Redistribution of Wealth, Global Poverty Act (Global Redistribution of American Wealth).... http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=4866_0_1_0_M
Soviet Prime Minister Khrushchev once said:"We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.''
Obama is a Big fat dose of Socialism.
first, i guess we are combining economic system with political system there.
ml, i think that you are alluding to the totalitarian streak in America, and i'll only go with that if we put the blame where it rests: W
democracy and pure capitalism is the most common sensical system there is. i am personally a bigger fan of democracy (best working system out there), but capitalism has gotten completely out of hand and we need to find ways to make it work. Now capitalism has gotten mixed with W's totalitarian views too.
I am all for traditional capitalism, the individual farmer, worker, etc... as king/citizen. when you get ENRON, and all these crazy totalitarian corporations we have today, that is when I opt out.
Wow. Its amazing how we can title people terrorists (with the same connotation as Communists/Socialists) today for the same reasons that we demonized Cuba. By the way, if anyone wonders why Cuba's economy is doing so poorly, it is because the US has kept our foot on their neck since the 50's. Osama Bin Laden wants the US out of "his" land because they are monopolizing the natural resources in the Middle East (oil........... for monkeys like Pimpanzee). Che Guevara and Fidel Castro wanted the US (United Fruit, et al.) out of their country because they were monopolizing their economy/natural resources as well. We are the terrorists that threaten financial paralysis if others do no play by our rules. Case in point....George Bush's AIDS missions in Africa have stipulations on money provided to struggling nations based on whether the countries teach abstenence or not. We are basically dangling food in front in front of a starving baby and making it do tricks to earn it.
I give Pimpanzee as much credibility as George Bush. Its hard to imagine that Barack Obama (from Harvard University) is a fucking Socailist. Its antithetical and virtually retarded.
Democracy is associated with capitalism, thus you cannot ignore darwanian theory and the fact that everyone has to fight to earn a living, to advance economically, to get elected, etc. It is a natural progression not to be confused with "Progressive" guise of socialism>Communism.
With Communism all its lesser citizens are equals with universal healthcare housing, etc. Complacent citizens don't think about prosperity because that potential doesn't exist. Hope for a sheeple eden where everyone is "Equal" Obama fans are reinforcing Plato's Republic theory, as an apparent majority of the population who aren't capable of making political decisions any way, are zealously following a charismatic leader spewing rhetoric and colloquialism. Confiding in a fix-all puppet is comforting to those Sheeple, as it takes the guesswork out of choosing a candidate. Once elected, the sheepherder can direct that constituency of followers towards so-called progress / Hope.
Redistribution of wealth, Slavery reparations, African Aid....eventually we will all be the same, happily coexisting and dancing on "The Man's" grave.
Elimelech, you are probably such a fan of Democracy because your silver spoon is still comfortably stuck in your mouth. The truth is that you are combining the ideal democracy and the real democracy (actual democracy). Capitalism is the problem and we should not be so inclined to isolate that from democracy because the capitalism is the true government and democracy is the face of the beasts mask.
wow, not to jonny-come-lately-come-crit but man, good possible discussion gone personaly and bad.. uh? or am i off?
on the serious side then, two q's..
-why do all discussions of economics (ok, not all, but enough to elicit that mistake) go total "desaturate" and end up with communism vs capitalism (besides the latent effects of the cold war)...? are we still not yet at a place where we can rationally discuss a reasonable hybrid, or do all-or-nothing theorist (sheepist?) rhetorical wet dreams still overide our ability to think with common sense?
-and if we can have a discussion of a system that combines (hopefully) the best traits from both communism(socialism, really in my book) and capitalism, what does that mix look like?
what do you think?
Oh and Pimpanzee, Obama might be a dose of socialism, but Hillary with her universal health-care is quite a bit worse. None of the candidates in this election have been purely capitalist, besides Ron Paul. But god forbid America should be forced to deal with such a small government who won't take care of them in every area of their life.
Inidividual responsibility... *shudder*
i always knew there was a difference - especially between Stalinists and Marxist - but i thought i'd help out the pimp of bullshit thread titles - i hate assholes that drop grenades in a market and run like pussies behind some wall...
"It is important to distinguish the difference between Communism and Marxism.
Marxism is basically a system of analysis, and a way to view the world. Communism, on the other hand, is basically a political movement, a form of government, a condition of society."
chopsky's not right...s/he's an asshat. anyone can walk in to a conversation and say nothing worthwhile, laugh, claim that the others don't know what the fuck they're talking about (which i don't) and then leave.
doesn't help the matter though...and if you love it so much chopsky, why not comment further?
I did not say apathy was the best way to move forward and wouldn't promote that sort of mindset. It is important to concern (and educate) yourself with regards to these topics. Just make sure you know what you're talking about before you state your case. That's all.
I say obama appeals to the democrat's lineage of social concerns and smells socialist but in fact the one problem I see is that our markets are not really free to begin with, and havent scince FDR. Big guvmt and big business is here to stay - and if its going to be so that we should aknoweldge that at least we can introduce free market principles to it. For example as Obama has stated, no more tax breaks for offshoring. You offshore you pay full price. There exists a new class of Americans earning intrest on their intrest on their equities stakes in major companies they never helped create, routinely demanding 20,30,40% profits. This is unsustainable with out 3rd world production in labor camps. That is not capitalism. Youve all heard Macy's had a bad 4th 2007 - only made 8%. Thats not bad a all. Thats just not good enough for the investor class. Finally, I think it is time to start a national infrastructure bank. At least we know itrs earmarked, it would get pissed away if we didnt. im no fan of big guvmt but if your going to have it, at least get something out of it. The political winds will surely shift again in 4-8 years.
Oh - and listen very closely to Obams rehtoric on the mideast - he might be pulling out of Iraq but hes been the most outspoken on tearing up Pakistan and finding that fucker Bin Laden, as well as putting Musharif on notice. Hes no surrender monkey.
mightylittle, I'll try my best to provide you with as best a response as an asshat can provide.
firstly, what do I love so much?
secondly, how would I benefit from arguing with anyone on here about their views/ideas? They're entitled to believe whatever they want to and I wouldn't dare tell them otherwise. I would expect the same courtesy.
What I found amusing was how some attempted to answer your question with (evidently) little knowledge of the subject.
I was not arguing with Pimpanzee's original post. I agree with him. Most of Obama's policies are socialist. I'm merely adding the point that Hillary is just as bad (if not worse).
Oh, and you asked earlier about democracy trumping communism. Well, democracy can't trump communism. The one is a (majoritarian)form of government, the other a social system. If you're looking for something to trump communism, try capitalism. That's a (polar opposite) social system. Both systems however, can be democratic.
please elaborate on your distinction between government and social system...where does one end and the other begin? how can a government be divorced from its underlying social syctem? how can a social system exist in a government-less vacuum?
i believe in the individualistic expression as seen in our capitalist democracy, but i confess a yearning for a level playing field from which to start. does that make me a pinko?
why can't there be more social(ist) programs that provide health care, access to higher education, public infrastructure and services for everyone, not just the poor and disenfranchised, without the association of american asshats (what i call the real AAA) getting up in arms about the influx of communism? then they go and quote krooshev like they're some kind of history professor warning us about the dangerous and slippery slope upon which we've trod?
you agree with pimp's assertion (by way of quoting Kruschev) that small doses of socialism over time will lead to communism? so then what?
how does one repair/maintain/implement services that emphasize the well-being of everyone without small doses of socialism? i'm not talking about the feds claiming eminent domain and gobbling up all private property, criminalizing property ownership by individuals in the process, but running basic life safety services...schools, hospitals, etc., but where does a purely capitalistic system stand on these basic issues?
i don't expect the free market to develop schools and hospitals unless there's a shareholder dividend in it for them, but why should we as a social system support profiteering over health and education?
where does this leave me chopsky? in your highly-regarded self-estimation, am i well on the road towards communism? how will you save me?
The problem with socialism is the human race - its a mean selfish group of people who will always revert to acting in self intrest - thus social constructs no matter how well intensioned always break down to greed, waste, mismanagement etc. Capitalism channels self intrest toward the good more often than not. Knowing this its best to for government to provide the stimulus and let the market sort it out be it healthcare, education etc. Right now we have neither. We have a perverted free market where the government regulates the prices but in favor of the corporation - so a total free market healthcare system would be cheaper. The government mandates gauze and shit cost what it does so go figure.
yea, mighty, you're right on. it always amazes me that the "small or no government" crowd every day uses a whole buttload of things that are provided collectively by the government, from our collective taxes. then they always say, "well private industry would do it better", which is crap, because private industry doesn't give a shit about collective issues and common good (some of which you've listed), but mostly profit.
whoa - private industry usually can do it better - there just not allowed to and when they are, its usually some some hack company with an inside track for a contract
ep - while you're not wrong, my feeling is a bit more optimistic i think. people are selfish, sure, and greed and consipicuous consumption basically trump everything else in this country right now, but if you provide everyone with a quality education, quality health-care, and quality infrastructure, then people can sort the rest out themselves.
those who want to try and accumulate wealth can essentially do so without taking away from the basic civil stuff that everyone's already got access too.
when you leave it up to the free market to provide those specific things which every man, woman and child NEEDS, then a large percentage of the pop'n goes without such that a few can go with too much. hospitals/HMOs and schools/etc will eventually cut operational costs to maximize profits, because that's their ultimate goal: profit. let them profit on consumer shit that needs to be well made and a good value for people to CHOOSE to purchase. don't let them (them being provate corp) run basic human services....that's bullshit.
not everyone wants a nine course tasting menu at the french laundry, sure, not everyone wants a grand piano, but everyone wants a good education (or at least the opportunity for it) and good health care. why can't a "small government" concentrate on those essentials and leave the market to cater to people's desires, whims and fancies?
yes, i agree with your last comment. a lot of the things mighty listed are done by private companies anyway, but getting the contract is usually a "who you know" or "lowest bidder" deal, so you get what you get. the ideal is to have a government representing or at least championing the collective good, hiring out very efficient and honest private companies to do the work...dream on.
mightylittle, if you're interested, maybe you have an instant messaging program we can chat on? I find it makes things a little easier (and quicker) for conversations like this.
evilplatypus is almost on the money. he has the right idea.
in summary, I consider myself a pure capitalist. I don't believe government should be providing education, roads, health care, postal services etc. these are all services offered most effectively in a laissez-fairre free market.
government's only concerns should be the protection of individual freedom/rights. to do this it requires a police force, army and judicial system. NOTHING else.
america at the moment does not have a 'capitalist democracy'. it has what is called a 'mixed economy'. It has a lot of socialism mixed in with a bit of capitalism.
And I haven't paid my AAA fees, because I'm not American (yet) :)
Patrick Marckesano, it's called a analagy. It's not 100% similar, but it is an example to show how ridiculous our foreign policy is. Besides the fact that we look at a continent (Patrick Marckesano it's called Africa) as if it was singular, we (the USA) has managed to do quite a bit of damage in a place that we clearly have contempt for. Slavery, oil demand, diamonds........should I go on? I can if necessary, but I don't want to write too much. What if we put stipulations on our support for Israel based on if they attack Lebanon? I am sure that would make a lot of people mad. The difference between the AIDS support and the support to Israel is that the Jewish population in the US has a lot more pull (Patrick Marckesano that's called $) than the Black population (who we have contempt for as well).
Reconstructing "democracy" as we know it will be titled "socialism" and/or "communism" by "conservative" people. This antiquated fear of places like Cuba will be reinvigorated and it will be a cultural crisis.
Here's the reform that we need. Make it illegal for lobbyists to visit with government officials. There has to be other ways that big business can gain support for their cause. How about selling their agenda as essential to the public and affecting representatives this way? Making a vote count would have a completely new meaning. Public responsibility would have a new meaning. The public would have the power and it would take it away from big business and still be a democracy.
"I don't believe government should be providing education, roads, health care, postal services etc. these are all services offered most effectively in a laissez-fairre free market."
...education, roads, health care, postal services etc. these are all services offered most effectively in a laissez-fairre free market.
name one laisezz-faire market where this is effectively the case.
i shudder at the thought of an official organization holding legal sway over a populace when that legal body is concerned only with a police force, an army and a bunch of lawyers.
who generates the laws that the judicial body interprets for the army to enforce? or is there no legislation in this fantasy world of yours? who controls the army? who picks the judges and the lawyers? on the face of it chopsky...that's the most preposterous thing i've ever heard.
(no can do on the IM...the 'nect is time-wasting enough!)
that's not anarchy at all...there can be no anarchy when you're overruled by a governing body with an army.
anarchy, from what i understand, is a completely bottom-up, self-organizing concept whereby individual freedoms (and the responsibility to choose wisely) trumps all. no armies, no judges, no lawyers. free men and women making free choices...which presumably would continually be made in the good of the commons.
although i'm a big fan in theory, that cannot possibly work when there's an army of judges and cops presiding over it.
chopsky, laissez faire means let do, so you are basically letting private industry decide what to do, when to do it, if they want to do it, if you have enough money for them to do it. that does not, to me, describe a country, a citizenry that has a level of mercy and heart and believes that some liberties and needs should in fact be protected and championed by their government. i really wouldn't want to live in the country you describe.
OBAMARXISM
Redistribution of Wealth, Global Poverty Act (Global Redistribution of American Wealth)....
http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=4866_0_1_0_M
Soviet Prime Minister Khrushchev once said:"We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.''
Obama is a Big fat dose of Socialism.
that's it pimp, the only possible to your vitriol is to tell you to FUCK OFF and go back to whatever slimy hole you keep coming out from.
and please stay there.
pimp - what's your beef with communism?
seriously, i'm curious. this isn't a rhetorical question.
what's your take? why is our electorate better? please, outline your arguments for why a representative democracy trumps communism?
don't forget about reparations, those are overdue
communism only works on very small scales (it takes a village)
it's a beautiful concept
but it just does not work
i have this picture of pimp as this pathetic loser, looking kinda like the gollum, shaking from fear of che.
dude you are living in the 1960's, and not even the fun years in that decade, let it go, get help for your paranoia.
representative democracy only works on very small scales and requires oversight, transparency and accountability.
it too is a beautiful concept, which is not currently working.
first, i guess we are combining economic system with political system there.
ml, i think that you are alluding to the totalitarian streak in America, and i'll only go with that if we put the blame where it rests: W
democracy and pure capitalism is the most common sensical system there is. i am personally a bigger fan of democracy (best working system out there), but capitalism has gotten completely out of hand and we need to find ways to make it work. Now capitalism has gotten mixed with W's totalitarian views too.
I am all for traditional capitalism, the individual farmer, worker, etc... as king/citizen. when you get ENRON, and all these crazy totalitarian corporations we have today, that is when I opt out.
Wow. Its amazing how we can title people terrorists (with the same connotation as Communists/Socialists) today for the same reasons that we demonized Cuba. By the way, if anyone wonders why Cuba's economy is doing so poorly, it is because the US has kept our foot on their neck since the 50's. Osama Bin Laden wants the US out of "his" land because they are monopolizing the natural resources in the Middle East (oil........... for monkeys like Pimpanzee). Che Guevara and Fidel Castro wanted the US (United Fruit, et al.) out of their country because they were monopolizing their economy/natural resources as well. We are the terrorists that threaten financial paralysis if others do no play by our rules. Case in point....George Bush's AIDS missions in Africa have stipulations on money provided to struggling nations based on whether the countries teach abstenence or not. We are basically dangling food in front in front of a starving baby and making it do tricks to earn it.
I give Pimpanzee as much credibility as George Bush. Its hard to imagine that Barack Obama (from Harvard University) is a fucking Socailist. Its antithetical and virtually retarded.
Democracy is associated with capitalism, thus you cannot ignore darwanian theory and the fact that everyone has to fight to earn a living, to advance economically, to get elected, etc. It is a natural progression not to be confused with "Progressive" guise of socialism>Communism.
With Communism all its lesser citizens are equals with universal healthcare housing, etc. Complacent citizens don't think about prosperity because that potential doesn't exist. Hope for a sheeple eden where everyone is "Equal" Obama fans are reinforcing Plato's Republic theory, as an apparent majority of the population who aren't capable of making political decisions any way, are zealously following a charismatic leader spewing rhetoric and colloquialism. Confiding in a fix-all puppet is comforting to those Sheeple, as it takes the guesswork out of choosing a candidate. Once elected, the sheepherder can direct that constituency of followers towards so-called progress / Hope.
Redistribution of wealth, Slavery reparations, African Aid....eventually we will all be the same, happily coexisting and dancing on "The Man's" grave.
Elimelech, you are probably such a fan of Democracy because your silver spoon is still comfortably stuck in your mouth. The truth is that you are combining the ideal democracy and the real democracy (actual democracy). Capitalism is the problem and we should not be so inclined to isolate that from democracy because the capitalism is the true government and democracy is the face of the beasts mask.
ronin, nah, believe me i aint got not silver spoon, just an idealist.
pimp, you are an asshole
hey, rationalist should be here, he loves to rag on socialism...oh, wait, maybe he already is...
He is a She, Emilio.
ok, my bad, but neither pimp nor free have listed he or she, so you never know...
and now you know two of my forum names...hee hee...it's easy
i'm all man!
how many other aliaseses do you have, vamuremilio?
capitalism is ass and calling names gets nobody anywhere.
pimp has a unmet need to exploit weaker people me thinks
maybe none, maybe a bunch (and i know i'm not the only one) ;-)
antisthenes, sometimes you HAVE to call an asshole an asshole
exactly (see McCain thread)....hee hee
wow, not to jonny-come-lately-come-crit but man, good possible discussion gone personaly and bad.. uh? or am i off?
on the serious side then, two q's..
-why do all discussions of economics (ok, not all, but enough to elicit that mistake) go total "desaturate" and end up with communism vs capitalism (besides the latent effects of the cold war)...? are we still not yet at a place where we can rationally discuss a reasonable hybrid, or do all-or-nothing theorist (sheepist?) rhetorical wet dreams still overide our ability to think with common sense?
-and if we can have a discussion of a system that combines (hopefully) the best traits from both communism(socialism, really in my book) and capitalism, what does that mix look like?
what do you think?
haha, it's always funny to watch a bunch of people who think they know about economic and social systems, talk about them :)
Oh and Pimpanzee, Obama might be a dose of socialism, but Hillary with her universal health-care is quite a bit worse. None of the candidates in this election have been purely capitalist, besides Ron Paul. But god forbid America should be forced to deal with such a small government who won't take care of them in every area of their life.
Inidividual responsibility... *shudder*
i always knew there was a difference - especially between Stalinists and Marxist - but i thought i'd help out the pimp of bullshit thread titles - i hate assholes that drop grenades in a market and run like pussies behind some wall...
"It is important to distinguish the difference between Communism and Marxism.
Marxism is basically a system of analysis, and a way to view the world. Communism, on the other hand, is basically a political movement, a form of government, a condition of society."
The quartet practiced in the park,
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died.
chopsky is right, but then, if only those who knew what they were talking about spoke out it would be a very quiet world.
har har.
yes chopsky is right apathy is always the best way to move forward.
chopsky's not right...s/he's an asshat. anyone can walk in to a conversation and say nothing worthwhile, laugh, claim that the others don't know what the fuck they're talking about (which i don't) and then leave.
doesn't help the matter though...and if you love it so much chopsky, why not comment further?
I did not say apathy was the best way to move forward and wouldn't promote that sort of mindset. It is important to concern (and educate) yourself with regards to these topics. Just make sure you know what you're talking about before you state your case. That's all.
but then you'd have no snarky comments to make...
I say obama appeals to the democrat's lineage of social concerns and smells socialist but in fact the one problem I see is that our markets are not really free to begin with, and havent scince FDR. Big guvmt and big business is here to stay - and if its going to be so that we should aknoweldge that at least we can introduce free market principles to it. For example as Obama has stated, no more tax breaks for offshoring. You offshore you pay full price. There exists a new class of Americans earning intrest on their intrest on their equities stakes in major companies they never helped create, routinely demanding 20,30,40% profits. This is unsustainable with out 3rd world production in labor camps. That is not capitalism. Youve all heard Macy's had a bad 4th 2007 - only made 8%. Thats not bad a all. Thats just not good enough for the investor class. Finally, I think it is time to start a national infrastructure bank. At least we know itrs earmarked, it would get pissed away if we didnt. im no fan of big guvmt but if your going to have it, at least get something out of it. The political winds will surely shift again in 4-8 years.
Oh - and listen very closely to Obams rehtoric on the mideast - he might be pulling out of Iraq but hes been the most outspoken on tearing up Pakistan and finding that fucker Bin Laden, as well as putting Musharif on notice. Hes no surrender monkey.
mightylittle, I'll try my best to provide you with as best a response as an asshat can provide.
firstly, what do I love so much?
secondly, how would I benefit from arguing with anyone on here about their views/ideas? They're entitled to believe whatever they want to and I wouldn't dare tell them otherwise. I would expect the same courtesy.
What I found amusing was how some attempted to answer your question with (evidently) little knowledge of the subject.
I was not arguing with Pimpanzee's original post. I agree with him. Most of Obama's policies are socialist. I'm merely adding the point that Hillary is just as bad (if not worse).
Oh, and you asked earlier about democracy trumping communism. Well, democracy can't trump communism. The one is a (majoritarian)form of government, the other a social system. If you're looking for something to trump communism, try capitalism. That's a (polar opposite) social system. Both systems however, can be democratic.
- Asshat out.
"but then you'd have no snarky comments to make..."
I know, would be a sad little world!
well i'll be dipped in shit! discourse!
please elaborate on your distinction between government and social system...where does one end and the other begin? how can a government be divorced from its underlying social syctem? how can a social system exist in a government-less vacuum?
i believe in the individualistic expression as seen in our capitalist democracy, but i confess a yearning for a level playing field from which to start. does that make me a pinko?
why can't there be more social(ist) programs that provide health care, access to higher education, public infrastructure and services for everyone, not just the poor and disenfranchised, without the association of american asshats (what i call the real AAA) getting up in arms about the influx of communism? then they go and quote krooshev like they're some kind of history professor warning us about the dangerous and slippery slope upon which we've trod?
you agree with pimp's assertion (by way of quoting Kruschev) that small doses of socialism over time will lead to communism? so then what?
how does one repair/maintain/implement services that emphasize the well-being of everyone without small doses of socialism? i'm not talking about the feds claiming eminent domain and gobbling up all private property, criminalizing property ownership by individuals in the process, but running basic life safety services...schools, hospitals, etc., but where does a purely capitalistic system stand on these basic issues?
i don't expect the free market to develop schools and hospitals unless there's a shareholder dividend in it for them, but why should we as a social system support profiteering over health and education?
where does this leave me chopsky? in your highly-regarded self-estimation, am i well on the road towards communism? how will you save me?
just askin'.
(by the way - have you paid your AAA dues?)
The problem with socialism is the human race - its a mean selfish group of people who will always revert to acting in self intrest - thus social constructs no matter how well intensioned always break down to greed, waste, mismanagement etc. Capitalism channels self intrest toward the good more often than not. Knowing this its best to for government to provide the stimulus and let the market sort it out be it healthcare, education etc. Right now we have neither. We have a perverted free market where the government regulates the prices but in favor of the corporation - so a total free market healthcare system would be cheaper. The government mandates gauze and shit cost what it does so go figure.
yea, mighty, you're right on. it always amazes me that the "small or no government" crowd every day uses a whole buttload of things that are provided collectively by the government, from our collective taxes. then they always say, "well private industry would do it better", which is crap, because private industry doesn't give a shit about collective issues and common good (some of which you've listed), but mostly profit.
whoa - private industry usually can do it better - there just not allowed to and when they are, its usually some some hack company with an inside track for a contract
ep - while you're not wrong, my feeling is a bit more optimistic i think. people are selfish, sure, and greed and consipicuous consumption basically trump everything else in this country right now, but if you provide everyone with a quality education, quality health-care, and quality infrastructure, then people can sort the rest out themselves.
those who want to try and accumulate wealth can essentially do so without taking away from the basic civil stuff that everyone's already got access too.
when you leave it up to the free market to provide those specific things which every man, woman and child NEEDS, then a large percentage of the pop'n goes without such that a few can go with too much. hospitals/HMOs and schools/etc will eventually cut operational costs to maximize profits, because that's their ultimate goal: profit. let them profit on consumer shit that needs to be well made and a good value for people to CHOOSE to purchase. don't let them (them being provate corp) run basic human services....that's bullshit.
not everyone wants a nine course tasting menu at the french laundry, sure, not everyone wants a grand piano, but everyone wants a good education (or at least the opportunity for it) and good health care. why can't a "small government" concentrate on those essentials and leave the market to cater to people's desires, whims and fancies?
yes, i agree with your last comment. a lot of the things mighty listed are done by private companies anyway, but getting the contract is usually a "who you know" or "lowest bidder" deal, so you get what you get. the ideal is to have a government representing or at least championing the collective good, hiring out very efficient and honest private companies to do the work...dream on.
all power leads to abuse no matter who has it, the problem is not communism or capitalism it is autoritarianism
my last was to evil's comment, but anyway
mightylittle, if you're interested, maybe you have an instant messaging program we can chat on? I find it makes things a little easier (and quicker) for conversations like this.
evilplatypus is almost on the money. he has the right idea.
in summary, I consider myself a pure capitalist. I don't believe government should be providing education, roads, health care, postal services etc. these are all services offered most effectively in a laissez-fairre free market.
government's only concerns should be the protection of individual freedom/rights. to do this it requires a police force, army and judicial system. NOTHING else.
america at the moment does not have a 'capitalist democracy'. it has what is called a 'mixed economy'. It has a lot of socialism mixed in with a bit of capitalism.
And I haven't paid my AAA fees, because I'm not American (yet) :)
Patrick Marckesano, it's called a analagy. It's not 100% similar, but it is an example to show how ridiculous our foreign policy is. Besides the fact that we look at a continent (Patrick Marckesano it's called Africa) as if it was singular, we (the USA) has managed to do quite a bit of damage in a place that we clearly have contempt for. Slavery, oil demand, diamonds........should I go on? I can if necessary, but I don't want to write too much. What if we put stipulations on our support for Israel based on if they attack Lebanon? I am sure that would make a lot of people mad. The difference between the AIDS support and the support to Israel is that the Jewish population in the US has a lot more pull (Patrick Marckesano that's called $) than the Black population (who we have contempt for as well).
Reconstructing "democracy" as we know it will be titled "socialism" and/or "communism" by "conservative" people. This antiquated fear of places like Cuba will be reinvigorated and it will be a cultural crisis.
Here's the reform that we need. Make it illegal for lobbyists to visit with government officials. There has to be other ways that big business can gain support for their cause. How about selling their agenda as essential to the public and affecting representatives this way? Making a vote count would have a completely new meaning. Public responsibility would have a new meaning. The public would have the power and it would take it away from big business and still be a democracy.
"I don't believe government should be providing education, roads, health care, postal services etc. these are all services offered most effectively in a laissez-fairre free market."
Really? That sounds like anarchy.
name one laisezz-faire market where this is effectively the case.
i shudder at the thought of an official organization holding legal sway over a populace when that legal body is concerned only with a police force, an army and a bunch of lawyers.
who generates the laws that the judicial body interprets for the army to enforce? or is there no legislation in this fantasy world of yours? who controls the army? who picks the judges and the lawyers? on the face of it chopsky...that's the most preposterous thing i've ever heard.
(no can do on the IM...the 'nect is time-wasting enough!)
no, anarchy would occur without government at all.
that's not anarchy at all...there can be no anarchy when you're overruled by a governing body with an army.
anarchy, from what i understand, is a completely bottom-up, self-organizing concept whereby individual freedoms (and the responsibility to choose wisely) trumps all. no armies, no judges, no lawyers. free men and women making free choices...which presumably would continually be made in the good of the commons.
although i'm a big fan in theory, that cannot possibly work when there's an army of judges and cops presiding over it.
"no, anarchy would occur without government at all."
Ok......let's run through this chopsky. That sounds LIKE anarchy. No governmental control of public servies? How is anything public?
chopsky, laissez faire means let do, so you are basically letting private industry decide what to do, when to do it, if they want to do it, if you have enough money for them to do it. that does not, to me, describe a country, a citizenry that has a level of mercy and heart and believes that some liberties and needs should in fact be protected and championed by their government. i really wouldn't want to live in the country you describe.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.