialism bans the fundamental freedom of free enterprise.

Big Taxes

Government Regulations

Governments Demand to Business Ownership

All these ban the essential freedom of free enterprise by taking the reward of from those who contribute to society and disbursing it to those who do not contribute.

Therefore those who contribute, earn nothing

Those who don't contribute, earn anyway.

There is no incentive to create in a communistic system.

No incentive to create new medicines
No incentive to become a doctor or an engineer
No incentive to create a business that benefits the community
No incentive.

Socialism leads to inefficiency, only when socialism is used in conjuction with private enterprise is it efficient (example - road construction, vouchers for private schooling).

Socialism = share the wealth = rob the wealth and disburse to everyone = no contributions to society.

The only example of socialism that has ever worked that I can think of is Public Libraries. Other than Libraries - I can not think of one government run enterprise that delivers freedom.

Even the police rob people with their unnecessary speeding tickets. They give people speeding tickets for going 50 in a 40 during the middle of the night, but then let child molesters out of jail after serving 30 days in prison.

BIG GOVERNMENT = SOCIALISM = BIG BULLSHIT.

Communism = Big Government = Welfare

Freedom = Democracy = Limited Government.

It is time for another Boston Tea Party

No more big taxes and unrepresentative government!!!

[Nateddi]

Capitalist, I heard this shit before, so lets cut to the fun part.

Unrepresentative government? For whom? The representatives are all bought out by the corporations / wealthy, same with our media. There is no representation for the working class. While you are still talking shit about Limited Government = Democracy, when limited government causes such corruption as you see now in this capitalist system. Limited government (in your sense of the word) allows the wealthy to do what they want, continue accumulating their wealthy like a rolling snowball (bad analogy but you get it). Limited government (in your sense) corrupts democracy.

And you are the one complaining about unrepresentative government.

[Capitalist]

Good Point.

However I'd rather live under Lobby controlled government, than Tyrant or One Party Controlled Government.

I agree with you on this point fully. Politics in the USA is controlled by big Lobby Control.

This would not be the case, if more Americans were more interested in politics instead of football.

Americans just don't care. Most don't vote.

I do not believe in restricting Lobby's because, everyone has a right to contribute to their candidate. The only good thing about the Lobbies is that they tend to counterbalance each other.

But I agree, Lobbyist Control of Government Sucks.

Quite frankly I don't like Political Parties either.

What would be ideal is to have televised debates, so that everyone could see what these politicians truly represent. Unfortunately only Presidential Debates are televised.

But Americans do not want to watch debates, nor do they care about their unrepresentative politicians. They are more interested in TV shows like Friends, who is dating Prince Whatever, or who is fucking Brad Pitt, etc.

TV, Hollywood, MTV, and Sports rule the USA.

America becomes more ignorant and blind with each passing day. It will lead to our downfall some day.

Unless it is a Presidential Election - I usually have no idea who I am voting for - I just check Republican for everything because I know that the Democrats are basically Communistic in Nature. But this is not always the case. Unfortunately there is just no information available on who we vote for.

[vox]

Let's look at this free enterprise thing a little more closely. Further, let's say I own a piece of land that I inherited. Let's say, after years of doing nothing with the land, a developer wants to buy it from me in order to put up a housing development, or office buildings, or whatever. Suddenly, the land has increased in value, and I sell the land for a handsome sum. I've contributed nothing, but I'm rewarded for it. That kind of free enterprise?

Big Bill Hayward summed it up nicely way back in 1901, "The barbarous gold barons--they did not find the gold, they did not mine the gold, they did not mill the gold, but by some weird alchemy all the gold belonged to them!"

As for creating new medicines, you must realize that the pharmaceutical industry, because it's profit driven, allows the market to determine what drugs are produced. Like "The Nation" discovered, it results in millions for Viagra, pennies for diseases of the poor (http://past.thenation.com/issue/990719/0719silverstein.shtml). Unlike the government, private corporations are not charged with promoting the general welfare.

"Even the police rob people with their unnecessary speeding tickets. They give people speeding tickets for going 50 in a 40 during the middle of the night, but then let child molesters out of jail after serving 30 days in prison."

It's hard to believe someone actually wrote that, but there it is. A couple of things. You like a profit system, and speeding tickets bring in revenue. That's what you're for, right? Without this revenue, would't taxes have to increase?

More astounding, you somehow think that police are responsible for sentencing people, for you say that the police let child molesters out of prison after 30 days (and I'd really like to know where you got that figure). It's not the police who are in charge of that. See, we have this whole judicial system set up, maybe you've heard of it?

Yeesh.

vox

[Dan Majerle]

Excellent rejoinder vox! I'm becoming more impressed with your every post.

[queen of diamonds]

Quote: from Capitalist on 7:20 pm on June 19, 2002

All these ban the essential freedom of free enterprise by taking the reward of from those who contribute to society and disbursing it to those who do not contribute.

Therefore those who contribute, earn nothing

Those who don't contribute, earn anyway.



ever read "the collectors"? it discusses this idea....


There is no incentive to create in a communistic system.

No incentive to create new medicines
No incentive to become a doctor or an engineer
No incentive to create a business that benefits the community
No incentive.

i think the idea is that they're going to create things because they work together to build a society & help each other...

[El Che]

Capitalist do you know absolutly NOTHING about socialism?

[Solzhenitsyn]

Let's look at this free enterprise thing a little more closely. Further, let's say I own a piece of land that I inherited. Let's say, after years of doing nothing with the land, a developer wants to buy it from me in order to put up a housing development, or office buildings, or whatever. Suddenly, the land has increased in value, and I sell the land for a handsome sum. I've contributed nothing, but I'm rewarded for it. That kind of free enterprise?

Now let's look at another scenario: A kid in the slums of Philadephia happens upon a 1911 Honus Wagner card. He sells it at auction for a handsome $400,000 dollars. Dumb luck is a two way street. By the way you did do some things to the land: 1. You paid property taxes every year and 2. You kept other developers off of it thus increasing it's value.

Big Bill Hayward summed it up nicely way back in 1901, "The barbarous gold barons--they did not find the gold, they did not mine the gold, they did not mill the gold, but by some weird alchemy all the gold belonged to them!"

This is a rather simple argument to destroy. At every step of the way the discoverers, miners, and millers all sold their gold or the rights to the gold. They've made their cut. Now it's time for the speculators to be rewarded for the risk of keeping the gold because at anytime new gold mines can be discovered or a government can sell off their gold reserves causing the price to drop dramatically.

As for creating new medicines, you must realize that the pharmaceutical industry, because it's profit driven, allows the market to determine what drugs are produced. Like "The Nation" discovered, it results in millions for Viagra, pennies for diseases of the poor (http://past.thenation.com/issue/990719/0719silverstein.shtml). Unlike the government, private corporations are not charged with promoting the general welfare.

This is rich coming from an affirmed environmentalist. He convienently neglects to mention the most effective means of combating malaria by far: DDT. It kills the malaria bearing mosquitos better than anything on the market today but it was banned in a wave of hysteria pushed by the self-appointed prophets of the coming enviromental apocolypse: http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
READ: "500 million deaths were prevented in just two decades by the use of DDT" - NAS, 1970
Secondly, there is absolutely no market for anti-malarial drugs in America or Europe. Why haven't the socialist states of Venezuela, Cuba, Angola, South Africa, India, Vietnam or China developed a anti-malarial drug yet? After all, their people are in the most danger. Better yet, why haven't the more "morally advanced" states of the EU lent a helping hand. Could it be because socialism stifles technological advances? Nah, it all capitalism's fault.
Last but not least, the 2 billion dollars and 10-15 years to bring a new drug to market is obscene. Why? Because bureaucratic regulations and greedy trial lawyers. Even if drug companies decided to help the poor people in the third world, it's likely to boomerang on them in the form of a class action lawsuit or crushing regulation by enraged bureaucrats if something goes wrong.

It's hard to believe someone actually wrote that, but there it is. A couple of things. You like a profit system, and speeding tickets bring in revenue. That's what you're for, right? Without this revenue, would't taxes have to increase?

Problem: Traffic tickets are not profit but legalized highway robbery (literally). What happens if you don't pay your credit card vs. what happens if you don't pay your ticket? Hint: Armed men aren't coming to your door to demand a credit card payment.

More astounding, you somehow think that police are responsible for sentencing people, for you say that the police let child molesters out of prison after 30 days (and I'd really like to know where you got that figure). It's not the police who are in charge of that. See, we have this whole judicial system set up, maybe you've heard of it?

What's your point? It was a general indictment of the entire system. Ah, the justice system: a net that catches small fish and lets large fish go free.

Sidebar: It wasn't too long ago that the fuzzy and warm hearted socialists in the population control movement blamed DDT for inflating populations of third world countries: Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing." Where's the compassion for the poor in that statement?

(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 7:19 am on May 9, 2002)

[reagan lives]

Re: the sidebar...

As PJ O'Rourke put it: "Fretting about overpopulation is a perfectly guilt-free (indeed, sanctimonious) way for 'progressives' to be racists."

[El Che]

Who ever said that about childern and malaria should be jailed for madness. But its typical of u scum bags to take cheap shots against those who would crash your big priviledge party, that is choking mankind.

[vox]

Solz,

Unfortunately, you're wrong. Your gold argument is silly, for the quote wasn't about speculators but mine owners, who did none of the work and got most of the profit. The miners sold their share of the gold? Hee! Perhaps you'll next say that miners sold their share of the coal, too.

I suggest that it doesn't matter if there is a market for a certain drug in the US or Europe. In the US, the market for cigarettes keeps shrinking, but that hasn't stopped the tobacco industry at all. Rather, they're now aggresively marketing their product in Asia. Capitalists don't care where the market is, of course. Fact is, the poor, who are at risk for certain diseases, aren't a profitable enough market for the capitalists.

The R&D argument doesn't really wash, either, because for a long time the US gov't provided about 50% of the research to drug companies for free. Perhaps you think that the US should suffer through a terrible episode like the English did with thalidomide, but I don't. Drug testing in order to keep the citizenry safe is, I think, the responsibility of gov't, and I'm glad that we do it.

Though you brig up DDT, you neglect to mention that, as the article points out, "US military researchers have discovered virtually all important malaria drugs." Public money was used for that, of course. Is it okay to use public money sometimes and not other times?

By the way, armed men won't come to your door if you don't pay a traffic ticket, either. I'm not sure where you got this bizarre notion, but that just isn't the way it works. I'm also not sure where you get the idea that socialists population growth for anything. I've read a lot of socialist literature and I've yet to come across anything like that. You seem to have a bad habit of labeling anything you dislike as "socialist," without paying any heed to what the word actually means. It makes you sound like the right-wingers who call Hillary Clinton a socialist, a proposition that is downright laughable.

vox

[El Che]

"You seem to have a bad habit of labeling anything you dislike as "socialist," without paying any heed to what the word actually means."

That is exactly his problem. I find it quite annoying to be honest. He sounds rather desperate really, in that he will resort to anything in order to further his quest to discredit a socialism he bearly understands.

[RGacky3]

Capitalist..........your stupid........hang your self

[Solzhenitsyn]

Unfortunately, you're wrong. Your gold argument is silly, for the quote wasn't about speculators but mine owners, who did none of the work and got most of the profit. The miners sold their share of the gold? Hee! Perhaps you'll next say that miners sold their share of the coal, too.

Wrong again. Baron is derogetory term for a person who gets rich from the commodities market, hence a speculator (c.f. Oil Baron, Real Estate Baron). Anyhow, the argument is still not successful. You don't understand the concept of mineral rights. The gold is the property of the mine owner even before it is mined. The mine owner pays the laborers to extract the gold. Nothing more. Nothing less. Do workers in the state owned mines get to keep the gold? No. Double standard.

I suggest that it doesn't matter if there is a market for a certain drug in the US or Europe. In the US, the market for cigarettes keeps shrinking, but that hasn't stopped the tobacco industry at all. Rather, they're now aggresively marketing their product in Asia. Capitalists don't care where the market is, of course. Fact is, the poor, who are at risk for certain diseases, aren't a profitable enough market for the capitalists.

It costs 2bil to take a drug from lab to drug store. If there is not a market where they can at break even it's not worth their time. The cigarette analogy is false. It costs very little to bring a cigarette brand to market. Also, tobacco companies are just displacing demand for home brands that have been in Asia for quite some time (the Chinese and Vietnamese governments have state run tobacco industries).

The R&D argument doesn't really wash, either, because for a long time the US gov't provided about 50% of the research to drug companies for free. Perhaps you think that the US should suffer through a terrible episode like the English did with thalidomide, but I don't. Drug testing in order to keep the citizenry safe is, I think, the responsibility of gov't, and I'm glad that we do it.

The government has never funded drug companies for general drug R&D. It's funded research into the causes of certain diseases which is it's job. They've always had drugs that do specific things in mind when dealing with drug companies. Most of the 50% (if it even is that) would go to military drugs. See below for the myth of military R&D. It's obvious that some testing is needed before drugs hit market. I'm suggesting the in high mortality diseases the testing standard should be relaxed to get these life saving medicines to people who need them and that liability be restricted so a good deed goes unpunished.

Though you brig up DDT, you neglect to mention that, as the article points out, "US military researchers have discovered virtually all important malaria drugs." Public money was used for that, of course. Is it okay to use public money sometimes and not other times?

No. It's misleading to say "military researchers." The military has never done it's own R&D in anything: not tanks, not rifles, not artillery, and certainly not drugs. Ever. It only develops criteria and specifications for new projects then solicits bids form private firms to produce an item that conforms to those specs. You obviously don't understand the relationship that the U.S. government had with drug companies. The feds didn't just hand a cool billion to them and say "now go develop whatever you want". The feds actually said something like "We need an anti-malarial for our troops in Vietnam. We need it do this, this and this and have these properties. We'll pay you x dollars if you're able to deliver said drug." The government is in fact a customer of the drug companies. It the drug companies who make the technological advances and not the government.

By the way, armed men won't come to your door if you don't pay a traffic ticket, either. I'm not sure where you got this bizarre notion, but that just isn't the way it works. I'm also not sure where you get the idea that socialists population growth for anything. I've read a lot of socialist literature and I've yet to come across anything like that. You seem to have a bad habit of labeling anything you dislike as "socialist," without paying any heed to what the word actually means. It makes you sound like the right-wingers who call Hillary Clinton a socialist, a proposition that is downright laughable.

You do not understand how traffic violations work. If you fail to pay a traffic ticket a warrant is automatically issued for your arrest and police will show up at your door to arrest you or demand payment.
Now how many conservatives or traditionalists are members of the population control movement? None. When's the last time you've seen the Catholic or Orthodox churches call for population control? Never. It's a pursuit totally dominated by leftists. What was the first nation to actively pursure population control? The Soviet Union. Which groups actively promulgate population control literature? Leftist groups and socialists groups that's all. BTW almost all socialist governments have tried population control to limit payouts in the long run.

[vox]

Solz,

"Industry R&D risks and costs are often significantly reduced by taxpayer-funded research, which has helped launch the most medically important drugs in recent years and many of the best-selling drugs, including all of the top five sellers in one recent year surveyed (1995).

"An internal National Institutes of Health (NIH) document, obtained by Public Citizen through the Freedom of Information Act, shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995. (See Section III)"


Source (http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7065)

I strongly urge you to download the entire document in .pdf format and give it a reading. Or do what right-wingers typically do when confronted with facts they don't like, or even just too much reading, dismiss it as left-wing propaganda. Regardless, the facts remain available for those truly interested in the subject, and the facts show you to be terribly wrong about pretty much everything. Even your figure of $2 billion isn't backed up by the very industry you're defending. Your credibility has now been reduced to zero.

By the way, you're simply wrong about the traffic tickets. In most cities, a warrant is issued and then nothing is done about it. The next time a person is stopped, the name is run and then it becomes an issue. This is how, by the way, people can run up a lot of fines in parking tickets. I know someone personally who simply forgot to pay her ticket (speeding) and nothing happened. When she found it, over six months later, she paid the fine, plus penalty, and that was that.

Oh, one more thing. Before you make up definitions for words ("Baron is derogetory term for a person who gets rich from the commodities market, hence a speculator) you should check out www.dictionary.com:

"One having great wealth, power, and influence in a specified sphere of activity: an oil baron."

Or:

"3: a very wealthy or powerful businessman: 'an oil baron'"

Like I said, zero credibility.

vox

[concerned]

Vox:

"Or do what right-wingers typically do when confronted with facts they don't like, or even just too much reading, dismiss it as left-wing propaganda."

First of all, we "right-wingers" as you like to call us aren't confronted with facts from you people very often. We are the ones with the facts and real World data to prove our system works better. Your arguments are usually made on assumptions and idealistic ideas of an unreal World. Second, you left-wingers are the ones who dissmiss ideas before they read them and complain about the lenght, just take a look around you in this same forum. This is an example:


Quote: from pastradamus on 1:12 am on May 5, 2002
nobody in their right mind would read that CI! too long and boring!


You can find many more of this where this came from...

[Capitalist]

Selling an inheritence is not an example of Capitalism.

You play with the cards you are dealt.

I will agree that there is a class system - and it is very difficult to move from a lower class to a higher one. However banning Capitalism is not the answer. Banning Freedoms will make the class system even more difficult to break through.

The Exiled Cuban community came to the USA with nothing. Yet look at Miami Today! One of the most successful cities in the USA (if not the most beautiful). Those people came with nothing - and turned south Florida into a paradise (and by the way - helped Bush win that last election through a fair voting process).

There are many examples of exiled, yet successful communities in the USA. Vietnamese Exiles, Japanese Americans after WWII American Camps, examples of other groups that started with nothing - yet build themselves back up through free enterprise.

[RedCeltic]

posted this in the worng thread...

(Edited by RedCeltic at 2:49 pm on May 11, 2002)

[Fabi]

Im not going to say anything on the behalf of communism or socialism here...

merely one simple thing i dont understand about capitalism and democracy...
so many people happen to think capitalism and democracy are somehow totally entwined and belong together cause Mickey Mouse said so...

uuum... of course i could be wrong, but isnt it in capitalism that the people with the capital, with the money, have the power?

and wasnt it in democracy a little different? about people having sort of the same 'power' by bein able to vote?????

well, as far as im CONCERNED, capitalism and democracy are pretty much opposites...


but probably im just stupid...

[ID2002]

The idea of Socialism and the "farther left" is to work together to achieve the common goal for the betterment of the state, which intern benifts all.
Capitalism works in reverse--- the self is more important than the state or the people. People become selfish, self centred, and all sorts of negativity begins. People flock like chickens to the malls...buying the latest "fashion" which quickly dies in mear months. This consumerist mentality is not sustainable, as natural resources can only be streched so far! THIS IS REALITY*

[Greadius]

Quote: from vox on 2:24 am on May 10, 2002
I strongly urge you to download the entire document in .pdf format and give it a reading. Or do what right-wingers typically do when confronted with facts they don't like, or even just too much reading, dismiss it as left-wing propaganda. I'm just wondering in quiet thought how American taxpayers, the most capitalist of all people's on Earth, funding drug research can be turned into Socialist propoganda.
Isn't this an arguement that greedy, self-interest capitalists and bought and paid for politicians actually do give a rats ass about sick people?


Quote: from Fabi on 12:27 am on May 12, 2002
merely one simple thing i dont understand about capitalism and democracy...
so many people happen to think capitalism and democracy are somehow totally entwined and belong together cause Mickey Mouse said so... Actually, brilliant political scientists have said so! I suggest Robert Dahl's "Preface to Democratic Theory", James Buchanan & Gordon Tullock's "The Calculus of Consent" Mancor Olson's "The Logic of Collective Action", and Anthony Down's "Inside Bureaucracy"
Excellent books, but can be a tough read. Just make sure you read them IN THAT ORDER or you might miss the larger arguement being made.


Quote: from Fabi on 12:27 am on May 12, 2002
uuum... of course i could be wrong, but isnt it in capitalism that the people with the capital, with the money, have the power? You are wrong :biggrin: Captitalism is about fluidity wealth, democracy is about the fluidity of power.


Quote: from Fabi on 12:27 am on May 12, 2002
and wasnt it in democracy a little different? about people having sort of the same 'power' by bein able to vote????? Right. Everyone has the same vote. That doesn't mean they have to have the same wealth.


Quote: from Fabi on 12:27 am on May 12, 2002
well, as far as im CONCERNED, capitalism and democracy are pretty much opposites...
but probably im just stupid... Or young, idealistic, stubborn, and with different societal priorities :biggrin:

------------------------------------------------------
Okay, am I missing something or can I not do properly quoted multi-quote threads here? I'm kinda new :biggrin:

(Edited by Greadius at 9:17 am on May 12, 2002)