|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 28, 2011 05:44 AM |
|
|
Who are the right people? Obama and the current Congress? Perry, Romney, or Bachmann? The power of an individual voter on the overall makeup of the legislative and executive branches is almost nonexistent. The power of a voter over policies and regulatory agencies is even less. Electing the "right" people is a pipe dream, and even then, what should they be doing? Markets are about individual freedom, so these people would be restricting it - but of course in the "right" way, that is, the way you prefer. In reality, what they would do is some combination of tyranny of the majority and corporate/union influence. Most politicians know what they're doing, and don't care if they're not acting in the best interests of the electorate. What looks like a blunder to us is negligible to them simply because they care about power. And when the government is as powerful as it is now, those who want power will attain it and use it, as moral busybodies and well-meaning nannies, or, more commonly, power-hungry sociopaths.
The market allows you to choose. Government is one-size-fits-all.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 06:06 AM |
|
|
You have a very dark view of the world, my friend. One that isn't unfounded, I must admit, but only because of our history of greed and corruption. Because these people have been acting this way for the last 100 years means that this is the only way politicians can act, right?
Wrong.
Founding of the US, politicians mostly represented each state, but the president was elected to do what was right for the country. As evidences by Jefferson, they overcame their own moral restrictions to improve the US to the best of their abilities (Louisiana Purchase, anyone?). Also, these people were well educated and acted for the good of the people more often than not. Coincidence?
The Great Depression: Politicians took advantage off too much and business steam rolled over civil rights. Unemployment was in the upper 20%. Introduce FDR to the table. An educated and somewhat brilliant man, FDR passed multitudes of acts that were made to assist those in need and the unemployed. In fact, he had dropped unemployment to ~17% before WWII began. How is there any way for any bias (that isn't completely self destructive) to say that the lowering of unemployment is bad? In fact, almost all of Franklin's acts and decisions were made for the betterment of the country as a whole. He was a humanitarian in almost every way. Oh, did I mention educated? In law. There is your lawyer, sir (as mentioned by occupation in the quote). Again, coincidence?
Two examples for you sir.
See, what is meant by "Good for the country" means "Good for the people." By "Good for the people," I mean, "Good for everyone." And by that I mean, "Everyone prospers. Everyone is educated. Everyone is looking out for the good of their neighbors." What I do not mean is, "Everyone is equal." Perfect equality is a pipe dream. Plain and simple, there will always be inequality. My perfect world excludes genocides and unbiased hatreds. It has everyone educated to enough of a degree that informed decisions can be made, and the politicians use their influence and granted power to protect the people that chose them to lead. Attainable, but not in my lifetime. Hopefully, I or someone else help usher this time in, otherwise the future that you predicted looks like the only path to follow... excluding the chaos of anarchy, of course.
Edit: Aha! Figured it out... The reason why you're such a good devil's advocate is because you're an anarchist! Since we are so diametrically opposed from you (the community, that is), you are able to troll us with any simple sentence. Good show, sir, good show. 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 06:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As evidences by Jefferson, they overcame their own moral restrictions to improve the US to the best of their abilities (Louisiana Purchase, anyone?)
Prove that the Louisiana Purchase was good.
Quote:
business steam rolled over civil rights
I don't know what you're referring to here. If you're talking about segregation, it's well-known (or should be) that it was imposed by the state governments and private businesses opposed it because it increased costs and reduced their customer base.
As for the New Deal being good, that's not true. FDR did exactly two good things: move the US off of the gold standard and advocate the end of Prohibition. Everything else he did during the Depression was bad. His cartels reduced output. The establishment of Social Security reduced savings and growth. And he tried to pack the Supreme Court.
I almost never play devil's advocate, and I'm not an anarchist. I simply believe that free, voluntary interaction is superior to state coercion because it results in greater individual well-being.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 10:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Edit: Or do you mean Ron Paul? Because in that case I most heartily agree. I do not trust corporations and my neighbors to care about the state of my lawn when they stand to gain vast resources. I live in Minnesota, one of the states with the highest education ratings, health systems and one of the lowest crime ratings in the US, and I do not trust these people (Minnesotans) to rule my life properly. And no, I'm not a raging paranoid, I'm a realist. Companies couldn't care less about individuals.
So who do you trust to run your life? I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of ruling my own life.
And before you go claiming I'm an anarchist too, you don't seem to understand that in a free market one of the most important rules is private property rights. They might not care about your lawn, but they have absolutely no right to damage it in any way. The role of government should be to protect your property and freedom, not the rights of big corporations.
What he have now is neither Capitalism nor Socialism, but Corporatism. Look it up. Educate yourself 
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 01:01 PM |
|
|
I'd take Dictatorship over whatever you guys have going any-day 
Then again most things would look appealing from the innards of a sevage pipe 
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 01:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd take Dictatorship over whatever you guys have going any-day
I can't imagine you know how a dictatorship works when making such a statement  Ask the ones living in dictatorships if they prefer liberty or tyranny.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 01:20 PM |
|
|
Grass is always greener on the other-side , besides in a dictatorship I dare-say it is quite easy to spot who is to blame or to praise, where-as in capitalism it's the voters fault for making a poor choice, when their leader ****s up, which by all-means is correct. 
Then again not every dictator is 'bad' and treats his people like trash as you seem to think. 
And neither am I saying that I would prefer any dictator to capitalism , a compitent leader who laughs and cries together whith the people is what's required, IMO. (by that I mean he cries when the people cry, and laughs when the people laugh).
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 01:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Grass is always greener on the other-side , besides in a dictatorship I dare-say it is quite easy to spot who is to blame or to praise,
Lol, in a dictatorship you're not allowed to blame the leader. It's praise or jail.
Quote:
where-as in capitalism it's the voters fault for making a poor choice, when their leader ****s up, which by all-means is correct.
In capitalism you have no one to blame but yourself, and the "leader" is there to protect you and your rights as an individual. You are talking about corporatism.
Quote:
Then again not every dictator is 'bad' and treats his people like trash as you seem to think.
Please give some examples.
Quote:
It's all about whether one is willing to sacrifice some freedom for the sake of a compitent and 'good' leader imo.
"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"
- Benjamin Franklin
What you are advocating is elitism with one "deserving" leader on top. That's dangerously close to what we have now with the FED.
If it's anything world history has proven, it's that power corrupts. The power should be with the people. You might be familiar with the phrase "We, the people...". Government is there to protect the citizens, not run their lives.
Edit: I see you edited your post, so let me include the last statement as well.
Quote:
And neither am I saying that I would prefer any dictator to capitalism , a compitent leader who laughs and cries together whith the people is what's required, IMO. (by that I mean he cries when the people cry, and laughs when the people laugh).
The problem is that in a dictatorship you as an individual have no say in who the leader is.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 04:24 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 16:27, 28 Sep 2011.
|
Quote:
What he have now is neither Capitalism nor Socialism, but Corporatism.
...which is an integral part of both, or at least the mainstream version of both.
I gather that when you say "capitalism" you mean "libertarian capitalism", and by "corporatism" you mean "corporate capitalism".
Using different definitions of things is the number one reason everyone disagrees over everything in the OSM.
To explain, as far as I know at least, corporatism is opposed to individualism, and is a mark of whether the basic unit of your society is a "corporate group" (family/clan/organization/company) or the individual. And those are more like a characteristic of actual political systems - for example, an individualist branch of socialism could be called some form of anarchism.
What you exactly mean by "corporatism" or whatever may not seem important now, but trust me when I say it'd somehow manage to bite you in the arse in about 3 or 4 pages.
No desire to participate much further in this discussion, just pointing this out since I'm already here, to prevent confusion - or, more interestingly, create it, whichever comes first.
Oh and dictatorships are bad.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 04:47 PM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 21:53, 29 Sep 2011.
|
Quote:
What you are advocating is elitism with one "deserving" leader on top. That's dangerously close to what we have now with the FED.
If it's anything world history has proven, it's that power corrupts. The power should be with the people. You might be familiar with the phrase "We, the people...". Government is there to protect the citizens, not run their lives.
Haha. That's the exact definition of how Marx described Communism. There is no leader in a true (read, impossible to implement and thus fantasy) communist government and all actions done by the government are to protect the people from those that would normally have power over them. Too bad it can't exist.
Soviet Russia for example was more of a Despotism than a real communist government. It did a LOT of things that were not good for its people in the name of whoever was the leader of the time.
1930's Germany and Italy were Corporatist nations, the phrase Corporatism I believe was even coined by Mussolini. The governments were very close to their industries, which is what made their recovery from the great depression look miraculous. But there's only so much that debt spending can do.
The funny thing is that in Congress, behind the President you can clearly see the Fasci/Fascio that the Fascist movement takes its name from.
You can see them on both sides of the flag.
And here they are with the two actual Fascists.
The Symbol has its roots back to the Roman Empire however. Much as Common law does. So the symbols of the Fasci is much like the Swastika, an ancient symbol co-opted to where it looks more sinister than its actual meaning. (I happen to own a picture of Buddha with a Swastika on his chest thank you very much)
Did I break Godwin's law? Meh. I'm not even arguing with anybody so I can't even win or lose. Not applicable.
That being said. This year the election really doesn't look even the slightest like the parties are willing to do a thing to make either of them more electable than they were last year. If anything they both sabotaged themselves. I believe the Presidential pool will remain stagnant for a good while yet.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 07:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who are the right people? Obama and the current Congress? Perry, Romney, or Bachmann? The power of an individual voter on the overall makeup of the legislative and executive branches is almost nonexistent. The power of a voter over policies and regulatory agencies is even less. Electing the "right" people is a pipe dream, and even then, what should they be doing? Markets are about individual freedom, so these people would be restricting it - but of course in the "right" way, that is, the way you prefer. In reality, what they would do is some combination of tyranny of the majority and corporate/union influence. Most politicians know what they're doing, and don't care if they're not acting in the best interests of the electorate. What looks like a blunder to us is negligible to them simply because they care about power. And when the government is as powerful as it is now, those who want power will attain it and use it, as moral busybodies and well-meaning nannies, or, more commonly, power-hungry sociopaths.
I agree with this dark worldview.
The "goverment" is nigh unaccountable for their actions, and the same plague is at every single level of every institution.
Quote:
The market allows you to choose. Government is one-size-fits-all.
I disagree with this, for a bit. The marked allows choice, but only if it exists in the first place.
____________
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 10:57 PM |
|
|
@ Bruke:
Quote:
So who do you trust to run your life?
You want the honest answer? The one who will do the job the best. I know that no one will be perfect, but that doesn't mean that I can't have the choice to decide who would lead me the best. ((In a Free Market, it is the Oligarchy (Elite with the most money and influence) who rules. That are the government if the market is truly "Free."))
Quote:
And before you go claiming I'm an anarchist too, you don't seem to understand that in a free market one of the most important rules is private property rights.
I don't think you understand property law. Second great migration occurred when corporations purchased government land for miles... And guess what? They took it from farmers who had owned the land for generations. Why? Because it was government property. Every stretch of land in the US is government property. This is why you pay property taxes for owning a house or apartment complex. This is also why corporations can purchase your property from you without your consent. Don't know about you, but I see this as an infringement on my civil rights. *shrug*
Quote:
The role of government should be to protect your property and freedom, not the rights of big corporations.
*cough* "and the politicians use their influence and granted power to protect the people that chose them to lead." */cough* Thank you for restating my point, sir.
Quote:
I can't imagine you know how a dictatorship works when making such a statement
Look at Rome. dictators were selected from the senate to lead the country if need arose, but willingly gave up power until Caesar took the throne. He set a bad example that everyone (unfortunately) takes as the rule.
@ Mvass:
Quote:
Prove that the Louisiana Purchase was good.
Prove that it wasn't. Oh, and please use an original argument, not any of this, "Outside the powers given in the constitution" garbage.
Quote:
As for the New Deal being good, that's not true.
So you're saying that they should have kept on doing what was being done that got us into the depression? Because that does seem to be the only realistic alternative to the New Deal with, oh, I don't know, a world-wide depression raging. Very little extra-country economic growth opportunity to go around in that system, so capitalism wouldn't work. Communism wasn't working, and no American would have bowed his/ her knee to a dictator, so the only viable system left was corporatism, which was the reason why we were in the depression. 
Could you have done any better?
Quote:
FDR did exactly two good things: move the US off of the gold standard and advocate the end of Prohibition. Everything else he did during the Depression was bad. His cartels reduced output. The establishment of Social Security reduced savings and growth. And he tried to pack the Supreme Court.
I never said that everything worked out for the better, but you give him too little credit. Unemployment did go down (went down father once we were in WWII, but that's when all the economies of the world grew except France and Poland's) and many civil rights were enforced. Call me crazy, but I do not see these as failures.
Quote:
I almost never play devil's advocate
Are you really going to make me search the OSM for 2 hours to find the 10 threads you have participated in that I've seen you not only change your position in but also post that you had been going against what you personally believed for the sake of creating a "Discussion" (AKA, argument)? Do I really have to? Or will you just finally admit that you play the devil's advocate (a person who argues to either needlessly argue or a person who argues the position opposite to their own for the sake of having a logical, well-though out discussion from multiple viewpoints) whenever you are bored.
Sorry, that sounds bit bad... Whenever you want to challenge others to think about their positions instead of just responding with a gut instinct. Better?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2011 05:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Prove that it wasn't.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You said it was good. I'm not saying it was bad, I'm asking you to prove your assertion.
Quote:
So you're saying that they should have kept on doing what was being done that got us into the depression? Because that does seem to be the only realistic alternative to the New Deal with, oh, I don't know, a world-wide depression raging. Very little extra-country economic growth opportunity to go around in that system, so capitalism wouldn't work.
Did you even look at the links I posted? And the New Deal made things worse - FDR's cartels reduced output and therefore hurt growth, as did the establishment of Social Security, which reduced private savings. The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve not reacting to rapid deflation (partially because the US was on the gold standard, so it couldn't). Matters were made worse when Hoover signed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff (tariffs, remember, are anti-market). Capitalism does work - why do you think that despite FDR's terrible policies, things were better in 1940 than they were in 1933? There was an alternative to the New Deal - free markets. FDR should have repealed all of Hoover's increased government programs (Hoover certainly wasn't laissez-faire), moved the country off of the gold standard (which, to his credit, he did), and then sat back and watch the country recover.
Quote:
Could you have done any better?
Yes. Even someone who would have done absolutely nothing would have done better.
Quote:
Unemployment did go down
No thanks to him - all of his policies inhibited the reduction of unemployment. Unless you'd care to explain how raising the minimum wage increases employment (which is the opposite of true), or that cartelization helped anyone besides those in the cartels.
Quote:
Are you really going to make me search the OSM for 2 hours to find the 10 threads you have participated in that I've seen you not only change your position in but also post that you had been going against what you personally believed for the sake of creating a "Discussion" (AKA, argument)?
I'd like to see at least one thread in which I changed my position without admitting I was wrong. (What does changing one's position have to do with playing devil's advocate, anyway?) Or one in which I argued against what I personally believe without prefacing it somehow with an obvious "to play devil's advocate" or similar statement. How would you even know that what I personally believe is different from what I argue? I'm not going to claim I have never played devil's advocate, but it's obvious when I do - I don't do it often, and I'm not doing it now. You disagree with me, but don't do me the disservice of assuming I don't really believe what I believe.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted September 29, 2011 11:02 AM |
|
|
I'm afraid we are going slightly off-topic into a general discussion about government, and not the "US Presidential Race 2012". But I'll reply shortly anyway.
@Baklava
Quote:
I gather that when you say "capitalism" you mean "libertarian capitalism", and by "corporatism" you mean "corporate capitalism".
Yes, when I say capitalism I mean free market capitalism, which is, as far as I know, the most common use of the term. I think that was implicit in what I wrote, but it's always good with a clarification.
By corporatism I mean exactly that; the idea of dividing people of society into corporate groups, as apposed to individuals, as you also wrote. This underlying idea affects both economic, political, and social issues. You could call the economic aspect of it "corporate capitalism", although by my use of the term "capitalism" this becomes an oxymoron (but that's another discussion). I'm talking about all the aspects of society and therefore use the term corporatism.
I anyway thank you for making the clarification. Definition of terms is fundamental to all fruitful discussion!
@gnomes
Quote:
@ Bruke:
Quote:
So who do you trust to run your life?
You want the honest answer? The one who will do the job the best. I know that no one will be perfect, but that doesn't mean that I can't have the choice to decide who would lead me the best. ((In a Free Market, it is the Oligarchy (Elite with the most money and influence) who rules. That are the government if the market is truly "Free."))
And who will do the job the best?
I believe that I'm best equipped to running my own life, not someone else. But that does not mean I have the right to do harm to other people's property, rights, beliefs and so on.
Oligarchy elitism is simply impossible in a free market (without corruption, but that is a problem of humanity, and not limited to an ideology), but it's dangerously close to what we have today.
Quote:
Quote:
And before you go claiming I'm an anarchist too, you don't seem to understand that in a free market one of the most important rules is private property rights.
I don't think you understand property law. Second great migration occurred when corporations purchased government land for miles... And guess what? They took it from farmers who had owned the land for generations. Why? Because it was government property. Every stretch of land in the US is government property. This is why you pay property taxes for owning a house or apartment complex. This is also why corporations can purchase your property from you without your consent. Don't know about you, but I see this as an infringement on my civil rights. *shrug*
And I agree. But that is not true property rights, which is fundamental to a free market economy.
Quote:
Quote:
The role of government should be to protect your property and freedom, not the rights of big corporations.
*cough* "and the politicians use their influence and granted power to protect the people that chose them to lead." */cough* Thank you for restating my point, sir.
But what do you mean by "lead"? You seem to be confusing the micromanaging big government of today with the small government of a free market.
Quote:
Quote:
I can't imagine you know how a dictatorship works when making such a statement
Look at Rome. dictators were selected from the senate to lead the country if need arose, but willingly gave up power until Caesar took the throne. He set a bad example that everyone (unfortunately) takes as the rule.
This was a crisis solution during wars, and not a permanent system. Also, it again proves my point that power corrupts, and that's what the people of Rome also were afraid of, and rightfully so as time showed.
The constitution was written to limit the role of government and to protect the rights of the people.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 29, 2011 04:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm afraid we are going slightly off-topic into a general discussion about government, and not the "US Presidential Race 2012". But I'll reply shortly anyway.
Er... yeah... We should probably stop that before smiting from Corribus occurs.......... But just going to put out one last point for arguments against the free market...
Quote:
Oligarchy elitism is simply impossible in a free market (without corruption, but that is a problem of humanity, and not limited to an ideology), but it's dangerously close to what we have today.
True, we are close, but we still have to power to choose who our leaders are from the elite (Close to a republic in that way). Just want to focus on the "Without corruption" part there, people with greeat power, as you yourself stated, are easily corrupted by said power. In a Free Market, those with great power are the wealthiest people, not a companyless government that the people consent to. And for some reason, rich people tend to want to get richer...
Quote:
And I agree. But that is not true property rights, which is fundamental to a free market economy.
Which is why a Free market is both exceedingly hard to create and maintain. Who enforces those rights? Without a large government to at least prevent abuses of Oligarchial-esque power, it can easily become corrupted as the wealthy claim land, bribe police forces to make private armies and create thier own private states of power... Unless we had an altruistic society (we don't), a Free Market will quickly degenerate into an Oligarchy. Ask Japan how that worked for them.
[/off topic]
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted September 29, 2011 08:53 PM |
|
|
*Wants to reply to the last "arguments"*
*Tries to hold back*
I'll let you get away with having the last word 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 29, 2011 09:17 PM |
|
|
I'll help you out. Please get back on topic. If you want to discuss general political philosophy, create another thread.
Thanks.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 01, 2011 09:28 PM |
|
|
I think the most important thing that politicans can do in the US is to stop with all the unnescessary and super expensive wars.
There is a list on wikipedia which says that the US spends by far the most money of any country on their military. It takes 20 other countries on the list to even get close to what the US's spends.
If I were american, that would piss me off. A lot. It would piss me off that my government cares more about killing people on the other side of the world than giving me and other citizens proper free healthcare and education etc - obvious things that should be in all democracies.
We do not need the US as a world police, the world got even less secure after the US started with their war on terror.
So basically, get less imperialistic and capitalistic and have some more socialism. Isn't there anything called solidarity in the United States?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted October 03, 2011 08:43 PM |
|
|
That's silly talk Xerox for two outlying reasons;
-First 500billion a year ain't alot
-Second, I doubt America can survive long without wars, I mean hell, they can't make cars for snow, Japanese make far better cars and the chinese manufacture 10x the amount and 10x cheaper goods then America.
America cutting the military budget = slitting their own wrist and making suburban Mexicans watch. (imo)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 03, 2011 11:58 PM |
|
|
I REALLY DOUBT that the US has EARNED MONEY on invading Iraq etc, which is why I think the "lolz the sole reason we invaded you was to steal ur oil!!!!!111" sounds ridiculous.
this is the amount of money the US spent on its military: 698,105,000,000 dollars.
Now this is the amount of money China spent on their military: 114,000,000,000 dollars.
Look at the list of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
HOW CAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE POSSIBLY ACCEPT THIS?
Well, to bad for the US cause I'll be investing in eastern Asia.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
