Democracy and Freedom

[Contumacious]

Capitalism, free markets, free enterprise are the same thing.

As I implied above, this starts from the premise that capitalism is a perfect economic system. It's almost a religious belief rather than an economic idea.

Let me propose a more value-neutral and objective definition of capitalism: an economic system especially applicable to an industrialized economy in which the means of production are privately owned and operated, and in which business operations are undertaken for the purpose of generating profits for the business' owners.

Capitalism is a perfect socioeconomic system

Just because I say that "Gold is my shepherd , I shall not want" doesn't mean that i consider Capitalism a religious belief

Actually Capitalism created the industrialized economy

Yes, indeed profit is the incentive , the motive.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Okay, so you're disputing the term used. Makes sense. But what about editec's actual point? I don't think he was trying to say that capitalism itself pollutes government, but that under capitalism people with economic power can use it to pollute government. Surely you recognize that reality, eh?

The opposite is true.

In the of the US of A , Scumbag demagogue politicians polluted Capitalism by introducing fascism:


It began in the late 1800's , when fedgov began subsidizing railroads and attacking The Standard Oil (N.J.) . Capitalism was stabbed in its heart and fascism was born.

For shame.

.

Oh, c'mon. Clearly it's been a two-way street. For every 'scumbag politician' looking to expand their power by horning in on economic matters, there was an eager "Capitalist" ready to get in bed with government.

1) Capitalists do not have domestic armies ready to pounce of those who refuse to comply with their rules

2) Yes, there are corrupt businessmen who can not survive in capitalist environment, ie, ENRON, KBR, Halliburton, ..........ad nauseum

.

 

[Dragon]

Capitalism is a perfect socioeconomic system

This is a faith-based statement, not a fact-based one. The proof is that you cannot point to a real-world "capitalist" economy according to your definition of that word.

Just because I say that "Gold is my shepherd , I shall not want" doesn't mean that i consider Capitalism a religious belief

No, of course not. But the fact that you insist that "capitalism" -- oh wait, excuse me, "Capitalism" (you capitalize the word, like "God") is a "perfect socioeconomic system" means that I consider your view of capitalism to be a religious belief, as indeed would any reasonable person.

Actually Capitalism created the industrialized economy

By some definitions of capitalism, it predates the industrial revolution. I won't quibble about that. It is still an economic system most appropriate to an industrialized economy.

 

[Dragon]

1) Capitalists do not have domestic armies ready to pounce of those who refuse to comply with their rules

At some times, they have, literally: Battle of Blair Mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Usually, though, they persuade the government to use publicly-funded armies and police on their behalf. It's more economical, and follows the standard capitalist practice of privatizing profits while socializing costs as much as possible.

2) Yes, there are corrupt businessmen who can not survive in capitalist environment,

It seems you forgot to capitalize (no put in tended) the name of your God. Was that a typo?

 

[The T]

The opposite is true.

In the of the US of A , Scumbag demagogue politicians polluted Capitalism by introducing fascism:


It began in the late 1800's , when fedgov began subsidizing railroads and attacking The Standard Oil (N.J.) . Capitalism was stabbed in its heart and fascism was born.

For shame.

.

Oh, c'mon. Clearly it's been a two-way street. For every 'scumbag politician' looking to expand their power by horning in on economic matters, there was an eager "Capitalist" ready to get in bed with government.

1) Capitalists do not have domestic armies ready to pounce of those who refuse to comply with their rules

2) Yes, there are corrupt businessmen who can not survive in capitalist environment, ie, ENRON, KBR, Halliburton, ..........ad nauseum

.

Solyndra...

 

[occupied]

A capitalist society can be tyrannical, it's all a matter of the degree that it allows it's workers to be exploited and what it does to protect itself from them.

 

[Dragon]

A capitalist society can be tyrannical, it's all a matter of the degree that it allows it's workers to be exploited and what it does to protect itself from them.

I would say that a capitalist society TENDS to be tyrannical, and tends to provoke socialist innovations as a response to that tyranny.

I would also say that democracy and socialism are parallel egalitarian ideas and it is difficult to make one work without the other. A socialist economy without a democratic government (as in the former Soviet Union) generates economic privileges for the political elite, undermining the socialist ideal. A democratic government without a socialist economy (as in the United States) generates a corrupting effect on the political system in service to private profit, undermining the democratic ideal.

 

[Contumacious]

Capitalism is a perfect socioeconomic system

This is a faith-based statement, not a fact-based one. The proof is that you cannot point to a real-world "capitalist" economy according to your definition of that word.

The US had a substantially free economy from the 1800's until the 1890's. Hong Kong also had a substantially free economy and were doing great.

But we know that the countries where fascism/socialism is being practice are total failures.

.

 

[Contumacious]

1) Capitalists do not have domestic armies ready to pounce of those who refuse to comply with their rules

At some times, they have, literally: Battle of Blair Mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Usually, though, they persuade the government to use publicly-funded armies and police on their behalf. It's more economical, and follows the standard capitalist practice of privatizing profits while socializing costs as much as possible.?

Again:

"Capitalism," "is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."


The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."


.

 

[The T]

A capitalist society can be tyrannical, it's all a matter of the degree that it allows it's workers to be exploited and what it does to protect itself from them.

Socialist States are always based on tryanny.

 

[Chris]

The opposite is true.

In the of the US of A , Scumbag demagogue politicians polluted Capitalism by introducing fascism:


It began in the late 1800's , when fedgov began subsidizing railroads and attacking The Standard Oil (N.J.) . Capitalism was stabbed in its heart and fascism was born.

For shame.

.

Oh, c'mon. Clearly it's been a two-way street. For every 'scumbag politician' looking to expand their power by horning in on economic matters, there was an eager "Capitalist" ready to get in bed with government.

1) Capitalists do not have domestic armies ready to pounce of those who refuse to comply with their rules

2) Yes, there are corrupt businessmen who can not survive in capitalist environment, ie, ENRON, KBR, Halliburton, ..........ad nauseum

.

Are you joking?

Wall Street destroyed the world economy with a derivatives Ponzi scheme, and now they have record profits.

And when did Halliburton go out of business???

BP spilled 2 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, and their profits are great.

 

[Chris]

A capitalist society can be tyrannical, it's all a matter of the degree that it allows it's workers to be exploited and what it does to protect itself from them.

Socialist States are always based on tryanny.

Bullshit.

Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, are all democracies.

You wouldn't know tyranny if it bit you in the butt.

 

[The T]

A capitalist society can be tyrannical, it's all a matter of the degree that it allows it's workers to be exploited and what it does to protect itself from them.

Socialist States are always based on tryanny.

Bullshit.

Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, are all democracies.

You wouldn't know tyranny if it bit you in the butt.

Sure I do. Congress is replete with them, as is the Whitehouse... Statist Democrats.

And clue for ya bud? WE aren't the Countries in your list, NOR do they have a Constitution as we do that folks as you ignore.

 

[Contumacious]

Oh, c'mon. Clearly it's been a two-way street. For every 'scumbag politician' looking to expand their power by horning in on economic matters, there was an eager "Capitalist" ready to get in bed with government.

1) Capitalists do not have domestic armies ready to pounce of those who refuse to comply with their rules

2) Yes, there are corrupt businessmen who can not survive in capitalist environment, ie, ENRON, KBR, Halliburton, ..........ad nauseum

.

Are you joking?

Wall Street destroyed the world economy with a derivatives Ponzi scheme, and now they have record profits.

Mr. Dumb Ass, Sir:


And who the fuck encouraged the investors to engage in that risky behavior?

Was it by any chance your boys at the Federal Reserve Board and their illustrious leader Alan Greenspan?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

 

[Chris]

Socialist States are always based on tryanny.

Bullshit.

Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, are all democracies.

You wouldn't know tyranny if it bit you in the butt.

Sure I do. Congress is replete with them, as is the Whitehouse... Statist Democrats.

And clue for ya bud? WE aren't the Countries in your list, NOR do they have a Constitution as we do that folks as you ignore.

So what?

In the 1970's only 30% of the world's countries were democracies. Now that number is 65%. The democratization of the planet continues.

Your whinning about "tyranny" is ridiculous. Tyranny is going to be eradicated from the planet.

 

[Chris]

1) Capitalists do not have domestic armies ready to pounce of those who refuse to comply with their rules

2) Yes, there are corrupt businessmen who can not survive in capitalist environment, ie, ENRON, KBR, Halliburton, ..........ad nauseum

.

Are you joking?

Wall Street destroyed the world economy with a derivatives Ponzi scheme, and now they have record profits.

Mr. Dumb Ass, Sir:


And who the fuck encouraged the investors to engage in that risky behavior?

Was it by any chance your boys at the Federal Reserve Board and their illustrious leader Allan Greenspan?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

Actually it was Phil Gramm.

He snuck a financial deregulation amendment into a spending bill on the day before Christmas recess that created the unregulated derivatives market that destroyed the world economy.

 

[The T]

Bullshit.

Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, are all democracies.

You wouldn't know tyranny if it bit you in the butt.

Sure I do. Congress is replete with them, as is the Whitehouse... Statist Democrats.

And clue for ya bud? WE aren't the Countries in your list, NOR do they have a Constitution as we do that folks as you ignore.

So what?

In the 1970's only 30% of the world's countries were democracies. Now that number is 65%. The democratization of the planet continues.

Your whinning about "tyranny" is ridiculous. Tyranny is going to be eradicated from the planet.

So what indeed. WE aren't what you intend on seeing us be...as you continue to support those that try to bring us down. Lots of Statist ass to kick...so little time.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism is a perfect socioeconomic system

This is a faith-based statement, not a fact-based one. The proof is that you cannot point to a real-world "capitalist" economy according to your definition of that word.

The US had a substantially free economy from the 1800's until the 1890's. Hong Kong also had a substantially free economy and were doing great.

But we know that the countries where fascism/socialism is being practice are total failures.

.

If you had only two choices, would you choose to live in Cuba or Haiti?

 

[Dragon]

The US had a substantially free economy from the 1800's until the 1890's.

Let me suggest that calling this economy "perfect" may be stretching reality quite a bit. Consider that except the last couple of decades of that period, chattel slavery was a reality. Consider also:

Panic of 1819 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panic of 1837 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panic of 1857 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Long Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catastrophic economic failure happened during those years about every twenty years, give or take a few (1819, 1837, 1857, 1873 -- another came along right on schedule in 1893, but that's outside your time brackets). These economic downturns were far worse than the typical recession of the post-World War II decades and the periods of growth between them were less robust.

I beg leave to suggest that an economy subject to such frequent failure and productive of so much misery can hardly be called "perfect" by any usual and normal meaning of that word.

 

[Dragon]

If you had only two choices, would you choose to live in Cuba or Haiti?

This is a good point. Comparing poor countries to one another, the socialist poor countries like Cuba provide a better standard of living than the capitalist poor countries like Haiti. One can do the same with rich countries. In many ways, living standards and quality of life in Europe, which is more socialistic, are better than in the U.S., which is less so. Of course, life in the U.S. is better than life in Cuba by many measures, but that's comparing apples to oranges.