Any other anti-capitalists in the house? A compelling argument against capitalism

[Rebel Resource]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/neil_clark/2007/02/wanted_an_erich_fromm_party.html

"A healthy economy is only possible at the expense of unhealthy human beings".

In The Sane Society (1955), Fromm argued that a society, in which "consumption
has become the de facto goal", was itself sick. He advanced his theory of social
character: that "every society produces the character it needs". Early Calvinistic
capitalism produced the "hoarding character", who hoards both possessions and
feelings: the classic Victorian man of property.

Post-war capitalism, Fromm argued, produced another, equally neurotic type: "the
marketing character", who "adapts to the market economy by becoming detached
from authentic emotions, truth and conviction". For the marketing character
"everything is transformed into a commodity, not only things, but the person
himself, his physical energy, his skills, his knowledge, his opinions, his feelings,
even his smiles". (For a perfect example of a "marketing character", just think of
the current inhabitant of No 10 Downing Street).

Modern global capitalism requires marketing characters in abundance and makes
sure it gets them. Meanwhile, Fromm's ideal character type, the mature
"productive character", the person without a mask, who loves and creates, and for
whom being is more important than having, is discouraged.

Fromm was also deeply concerned with the way that love, "the only sane and
satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence" was undermined by an
economic system which rewards greed and selfishness.

===== SOLUTION

The brainwashing methods used in modern advertising, described by Fromm as
the "poison of mass suggestion" must be prohibited. The gap between rich and
poor must be closed. A new, participatory form of democracy, "in which the
well-being of the community becomes each citizen's private concern", must be
introduced. There should be maximum decentralisation throughout industry and
politics. And most importantly of all, ''the right of stockholders and management of
big enterprises to determine their production solely on the basis of profit and
expansion" must be drastically curbed. Fromm was unequivocal: the needs of
people must come before the needs of capital.

[constituent]

each citizen's private concern i'm fine with.

must i am not.

what's funny is the way people pretend that those evil, war-mongering/profiteering
capitalists wouldn't be the ones running the state if that's what necessity required
to see them come out on top.

they're just working the system, as they would any system.

the real solution, good people have to start playin' the game.

[FreeTraveler]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs...

No thanks, heard this baloney before, when I was too young to know better, and it still sounded like garbage. Look how well it worked out for the USSR.

Peddle this communist garbage somewhere else, please.

[Rebel Resource]

What people say is that a capitalist society creates mass consciousness for the vast majority of people....everything gets taken over with the capitalist mentality and ideology.

Consumerism, for example, is obscene in my opinion - a massive percentage of what people buy, they simply don't need.

[Corydoras]

The UK "Grauniad" has always leaned socialist.

[Rebel Resource]

Peddle this communist garbage somewhere else, please.

Just having a discussion, thanks.

[Dave Pedersen]

Unrestrained corporate behemoths give capitalism a bad name. Limit the size and influence of corporations and capitalism is the greatest system in the world.

[Rebel Resource]

Unrestrained corporate behemoths give capitalism a bad name. Limit the size and influence of corporations and capitalism is the greatest system in the world.

True, did you read Gangs of America? Tells the story of what little rights corporations had at first, and how they eventually acquired all the powers and freedoms they have today.

Back in the day, they could only sell a certain thing for a certain period in a certain place, could not expand at all. They were recognised as fundamentally dangerous, anti-democratic, unaccountable entities.

[Truth Warrior]

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." -- Ron Paul

[constituent]

What people say is that a capitalist society creates mass consciousness for the vast majority of people....everything gets taken over with the capitalist mentality and ideology.

Consumerism, for example, is obscene in my opinion - a massive percentage of what people buy, they simply don't need.

uhhh...

you don't see that consumerism and equate it w/ communism?

why must communism always be about scarcity?

this is like blaming obesity on cheeseburgers.

consumerism is a form of communism.

don't believe me? ask barack obama how to stimulate the economy.

[constituent]

anti-democratic

you can have your democracy buddy...

just don't expect me to be sippin' the hemlock any time soon :D

[Rebel Resource]

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." -- Ron Paul

I do love the idea of a libertarian vision where everybody can make free contracts and where no state interferes...but what happens when corporations get too powerful?

There seems to be nothing in the Ron Paul vision (though I'm no Mises expert) to guard against corporate monopoly. Sure, I love the idea of no special interests/corporate welfare, and wall of separation between CEOs and public officials, but that strikes me as something you can't really avoid.

If any power structure gets too powerful it can easily infiltrate government.

[evandi]

I do love the idea of a libertarian vision where everybody can make free contracts and where no state interferes...but what happens when corporations get too powerful?

There seems to be nothing in the Ron Paul vision (though I'm no Mises expert) to guard against corporate monopoly. Sure, I love the idea of no special interests/corporate welfare, and wall of separation between CEOs and public officials, but that strikes me as something you can't really avoid.

If any power structure gets too powerful it can easily infiltrate government.

Corporations are sponsered by the government. The are not a natural phenomenon.

[constituent]

<snip>but what happens when corporations get too powerful?

There seems to be nothing in the Ron Paul vision (though I'm no Mises expert) to guard against corporate monopoly.

<snip>

If any power structure gets too powerful it can easily infiltrate government.

1) you and others organize protests and boycotts, you drive the company
out of business

2) you

3) you're right, any.

[Rebel Resource]

uhhh...

you don't see that consumerism and equate it w/ communism?
why must communism always be about scarcity?
this is like blaming obesity on cheeseburgers.
consumerism is a form of communism.
don't believe me? ask barack obama how to stimulate the economy.

Actually I'm not sure I understand.

I think production should be maximised, but in a sustainable way. I don't agree with the entire advertising/marketing industry, which produces nothing of real value.

What I don't accept is marketing culture, consumerist culture, because the whole point of that existence is just to buy and buy and buy some more. We have a finite planet, in terms of resources and space to use as landfill.

[Tdcci]

There seems to be nothing in the Ron Paul vision (though I'm no Mises expert) to guard against corporate monopoly.

Monopolies only exist with government interference. BUT If a natural monopoly happens that would be OK, because they would have gotten there by offering better services at lower costs. Monopolies are only bad when they start using unethical and illegal trade practices, and government allows them to do so.

[constituent]

Peddle this communist garbage somewhere else, please.

lol @ stalin, hitler, mao and censorship.

[MN Patriot]

Consumerism is another form of propaganda.

Look how insecure weak minds like Sean Hannity needs a Cadillac Escalade to get around. He needs to be recognized as a success, feels vulnerable so he has to buy an SUV (probably was given to him by GM). Any marketing class will demonstrate how you aren't selling a product, you are selling security, status, or any other human emotion that can be exploited.

Capitalism is superior to socialism, but it still has drawbacks. Selling crap to people who don't need more stuff doesn't really enhanced society, but it does fill the pockets of those who have learned how to manipulate people.

[Rebel Resource]

Corporations are sponsered by the government. The are not a natural phenomenon.

Here's the thing -- you can see right now there are loads of corporations that can sell any kind of shit if they market it right -- it's a scientific process and they can blow millions on advertising because its guaranteed to work.

The slide towards a dumb sheeple who mass-buy pop music, junk food and the rest is a natural consequence of allowing the corporations to attack you with marketing.

What do you say to this?

[MN Patriot]

Corporations are sponsered by the government. The are not a natural phenomenon.

Corporations seem to be evolving into the next form of governance, as in world government and NWO. The transnational corporations are behind the elimination of national sovereignty.

[Truth Warrior]

I do love the idea of a libertarian vision where everybody can make free contracts and where no state interferes...but what happens when corporations get too powerful?

Ah, that would be "state" capitalism.<IMHO>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

AKA "socialistic" capitalism AKA "corporatism" :p

[constituent]

Actually I'm not sure I understand.

I think production should be maximised, but in a sustainable way. I don't agree with the entire advertising/marketing industry, which produces nothing of real value.

What I don't accept is marketing culture, consumerist culture, because the whole point of that existence is just to buy and buy and buy some more. We have a finite planet, in terms of resources and space to use as landfill.

funny thing, our landfills will soon be our greatest source of energy/refineable materials... God-bless biosynthesis.

consumerism = pacification, nothing more and nothing less.

if the ussr had been as economically sound as the us, consumerism would have
been the progression out of the gulags. you can't go on forever killing people...
atleast not in that manner (this is where food steps in).

sustainable? please define what is sustainable and what isn't.

the universe runs in circles (now, we can get into the waves aspect too, but another time)...

on advertising/marketing... what makes advertising for, say, ralph lauren any worse
than advertising for say... the invasion of poland?

[Rebel Resource]

I still have a problem with grassroots groups being able to restrain corporations. You look at modern day attempts to do so, but nobody has the time or money to do so because the working day is too long and you barely have any leisure time.

In order words, corporations dont need the state to become tyrannical and increase their power infinitely. In most cases I'd say the state is necessary to prevent corporate tyranny.

[Truth Warrior]

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

[constituent]

I still have a problem with grassroots groups being able to restrain corporations. You look at modern day attempts to do so, but nobody has the time or money to do so because the working day is too long and you barely have any leisure time.

In order words, corporations dont need the state to become tyrannical and increase their power infinitely. In most cases I'd say the state is necessary to prevent corporate tyranny.

1) in the words of ben harper, "it's so hard to do, so easy to say, but sometimes-sometimes-you just have to walk away." our choice, your mother's
choice, your father's choice, your friends' choice... we have to take responsibility
for ourselves and our communities if we are to help create a better world...

change what you can, adapt to what you can't

2)I would disagree, but i see that it's b/c we don't line up on fundamentals and
i do appreciate where you're coming from

3) I'd say a lack of state is necessary to prevent tyranny (it's all bad)

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.capitalism.net/

http://www.capitalism.org/

[Rebel Resource]

I guess all you guys are against 'education for capitalism' which is what you get in state schools -- narration and memorization, top-down 'packet' learning, no dialogue or interchange with teacher, no independent choices about what to learn.....

With the kind of education they are forming in Venezuela, it was theorized by a Brazilian marxist named Freire... his education is all about student choices, an equal relationship between student and teacher, critical understanding of environment and the power to change it.

The difference is between an unquestioning, apolitical worker bee, and a critical thinker who takes an interest in politics and has the confidence to know he can play a part in changing his environment.

[snaFU]

ruh roh, dumbass commie alert!

[constituent]

i believe the education of children is in the realm of parental responsibilities....


i'll stick w/ education a la gargantua and pantagruel

[constituent]

ruh roh, dumbass commie alert!

speaking of dumbass....

[dspectre]

You should read the theories of Austrian Economics more closely.

One of the problems that has encouraged ill behavior by corporations and special groups within societies is Centralized Banking.

Central Banking is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Corporations are definitely guilty of elitism in our society, but they aren't the only social and political structures that gain power over the expense of others.

These organizations cannot gain their power without the help of the government. By definition, the government is the only organization that can legally use force. Elite groups use this fact to gain advantage at the expense of others.

The problem I have with the Original Poster's is that the solution proposed to restrain Corporations is to use the same tactics that it uses on other people and that is to use the government. That means using force.

That is great at first, but then there are always elements in the government that will abuse the use of force(Factions, political parties etc).

A government going along these lines leans to a leftist/Socialism and at the extreme Communism. If this system is abused, then you run into the problem that most leftist/Socialist/Communist societies have. They kill production by central planning which leads to the death of many people(this has been demonstrated many times before).

The problem is using force to change things in the first place. This is why the government needs to be restrained. Using force is only a last resort.

[Harry96]

To attack "consumerism" is to attack life itself.

To those who say advertising causes people to buy things they don't "need," who are are you to determine what someone else needs? Technically, no one "needs" much of anything to just survive but food, water, clothing and shelter. The condition where that's all one has is called poverty.

I really object to these paternalistic comments about advertising, which basically say, "These stupid plebians are deceived by all kinds of advertising, but I can see through the ads because I am so much smarter than everyone else." The idea that advertising turns people into mindless sheep is asinine; we all constantly see ads that we don't respond to; and one person responds to a certain ad, while another doesn't.

Of course I'm not saying that people never respond to ads. But if someone chooses to buy something with their own money that they value more than the money they're giving up, regardless of the reason, what business is it of yours?

[Harry96]

I recommend these articles:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/consumerism.html

http://mises.org/story/1701

[Rebel Resource]

Well, I support RP because of the advent of fascism and perpetual war.........but I've learnt a lot about libertarianism and have a lot of respect for it.

I'll still be a socialist for the time being....because if you have popular structures from the grassroots up, and an enlightened population, they organise very easily and quickly.

In other words, it's easier to have a system where the people ARE their own local governments and can unite in that capacity, rather than as much less powerful individuals in informal groups.

In Venezuela they are building communal councils, worker councils, grassroots 'cells' of the united socialist party (sounds terrible, right?) and this basically means real people power in the workplace (with cooperative enterprises), real local decision making and democratic spending projects (money guaranteed from the state), and the basis of a political structure that is directed from the bottom up.

It's an interesting experiment -- certainly nothing like the soviet travesty.

[forsmant]

Ignorance is bliss.


Corporations are created by people pooling their capital. Corporations have been around in some form or another since ancient India and ancient Rome. They have been heavily regulated by governments since their inception.

Corporations rarely ever gain a monopoly. A monopoly is extremely hard to obtain and then maintain. If a monopoly is maintained you can be assured that everyone will be happier. If one is unsatisfied with the monopoly, one can attempt to compete.

There has been the formation of business cartels in the United States and elsewhere. These have been established using government and associations which seek to outlaw or punish competition.

Everyone consumes. It only becomes a problem when you consume more than you produce. The united states is so heavily regulated and overtaxed that production is put on the back burner. Besides, why would you want to produce if you can just charge everything?

If you truly believe that advertising can sell you anything, you sir have a no will power. Most people will try products until they become satisfied. There are hundreds of different kinds of soda on the market. I have seen advertising for most of them. I find myself able to resist soda on a daily basis, with no trouble at all. To those that do buy soda, maybe its because they like it or want to try something new.

Bottom line, it is too much government intervention that has led us to this consumer based society which you despise so much. The banking cartel called the fed has made borrowing to consume easier than saving and production.

[Brian4Liberty]

Monopolies only exist with government interference. BUT If a natural monopoly happens that would be OK, because they would have gotten there by offering better services at lower costs. Monopolies are only bad when they start using unethical and illegal trade practices, and government allows them to do so.

Ah, the text-book Rothbard response...

But what about this: Monopoly=Power.

Power corrupts.

"Monopolies are only bad when they start using unethical and illegal trade practices"

That's a monopoly that never has and never will exist...if big government is bad, big corporate monopolies are also bad. It is human nature to abuse power.

[Xenophage]

There is nothing about capitalism that discourages charity or empathy, so this characterization is false.

I believe that each human being exists as an end in themselves. The pursuit of personal happiness and fulfillment is the basis of the ethical system of Objectivism, which centers around the individual as the root of all human value and human action. Your purpose in life is dictated by *you,* not by society. Productive achievement is the source of human life, and therefore should be a tremendous source of personal happiness - and it is. Capitalism is the only system within which people are free to pursue their selfish interests, and to be productive according to their own designs. Its the only political system where the individual is valued above all. As a result, it is also the only political system where the "greatest good for the greatest number" can be achieved.

[Rebel Resource]

I really object to these paternalistic comments about advertising, which basically say, "These stupid plebians are deceived by all kinds of advertising, but I can see through the ads because I am so much smarter than everyone else." The idea that advertising turns people into mindless sheep is asinine; we all constantly see ads that we don't respond to; and one person responds to a certain ad, while another doesn't.


I'm guessing you never worked in advertising because there are proven methods to hit people on the emotional levels...all advertising is carefully targetted..brand enforcement works on everybody including me....I'm not special, I love gadgets and nice shoes, and of course go for certain brands sometimes, subconsciously, because its been hammered into my head so much.

If anything I'm critical of myself for not putting my money where my mouth is often enough, which shows you the power of marketing....

[Xenophage]

Ah, the text-book Rothbard response...

But what about this: Monopoly=Power.

Power corrupts.

"Monopolies are only bad when they start using unethical and illegal trade practices"

That's a monopoly that never has and never will exist...if big government is bad, big corporate monopolies are also bad. It is human nature to abuse power.

Define "power" please. There are many sources of power. Why is power bad? Is there any good power?

Government power stems from the use of force.

Power in the marketplace stems from people voluntarily trading with you.

Corporations don't point guns at people and force them to hand over their cash. Governments do that. Corporations persuade people to engage in voluntary trade.

Where is the evil in that?

When a corporation starts lobbying to use Government force, then they are complicit, but the real source of that problem is the Government.

[Rebel Resource]

Its the only political system where the individual is valued above all.

I could say capitalism is all about putting profits before people. That's an incredibly easy argument to make. No corporation is really in any particular business except that of maximising shareholder value.

If most people work for capitalists, that means most people are dominated for the best hours of their waking lives. Most people are paid their market value, and get exploited for the surplus value they produce.

This is simple Marxist stuff, and it's worth remembering he was no fool, even if you disagree on fundamental points. You gotta respect one of the foremost philosophers in human history, IMO.

[forsmant]

I'm guessing you never worked in advertising because there are proven methods to hit people on the emotional levels...all advertising is carefully targetted..brand enforcement works on everybody including me....I'm not special, I love gadgets and nice shoes, and of course go for certain brands sometimes, subconsciously, because its been hammered into my head so much.

If anything I'm critical of myself for not putting my money where my mouth is often enough, which shows you the power of marketing....

So when I recently stopped drinking Budweiser and started on Miller Lite it was a subconscious advertising gimmick? It had nothing to do with my preference for better tasting lite beer. I pick work boots based on quality and the recommendation of other tradesmen. I usually take the cheapest gadget. They all break within a few years regardless of brand name. That has been my experience.

You should enlighten some of us to these advertising methods so the Ron Paul campaign can use them.


I don't drink sprite even though the have those odd commercials with subliminal messages. In fact those commercials and others like them have actually been a deterrent to me and my wife.

Brand names will only be successful if they can back up their advertising with a quality product or service. Otherwise it will fail.

[Zavoi]

OP: Do you accept the notion of private ownership of capital? Because it is from this that the freedom of people to do business with capitalists is derived.

What is your ideal alternative to capitalism? How is your vision incompatible with libertarianism?

[nbhadja]

You don't truly understand the beauty of a free market country WITH a limited government!

The US pharmaceutical companies present a good example of why a limited government must be present with a free market economy.

The US pharmaceutical companies had the power to do what they wanted, so they jacked up the prices of drugs in this country. So people started buying medicine from foreign countries. The pharm lobbyists threw millions of dollars at the corrupt politicians (who overstepped their constitutional boundaries) in DC and banned people from buying medicine abroad. If they let it go with a free market system, the US companies would have been forced to lower their prices. Unlike now where the US pharmaceutical companies remain the only source of medicine for US citizens, and keep their prices really high.

THE MARKET SOLVES ITSELF!!!!

The more power the government has, the more it has to use against you.
Big government= bad and susceptible to corruption.

[constituent]

So when I recently stopped drinking Budweiser and started on Miller Lite it was a subconscious advertising gimmick?

naaah, it was b/c you couldn't taste your beer.

[Rebel Resource]

Zavoi:

I am still lacking knowledge in many areas.

I prefer cooperative enterprises, in which all workers are paid the same, all share in the profits, where the enterprise plays a productive role in the community, where production is local, and where workers have an active role in the running of the business, they can elect management and democratically decide on strategy.

I envision a society where there is no need for charities, no need for trade unions, no need for consumer protection groups.....because in the first place there is no oppression creating poverty, there is no oppression of workers, and there is no profit motive coming before health and the environment.

I also believe in a people's state, beginning at the grassroots -- communal councils. This state would ensure a mixed economy of state production, private cooperatives, and etc.

So, in other words, competing economic models and competing currencies as well.

[brandon]

Zavoi:

I am still lacking knowledge in many areas.

I prefer cooperative enterprises, in which all workers are paid the same, all share in the profits, where the enterprise plays a productive role in the community, where production is local, and where workers have an active role in the running of the business, they can elect management and democratically decide on strategy.

I envision a society where there is no need for charities, no need for trade unions, no need for consumer protection groups.....because in the first place there is no oppression creating poverty, there is no oppression of workers, and there is no profit motive coming before health and the environment.


And what is a persons motivation to work hard in this economy? Why would a person persue a law degree or a medical degree when they will end up making the exact same amount of money as someone who never worked a day in thier life? What is the motivation for a worker in a company to try hard when it is impossible for him to get a raise?

You talk about your workers electing management in this theoretical company. Why would anyone want to take on the increased respponsibilites of management when there is no pay increase?

[MN Patriot]

I could say capitalism is all about putting profits before people. That's an incredibly easy argument to make. No corporation is really in any particular business except that of maximising shareholder value.

If most people work for capitalists, that means most people are dominated for the best hours of their waking lives. Most people are paid their market value, and get exploited for the surplus value they produce.

This is simple Marxist stuff, and it's worth remembering he was no fool, even if you disagree on fundamental points. You gotta respect one of the foremost philosophers in human history, IMO.

Marx was mediocre if you ask me. He knew how to manipulate people, though.

The biggest failing of socialism is their failure to adapt to an intrinsically superior economic system. Envy and resentment are powerful emotions that socialists use to motivate people to take political action against those who have succeeded in a capitalist system. Rather than fighting against an economic system that has proven to produce more goods and services than socialism ever has, socialists could have done more good by admiting socialism is a failure, and encourage people to become capitalists themselves.

Our culture has always maligned wealth. Camels through the eyes of a needle, and all that. Some people are never satisfied with enough, they want more and more. Money, power, toys, clothes, etc. Some people have a certain insecurity that drives them to accumulate more stuff.

Ironically, capitalists have using socialism to enhance their wealth and power. Socialism for the little people, capitalism for themselves.

[constituent]

I envision a society where there is no need for charities, no need for trade unions, no need for consumer protection groups.....

because in the first place there is no oppression creating poverty, there is no oppression of workers, and there is no profit motive coming before health and the environment.

I also believe in a people's state, beginning at the grassroots -- communal councils. This state would ensure a mixed economy of state production, private cooperatives, and etc.



1) sounds lame

2) oppression doesn't create poverty, but submission does

3) you mean fascism?

[brandon]

Why on earth do you support Ron Paul if you support corporatism and fascism over capitalism??

[asgardshill]

The pipe dream of socialism is about the worst example of collectivist thinking there is on the planet, a message that Ron Paul would certainly disdain and sneer at. Neither he nor I have any desire to live in a "worker's paradise", because it becomes paradise only for the most inefficient and laziest of us. Socialism defies human nature and the drive in us that compels us to succeed.

[forsmant]

Zavoi:

I am still lacking knowledge in many areas.

I prefer cooperative enterprises, in which all workers are paid the same, all share in the profits, where the enterprise plays a productive role in the community, where production is local, and where workers have an active role in the running of the business, they can elect management and democratically decide on strategy.

I envision a society where there is no need for charities, no need for trade unions, no need for consumer protection groups.....because in the first place there is no oppression creating poverty, there is no oppression of workers, and there is no profit motive coming before health and the environment.

I also believe in a people's state, beginning at the grassroots -- communal councils. This state would ensure a mixed economy of state production, private cooperatives, and etc.

So, in other words, competing economic models and competing currencies as well.

Corporations are cooperative enterprises that provide most of the production of society.

Setting everyones labor equal is a fallacy because everyone is different. That is where the separation of labor comes from. The teenager who flips hamburgers is not producing as much value as the man who builds a desk. While both items are consumer goods, the desk can be used over and over again.

You are able to share in the profits if you become a stockholder.

Workers are a part of running the business. Without the workers the company would surely fail.

Everyone is motivated by profit. Profit is not a monetary phenomenon. People act in order to satisfy a need. You profit from eating, sleeping, watching your favorite show, etc.

There will always be a need for charity. Some people do not want to produce, some people can't.

You should study a little bit from all fields of economics.

[nbhadja]

Ya good question, why would someone become a doctor or lawyer when they could make the same working at McDonalds???

Socialist societies offer little incentive to be creative and discourage development/advancement in all fields. The USSR suffered from this.

You're telling me a woman with 4 kids by age 22 should get paid the same as a lawyer?

[Rebel Resource]

A lot of good points here, but there must be an alternative to keeping most people working all day, all their lives and not getting any richer.

I also prefer the idea of a society rising together equally, rather than capitalism which inevitably involves increasing inequality.

If I can't answer all the above questions it's because I don't have all the answers. But true human potential is not achieved in this society and neither do I think minimal government is going to achieve it.

[Zavoi]

I also believe in a people's state, beginning at the grassroots -- communal councils. This state would ensure a mixed economy of state production, private cooperatives, and etc.

This is the central point of contention. What do you mean by "state"? One definition (favored by anarchists) is an institution that enforces a monopoly on the use of coercion. If instead by "state" you are referring to simply a group of people who come together for a common goal, voluntarily, then I don't think anyone should have any moral problem with this. The question of whether you should participate in a capitalist or socialist economy then becomes akin to whether you prefer to work at home or in an office - a decision to be made by individuals and communities, rather than by a coercive institution.

However, to say that the state should enforce a socialist economy would be like saying that all people must work only at home, and anyone caught setting up an office will be punished accordingly. A coercive state should remain neutral, and endorse neither capitalism, nor socialism, nor any mode of living. It is when the state's neutrality is compromised that we get true oppression.

[forsmant]

A lot of good points here, but there must be an alternative to keeping most people working all day, all their lives and not getting any richer.

I also prefer the idea of a society rising together equally, rather than capitalism which inevitably involves increasing inequality.

If I can't answer all the above questions it's because I don't have all the answers. But true human potential is not achieved in this society and neither do I think minimal government is going to achieve it.


If you don't produce, you can't consume. We are not getting any richer because the government keeps printing money and taxing you production.

The inequality is already there. Capitalism is the only system that embraces inequality for the benefit of all. Wal-mart is a large corporation, but it only sticks aroud because it has the lowest prices. It employs tons of people as well.

[Rebel Resource]

What I'm posting now is brand new stuff from the new United Socialist Party of Venezuela. Just seen it on venezuelanalysis.com and am pasting interesting bits:

----------------

The program of the PSUV has as its objective making reality the slogan "in order to end poverty you have to give power to the poor", or better said: the people. That is to say, build a government based on Councils of Popular Power, where workers, campesinos, students and popular masses are direct protagonists in the exercising of political power.

The program of the PSUV proposes the socialising of political power, establishing the direct exercising of decision-making power by the masses in their organisations; their unrestricted right to scientific research and the free artistic creation, and the democratisation of access to all cultural policies.

* Promote direct and constant participation. That the largest amount of men and women possible be involved in the resolution of all the problems posed by the struggle in its different phases and levels: from the socialist cities to the commune and the communal councils in different areas (popular power, social missions, water committees, sports committees, cultural committees, housing committees etc) up to the military reserves. In regards to the specific area of industrial workers, two fundamental axes for the implementation of this task should be the concepts of popular control and self-management.

The program of the PSUV proposes to move in the direction of a democratically planned and controlled economy, capable of ending alienated labour and satisfying all the necessities of the masses. Throughout this period of transition, which at this moment marches from a state capitalism dominated by market forces towards a state socialism with a regulated market, the aim is to move towards a communal state socialism, with the strategic objective of totally neutralising the law of value within the functioning of the economy.

[Rebel Resource]

The PSUV proposes to build:

* A productive, intermediary, diversified and independent economic model based on the humanistic values of cooperation and the preponderance of common interests.

* A society that prohibits latifundio, transferring these lands into property of the revolutionary state entities, public companies, cooperatives, communities and social organisations capable of administering and making the land productive.

* A society that prohibits monopolies and the monopolists of the means of labour, that is to say, of the "sources of life" [1], or any other activities, agreements, practices, behaviours or omissions by them that make vulnerable the methods and systems of social and collective production.

* A society with property models that privileges public, indirect and direct social, communal, citizens' and collective property, as well as mixed systems, respecting private property that is of public utility or general interest and which is subjected to contributions, charges, restrictions and obligations.

* A society that defends non-alienated labour, with sufficient free time so that human beings have time for voluntary work and rest time for scientific and humanistic creation, as opposed to the capitalist productive system that revolves around the prolongation of the work day, the prolongation of free labour (for the capitalist owner) or increasing "productivity", that is, accentuating the stress levels of the labour force.

* A society that is inclined towards collective forms of property and labour, that is capable of distributing the "social product" in order to maintain the means of production, broaden out production, create funds or insurance against accidents or natural phenomena, cover administration costs, satisfy collective necessities (schools, hospitals etc.) and sustain people who are unable to work, and afterwards proceed in "dividing up" for consumption purposes.

[forsmant]

Thats great for Venezuela. I would hate to be in the minority opinion. Which I often am. What about a 51% majority? Would they have authority over the other 49%? Ridiculous.

[Rebel Resource]

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3095

It seems to amount to diversity and freedom, but emphasising values beneficial to the public good and human potential.

Let's at least admit it has probably never been tried, and that there could be a solution along these lines?

[AoiMasamune]

First, you guys over-react far too much when someone mentions socialism. If you took the time to understand his point of view, you might just change it. He's asking for answers not refutation.

Second, Rebel Resource, I was in your shoes not long ago. I saw all the anti-capitalist videos. Learned about the evils of the federal reserve system. Started reading marx, etx...

I was also contemplating the 'pipe dream' of a human society without a ruling class, without money and without oppression.

I later realized that I was going about it all the wrong way thinking down 'socialist' lines. The problem is power. Let me explain...

I own my body. Therefore I can control it, no one else. Anything I am forced to do, or have no decision in, I will hate because I can't control it. This is a human.

In a 'socialist' society, people will have to eat, so they will grow food. Others won't grow food, they will provide services like fixing a roof, or a computer. The only way to give the computer repair person food without using money is to take it away from others that grow it. To give food for free, you must take it and offer nothing. Think carefully about this.

In the absence of a governing body (aka, a ruler) to force people to give what they have made, people resort to trade. Bartering sucks (how much corn is a computer worth?), so people start trading their items and services against a common material. This material should be attractive, hard to duplicate, durable, and fashionable into common weights so that deals are fair. Aka, gold or silver.
This is free trade.

Some goods require more than one person to produce, so someone has to hire others to work for them. Companies are formed, but rise and fall depending on who is providing the most value. At this point, the name of the game is providing value to your customers. All companies have owners. Should a company commit an immoral act, the OWNER has no choice but to accept responsibility.
This is capitalism.

Then laws are passed that allow invisible people to own land, money, and property and thus corporations are formed. Corporations have no choice but to be as profitable as possible, as market 'law' dictates. However, because there is no single clear 'owner' there is no one to take public responsibility. Further, any stockholders or employees are shielded by the law from prosecution for crimes commited as part of the corporate operations. Therefore morality becomes a game of balancing monetary risk versus monetary reward with no true moral consideration. If inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon, then corporations are purely a legal one.
This is corporatism.

We're are not capitalists in the USA. We are corporatists.

Men simply cannot be allowed to rule other men. Either themselves, or their descendants will inevitably become corrupt, there is no way around this. Without rule, there can be no socialism as it is defined today. That being said, I would choose a monarch over a corporate oligarchy any day. At least a monarch has a conscience.

I had an interesting thought the other day. You know the famous marxist quote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need"? Well, true capitalism allows each to produce according to their ability, and each to consume according to their need. To consume more, one only has to produce more. If one cannot produce, then you are at the mercy of the hearts of the people around you. At the fundamental level, the aim and function of both capitalism and socialism are the same. Socialism doesn't even disavow currency. When I think about function, form, and intent... the differences kind of melt away. There is only human nature, and the law that has warped it.

The true evil is invisible people with infinite hunger but no conscience or morality.

[Rebel Resource]

Thanks for the post. But answer me this, then:

How do you prevent corporatism? After all, our corporatist state of today developed simply via the natural advancement of the more successful players in the bartering game.

[forsmant]

Corporations are people pooling their capital in order to build factories or something else. All stock holders are owners.

[AoiMasamune]

@forsmant:
The owners of a corporation do not make company policy. Thats the problem. The two must be joined, and someone has to take responsibility for the screw-ups and the exploitation. Not just the exploitation of the workers (aka, China and Pakistan), but the exploitation of our natural resources and land. Eg, it is cheaper to dump toxic byproducts into a river than to spend the research money to develop a way to deactivate them. Did you know that DNA has an owner? You know what Gandhi fought against? Corporations got their government to forbid people to pick up salt off the shores where it coalesced naturally. Instead they had to buy it.

@Rebel Resource:
Education has failed, religion has failed, force of arms has failed. Long story short, I don't know, but it's better to properly identify ones enemy.

[JohnCrabtree]

A lot of good points here, but there must be an alternative to keeping most people working all day, all their lives and not getting any richer.

I also prefer the idea of a society rising together equally, rather than capitalism which inevitably involves increasing inequality.

If I can't answer all the above questions it's because I don't have all the answers. But true human potential is not achieved in this society and neither do I think minimal government is going to achieve it.



Finding that "alternative" is what capitalism is all about. It is about as an INDIVIDUAL developing your skills and abilities, and how to market your skills and abilities to provide for a higher standard of living. It's about using the resources at your disposal to teach yourself, to learn about how to manage and minimize expenses, while maximizing income.

Those who CHOOSE to put forth effort to make themselves more marketable are those who benefit from capitalism. I have made myself much more marketable in the past 3 years, through education, schooling, and competence in my field(s).
While I was working 12 hour shifts and them going to night school, I was able to provide a much more comfortable life for myself and my family now. I have friends who decided to work 30 hours a week, and not go to school, who are still in the same dead end job.

Some people have the same problem our country has. They want to live beyond thier means, and by doing so they trap themselves. They have to work extra hours to pay off the past debt for stuff they don't need, and since they are working those extra hours they can not spend that time to further education, increase knowledge, or increase thier marketability. The ROOT of this problem is education. Our compulsory education system does not teach children how to live, how to earn, or how to budget.

All people will not have equal standards of living because all people are NOT equal. We were created equal and we all have equal opportunities, however some people CHOOSE to better themselves through schooling, work and knowledge, while others choose to make themselves worse through addictions, splurging, ignorance and a hand me out attitude.


Capitalism does not inevitably lead to a "Two Americas" situation. If we removed the taxation burden from working Americans, the compaines they work for, and the companies they purchase neccessities and nice-to-haves from, even the lazy among us will have home ownership, two cars, and a satellite dish that they earned themselves. If we ended the government waste and killed off this robin hood idea of wealth redistribution, ALL people, and ESPECIALLY the poor, will benefit greatly. Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime.

[AoiMasamune]

I agree John, however, ending the the federal reserve and returning to a solid money supply not produced by debt wouldn't be a bad thing to include. :)

[JohnCrabtree]

I would love to get rid of the Federal reserve and the inflation issue is at the heart of our problems, especailly the poor, because the items that have inflated the most are those with inelastic demands, which make up the bulk of those of us with lower incomes, spending. Heat, Groceries, Health Care, Education, are all up insane amounts. The only wages that keep up with this inflation seems to be congressional pay.

[dvictr]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/neil_clark/2007/02/wanted_an_erich_fromm_party.html

"A healthy economy is only possible at the expense of unhealthy human beings".

In The Sane Society (1955), Fromm argued that a society, in which "consumption
has become the de facto goal", was itself sick. He advanced his theory of social
character: that "every society produces the character it needs". Early Calvinistic
capitalism produced the "hoarding character", who hoards both possessions and
feelings: the classic Victorian man of property.


READ VERY CAREFULLY

you are misguided.. with this type of rhetoric YOU ARE A DISGRACE to the RON PAUL REVOLUTION.... we are fighting FOR CAPITALISM..

true freedom is about having the FREEDOM of choice!!!! you are angry at the current state of affairs but you are looking at the wrong direction. only the FREE MARKET and democratic CAPITALISM can save humanity. All the problems we have in the world are a remnat of aristocratic socialism and the centrally planned gov.

YOU must read the following books and relate it directly to RON PAUL and libertarianism...



FREEDOM AND CAPITALISM _ milton friedman

ROAD TO SERFDOM_ fa hayek

[AoiMasamune]

That could have been said far more gracefully. Particularly the word disgrace. :(

[dvictr]

Chapter 1


Excerpts from Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), Chapter 1, "The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom," pp. 7-17.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter I

The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom





It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of "democratic socialism" by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individuai freedom imposed by "totalitarian socialism" in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.

Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.

The citizen of Great Britain, who after World War II was not permitted to spend his vacation in the United States because of exchange control, was being deprived of an essential freedom no less than the citizen of the United States, who was denied the opportunity to spend his vacation in Russia because of his political views. The one was ostensibly an economic limitation on freedom and the other a political limitation, yet there is no essential difference between the two.

The citizen of the United States who is compelled by law to devote something like io per cent of his income to the purchase of a particular kind of retirement contract, administered by the government, is being deprived of a corresponding part of his personal freedom. How strongly this deprivation may be felt and its closeness to the deprivation of religious freedom, which all would regard as "civil" or "political" rather than "economic", were dramatized by an episode involving a group of farmers of the Amish sect. On grounds of principle, this group regarded compulsory federal old age programs as an infringement of their personal individual freedom and refused to pay taxes or accept benefits. As a result, some of their livestock were sold by auction in order to satisfy claims for social security levies. True, the number of citizens who regard compulsory old age insurance as a deprivation of freedom may be few, but the believer in freedom has never counted noses.

A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on. Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.

Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important becuase of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.

Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.

Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.

History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain, Germany at various times in the last seventy years, Japan before World Wars I and II, tzarist Russia in the decades before World War I -- are all societies that cannot conceivably be described as politically free. Yet, in each, private enterprise was the dominant form of economic organization. It is therefore clearly possible to have economic arrangements that are fundamentally capitalist and political arrangements that are not free.

Even in those societies, the citizenry had a good deal more freedom than citizens of a modern totalitarian state like Russia or Nazi Germany, in which economic totalitarianism is combined with political totalitarianism. Even in Russia under the Tzars, it was possible for some citizens, under some circumstances, to change their jobs without getting permission from political authority because capitalism and the existence of private property provided some check to the centralized power of the state.

The relation between political and economic freedom is complex and by no means unilateral. In the early nineteenth century, Bentham and the Philosophical Radicals were inclined to regard political freedom as a means to economic freedom. They believed that the masses were being hampered by the restrictions that were being imposed upon them, and that if political reform gave the bulk of the people the vote, they would do what was good for them, which was to vote for laissez faire. In retrospect, one cannot say that they were wrong. There was a large measure of political reform that was accompanied by economic reform in the direction of a great deal of laissez faire. An enormous increase in the well-being of the masses followed this change in economic arrangements.

The triumph of Benthamite liberalism in nineteenth-century England was followed by a reaction toward increasing intervention by government in economic affairs. This tendency to collectivism was greatly accelerated, both in England and elsewhere, by the two World Wars. Welfare rather than freedom became the dominant note in democratic countries. Recognizing the implicit threat to individualism, the intellectual descendants of the Philosophical Radicals - Dicey, Mises, Hayek, and Simons, to mention only a few - feared that a continued movement toward centralized control of economic activity would prove The Road to Serfdom, as Hayek entitled his penetrating analysis of the process. Their emphasis was on economic free. dom as a means toward political freedom.

Events since the end of World War II display still a different relation between economic and political freedom. Collectivisi economic planning has indeed interfered with individual freedom. At least in some countries, however, the result has not been the suppression of freedom, but the reversal of economic policy. England again provides the most striking example. The turning point was perhaps the "control of engagements" order which, despite great misgivings, the Labour party found it necessary to impose in order to carry out its economic policy. Fully enforced and carried through, the law would have involved centralized allocation of individuals to occupations. This conflicted so sharply with personal liberty that it was enforced in a negligible number of cases, and then repealed after the law had been in effect for only a short period. Its repeal ushered in a decided shift in economic policy, marked by reduced reliance on centralized "plans" and "programs", by the dismantling of many controls, and by increased emphasis on the private market. A similar shift in policy occurred in most other democratic countries.

The proximate explanation of these shifts in policy is the limited success of central planning or its outright failure to achieve stated objectives. However, this failure is itself to be attributed, at least in some measure, to the political implications of central planning and to an unwillingness to follow out its logic when doing so requires trampling rough-shod on treasured private rights. It may well be that the shift is only a temporary interruption in the collectivist trend of this century. Even so, it illustrates the close relation between political freedom and economic arrangements.

Historical evidence by itself can never be convincing. Perhaps it was sheer coincidence that the expansion of freedom occurred at the same time as the development of capitalist and market institutions. Why should there be a connection? What are the logical links between economic and political freedom? In discussing these questions we shall consider first the market as a direct component of freedom, and then the indirect relation between market arrangements and political freedom. A by-product will be an outline of the ideal economic arrangements for a free society.

As liberals, we take freedom of the individual, or perhaps the family, as our ultimate goal in judging social arrangements. Freedom as a value in this sense has to do with the interrelations among people; it has no meaning whatsoever to a Robinson Crusoe on an isolated island (without his Man Friday). Robinson Crusoe on his island is subject to "constraint," he has limited "power," and he has only a limited number of alternatives, but there is no problem of freedom in the sense that is relevant to our discussion. Similarly, in a society freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom; it is not an all-embracing ethic. Indeed, a major aim of the liberal is to leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with. The "really" important ethical problems are those that face an individual in a free society - what he should do with his freedom. There are thus two sets of values that a liberal will emphasize -- the values that are relevant to relations among people, which is the context in which he assigns first priority to freedom; and the values that are relevant to the individual in the exercise of his freedom, which is the realm of individual ethics and philosophy.

The liberal conceives of men as imperfect beings. He regards the problem of social organization to be as much a negative problem of preventing "bad" people from doing harm as of enabling "good" people to do good; and, of course, "bad" and "good" people may be the same people, depending on who is judging them.

The basic problem of social organization is how to co-ordinate the economic activities of large numbers of people. Even in relatively backward societies, extensive division of labor and specialization of function is required to make effective use of available resources. In advanced societies, the scale on which coordination is needed, to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by modern science and technology, is enormously greater. Literally millions of people are involved in providing one another with their daily bread, let alone with their yearly automobiles. The challenge to the believer in liberty is to reconcile this widespread interdependence with individual freedom.

Fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion--the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals--the technique of the market place.

The possibility of co-ordination through voluntary co-operation rests on the elementary -- yet frequently denied -- proposition that both parties to an economic transaction benefit from it, provided the transaction is bi-laterally voluntary and informed.

Exchange can therefore bring about co-ordination without coercion. A working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy -- what we have been calling competitive capitalism.

In its simplest form, such a society consists of a number of independent households -- a collection of Robinson Crusoes, as it were. Each household uses the resources it controls to produce goods and services that it exchanges for goods and services produced by other households, on terms mutually acceptable to the two parties to the bargain. It is thereby enabled to satisfy its wants indirectly by producing goods and services for others, rather than directly by producing goods for its own immediate use. The incentive for adopting this indirect route is, of course, the increased product made possible by division of labor and specialization of function. Since the household always has the alternative of producing directly for itself, it need not enter into any exchange unless it benefits from it. Hence, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit from it. Co-operation is thereby achieved without coercion.

Specialization of function and division of labor would not go far if the ultimate productive unit were the household. In a modern society, we have gone much farther. We have introduced enterprises which are intermediaries between individuals in their capacities as suppliers of service and as purchasers of goods. And similarly, specialization of function and division of labor could not go very far if we had to continue to rely on the barter of product for product. In consequence, money has been introduced as a means of facilitating exchange, and of enabling the acts of purchase and of sale to be separated into two parts.

Despite the important role of enterprises and of money in our actual economy, and despite the numerous and complex problems they raise, the central characteristic of the market technique of achieving co-ordination is fully displayed in the simple exchange economy that contains neither enterprises nor money. As in that simple model, so in the complex enterprise and money-exchange economy, co-operation is strictly individual and voluntary provided: (a) that enterprises are private, so that the ultimate contracting parties are individuals and (b) that individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary.

It is far easier to state these provisos in general terms than to spell them out in detail, or to specify precisely the institutional arrangements most conducive to their maintenance. Indeed, much of technical economic literature is concerned with precisely these questions. The basic requisite is the maintenance of law and order to prevent physical coercion of one individual by another and to enforce contracts voluntarily entered into, thus giving substance to "private". Aside from this, perhaps the most difficult problems arise from monopoly - which inhibits effective freedom by denying individuals alternatives to the particular exchange -- and from "neighborhood effects" -- effects on third parties for which it is not feasible to charge or recompense them. These problems will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter.

So long as effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the market organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is protected from coercion by the seller because of the presence of other sellers with whom he can deal. The seller is protected from coercion by the consumer because of other consumers to whom he can sell. The employee is protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for whom he can work, and so on. And the market does this impersonally and without centralized authority.

Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the "rules of the game" and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on. What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. The characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other hand, is that it permits wide diversity. It is, in political terms, a system of proportional representation. Each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants and get it; he does not have to see what color-the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit.

It is this feature of the market that we refer to when we say that the market provides economic freedom. But this characteristic also has implications that go far beyond the narrowly economic. Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated - a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.

Economic power can be widely dispersed. There is no law of conservation which forces the growth of new centers of economic strength to be at the expense of existing centers. Political power, on the other hand, is more difficult to decentralize. There can be numerous small independent governments. But it is far more difficult to maintain numerous equipotent small centers of political power in a single large government than it is to have numerous centers of economic strength in a single large economy. There can be many millionaires in one large economy. But can there be more than one really outstanding leader, one person on whom the energies and enthusiasms of his countrymen are centered? If the central government gains power, it is likely to be at the expense of local governments. there seems to be something like a fixed total of political power to be distributed. Consequently, if economic power is joined to political power, concentration seems almost inevitable. On the other hand, if economic power is kept in separate hands from political power, it can serve as a check and a counter to political power.

The force of this abstract argument can perhaps best be demonstrated by example. Let us consider first, a hypothetical example that may help to bring out the principles involved, and then some actual examples from recent experience that illustrate the way in which the market works to preserve political freedom.

One feature of a free society is surely the freedom of individuals to advocate and propagandize openly for a radical change in the structure of the society -- so long as the advocacy is restricted to persuasion and does not include force or other forms of coercion. It is a mark of the political freedom of a capitalist society that men can openly advocate and work for socialism. Equally, political freedom in a socialist society would require that men be free to advocate the introduction of capitalism. How could the freedom to advocate capitalism be preserved and protected in a socialist society?

In order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living. This already raises a problem in a socialist society, since all jobs are under the direct control of political authorities. It would take an act of self-denial whose difficulty is underlined by experience in the United States after World War II with the problem of "security" among Federal employees, for a socialist government to permit its employees to advocate policies directly contrary to official doctrine.

But let us suppose this act of self-denial to be achieved. For advocacy of capitalism to mean anything, the proponents must be able to finance their cause - to hold public meetings, publish pamphlets, buy radio time, issue newspapers and magazines, and so on. How could they raise the funds? There might and probably would be men in the socialist society with large incomes, perhaps even large capital sums in the form of government bonds and the like, but these would of necessity be high public officials. It is possible to conceive of a minor socialist official retaining his job although openly advocating capitalism. It strains credulity to imagine the socialist top brass financing such "subversive" activities.

The only recourse for funds would be to raise small amounts from a large number of minor officials. But this is no real answer. To tap these sources, many people would already have to be persuaded, and our whole problem is how to initiate and finance a campaign to do so. Radical movements in capitalist societies have never been financed this way. They have typically been supported by a few wealthy individuals who have become persuaded - by a Frederick Vanderbilt Field, or an Anita McCormick Blaine, or a Corliss Lamont, to mention a few names recently prominent, or by a Friedrich Engels, to go farther back. This is a role of inequality of wealth in preserving political freedom that is seldom noted -- the role of the patron.

In a capitalist society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support. And, indeed, it is not even necessary to persuade people or financial institutions with available funds of the soundness of the ideas to be propagated. It is only necessary to persuade them that the propagation can be financially successful; that the newspaper or magazine or book or other venture will be profitable. The competitive publisher, for example, cannot afford to publish only writing with which he personally agrees; his touchstone must be the likelihood that the market will be large enough to yield a satisfactory return on his investment.

[Fox McCloud]

How do you prevent corporatism? After all, our corporatist state of today developed simply via the natural advancement of the more successful players in the bartering game.

no, it didn't.

Corporatism is based on the old worn-out and harmful philosophy of Merchantilism.

Basically, the State directly sponsors corporations to go earn money, for themselves, and to establish that country's political influence in other nations.

and there-in lies the problem; the State sponsors them and rejects others, which gives one corporation all the power to do what it wants (and usually, since the State benefits, the corporation can get away with murder, literally and other fowl deeds).

Corporatism is a little different, but basically the same thing; Corporations lobby for money and subsidies...and sometimes benefits. Eventually the company takes off, then uses its money to lobby even more...but this time for regulation and special privileges...for example, the Pharm. companies in the US; they have quashed alternative medicine (because it's been shown to be more effective, have far less side-effects, and it requires no production, except for growing it), and purchasing drugs from overseas--they eliminated most forms of competition and thus, they benefit.

How do you prevent it? Certainly not through Democracy.

Democracy is one of the most vile and wretched forms of government man has produced. In it, the mob rules. In the end, with a democracy, all rights are destroyed, all wealth is redistributed, and only a select few end up benefiting from it. As a matter of fact, it's so terrible that there are many Libertarians who advocate no State at all, nor government (well, we would have it, but it'd be privatized). This is a concept and theory known as "anarcho-capitalism). While I very very strongly sympathize with them, I personally don't think it'll work, because far too many will clamor for money that they somehow "deserve" because their in "X" political group "Y" race, or "Z" income ratio. But hey, I'm not going to knock them; it very well could work out that, in the future, we might have an anarcho-capitalistic society, and it might work.

You need a Republic bound by a document that enumerates specific do's and don'ts; that's what our Constitution is. Technically, social programs in the US (SS, Medicare, food stamps, etc) are all unconstitutional...and have only be derived by misinterpreting the Constitution or twisting it.

If social charity and programs are unconstitutional, then so is lobbying, which is, in essence corporate "charity"....it creates inequality and inefficiency.

Not everyone is equal in the world, and capitalism praises the individual for who he is. Now, just because everyone isn't equal doesn't mean that we shouldn't be treated the same, under the law, it means that some people will excel at "A", or others will do well at "B". True capitalism rejoices at the person's ability to do whatever he is best at doing, and allows him to pursue it.

Capitalism is also one of the few systems that punishes foolishness and stupidity; socialism often rewards bad-behavior....I need to go no farther than Sweden to prove this....when you live in a county were most services are free or subsidized, and you can get 1000-2000 a month (correct my figures if they're wrong) for doing nothing if you're out of work...what incentives does that provide people to get a job?

With capitalism, it says to the individual "Work or die" (unless you're truly not able to). After all, what good is a person if he's not contributing to society in some way? He'll then simply be a leech on the entire system; sucking away the wealth from other people, whether they want it, or not.

socialism sounds great on the surface...and truly, I'm not surprised you hold the views you do...considering you live in the UK (I've seen/met many socialists...most from foreign countries)...but, deep down socialism only generates failure, rewards bad behavior, and ends up making everyone a slave to the State...it never starts out like this, and it could take hundreds of years for it to break down into totalitarianism (or very quickly, if there's some "crisis" like the false idea of "global warming", that Iran might "nuke us", or that "we have to vaccinate everyone"), but it always will end in totalitarianism.

[einjun]

Capitalism is superior to socialism, but it still has drawbacks. Selling crap to people who don't need more stuff doesn't really enhanced society, but it does fill the pockets of those who have learned how to manipulate people.
if people buy things they don't need, how is that any business of yours? what qualifies you to judge what my needs and wants are?

[asgardshill]

if people buy things they don't need, how is that any business of yours? what qualifies you to judge what my needs and wants are?

+1

[Rebel Resource]

if people buy things they don't need, how is that any business of yours? what qualifies you to judge what my needs and wants are?

If consumerism is destroying the planet, and the human race is living unsustainably, and if you believe majority scientific consensus about the threat of global warming, then it's a problem for all of us.

In response to another comment about democracy being repulsive, I could say that what constitutes democracy today is hardly democracy. The greek word literally means rule by the people, which is what I see most closely followed by what is happening in Venezuela right now.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Why a socialist would support someone like Ron Paul, is beyond me. It would be like if an evangelist voted for Marilyn Manson.

[asgardshill]

Perhaps if the evangelist was Aleister Crowley ...

[Rebel Resource]

Why a socialist would support someone like Ron Paul, is beyond me. It would be like if an evangelist voted for Marilyn Manson.

Yeah, someone said I was disgraceful. What other candidate is going to stop massacring muslims and turning America into a police state?

Such things transcend economic ideology, but as it happens I much prefer small government to corporatist government. And if Ron wins, my country could soon follow.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Yeah, someone said I was disgraceful. What other candidate is going to stop massacring muslims and turning America into a police state?

Such things transcend economic ideology, but as it happens I much prefer small government to corporatist government. And if Ron wins, my country could soon follow.

Nothing transcends economic ideology. Everything is based on it. Non-intervention is rooted in Capitalism and Libertarianism. Same basic principles. Its actually the socialism where intervention comes from. If you are in favor of controlling the people of your own country for the betterment of society, chances are you are in favor of controlling the people of other countries too.

[SuMuKong]

I still have a problem with grassroots groups being able to restrain corporations. You look at modern day attempts to do so, but nobody has the time or money to do so because the working day is too long and you barely have any leisure time.

In order words, corporations dont need the state to become tyrannical and increase their power infinitely. In most cases I'd say the state is necessary to prevent corporate tyranny.

Corporations are interesting from a legal perspective, because they are essentially structured as mini-States. I've often said, and have often heard from other people, that the study of corporate law is quite similar to the study of Constitutional law. You have a charter, voting shareholders, procedural safeguards, committees, etc.

Ideally, corporations would behave as pseudo-sovereigns and would be opposed to each other and separated from the governmental sovereign. But this does not happen, and when it happens, the free-market fails.

This is why I believe that one of the roles of government is to preserve the efficiency of the free-market through careful anti-trust enforcement (of bad monopolies--not all monopolies are bad, though) and other mechanisms. In a sense, this is the lesser of evils, because the government is also a de facto monopoly. But it is a lot better than having monopolies taking over and making things worse for consumers.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

...

[JohnCrabtree]

If consumerism is destroying the planet, and the human race is living unsustainably, and if you believe majority scientific consensus about the threat of global warming, then it's a problem for all of us.

In response to another comment about democracy being repulsive, I could say that what constitutes democracy today is hardly democracy. The greek word literally means rule by the people, which is what I see most closely followed by what is happening in Venezuela right now.

Venezuela is run by a dictator who has rigged elections and instituted price controls on food, leading to extreme shortages. If Venezuela was a capitalistic country, people would not be starving in the streets. The oil industry would be controlled better, and rather than subsidiesing its own people with 12 cent gas, it would be exporting damn near all of it and the people of venezuela would profit. The Dictator has taken over private air waves, So the state there controls, your Food, Fuel, and Media, and Government. How in God's name is this close to a Democracy? Those programs you mentioned have no REAL power its an illusion to keep the masses happy. Remember Hitler was running "internment camps" and the big building were shoe factories. DOUBLE speak is the language of tyrants.


Also we do not and have never had a democracy. We have a Republic. And our republic is not a democratic one. There is an unfair advantage towards incumbency, which is why we have corrupt government. If we had term limits this would not be a problem. But Congress Critters can use hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to send out thier campaign propaganda. They have staffs of dozens at Taxpayer expense that handle casework, such as getting Mrs. Smith her lost social security check. Then they use Taxpayer money to tell about this. ( Yes the act cost $20, and telling constituents about it costs $80,000. )They secure pork-barrel spending for thier districts so that they can get re-elected to $180,000 jobs with huge amounts of power and a pension second to none. Once we put in Term Limits, This will go away and we will have the citizen legislatures that our founders designed. Checkl out the book "Who Really Rules America" by Eric O'Keefe.

The closest thing we have to a direct democracy is the initiative and refferendum process which allows petitions to be gathered to change state laws and constitutions. Currenlty I am collecting signatures in Michigan to Make our legislature a Part-Time legislature and cut thier pay in half, as well as one to give us a direct vote on every tac hike the legislature passes.

www.ballotpedia.org to learn which states have I+R and what ballot initiatives are going on in your states.

[Truth Warrior]

"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

[JohnCrabtree]

"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

I certainly do not agree with this statement. This sounds like " The masses are idiots so they need a ruling class of educated people to tell them how to live thier lives. We need SMART people to run up a 10 trillion dollar debt, start half a dozen wars a decade, and increase the size of government so much that the average person works 6 months to pay his tax bill"

This is rediculous. The founders intended for citizen legislatures, and for the citizens to vote for them, and to be ABLE to vote them out when necessary. We have a bill of rights so that a republic, or even a direct democracy can not take these rights away. The only lacking of the Bill of Rights is that there was no economic freedom ammendment stating the the money you earn is yours. That government can not take your money and give to someone else. Without this in a bill of rights, 51% realize that they can steal the money of the 49%.

For citizens to put laws on the ballot they need to collect signatures so there needs to be enough like minded individuals to even propose a law or change a law, then ALL citizens get to vote on it. In Michigan we need 371,000 signatures ina 6 month window to get on the ballot. Then it needs to be voted on to win. This is citizen democracy at its best. You need 371,000 peopple who truly believe in the cause and then you need about 3 million people to vote for it for it to pass.

And maybe, just maybe, those "average voters" who would be deemed too stupid to govern, wouldn't be without compulory education. The State sponsored school system has been actively dumbing down america for generations. This is why Economics and Government are ELECTIVES in high school and even then are sometimes half semester classes. In High school I only received 8 weeks of each. Out of 13 years of forced "education" only 8 weeks of the stuff that truly matters" Pathetic.

[forsmant]

I certainly do not agree with this statement. This sounds like " The masses are idiots so they need a ruling class of educated people to tell them how to live thier lives. We need SMART people to run up a 10 trillion dollar debt, start half a dozen wars a decade, and increase the size of government so much that the average person works 6 months to pay his tax bill"

This is rediculous. The founders intended for citizen legislatures, and for the citizens to vote for them, and to be ABLE to vote them out when necessary. We have a bill of rights so that a republic, or even a direct democracy can not take these rights away. The only lacking of the Bill of Rights is that there was no economic freedom ammendment stating the the money you earn is yours. That government can not take your money and give to someone else. Without this in a bill of rights, 51% realize that they can steal the money of the 49%.

For citizens to put laws on the ballot they need to collect signatures so there needs to be enough like minded individuals to even propose a law or change a law, then ALL citizens get to vote on it. In Michigan we need 371,000 signatures ina 6 month window to get on the ballot. Then it needs to be voted on to win. This is citizen democracy at its best. You need 371,000 peopple who truly believe in the cause and then you need about 3 million people to vote for it for it to pass.

And maybe, just maybe, those "average voters" who would be deemed too stupid to govern, wouldn't be without compulory education. The State sponsored school system has been actively dumbing down america for generations. This is why Economics and Government are ELECTIVES in high school and even then are sometimes half semester classes. In High school I only received 8 weeks of each. Out of 13 years of forced "education" only 8 weeks of the stuff that truly matters" Pathetic.


The founding fathers were full of shit. Those citizen legislators would all be white male land owning citizens. All government is bullshit. Thats alright though, we like bullshit in America.

[Truth Warrior]

I certainly do not agree with this statement. This sounds like " The masses are idiots so they need a ruling class of educated people to tell them how to live thier lives. We need SMART people to run up a 10 trillion dollar debt, start half a dozen wars a decade, and increase the size of government so much that the average person works 6 months to pay his tax bill"
Nice spin.<IMHO> So how did we get all of this?
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." -- Lord Acton
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton

This is rediculous. The founders intended for citizen legislatures, and for the citizens to vote for them, and to be ABLE to vote them out when necessary. We have a bill of rights so that a republic, or even a direct democracy can not take these rights away. The only lacking of the Bill of Rights is that there was no economic freedom ammendment stating the the money you earn is yours. That government can not take your money and give to someone else. Without this in a bill of rights, 51% realize that they can steal the money of the 49%.
Was the constitution adoption the result of a democratic vote?
For citizens to put laws on the ballot they need to collect signatures so there needs to be enough like minded individuals to even propose a law or change a law, then ALL citizens get to vote on it. In Michigan we need 371,000 signatures ina 6 month window to get on the ballot. Then it needs to be voted on to win. This is citizen democracy at its best. You need 371,000 peopple who truly believe in the cause and then you need about 3 million people to vote for it for it to pass.
Sounds like a SCAM to me. "Complexity is the essence of the hustle."
And maybe, just maybe, those "average voters" who would be deemed too stupid to govern, wouldn't be without compulory education. The State sponsored school system has been actively dumbing down america for generations. This is why Economics and Government are ELECTIVES in high school and even then are sometimes half semester classes. In High school I only received 8 weeks of each. Out of 13 years of forced "education" only 8 weeks of the stuff that truly matters" Pathetic.
It seems like you are making Churchill's case.


Thanks!

[Rebel Resource]

Venezuela is run by a dictator who has rigged elections and instituted price controls on food, leading to extreme shortages. If Venezuela was a capitalistic country, people would not be starving in the streets. The oil industry would be controlled better, and rather than subsidiesing its own people with 12 cent gas, it would be exporting damn near all of it and the people of venezuela would profit. The Dictator has taken over private air waves, So the state there controls, your Food, Fuel, and Media, and Government. How in God's name is this close to a Democracy? Those programs you mentioned have no REAL power its an illusion to keep the masses happy. Remember Hitler was running "internment camps" and the big building were shoe factories. DOUBLE speak is the language of tyrants.


I lived there for over a year, so...

1. If he rigs elections, why would he introduce an advanced, accountable electoral system? and why did he lose in December

2. There are no 'extreme' shortages. What shortages there are of milk, sugar etc is due to massively rising demand as a result of people's income shooting way up since Chavez took power.

3. The only media station that got forced out to cable (not shut down) was a channel that played a part in an illegal coup. Try that in America and see what happens to you.

4. In sum, you know practically nothing -- it seems you accept what the MSM tells you, and they are as opposed to Chavez as they are to Ron Paul.

[JohnCrabtree]

Truth Warrior:

1. We got to this point by allowing our legislatures to take powers not granted to them under the constitution. If you look at the point I made earlier about Term Limits, this would solve the problem. They only spend the money in Pork so that they can get re-elected. Then, taxpayers pay for them to shout out to thier constituents about the pork they provided.

I completely agree that no "class" is fit to govern" and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that is why we need to shift those in power regularly, by making a congressional or senate seat a temporary visit, rather than a lifetime of a cushy job, with seemilngly unlimited power.

2. The constitution was adopted by a democratic/republic vote. The People voted for delegates in the colonies, and the delegates they chose ratified the constitution.

3. It's not complex and It's not a scam. How do you come to this conclusion? Why should the citizens of a state not be able to ammend the constitution to make neccessary changes? 371,000 is 10% of the people who voted in the last election for governor. That is the amount of valid signatures we need by Michigan Registered Voters. Then it is put to a vote. There are about 7 million registered voters in the state of michigan,e ach one of them can vote either way or not vote on any issue. How is this complex and how is it a scam?

4. I am not making Churchill's case. At the time, the masses in America were much better educated than today. It is "pathetic" that there is so little taught in public schools about politics and economics, but who runs these schools? The State. Who decides the curriculum? both the state and the federal governments. Why do they want to limit knowledge in these fields?
People learn on their own outside of compulory education, and those who don't tend to not vote. There should not be mandatory voting, but people should have a vote on important issues.

So let me understand your point of view. You believe that Republics are superior to democracies, and we need a highly educated ruling class? And you believe that individuals in the country are too stupid to govern themselves and to run thier own lives?

---------------------------------------
Rebel Resource:

When you come into extra money do you buy Milk and Sugar in bulk? You know in truly capitalistic societies there is no such thing as a shortage.


"After the May and July 2000 elections, Chávez backed the passage of the "Enabling Act" by the National Assembly. This act allowed Chávez to rule by decree for one year. In November 2001, shortly before the Enabling Act was set to expire, Chávez enacted a set of 49 decrees. These included the Hydrocarbons Law and the Land Law. Fedecámaras, a national business federation, and the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV), a federation of labor unions, opposed the approval of the new laws and called for a general business strike on December 10, 2001[34] in the hope that the President would reconsider his legislative action and, instead, open a debate about those laws.[35] The strike failed to significantly impact Chávez's decision or policies.[36]"

This is the act of someone who is not a tyrant?

Do I think the U.S. should regime change him? NO
Do I think we should trade with Venezuela? YES
Do I think he is a good person who is truly trying to help citizens in his country? NO



In Sum: you know practically nothing as you claim to support someone who believes in ECONOMIC freedom and Personal freedom, while you actually support someone who does not allow economic freedom or personal freedom.

[JohnCrabtree]

Truth Warrior:

1. We got to this point by allowing our legislatures to take powers not granted to them under the constitution. If you look at the point I made earlier about Term Limits, this would solve the problem. They only spend the money in Pork so that they can get re-elected. Then, taxpayers pay for them to shout out to thier constituents about the pork they provided.

I completely agree that no "class" is fit to govern" and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that is why we need to shift those in power regularly, by making a congressional or senate seat a temporary visit, rather than a lifetime of a cushy job, with seemilngly unlimited power.

2. The constitution was adopted by a democratic/republic vote. The People voted for delegates in the colonies, and the delegates they chose ratified the constitution.

3. It's not complex and It's not a scam. How do you come to this conclusion? Why should the citizens of a state not be able to ammend the constitution to make neccessary changes? 371,000 is 10% of the people who voted in the last election for governor. That is the amount of valid signatures we need by Michigan Registered Voters. Then it is put to a vote. There are about 7 million registered voters in the state of michigan,e ach one of them can vote either way or not vote on any issue. How is this complex and how is it a scam?

4. I am not making Churchill's case. At the time, the masses in America were much better educated than today. It is "pathetic" that there is so little taught in public schools about politics and economics, but who runs these schools? The State. Who decides the curriculum? both the state and the federal governments. Why do they want to limit knowledge in these fields?
People learn on their own outside of compulory education, and those who don't tend to not vote. There should not be mandatory voting, but people should have a vote on important issues.

So let me understand your point of view. You believe that Republics are superior to democracies, and we need a highly educated ruling class? And you believe that individuals in the country are too stupid to govern themselves and to run thier own lives?

---------------------------------------
Rebel Resource:

When you come into extra money do you buy Milk and Sugar in bulk? You know in truly capitalistic societies there is no such thing as a shortage.


"After the May and July 2000 elections, Chávez backed the passage of the "Enabling Act" by the National Assembly. This act allowed Chávez to rule by decree for one year. In November 2001, shortly before the Enabling Act was set to expire, Chávez enacted a set of 49 decrees. These included the Hydrocarbons Law and the Land Law. Fedecámaras, a national business federation, and the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV), a federation of labor unions, opposed the approval of the new laws and called for a general business strike on December 10, 2001[34] in the hope that the President would reconsider his legislative action and, instead, open a debate about those laws.[35] The strike failed to significantly impact Chávez's decision or policies.[36]"

This is the act of someone who is not a tyrant?

Do I think the U.S. should regime change him? NO
Do I think we should trade with Venezuela? YES
Do I think he is a good person who is truly trying to help citizens in his country? NO



In Sum: you know practically nothing as you claim to support someone who believes in ECONOMIC freedom and Personal freedom, while you actually support someone who does not allow economic freedom or personal freedom.

[Rebel Resource]

Rebel Resource:

When you come into extra money do you buy Milk and Sugar in bulk? You know in truly capitalistic societies there is no such thing as a shortage.


"After the May and July 2000 elections, Chávez backed the passage of the "Enabling Act" by the National Assembly. This act allowed Chávez to rule by decree for one year. [36]"

This is the act of someone who is not a tyrant?

Do I think the U.S. should regime change him? NO
Do I think we should trade with Venezuela? YES
Do I think he is a good person who is truly trying to help citizens in his country? NO

In Sum: you know practically nothing as you claim to support someone who believes in ECONOMIC freedom and Personal freedom, while you actually support someone who does not allow economic freedom or personal freedom.

1. I don't love Ron Paul for his capitalist/libertarian views, though they are better than the corporatist/special interest reality of today. I support him for his anti-Empire stance, his respect for civil liberties, fiscal balance, open trade etc.

2. Chavez passed decree laws, as did other Venezuelan presidents in decades past. Did you know that in today's Venezuela, any law (even if passed by decree) can be repealed by petition and then democratic vote?? I guess you didn't.

3. Please don't read the MSM on Chavez. Chavez and Ron Paul are both on the same side, but with different economic ideology. They are both honest politicians who want people power, just in different ways. Chavez has a lot of executive power, but the Venezuelan people are getting more power every day and that is the focus.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

The founding fathers were full of shit.

Welcome to my ignore list.

The bigger my list gets, the less Im banging my head against the table. My blood pressure is going down too.

[colecrowe]

I don't think I'll bother reading an argument against freedom (capitalism=freedom).

Now if by "capitalism" you mean corporatism or fascism, then maybe you should change your wording.

Idiotic.

[Brian4Liberty]

One could say that Adam Smith was instrumental in creating today's "free market Capitalism". It could also be said that he was no fool, and never advocated trusting powerful corporate interests. Quite the opposite:

"To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter XI

What we have today is the opposite of what Adam Smith advocated. We have a government where almost all law is written by corporate interests who stand to benefit from it...

[Rebel Resource]

I don't think I'll bother reading an argument against freedom (capitalism=freedom).

Now if by "capitalism" you mean corporatism or fascism, then maybe you should change your wording.

Idiotic.

To differentiate capitalism and corporatism is one thing, but to identify how one is going to produce effects notably different from the other is quite different.

By effects I mean

1. the undemocratic nature of corporations running riot - Eg their current projects of dominating the world food supply (GM, etc) and patenting life forms

2. their ability to close barriers to entry to start-ups in the marketplace, and continue to buy each other up and create oligopolies

3. the problem of the mass media, which is dictated to by big business, and kills independent/democratic media because of massive advertising income

among other things. there is no place for idiocy here, these are real issues.

[partypooper]

Consumerism, for example, is obscene in my opinion - a massive percentage of what people buy, they simply don't need.

oh yeah? let me know when i can get an appointment with you to approve of my possessions and otherwise instruct me on what i do and do not need.

[Rebel Resource]

oh yeah? let me know when i can get an appointment with you to approve of my possessions and otherwise instruct me on what i do and do not need.

We could debate the destructive effect of materialism on the human psyche, the raping of the planet due to rabid consumerism, or the fact that people buy pointless crap on a whim, and rack up massive debt.

But as long as there's freedum, I guess it's OK!! Freedom for corporations to mindfuck people with adverts all day. Lovely lovely freedom.

[dvictr]

I CHALLENGE (rebel resource) any socialist to read at least the first few paragraphs here!

argue ANY point in relation to RON PAUL..




Chapter I

The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom


It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of "democratic socialism" by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individuai freedom imposed by "totalitarian socialism" in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.

Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.

A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on. Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.



full text here http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/friedman.htm

[asgardshill]

I dare anybody to read past the first few paragraphs of that "wall 'o text". Executive summaries are a good thing.

[dvictr]

I dare anybody to read past the first few paragraphs of that "wall 'o text". Executive summaries are a good thing.

well i guess thats what Rudy Guiliani said when Ron Paul gave him the reading assignment.

ITS 10 pages from a book!

[asgardshill]

well i guess thats what Rudy Guiliani said when Ron Paul gave him the reading assignment.

ITS 10 pages from a book!

I'm quite aware of that. I've even read a few of them (and I have many more I have never even colored in) ;) Point is, many people are not text-oriented, they're visually-oriented. And you're losing the visually-oriented every time you post a wall 'o text with no context or short summary to grab their attention.

This is not an attack, just an observation.

[dvictr]

I'm quite aware of that. I've even read a few of them (and I have many more I have never even colored in) ;) Point is, many people are not text-oriented, they're visually-oriented. And you're losing the visually-oriented every time you post a wall 'o text with no context or short summary to grab their attention.

This is not an attack, just an observation.

yes i agree and i understand that an online message board is not the place to be reading textbooks. but i am a firm advocate and believer in free market and COMPETITIVE capitalism...

the problem with the United States as i see it is that the gov.. interferes TOO MUCH with capitalism.

[dvictr]

point is i think that if KARL MARX read Capitalism and Freedom... if he were alive in 1962 would convert!

[Carl Corey]

I CHALLENGE (rebel resource) any socialist to read at least the first few paragraphs here!

argue ANY point in relation to RON PAUL..

Under Communism lack of competition causes inadequacy, under Capitalism massive amounts of money are wasted on advertising worthless products while products of worth are made so cheap that they (ideally) start falling apart the moment the warranty expires.

Democracy caters to the lowest common denominator, which is quite low, while a dictatorship doesn't work well because power corrupts, not to mention that most democratic parties are all about retaining their political power, rather than doing the right thing, which arguably makes a democracy worse. This however is too much of a shocking concept for most people who've been brainwashed to idolize democracy to the same degree as the one God.

Keep in mind that a whole slew of issues are grouped among socialism that have nothing to do with it, the same goes for capitalism.


What it comes down to is having someone capable in charge who doesn't make too many stupid errors, regardless of that person being a dictator or democratically chosen, or being a socialist or capitalist.

[asgardshill]

yes i agree and i understand that an online message board is not the place to be reading textbooks. but i am a firm advocate and believer in free market and COMPETITIVE capitalism...

the problem with the United States as i see it is that the gov.. interferes TOO MUCH with capitalism.

Bravo. That's a summary that ... well, sums it all up.

[dvictr]

one more time because i want to hijack this thread in the name of the RON PAUL revolution!

read this and argue for socialism!


Chapter I

The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom


It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of "democratic socialism" by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individuai freedom imposed by "totalitarian socialism" in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.

Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.

A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on. Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.

[AisA1787]

Communism would be great it if weren't for people. Ditto for capitalism. Of the two, I'll take capitalism any day, thanks. Greed, evil, and poor decision making are best spread out among the masses rather than concentrated in one supremely inept group of central planners. Less bad shit happens this way.

[partypooper]

We could debate the destructive effect of materialism on the human psyche, the raping of the planet due to rabid consumerism, or the fact that people buy pointless crap on a whim, and rack up massive debt.

please do tell me more about "destructive effect of materialism on human psyche" and "raping of the planet" (with the emphasis on planet's genitalia and its other needs).

as far as buying pointless crap is concerned, i guess you do agree that you alone are the ultimate judge of what products people need and do not need.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Before I buy something, Im going to send an email to Rebel Rouser to make sure its not pointless crap.