Why I love Capitalism

[Don Roley]

Hopefully, I can address you and Don at the same with this next point. This is a big pot of money and it is promised to a lot of people...true. My question is where is that money? Our government is in debt. We believe the money is there, but its not, its already been spent.

The big question is on what...Don, that is where you'll find the radical corporatist.

Show me the Money!!! Or the radical corporatist. Until then, I leave conspiracy theories and rabid hate for something like corporations to the the novels.

The fact of the matter is that we can't fix the problem because so many people are pressuring the politicians to do what is best for them rather than what is fair or in the best interest of all.

It does not matter if we are talking about a corporation or the teacher's union. When you give politicians the power to reassighn wealth (for the best interest of all), forces will seek to gain favor from those politicians to give them money NOT for the greater good, but for their good.

You want to talk about farm subsidies for large farmers, tax breaks for Exxon, teachers or social security recipients, they are all trying to get more of that pie.

You look at all the programs set up to help those that are needy and within a decade the amount of needy benifiting from that program is a minority. As much as you hate and vilify corporations, everybody does it and will support the politicians that promise them bigger pieces of the pie paid by other people.

The only solution is to limit the goverment to those functions that are needed to keep society going- and keep a close eye on them there.

But if we were to ever try to set up a system where someone other than the person who makes the wealth decides what to do with it, you need only look to all the abuses of every goverment and multiply it.

 

[Makalakumu]

Show me the Money!!! Or the radical corporatist. Until then, I leave conspiracy theories and rabid hate for something like corporations to the the novels.

Don, you contradict yourself with the rest of your post. You know where the money is going. Subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts, buyouts, etc...

I find the cognitive dissonence ironic, though. On one hand you label this stuff conspiracy theory and throw it away and with the other you bring up the very stuff I was talking about.

What I would like to see is a breakdown of government pork spending. How much of it goes to people interests like education or wellfare and how much goes to the corporatists?

 

[Don Roley]

Don, you contradict yourself with the rest of your post. You know where the money is going. Subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts, buyouts, etc...

I find the cognitive dissonence ironic, though. On one hand you label this stuff conspiracy theory and throw it away and with the other you bring up the very stuff I was talking about.

What I would like to see is a breakdown of government pork spending. How much of it goes to people interests like education or wellfare and how much goes to the corporatists?

I acknowledge that money is spent on things like pork barrel projets. I reject your narrow view that only corporations can be the power brokers here. I mentioned teacher's unions. Why should they be allowed to influence politicians for more money and not other citizens like corporate heads? We should all be equal under the law. But someone will get the ear of the politician and use that money for their own good.

It does not matter if it is a corporation wanting some more cash, or teachers wanting more cash. They all will say to others and themselves that they are doing it for the greater good, but teachers are just as greedy as the next person. And with that type of power in the hands of politicians, you either give the shaft to others or get it yourself.

Social security can't be fixed not because of corporations, but because so many old people get money from the goverment and will fight for that cash to the last breath.

 

[Don Roley]

Money controls the message. Money controls the messenger. Those with more money are able to express more power. Thus wealth = power.

The above has been bothering me. I find the sentiment scary.

You seem to have the idea that people should not be able to use money to spread a message. If so, then who should be in charge of getting a message out and determining what it should be?

You seem to have a low view of people's intelligence and ability to choose correctly in elections. If they can be swayed so easily by money, then they are not really responsible and should be taken care of to limit their damage.

And I think there are a lot of people who would agree that there are a whole lot of stupid people out there. I have seen some of the popular entertainment programs and feel a little ill to think that these are enjoyed by the greatest amount of people.

But who determines who is to take care of who? Who gets to make the choice that others are not able to make choices? The majority? A small group of philosopher kings?

I think we have to respect other people's choices for themselves. They have a right to be right and a right to choose wrong. Their choices can't have an impact on us, but otherwise let them be as free as possible.

Hence why I like a capitalistic system where their abilities to impact me are lessoned. They can be idiots if they want. But they have no ability to elect politicians that will come and take away my money to fund their silly ideas or force me to do things I find wrong.

Of course, we need goverment to do certain things. From the police to the Center for Disease Control there are things that keep us safe and can't be done by the private sector. But we need to let everyone be free, even if we think that they can be swayed by the messages paid for by the rich. Because we would like to have that freedom. And if we give the power of one group to make choices for others, then maybe we will be the one to dance to another's tune.

 

[Makalakumu]

I reject your narrow view that only corporations can be the power brokers here.

I don't believe that at all. Otherwise, why would I even attempt to get involved in grass roots politics. There is a difference, I'll tackle it below...

I mentioned teacher's unions. Why should they be allowed to influence politicians for more money and not other citizens like corporate heads?

The teachers union is a group of millions of individuals who have organized for a goal...to make education the best that it can be in this country. No single teacher or even a group of teachers makes even close the amount of money that the size of the board of directors of the average corporation.

For discussion purposes, lets say that we can quantify political power into units. If you were to divide the political power units equally among all of the teachers in the unions the corresponding amount would be small indeed. However, if you were to divide the political power of lets say Conagra among the small group of people who run that corporation one would find that the number of political power units would exponentially differ.

We should all be equal under the law. But someone will get the ear of the politician and use that money for their own good.

We are equal under the law, however, as the above demonstrates, we do not have equal amounts of political power. Those individuals who have most political power units are going to abuse the government the most. These are the corporatists.

It does not matter if it is a corporation wanting some more cash, or teachers wanting more cash.

It does matter. You have to look at the size of the group and the proportional gain of each member in it.

Social security can't be fixed not because of corporations, but because so many old people get money from the goverment and will fight for that cash to the last breath.

Our government is worse then flat broke. Its in the hole. Where is that money? The old people can fight all they want, but it ain't going to make that money suddenly appear. Where is the money?

The answer is that the corporatists have scammed us.

 

[Makalakumu]

The above has been bothering me. I find the sentiment scary.

It should bother you.

You can be the smartest guy in the world, but if you don't have good information to make good decisions then all of that brainpower means diddlysquat.

One of the problems that I see is that one really has to dig in order to find the information that is really important...and most people are too lazy to do this and they just rely on the echo chambers on both sides.

Individual choice depends on a free flow of information. Control that information and you control the choice.

This should bother you.

 

[Don Roley]

The teachers union is a group of millions of individuals who have organized for a goal...to make education the best that it can be in this country. No single teacher or even a group of teachers makes even close the amount of money that the size of the board of directors of the average corporation.

A- I do not believe the above is accurate.

B- Why should a large group of people be allowed to use politicians for their best interest at the expense of the greater good and not a small group of people? Both cases are wrong.

It does not matter if you put every corporate head to death. Every place they have done that they still have the people in charge and tasked with destributing wealth use for other purposes. Take a look at how Mugabe has taken land from rich farmers and given it to political cronies. Or the inner circle of North Korea. Maybe we can look at the way politicians in China have cosied up to certain rich folks and abused the laws there- and they are not even elected!

Power corrupts and absolute power..... you know the rest. But the ability to destribute wealth is a great power. It stands to reason that those that have it will be corrupted. Every case in history proves this. The only cure is to limit goverment as much as possible.

 

[Don Roley]

Individual choice depends on a free flow of information. Control that information and you control the choice.

I do not see much control of information in America by the corporations. They can put a lot out. But they can't stop those that want other sources from seeking it out for themselves.

If you think people are too lazy to seek out that information, the answer is not to step in and start making decisions for them, but to limit their ability to impact you. Smaller goverment is the first step.

 

[Makalakumu]

I do not see much control of information in America by the corporations. They can put a lot out. But they can't stop those that want other sources from seeking it out for themselves.

If you think people are too lazy to seek out that information, the answer is not to step in and start making decisions for them, but to limit their ability to impact you. Smaller goverment is the first step.

You don't have to be draconian in order to control information. All you have to do saturate the playing field. The assumption is that most people are not going to look beyond the echo chambers...that assumption is unfortunately correct.

I don't know what one could do to fix this problem.

 

[Makalakumu]

A- I do not believe the above is accurate.

Why?

B- Why should a large group of people be allowed to use politicians for their best interest at the expense of the greater good and not a small group of people? Both cases are wrong.

Large groups of people influencing politicians is what democracy is all about. Small groups of people doing the same thing with more ability to do so is not very democratic...wouldn't you say so?

It does not matter if you put every corporate head to death. Every place they have done that they still have the people in charge and tasked with destributing wealth use for other purposes. Take a look at how Mugabe has taken land from rich farmers and given it to political cronies. Or the inner circle of North Korea. Maybe we can look at the way politicians in China have cosied up to certain rich folks and abused the laws there- and they are not even elected!

I understand your point, however, I'm not convinced that redistribution of wealth is the problem. You are correllating redistribution with corruption, but this does not mean that redistribution caused corruption.

Power corrupts and absolute power..... you know the rest. But the ability to destribute wealth is a great power. It stands to reason that those that have it will be corrupted. Every case in history proves this. The only cure is to limit goverment as much as possible.

As much as I fantasize about a greater society, you might have hit the nail on the head. I hope your wrong. The key word is hope.

 

[Don Roley]

Large groups of people influencing politicians is what democracy is all about. Small groups of people doing the same thing with more ability to do so is not very democratic...wouldn't you say so?

You miss the point. If a corporation controls a politician, then that politician will work for the corporation. If the AFL/CIO (try saying this group does not have a lot of power in politics!) controls a politician, then that politician will work for the AFL/CIO. But that politician is supposed to be there for Americans! The AFL/CIO would give the rest of society the shaft to benifit itself. You give the politicians the power to shaft others and take their wealth, and someone will seek to control that power for themselves at the expense of others.

Let me give you an example. If the big car makers like GM, Ford, etc had the politicians in their pocket, they would pass laws making Japanese cars harder to get. If the teamsters had them in their pocket, they too would pass laws making it harder to get Japanese cars. Are they doing that for America, or for themselves? And shouldn't they be sitting around talking about how to make cars that Americans actually want to buy?

Your choice to buy a better Japanese car would be hampered by the self interest of the unions and/or the corporations. Who is to say the jobs that may be saved at the factories are worth you giving up the choice of cars?

By themselves, the unions or the corporations can't make you buy their stuff. But the goverment can. The goverment is supposed to make decisions to help all Americans. But they will throw you and your ability to choose a better car from Japan for the benifits they can get from either of the groups I mentioned.

And it does not matter which group. Using that power to impact others is immoral.

 

[Makalakumu]

You miss the point. If a corporation controls a politician, then that politician will work for the corporation. If the AFL/CIO (try saying this group does not have a lot of power in politics!) controls a politician, then that politician will work for the AFL/CIO. But that politician is supposed to be there for Americans!

My point is that a politician that supports the interests of a union is there for more Americans then one that supports the interests of a corporation.

However, you have a valid point below...

The AFL/CIO would give the rest of society the shaft to benifit itself. You give the politicians the power to shaft others and take their wealth, and someone will seek to control that power for themselves at the expense of others.

Let me give you an example. If the big car makers like GM, Ford, etc had the politicians in their pocket, they would pass laws making Japanese cars harder to get. If the teamsters had them in their pocket, they too would pass laws making it harder to get Japanese cars. Are they doing that for America, or for themselves? And shouldn't they be sitting around talking about how to make cars that Americans actually want to buy?

Your choice to buy a better Japanese car would be hampered by the self interest of the unions and/or the corporations. Who is to say the jobs that may be saved at the factories are worth you giving up the choice of cars?

By themselves, the unions or the corporations can't make you buy their stuff. But the goverment can. The goverment is supposed to make decisions to help all Americans. But they will throw you and your ability to choose a better car from Japan for the benifits they can get from either of the groups I mentioned.

The posability of abuse exists. However, the people in the union are only trying to preserve their livelihoods, raise their families and be happy. Why is being able to buy a japanese car without obstruction worth more then that?

And it does not matter which group. Using that power to impact others is immoral.

Have you considered that there might some things that are more wrong then others? This may be one of those situations.

 

[FearlessFreep]

This is a big pot of money and it is promised to a lot of people...true. My question is where is that money? Our government is in debt. We believe the money is there, but its not, its already been spent.

Well, no doubt. It's the promise of the money that gives politcal advantage, not neccessarily the delivery of that money. The money may not be there, or delivery of the money may lead to higher debt, or....


but it;s the money that is promised that matters

 

[Kane]

Whoa this thread is still alive and well. I guess I should add some input now.

I do believe both pure capitilism and pure socialism are not the way to go. Instead, a capitilistic system that with regulation would be the best. By high regulation so that all people attain equal oppurtunity.


In The Jungle, Upton Sinclair writesabout the dangers of capitalism, although there are many flaws in his reasoning. He claims that the total package socialism is the solution to the problems if capitalism but he is clearly going too extreme here. Sinclair says that the people should have no right to private ownership of business because they cannot be trusted to not discriminate against workers. He often mentions unfair and corrupt business owners but he clearly is one-sided and does not show any good examples of business owners who treat their employees with respect. Just because a few private owners treat their employees unfairly it does not mean all business owners do so. Furthermore he claims that socialism is the solutions for all of mankind’s problems but he obviously does not know about the result of many countries that adopted a socialist philosophy called communism. Communism was created by Karl Marx and he said himself, “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” (Marx, Communist Manifesto, 2) But such policies such as abolishment of private property as well as private ownership do not work. If we look at the former Soviet Union as an example, it fell as a result of the fallacies of communist ideology.

Pol Pot tried to make communism work for Cambodia, and for a while it did work. But it was not to last as political corruption and scares of government overthrow of ambitious humans wanting to increase their economic status lead to one of the worst recorded genocides in history of mankind. Over 2 million men, women, and children lost their lives in Cambodia. Pol Pot who most likely knew of the horrible crimes under his regime made this statement before he died, "When I die, my only wish is that Cambodia remain Cambodia and belong to the West. It is over for communism, and I want to stress that." (Pol Pot, Last Interview) Pol Pot knew that it was over for communism because it cannot work. Little did he know though that the nation did not have to belong to the West in order for it to not to be communist. Communism or pure socialism does not work because the philosophy goes against human nature. To be frank, human beings are greedy. If you start with the premise, the Supply and Demand curve is simple logic. People are also ambitious animals by nature and there is nothing wrong with wanting to bring yourself from your current economic status into whatever you want to be, as long at it does not infringe on other people’s rights.


Of course moderate socialism is not as bad as pure socialism or communism, but in general it is not as good as a system as regulated capitilism IMHO. The quality is far lower for all things when controlled by the government. And the taxes, I don't even want to go into how much taxes are in Sweden!


When it comes to economic issues, the government should regulate the free market to ensure equal opportunity in economic advancement. This means elimination of job discrimination and unfair treatment of workers by government laws making such acts illegal. The quality of products such as food must be checked on a normal basis as well by the government. Sinclair shows the importance of this as he describes the filth come factories produce when under pressure for money, “For it was the custom, as they found, whenever meat was so spoiled that it could not be used for anything else, either to can it or else to chop it up into sausage.” (Sinclair, The Jungle, 133) Without proper fundamental standards for products companies can sell defective products that can harm people. At the same time the government has no right to heavily tax the people because the people deserve to use the earning they make. The government should not control the means of production as it is more effective left up to the people. Competition creates an overall more effective product or system. Everything in life has an infinite amount of improvement needed to be done; even the fundamental needs of life can be infinitely improved, as Adam Smith describes, “Such is the delicacy of man alone, that no object is produced to his liking. He finds that in everything there is need for improvement.... The whole industry of human life is employed not in procuring the supply of our three humble necessities, food, clothes and lodging, but in procuring the conveniences of it according to the nicety and delicacy of our tastes.” (Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 49) But what of the poor who cannot afford these fundamental necessities? As discussed before the government has no right to take the earnings of the people, even to help the poor. Instead the government should make sure that there private charity programs are available for all of the poor and make the poor aware of this. At the same time the government should make sure minimum wage as it a livable standard (an amount that can pay for enough food, clothing, and shelter). As we can see if this is all the government does there is a harmony between protection and liberty.

 

[Don Roley]

My point is that a politician that supports the interests of a union is there for more Americans then one that supports the interests of a corporation.

Both cases are equally wrong. You have the tyranny of the majority vs the tyranny of the minority. Using politcal power to take from one to give to yourself is wrong, even if you have numbers on your side. You are arguing that it is not wrong if one side is stronger and merely going by numbers instead of of monetary pull.

The posability of abuse exists. However, the people in the union are only trying to preserve their livelihoods, raise their families and be happy. Why is being able to buy a japanese car without obstruction worth more then that?

They are free to be happy, etc AS LONG AS THAT HAPPINESS DOES NOT COME AT MY EXPENSE!!! I am trying to raise my family, etc as well and maybe having a Japanese car would help. It is the principle of the thing. They have no right to tell me what I can and can't do. And every time someone talks about the greater good, you need to grab your wallets.

And if you bothered to check, what you said about the unions is equally vaild to the corporations. You give unions a free ride when we talk about abusing politcal power, but not corporations. You seem to have an irrational hatred of them. ALL Americans should be treated the same, rich or poor, large groups or small. But you are treating the smaller groups as if they were evil as a matter of course.

Have you considered that there might some things that are more wrong then others? This may be one of those situations.

Wrong is wrong. It is not right because a larger number of people support it. Blacks make up only 12 percent of the population. Is/ was it moral for the majority whites to have owned them as slaves? Would the programs against Jews been worse if only a minority of people hated them? Large groups of people, democracies, do terrible things from time to time.

This is why some of the first ammendements to the constitution were guarentees that the goverment of the people could not do things to individuals no matter how popular those sentiments were. 90 percent of the population could want to ban Islam now and the constitution forbids it. Those rules are not there for the majority, but to protect the minority from the majority.

But here you are saying that if a group is large enough, it should be able to shaft others. The majority poor should be able to shaft the corporations. And you justify it in your mind with an irrational hatred of the rich and the feeling that they deserve to be punished. It is so much easier to take from victims once you demonize them.

Looking back on history, that is the way all communist systems start out. But they all end up with a small group of people corrupted by their power.

It does not matter if the group is large, small, rich or poor. No one should have the power to control others. Period. The whole idea that it is not facism if the right people are in charge boggles my mind.

 

[Tgace]

"redistribution of wealth"...I love that term. In other words the gvt. takes, and takes, and takes, regardless of the will of the "takee". And those it takes from the most get the least of the "redistribution". On the street it's usually called robbery.

Hmmm...establish justice and insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

It seems that "general welfare" has been stretched to mean "specific welfare of certain groups" as of late.

 

[Makalakumu]

Both cases are equally wrong. You have the tyranny of the majority vs the tyranny of the minority. Using politcal power to take from one to give to yourself is wrong, even if you have numbers on your side. You are arguing that it is not wrong if one side is stronger and merely going by numbers instead of of monetary pull.

That isn't what I was saying at all. I was trying to show how when a politician supports a union, they are supporting the interests of more americans then if they support a corporation.

They are free to be happy, etc AS LONG AS THAT HAPPINESS DOES NOT COME AT MY EXPENSE!!! I am trying to raise my family, etc as well and maybe having a Japanese car would help. It is the principle of the thing. They have no right to tell me what I can and can't do. And every time someone talks about the greater good, you need to grab your wallets.

Having a good job, good education, and access to good health care is far more important then buying a Japanese car. If choice comes at the expense of those three things, is it worth it?

And if you bothered to check, what you said about the unions is equally vaild to the corporations. You give unions a free ride when we talk about abusing politcal power, but not corporations. You seem to have an irrational hatred of them. ALL Americans should be treated the same, rich or poor, large groups or small. But you are treating the smaller groups as if they were evil as a matter of course.

I don't hate corporations. That term is so general. And to label them all as bad would be a gross stereotype. However, if one actually looks at pork barrel spending, subsidies, giveaways and bailouts, this stuff does not favor unions, it favors corporations...hands down. The simple fact of the matter is "they" are guilty of far more abuse then unions.

Wrong is wrong. It is not right because a larger number of people support it. Blacks make up only 12 percent of the population. Is/ was it moral for the majority whites to have owned them as slaves? Would the programs against Jews been worse if only a minority of people hated them? Large groups of people, democracies, do terrible things from time to time.

Tell me, Don, how is making sure every American citizen has access to a good job, good education, good health care, and safety wrong?

This is why some of the first ammendements to the constitution were guarentees that the goverment of the people could not do things to individuals no matter how popular those sentiments were. 90 percent of the population could want to ban Islam now and the constitution forbids it. Those rules are not there for the majority, but to protect the minority from the majority.

I see your point and I think we need to be mindful of this, however, there just may be some things out there that could be good for everyone. I think that Americans have the moral aptitude to judge that.

But here you are saying that if a group is large enough, it should be able to shaft others. The majority poor should be able to shaft the corporations. And you justify it in your mind with an irrational hatred of the rich and the feeling that they deserve to be punished. It is so much easier to take from victims once you demonize them.

I think you are getting caught up in your own hyperbole here.

Looking back on history, that is the way all communist systems start out. But they all end up with a small group of people corrupted by their power.

I don't think that I've ever said that we should become communist. Perhaps the characterization of my points in this light is nothing but a strawman.

It does not matter if the group is large, small, rich or poor. No one should have the power to control others. Period. The whole idea that it is not facism if the right people are in charge boggles my mind.

This is a pretty extreme statement. It seems to me that you are advocating an anarcho-capitalistic system.

And

How is making sure that people have access to well paying jobs, good education, good health care, and safety fascism?

 

[Don Roley]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Don Roley]

Tell me, Don, how is making sure every American citizen has access to a good job, good education, good health care, and safety wrong?

It is wrong because it comes at the expense of others.

We could be perfect if only we give up a little bit of rights, eh? Some people would have to make small sacrifices for the good of many, eh?

And if the majority think that the few should be the ones to give up to benifit them, hey- that's democracy, right? Everyone should have nice cars, long vacations, etc, eh? We just have to take the money from those greedy, nasty people over there. And since we outnumber them, its alright!

Turing off the sarcasm, your arguments fall flat. Your right to swing ends before it hits my face. It does not matter how much of a need you say you have to swing, the second it impacts me it is not your right anymore.

So when you say you have a right to a good job, etc- that can't come at my expense. You are quite free to help others if you think they need it. You can't tell me what to do unless I impact you.

And history proves that when groups are given the power to determine what they need, they get greedy every time. One side will always push for more. Take away the other sides legal right to refuse or use their wealth as they want and soon people will try to take everything.

And your comment that "there just may be some things out there that could be good for everyone. I think that Americans have the moral aptitude to judge that." Flies in the face of reality. Take a look at history. People will and always have put their interests above the group. You get 51 percent of the population a chance at some goodies and they will force the remaining 49 percent to pay for it. The term 'pork barrel spending' is a common term and reflects the reality that people (not corporations) will vote for the politician that benifits them the most at the expense of the greater American good.

And on one hand you seem to be saying that the people are controlled by the information the get from the corporations because they are too stupid and/or lazy to get think and get information for themselves. But on the other, you say that we should trust them with total power because they have the aptitude to make the right choices. I can't see how you can hold thoe two thoughts in your head at the same time. I do not trust people to boss me around for fear they will abuse that power for their self interest.

And hey, I think that looking out for yourself is a good thing too. I just don't want to give anyone with the power of goverment to use it to impact me. Capitalism is the only system that prevents the few or the many from looking on the rest as a cash cow. I do not trust people to do the right thing. I know people who were sent to internment camps during WWII and I know the people that elected the politicians that sent them there.

Our biggest defense against tyranny is not a 'we should do this' type of thinking, but rather a 'no one should be able to do this to someone else' type of ideal. Capitalism falls in the later case. It does not say what we should do, merely that we should not be allowed to take from one no matter the justification of 'need'.

 

[Makalakumu]

For a primer on Don's POV check Anarcho-Capitalism for those who are still interested. Don is right on that paradigm. You make some valid points, however, I still hope that a greater, more egalitarian society is possible.

Here's to pipe dreams...(MT doesn't have an emoticon for bong hits)