Capitalism v Communism

In having some discussions with people over the last few days it has blossomed in my mind the idea that many of those who so vehemently lambast capitalism have no understanding what capitalism actually is. As a result they attack and attack using examples and historical incidents as justification for ending capitalism when those examples are no such justification. So I feel like I have to write this article to clarify that point, to help those who are floundering with those conversations gain some understanding of what my belief is in capitalism. Further it will help those who attack it understand why I refuse to accept the idea that some form of communism/socialism/fascism because it is not only immoral, but is also far worse for any people who aspire to live free.

Before we begin, allow me to explain my chosen art. All the pictures that I am posting with this article are prime examples of the propaganda out there attempting to paint capitalism in a false light. This is the campaign of the extreme far left progressives who wish to destroy what allowed America’s astounding rise in stature.

Let’s begin with a basic definition of capitalism, shall we? Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit. So let’s keep this straight. Capitalism is not a socio-political system aiming to control or shape the class distribution or involve government in the equation in any way. In its truest form, capitalism remains untouched by government. Everything within the system is privately owned by the contributors of capital, the capitalists. The important point, and this should not be overlooked, is that the beauty of capitalism is that the costs associated are determined solely by market forces: supply, demand, price, etc.

On the other hand we have Communism. Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate. In theory communism aims to place ownership of the means of production in the hands of the workers. Everything is owned by the “people” , or the working class (the proletariat). In direct contrast to capitalism, the costs associated with communism are determined by… well… they are not determined at all. In its purest form, everyone simply gets what they need, no cost matters. The services of a specialist doctor are equal in value to the services of a landscaper cutting your grass. Regardless of input to the system, everyone gets only what they need to survive, and nothing more or , more importantly, nothing less.

Now allow me to say, just so no one gets their underthings wadded up in an uncomfortable manner, that I don’t offer these definitions as a means of saying that anyone is lacking in intelligence. I offer them because, as I have stated in the past, it is important to impart one’s definitions up front so that there is less chance of misinterpretation or wrangling through debates where we are talking about something entirely different. So if you are going to make your argument based on something other than the definitions above, please identify your definition before you begin.

There is an ongoing dialogue, driven by those on the far left, that is attempting to paint capitalism as a dangerous and immoral undertaking. It is a pervasive undertone to nearly every economic discussion the left engages in. It wouldn’t be so dangerous if such senseless rhetoric weren’t taking root in the under 40 crowd on the left. Even those dreaded Keynes disciples at America’s institutions of higher learning don’t like capitalism. They preach that the only good capitalism is heavily regulated capitalism (despite that they are fundamentally altering capitalism into fascism or socialism in doing so).

But the most dangerous part of this rhetoric is in the consequences that they falsely assign to capitalism. They claim that it makes people immoral. They claim that it causes slavery and theft. They claim that it is the cause of economic downturns and that it destroys the middle class. Take this example from Richard Wolff, published in the UK Guardian earlier this year:

Republican and Democratic politicians alike dare not link this crisis to an economic system that has never stopped producing those “downturns” that regularly cost so many millions of jobs, wasted resources, lost outputs and injured lives. For them, the economic system is beyond questioning. They bow before the unspoken taboo: never criticise the system upon which your careers depend.

I would point out Mr. Wolff, that it is the system on which your career depends as well. Communism requires and, as history shows, highly frowns upon political commentary that challenges the government. But I digress. Capitalism is not the cause of economic downturns. Economic downturns are the result of market forces. And the dramatic economic downturns that we have had in America’s history were explicitly not caused by capitalism. They were instead caused by government’s intrusion into, and subsequent manipulation and unbalancing of, the market. Without government distorting the marketplace, things could not have gotten so out of whack as to require such a dramatic correction. And that is a primary truth that those on the left, especially the far left, refuse to acknowledge: It is government action, not the acts of a few immoral men with money, that is the poison in the well of America’s economy.

Others take things to the next level, claiming that capitalism is downright evil. Take this example from Clayton Morgareidge, a professor at Lewis and Clark University in Oregon. The author takes pride in founding the “Old Mole” movement, in reference to Marx’s analogy to a mole undermining the capitalist foundation and showing up uninvited to the capitalist’s lawn.

I have argued that capitalism is war, and that those of us who do not own capital suffer from it just as do civilian populations caught between opposing armies, or as foot soldiers conscripted into armies fighting for interests that are not our own. I’ve tried to show that capitalism is the violent negation of democracy, for it is the interests of those who own capital that determine how we live: their jobs, products, services, manufactured culture, and propaganda shape our lives and our minds.

And then there are those like our own lovable Redski, Charlie, who consistently claim that the capitalist system is to blame for the disparity in wealth in the US. The claim, to be more clear, is that the wealthy have such a monopoly on power and wealth, that they are intentionally squeezing the middle class worker out of existence. A haughty claim to be sure. However, I would point out that correlation is not causation. I won’t debate whether the middle class is actually truly shrinking, but I also am not willing to fall prey to the emotional claim that it is capitalism’s fault. Or more specifically, according to our redski, the free market is to blame. Utter hogwash.

Capitalism is not the cause of the decline of the middle class. In fact, take a look at the thoughts from Operation HOPE Global Spokesman Ambassador Andrew Young. He stated, “communism failed because it could not create a middle class, and capitalism succeeded precisely because it did create a middle class, but capitalism itself has begun to fail because it has not made itself relevant to all people.” Here is a guy who’s entire life is dedicated to the “other America” (poor minorities) and even he doesn’t fall for the ‘capitalism is the cause of the decline of middle class’ fallacy. There are plenty of problems in America with wealth disparity and the power taken by those with wealth, but the problem is not that capitalism failed. The problem is that government intervened in far too many ways.

When people on the “left” clamored for government action, they got exactly what they asked for: government action. The people gave the government the mandate to intrude on the market, but had no understanding that government had no intention of doing so on their behalf. No, instead government intruded on the market, exactly as “the people” asked, only they did so in ways that protected and empowered those at the top of the game. The “2%” became more elite and more powerful by writ of Congressional pen and Presidential Order. And now the people clamor again for government intervention, at a time when the government and the wealthy elite are one and the same!

NOTE: As a nifty little side game for those playing along, name me a systemic problem with Capitalism that is CAUSED by the truly free market in the last 100 years. Bonus points if you can find something that government didn’t actually make possible. Extra bonus points if you find something that is even remotely possible in today’s climate.

It should be noted that regardless of position nearly all of the economists out there tend to agree that capitalism encourages growth. Communism, on the other hand, does no such thing. The only thing that grows in communism is the amount of control given to the very top of the bracket. The communist embracers love to spout off that their version of the future is one where the working middle class has the power and grows. They claim that capitalism shrinks the middle class while that problem won’t exist in their brave new world. Equality is the name of the game and they will put everyone on equal ground! And they are correct.

Because Communism does not shrink the middle class and it does foster more equality economically. The problem is that it doesn’t bring the poorest among us up to middle class, it brings the middle class down to the poorest among us. “From each according to ability, To each according to need.” Explain to me how any version of “to each according to need” is middle class? It sounds to me like the very statement is a call for the elimination of middle class. Everyone only gets what they need. In other words, everyone gets stripped down to the bare necessities, unless of course they are the wealthy elite who run the system. You want REAL economic disparity? Embrace the communist viewpoint.

Of course those on that far left fringe would have you believe that they are merely the vocal portion of a new America that supports their vision. Those of us favoring capitalism are the remaining “remnant” according to Charlie. A vast minority who are clinging desperately to ideological failures of the past. This glaring headline from the bastion of economic enlightenment, The Huffington Post, seems to echo Charlie’s claim:

U.S. Support For ‘Free Market’ Capitalism Drops Below China, Brazil, Poll Finds

That is until you actually read the article. Then the fringe among us who still claim that an unregulated free market is the best path forward aren’t nearly as fringe as one would like to claim:

Nearly three years after the financial system first came perilously close to collapse, American support for an unregulated free market appears to have cratered.

A new report by GlobeScan, an international opinion research consultancy, suggests that the number of Americans who believe in the strength of the free market economy dropped markedly last year. In fact, according to the survey results, both Brazil and China, on a percentage basis, ranked higher than the U.S. in overall support for free market capitalism.

The report, released this week and based on 12,884 interviews in 25 countries, asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement that the “free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world.”

GlobeScan found Americans strongly agreeing or somewhat agreeing dropped to 59 percent from 74 percent, a 15 percent dip from the year prior and the second largest year-over-year drop of any country besides Turkey. An even more dramatic drop (32 percent drop) occurred among those in the U.S. with annual incomes below $20,000, of which only 44 percent agreed that the free market was the ideal system.

“American support for an unregulated free market has CRATERED!” Cratered! As in fallen into a hole lower than the surface situation. I wouldn’t say that 6 out of every 10 people in America supporting an unregulated free market isn’t exactly “cratering”. I would say they lost some support when viewed against the previous year’s numbers. I would say that those who think like Charlie, despite his claims otherwise, make up a small minority (only 10% of Americans think Communism is superior to what we have now, which is NOT free market capitalism). Further, those countries out there that already tried the communism route (China) now overwhelmingly believe that that what we advocate is a better path forward. Learn from those who went before….

What should be taken from the article offered above? While trying to douse the hopes of those who support an “unregulated free market,” the author has instead made me feel good about it. 59% of Americans feel that an unregulated free market is the best path forward!!!! However, what is at the same time disappointing is that when 3 out of every 4 Americans believed so, we still allowed government to creep in and turn our market into the mess that it has become. Yet those on the fringe would have you believe that capitalism is to blame.

And all of this completely ignores that it is utterly immoral to to not allow a free person to place proper value on his or her services. That someone could believe that the 60-70 hours a week I am willing to put into work (as a salaried 40 hour employee) is equal in value to the ghetto girl down the hall that refuses to work more than 40, and who actually only works about 25 when you take out her time on the phone with her friends and 3 hour lunch, is ludicrous. How is that morally superior? And before the whole slavery/indian nonsense rears its ugly head again, let’s place that where it belongs, as part of mercantilism or colonialism, not capitalism.

And further, how is it that anyone could think such a system would result in increased productivity or a return to American pride? Anyone who has ever been a part of such a system will tell you bluntly that productivity decreases. There is no incentive to perform at a higher level. Why should I go above and beyond on anything? I get no benefit for doing so. I still get “according to my need”. The Clinton Welfare reforms were a prime example of what happens when people are forced off the government teat and must rely on their own desire to succeed. Those reforms were working, until President Obama eliminated them in his first week as Welfare Provider in Chief. And of course according to need is another can of worms altogether.

Because determining what is need and what is want is completely arbitrary. When compared to the poor of the rest of the world, the poorest among us here in the US live like kings. So is “need” based on what is needed to live in Ethiopia, or is need based on what America’s poor currently have? Or is it an arbitrary level determined by someone somewhere who just thinks that they know better than me? Does Black Flag get to determine what my needs are? Do I get to determine G-Man’s needs? Does Charlie get to determine everyone’s level of need?

Don’t get me wrong, SUFA, capitalism is not perfect. No economic system is. But it is better than any other system out there. It isn’t inherently evil. It is not the cause of a shrinking middle class. And it is not the reason that the disparity in income between the top 2% and the rest of us continues to grow. Capitalism has its faults, and next week I will offer a short article on where I think capitalism went wrong in America (beyond the concept of government intrusion).

But it sure as hell beats the pants off the far left’s communist utopia.

About these ads

Comments

  1. We have argued on here alot about whether or not we should have a totally free market-but when the left is out there declaring that Capitalism is evil it really should be a clue that these people are way to extreme. That they are no longer Democrats.

  2. Before I read or post … the Doc dishes once more to and at Obama … and his question at the end does (I admit it) make one think (regarding Palin v. Obama):

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/04/doc-says.html

  3. Good Morning, USW. Nice article. I cannot argue with it.

  4. Interesting, once again, how you state something, cherry pick a documentation or two and then it becomes fact (as you proclaim it to be). To use a term you prefer, Hogwash.

    Ultimately, your argument and BF’s is this: If capitalism “appears” to have failed, don’t be fooled by that 20,000 ton elephant in the room, it is government intervention that caused the “apparent” failure. “Truly free market” capitalism (which neither of you have ever pointed to once historically (from fear, I assume, of it be assaulted) — remains the great utopia of the right; “We can’t really show you how it works (although we claim it is responsible for our great stature in the world, including our growth during and after the Civil War when actually slavery was around for another 100+ years–but that too was the government’s fault–so don’t blame capitalism–capitalism is only responsible for the “good stuff”. If only the markets were “truly free” … sweet Jesus … have a good time hunting that Easter Bunny down Sunday.

    How silly is that argument already?

    Just a few more points, busy day writing …

    USW’s polls … it is interesting how here at SUFA, statements become facts (hogwash makes it so?) … or how after posts discussing how little of the country’s population is politically and/or economically illiterate, polls of the same people suddenly hold credibility (never mind who is conducting them and for what purpose, because polls are as manipulative as minds).

    And before the whole slavery/Indian nonsense rears its ugly head again, let’s place that where it belongs, as part of mercantilism or colonialism, not capitalism.

    i.e., hogwash (he says so, therefore it is). So, if you look to America before formal governments were formed and people were acting in a free market state, the American Indian doesn’t count (wipe out an entire nation with one broad stroke because USW/BF says so? Thank God you’re both not writing history books.

    That someone could believe that the 60-70 hours a week I am willing to put into work (as a salaried 40 hour employee) is equal in value to the ghetto girl down the hall that refuses to work more than 40, and who actually only works about 25 when you take out her time on the phone with her friends and 3 hour lunch, is ludicrous.

    Please don’t kid yourself about ghetto girls any longer. I’ve worked in top tier law firms where plenty of middle class men and woman, ghetto or not, weren’t working as hard as your example above (I’m talking about the “ghetto girl”) … but to suggest, once again, that just because you’re willing to be a slave to whatever firm you work for we should all be doing the same (or lump it?) is a bit absurd. Not everybody wants to be USW or BF, guys. There are some of us out here who cherish other aspects of life. Self-motivated workers, inventors, etc., will always self motivated workers, inventors, etc.; the corollary of lazy will always be lazy is also true. Nobody advocates the lazy get away with doing nothing. Us redskies just don’t see the point in someone making $633,000 an hour (while his work force does the actual labor) while people sleep in tent cities. Bill Gates would’ve been Bill Gates under any economic system.

    What is hogwash is your belief that it is the same government (and its intervention) that has ruined capitalism; but coming after you admit the government is owned by big business make it doubly absurd (or hogwash x 2).

    • Charlie

      Lets start with a very basic concept.

      Under a free market Capitalist system Corporations would NOT exist.

      Now explain how the evil of corporations is the fault of Capitalism, when a Corporation could not exist under that system.

      • JAC, please be the one to point out an example of the utopian free market that “made this country so great”. Please.

      • Maybe you already realize this-but I think Charlies frustration is brought about by the fact-that people credit capitalism as the source of our growth-while at the same time saying we have never had a truly free market-so nothing that has gone wrong can be blamed on capitalism because we have never really had capitalism-so how can you credit capitalism for our growth . It does seem like a contradiction. And when you figure in that his main complaint is man’s ability to be greedy and not treat his employees fairly-capitalism does give man that ability-but why he doesn’t see that giving this power to the government-makes the problem worse-I do not know.

        • VH. I’m not even sure it would solve any problems (socialism and/or communism). All I advocate for is a change from the current system where the haves rule it for the rest of us. Globalization is and will continue to be a wonderful thing for the very wealthy and an utter collapse for everyone else. It is far easier today to outsource work than in the past (technology). This government (currently) is owned by money and will NEVER protect the people who perform the actual labor beyond throwing them bones (welfare, etc.). I hate how this government operates (the corruption, fraud, etc.), but it clearly is not working for the greater middle class/lower classs and is ONLY benefitting the already wealthy. I don’t see how it continues with a catastrophic result.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            @Charlie, I will agree with most of your post, but as I have understood, and as you admit, we are not in a true capitalist system because of govt. interference and corruption. A true capitalist system would not have this. I can go on in further detail on why your ideas will not work, but until govt. is elliminated from the business picture, capitalism will not be truly realized.

          • You very easily see the evil that government can do-so you really should be able to see that making government more powerful isn’t the answer. We may argue over whether or not a completely free market will work. But we are so far from a free market the discussion isn’t even relevant accept as a way to show how much intervention by the government has hurt the economy and taken away the freedoms in this country-but to argue that putting all the power and decision making into the hands of a few elites has already been proven not to work . You can even see the proof of this by looking at both parties in this country,the parties which you hate. We change them around with votes and the same problems remain. More power to the workers, more power to the people lies in less government.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              You very easily see the evil that men can do – so you really should be able to see that making men more powerful isn’t the answer. We may argue over whether or not a completely communist system will work. But we are so far from a communism system the discussion isn’t even relevant except as a way to show how much capitalism has hurt the economy and taken away (economic) freedoms in this country-but to argue that putting all the power and decision making into the hands of a few elites has already proven not to work. You can even see the proof of this by looking at both partiesi n this country, the parties which you hate. We change them around with votes and the same problems remain. More power to the workers, more power to the people lies in less corporate influence.

              Again, not saying I support a truly communist system – I don’t. But VH, your comments go both ways.

              • I’m with Buck. I NEVER said communism or the system I’d prefer (democratic socialism) would work, but … this (capitalism) sure isn’t, not for the greater good.

              • No they don’t -communism puts all the power in the hands of a few-Capitalism spreads out that power between many. If power can be evil in the hands of man-the more decentralized that power the better.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Capitalism spreads out the power between the many? Maybe at first, but then power winds up being consolidated amongst the wealthy.

              • Buck

                You create a fallacious argument with your reversal of the statement.

                Capitalism, by its very definition, can NOT take away freedom of the individual.

                The only way you can make that work is to CHANGE the definition of freedom. And that my barrister friend is exactly why the statists created a separate meaning. One that is the exact opposite of the original.

                No wonder the younger generation seems so confused.

    • Just one question-slavery is the fault of capitalism-is that really what you are saying.

    • I can’t understand why slavery is still an issue today. The greatest growth of the American nation happened decades after the end of slavery. I’m sick of hearing how terrible we are as a nation because of something that happened over a century ago, with which none of us had anything to do.

      I don’t think USW is saying that everyone should be super-motivated and hard working. He’s saying that those of us who are should be able to profit from it. Those who are lazy should not reap the same reward. If I study my butt off in class while my classmates go out partying all night, would it be right for them to get the same grade I do? No. My reward for my hard work is a better grade. The biggest thing I take from this article is that, “to each according to need” results in fewer people actually working hard because they will get the same no matter how hard they work. If you can counter this with a reasonable argument, then you have a chance of convincing me communism may actually work.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        JB: “If I study my butt off in class while my classmates go out partying all night, would it be right for them to get the same grade I do? No.”

        Just because you had to work harder doesn’t mean you should get a better grade. You need to look at the quality of the work, not the time spent. A good friend of mine was pissed when I received a higher grade despite my skipping class (8am on a Friday, come on!) and going out late the night before. But so long as I do what needs to be done, then so be it!

        But back to the point, nowhere does Charlie insist that the lazy get a free ride. In fact, in his own words: “Nobody advocates the lazy get away with doing nothing.”

        Anyway, work is busy today so I’m going to get back to it while waiting for an example of a true free market capitalist system…I won’t hold my breath.

        • Oh, go ahead counselor…hold it for awhile. I hold mine everytime “yo man” speaks. It will do you good. However, does the example of a truly free market have to be in modern day world or can I go back to our founding? If I can go back, I will give you several perfect examples. If I cannot, then the deck is stacked.

          As to grades, I have been blessed, and my son as well, with the fortunate mind that retains. I did not have to study to make the grades….(does 3.85 in undergrad count as good?)……3.6 in Grad however…..ugh….anyway…no one ges to an 0800 class in college do they? You actually registered for a 0800 class? As a Kappa Sig, we could not even move at 0800.

          How in th’ hell are you, sir?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Freshman year – didn’t have a choice on that one. Trust me, I never signed up for an 8am course again!

            I’m doing well, they’re keeping me busy at work though so not as much time to comment. Yourself?

            Out of sheer curiousity, lets hear your examples going back a few hundred years.

            • Okey Doke….can do. Give me a few mins and I will do that.

              Oh yeah, I forgot about being a freshman. Did not have many choices then.

              I am doing ok….getting ready to step on a chopper and head west to the Possum Kingdom area. We have a little burn going on out there….200,000 acres, a couple hundred homes, a few illegals hiding in the brush caught in the fire…but they need some of our assets to fight this one. It is only 25% contained and headed towards some bigger cities. Bring marshmellows if you want to help. I will be coordinating the move of military equipment and about 700 men to help out.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You crazy Texans — why do you have to do everything bigger? 200,000 acres and only a little burn!

          • If I can go back, I will give you several perfect examples. If I cannot, then the deck is stacked.

            Colonel (How are you, brother?), please, you have the floor. Show me examples going back as far as you’d like, but understand that I will have responses to them. As far back as you’d like … the floor is yours.

            • Ok Charlie…. (By the way, doing well) and I will expect you to have your responses to them….you would not be you without that…however, (please see response to Buck above) I have a little chore that needs to be tended to first…But, I will be back and will answer you. I have a couple of good ones for you and do not have to go back over 150 years. But, bone up on yer Texas studies.

              Later, my friend.

        • Buck

          Why is an example of a “true” free market capitalist system required to discuss the concepts and realities of the various systems?

          Is this the new left wing retort to USW’s points. “Well it never existed therefore it is not possible”. Is that the answer you suggest?

          We have examples of all other systems before us. We see the evil they impose upon the people. So our search for a better system, one in which man is free, one that does not support the power to spread evil, and the response is “show me where it ever existed before”.

          Mr. Edison, please show me where a light bulb ever existed before.

          Mr. Whitney, please show me where this contraptions of yours ever existed before.

          Mssrs. Jefferson, Adams, Washington and Franklin please show me where this thing called a Republic ruled by the citizens of the nation ever existed before.

          Hell lets just go all the way. Hey there Mr. Cave Man, show me where fire was used as a tool ever before. Nope! Can’t do it. Well then stop with your silly attempts at advancement.

          • Why is an example of a “true” free market capitalist system required to discuss the concepts and realities of the various systems?

            Because all you SUFA righties do is declare and proclaim how wonderful the free market system is (never giving us examples because you KNOW we can tear them apart) … so you’re in an assault-free position (i.e., the “truly” free market) … where? As it existed in that laborious tomb by Aynd Rand? John Galt’s utopia. Fiction, my friend … and bad fiction at that.

            • Charlie

              When your revenue from selling your fiction reaches that of her fiction then come back and tell us how bad her work is.

            • Bottom Line says:

              ALL markets are free markets.

              If you smash a watermelon with a big wooden mallet, does it turn into a banana?

              No, it’s just a messed up watermelon.

              Watermelon is to free market as big wooden mallet is to regulation.

        • “Just because you had to work harder doesn’t mean you should get a better grade. You need to look at the quality of the work, not the time spent.”

          For two students with comparable abilities, the only difference is in how hard they work. Sure, I’ve had those easy classes where I didn’t have to work as hard. You know why? Because I had already worked hard in another class, gaining the skill that allows me to have an easier time.

          You skipped over the point of my example entirely and twisted it to suit your own point, but fine, let’s go with it. Would it be fair, then, for someone with a greater amount of skill to be compensated at the same level as one with a lesser amount of skill (their level of effort being the same)? Why would the more skillful worker put in the same effort when he can do a comparable job to his coworker and reap the same benefit. It would be easier, after all.

          I’m all for generosity and good will. I happily donate some of my time and hard earned money to help those less fortunate. I just think that the driving force for prosperity is the desire each of us has to make a better life for ourselves and our loved ones. Capitalism is a means of harnessing that. Communism, on the other hand, gives us all we need without the possibility of improving our livelihoods. Why would I work harder if I get the same as when I take it easy?

          It bothers me that people think it is moral to take something away from a person simply because they have enough or too much. You’re so quick to call the rich people greedy for wanting to keep what’s theirs, but isn’t it also greed that drives socialism? Less affluent people desire the property of more affluent people. That’s greed too!

          I’m still waiting to hear how a communist system could ever hope to be as successful as a capitalist one.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            To clarify – I don’t want a pure communist system either. I’ve never argued for such.

            That being said, I also don’t want a pure free market capitalist system.

            • Buck

              Why not?

              Afraid of freedom?

              • I have to wonder how many times that absurd comment “afraid of freedom” was uttered by the south proclaiming state’s rights agin’ those damn yankees.

                Sweet Jesus … we think YOU are slaves to your wages/utopian ideals the same as you think US slaves to our ideals … the difference is we know better ….:)

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Why not?

                Because, similar to communism (sorry Charlie!) it may be great in theory, but never works out in practice. Hence the complete vaccuum of examples.

              • Buck

                If it has never existed (vacuum of examples) then how can you claim it never works out in practice?

                I claim it has never been ALLOWED to work out.

                As I pointed out two years ago, we did not get the chance to establish the philosophical foundation in this country that would protect it from those who corrupted it. Those we now accuse of being “Capitalists”.

                We came close and this country prospered. While it was doomed from the start the rot was slow until after the Civil War. And it was not the loss by the South but the loss of a concept of decentralized power as the norm that was the final nail.

                Note the rapid expansion of cronyism and corruption soon after. In fact it was that expansion that allowed the Progressive Movement to become rooted in the USA. Along with the efforts of the Marxists and socialists of the time

                Free Markets do not require Govt. All other systems require Govt control and thus the power to impose upon others.

                A Free Market is the ONLY economic system that can exist within a nation of FREE PEOPLE.

                There are risks associated with it, especially since so many are afraid of it. The challenge should be in figuring out how to reduce the risks to protect it rather than this constant “well it did not exist therefore it can not work” bull dookey.

                Why can’t it work? What can be done to resolve that issue/fear?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Communism in its truest form has never existed either (to my knowledge). Yet I don’t see you arguing for allowing communism to be instated to see how that works out for everyone.

              • Buck

                Simple answer.

                I want to be FREE.

                Communism, in its purest form does not allow me to be free.

                IT REQUIRES a Govt to control my life.

                Capitalism does not.

                But since you two have raised this point before, please explain how Pure Communism somehow differed from that imposed by the Marxists in Russia and China.

      • JB: I believe that you have a very good concept of “to each according to his need” and yes I also believe that if one is destined to be ‘marking time’ in the same place for the long haul, sure they are going to not give a damn.

        jps

    • gmanfortruth says:

      8) This should be fun!

  5. It is a direct bi-product of it, absolutely. It was the cheapest way for Southern farmers to raise their crops (for one thing) or do you deny that too?

    • I’m not going to deny that people used slaves -whether it actually worked to increase their profits I don’t know-but I assume it did or they at least thought it did. But that isn’t the point-slavery has been around since forever-under every type of governmental system or dictatorship. Man’s use of it is related to the evil of man not a specific system.

    • Charlie

      When slaves were brought to this country what social/political system were we operating under?

      What economic system?

      • JAC, please, do not ask him a logical question until I can get him here for awhile. I have to teach him what logic is first.

        @ Charlie…. :smile:

      • Communism, no doubt, in your mind.

        Please, enlighten me as one of BF’s sycophants would. It was the government’s fault! How could I not know that?

        Honestly, you’re absurd. We have been a capitalist system for a long time, my friend. YOu can continue to kid yourself about mercantilism, etc. and how it was the government that killed the free market, etc., but you still can’t show us where the “truly” free market system ever worked.

        And saying he doesn’t know whether slave labor added to southern farmer profit is about as honest as change we can believe in.

    • Come now, Charlie……that is a real stretch. I mean really elastic….But…how in th’ hell are ya, sir? I need to bring you to Texas for a week….I will have you saying ya’ll, waving at everybody on the road with a smile on yer face, drinking DP, riding horses, and best of all………..making you an independent minded, conservative thinking, rebel that wants the US government to stay the hell out of our business, and……….you will be a gun owner and proud of it.,,,,,,,,, but promise me that when you send your shild to school with a weapon, please provide him with a holster.

      • Hmmmmm…please note that my keyboard still cannot spell correctly…..shild=child….

        Also, please note, that conservative minded in Texas does not mean you will have to like Sarah Palin nor Rush Limbaugh nor Sean Hannity…we are not that extreme but we are independent minded individuals who can even convert the most ardent Californian.

      • d13

        Every sane man knows a kid that young shouldn’t be carrying a pistol, holster or not.

        He should have been carrying a small rifle. A .22 cal perhaps.

        Their wrists just aren’t strong enough to handle a pistol yet at that age. :) :)

      • Colonel, I accept the invite … hey, I even bought my drums for a texas joint (Cymbal Fusion–great store, ask for Eric and tell’m the yankee from Joisey sent you).

        I’ve been there, Colonel … nice place (visited bookstores in Housten — Murder by the Book (great store)).

        I prefer shotguns (because I’m going blind) … but I love me some Tex-Mex so we’re on.

  6. gmanfortruth says:

    Prior to the disasterous government decisions in 1913. One man formed a company to make cars, here is that history in short form:

    The Ford Motor Company was launched in a converted factory in 1903 with $28,000 in cash from twelve investors, most notably John and Horace Dodge (who would later found their own car company). Later Ford realized it would be better if he manufactured all of his company’s automotive parts himself instead of using parts from aftermarket sources which lead to the production of the assembly line 1908. Henry’s first attempt under his name was the Henry Ford Company on November 3, 1901, which became the Cadillac Motor Company on August 22, 1902. In 1908 Ford During its early years, the company produced just a few cars a day at its factory on Mack Avenue in Detroit, Michigan. Groups of two or three men worked on each car from components made to order by other companies. Henry Ford was 40 years old when he founded the Ford Motor Company, which would go on to become one of the world’s largest and most profitable companies, as well as being one to survive the Great Depression. As one of the largest family-controlled companies in the world, the Ford Motor Company has been in continuous family control for over 100 years

    So prior to government regulations, prior to income taxes, a free market adventure that worked. What say yous?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I thought corporations (Ford Motor COMPANY) couldn’t exist in capitalism…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Not talking about today Buck, Things today are perverted by govt interference, I gave you an example of a free market example of capitalism prior to that govt. interference.

        • I guess the fact that unions eventually formed to prevent the absolute exploitation of assembly line workers isn’t a very good argument against Ford … that he was reaping the profits off the backs of his workers unfairly until they unionized proves what about capitalism … and, according to USW and BF, by 1913, the government had already destroyed the “truly free market” … oy vey

          • gmanfortruth says:

            As usual Charlie, you cannot see the truth with perverting it to a later date. Please prove the Ford Motor Company was abusing it’s workers that brought about unionization. You can’t because it is an illusion. Henry Ford began his company with 12 investors, without government intervention and succeeded. He acted under the free market, and succeeded. Why can’t you admit the truth instead of twisting it into some kind of BS that means nothing about the facts of the time.

          • Another view(mine), they formed at Ford to get a bigger slice of his pie. He led BEFORE unions in treatment of workers and working conditions.

            http://corporate.ford.com/about-ford/heritage/milestones/uaw/685-uaw

            For Henry Ford, excellent treatment of employees was a given, and he constantly sought out ways to improve his workers’ conditions and lives.
            A Rough Road to Unionization

            Early on, Ford had shocked his business and industrial contemporaries by creating the $5 workday, and then he instituted programs to teach his employees how to spend their new high wages responsibly, cut an hour off the standard workday and provided on-the-job educational facilities. He also insisted on stringently high standards of cleanliness and safety, especially for the time, in the working environment. So when labor unions began to form, he opposed them because he felt that he and his company could—and should—be responsible for meeting all the needs of his workers.

            As union organizers focused on Ford Motor Company, Henry decided to entrust the company’s response to one of his key executives, Harry Bennett, a powerful figure with a reputation for toughness. The result was a period of confrontation that included violence and bloodshed, including the “Battle of the Overpass” in 1937. The UAW eventually won the right to organize the workers at Ford Motor Company. The first contract was signed in 1941. Henry’s son, Edsel, was instrumental in getting the company to negotiate and sign a contract with the union.

            Although Henry Ford considered the unionization of his company as his “greatest disappointment” in business, Ford Motor Company and the union proceeded to work together over the decades to ensure continually improving conditions for workers.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I believe Ford Motor Company was incorporated in 1903 when it was started.

          If so, and if corporations cannot exist in capitalism, then how is this an example of true capitalism?

          • Buck

            It is not an example of a true Capitalist system. It is an example of a single occurrence of an essentially free market effect.

            • Now it’s a “free market effect”.

              Sweet Jesus. I’m tired of this. Best of luck Buck.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              So now an essentially free market is good enough for you? How much government influence is ok for you?

              • Buck

                I didn’t say good enough.

                G is providing an example of something that resulted from free markets.

                You know as well as I that our system as evolved from essentially free market to one that is not.

                Along that gradient you will find times where developments occur within a non free system where segments are essentially free.

                The latest example was the development of the Internet and computer tech. This “segment” of the system was not regulated, but the “system” is not Capitalism.

                Govt influence? NONE.

                Govt support of a robust court system? OK

              • The question becomes (lord have mercy) is it a “truly” free market effect …

              • JAC,
                The Internet is an example of free-market Capitalism with no government influence?

                The Internet was created by the government. How can it be free of government influence?

          • USWeapon says:

            You misunderstood the statement. Corporations cannot exist without government, Buck. They most certainly cannot exist in a true free market capitalist system. They most certainly can exist and ruin the capitalist system with a little assistance from government.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I fear you misunderstand.

              Ford was thrown out there as an example of ‘true free market capitalism’. But obviously Ford existed in part due to government assistance – the creation of a corporation.

              You say so yourself: “They [Corporations] most certainly cannot exist in a true free market capitalist system.”

  7. Just goes to show how many people don’t understand that there is no capitalism left in America; only corporatism or economic fascism. AKA “crony capitalism”- where The State and governmentally-favored businesses become one and the same, through “laws” limiting competition and granting special favors. The solution is easy- eliminate The State to make corporatism impossible.

    • I agree most don’t understand capitalism. Add to that, they have only a vague ideal of what freedom means. The solution – eliminate The State, I will wait for part two to weigh in on that. Having vague thoughts of challenging from the left….

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    There was a knock on the door this morning.

    I opened it to find a young man standing there who said:

    “Hello sir, I’m a Jehovah’s Witness.”

    I said “Come in and sit down.”

    I offered him coffee and asked “What do you want to talk about?”

    He said, “Beats the shit out of me, I’ve never gotten this far
    before.”

  9. JAC (from above):
    Capitalism, by its very definition, can NOT take away freedom of the individual.

    Really? So then how did it lose out (according to so many of you)? How did get so diluted? Perhaps not everybody relishes YOUR definition of freedom (akin to that wonderful document proclaiming all men are created equal (except slaves)) … but wait, that doesn’t count! That was government intervention. Capitalism can NEVER fail! Why? Because it isn’t “true” capitalism/”true” free markets” …

    No wonder the younger generation seems so confused

    Only if they’re following this site, my brother …

    • Charlie

      Nobody ever said Capitalism can’t fail. Only that its failures can not be magnified by the power of Govt.

      What we have said is that Capitalism does not require nor depend on the corruption you despise.

      • I hear you. I don’t agree. I think it breeds that corruption; it is a direct result (i.e., the current US government that protects it).

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Charlie, my eye-talian friend :)

          You and see our govt pretty much the same. Government is power and power corrupts even the best of men. ALL governments are the same, just with difrrent names. Communist China has a disparity of income just like us, but our poor still live better. Communist Russia failed. While the Netherlands seems to have happy people, it could not happen in our country, too many people. No economic model will succeed as intended as long as there is power and corruption, not even communism or socialism or any other “ism”. The problem is not capitalism. I think you can see where the real problem lies.

          • The problem is not capitalism. I think you can see where the real problem lies.

            We agree … the strong feasting on the weak … capitalism in a nut shell … without any government is choas, with a gov’t such as our (total corruption) … why not true a different version (where actual workers/not lawyers groomed for business) have at least an equal say? Social-democracy.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              “The strong feasting on the weak” Charlie that is everywhere that governments exist. “Capitalism in nutshell” NO, theft and corruption is not capitalism. The media and government want you to believe it is capitalism, keeps your mind occupied why the bankers and government rob you blind. Capitalism is an economic model that we are not living under, that is a media invented fantasy so that all yous :) on the left are out fighting against a fantasy.

              Why not something different? Lets first get the corruption problem fixed. Let’s get government (the Feds) out of our business. Let’s find the 2% and hang them from lamp posts. Until we can stop corruption, no economic model, even communism, will work as intended. That is a proven historical fact. While the left fights against capitalism, the right is fighting against corruption, who do you think is fighting the right battle.

              I think we need to learn an economic sytem known as bartering, we’re going to be seeing it soon. :)

            • You need to define social democracy. And please answer a question-Do you think we need a slightly controlled market or a completely controlled market? Because to me-we started out in this country with basically a free market-then we saw problems with some greedy jerks abusing their power so we instated some controls-then through decades we continued to control the market more and more-to the point to where now-the wealthy again have to much power not through capitalism but through paying the governmnet for it. So where does the fault lie-with capitalism which is just the right to own what you create and pay for-or too much regulation which has given government more power which they sell to the highest bidder.

              • V.H.
                You hit the problem right on the head:

                some greedy jerks abusing their power

                If everyone truly follow the tenets of Capitalism or Communism, either system would work. But the problem is society is made up of people, and there’s always going to be a few “greedy jerks” or a few “lazy jerks” who try to use the system to their advantage. So we make a few laws to stop them. And they work around those laws, so we make a few more laws…and round-n-round it goes, until we end up where we are today.

                If we could just eliminate the people from society, everything would work out perfectly!! ;)

  10. Sorry folks but also must step out for awhile.

    Day with Spousal Unit leader before she moves to new job.

    Will be going to hot springs and then lunching at a lodge in the mountains.

    See ya’ll later today.
    JAC

  11. Capitalism cannot “fail” just as Gravity cannot “fail”.

    Capitalism is a description of actions of men. As USWep said, it describes a system of private property and capital allocation and profit.

    Capitalism is “a man gets what he earns”.

    What people are doing is judging that “earn”. Sometimes you “earn” a slap in the face and other times you earn food in your belly. But that does not make Capitalism “fail” or “succeed”.

    It just “is”.

    You muck with men earning, as does Communism, you get another different set of consequences – and the vast majority of them are down right disgusting and terrible.

    Communism is the use of force to take the earning of a man and give to a man who did not earn it, all determined by other men who neither earned the goods nor (necessarily) need the goods.

    Such a system is unsustainable in Nature, and to manifest it for men requires massive violence, leading to mass death and tyranny.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Flag,

      I asked a question yesterday, let me repeat as you may not have seen it. The dollar value index, which has the dollar at 73.97 as we speak, has gone down from 75. ?? How will that effect actual prices?

    • Capitalism is “a man gets what he earns”.

      Now that is just funny … brother, do you live in a cloud.

    • Black Flag,
      If Capitalism cannot “fail”, then how come everyone here claims it has failed? Or at least we’ve failed to maintain a Capitalist society?

      Isn’t much of nature actually a Communist system? Ant colonies. Wolf packs. Prairie Dog colonies. Even flocks of birds.

      All members of these groups work together for the benefit of the group. They do not share the work evenly. But the needs of the individuals are met by the group.

      The key is they do not have people involved!!! ;)

      • Truthseeker says:

        Todd, in fairness, you cannot point to colonies like that because they do not have material things. They only rely on basic food (whatever they can get, and RAW), water and a cave/hole. You cannot equate that to MAN as we do like material things and we go above and beyond what we actually require to LIVE.

        Big difference.

        • Truthseeker,
          Black Flag said Communism is unsustainable in Nature. There was no direct reference to humans. I simply provided communist type societies in nature.

          But to your point – who says non-humans to not have material things. I’ve seen documentaries about crows that collect shiny objects. My dogs have their favorite toys they like to keep close. Just because it doesn’t fit your definition of “material things” doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit theirs.

          Also, their lives go far beyond “the basics”. We can harvest honey because bee’s make much more than they actually need to just survive. Prairie Dog colonies have huge networks of tunnels – much more than would be needed for simple survival.

          No real difference at all.

          • So if this is an example of communism, then the pack leaders get to eat first, and then the rest of the males, then the females and children. If the females and young are still hungry, too bad, alpha male is not going to help hunt again, he just ate a big dinner. They are left to fend for themselves.
            Yup, sounds like communism all right, at least the ones that have been tried so far. The government gets it all, and the peasants get the scraps the government doesn’t want, or is too full to use.

            • DaveS,
              First just to clarify – I’m not an advocate of Communism or Socialism. But I’m also not an advocate of “truly free market Capitalism” because I don’t think that would work either.

              What you describe is how Communism has worked in human societies – USSR, China, etc. But that’s not how its suppose to work…

              In nature it tends to work better.

              In a wolf pack, the leaders (male and female) do eat first, but they also share with the entire pack, and they bring food back for the young and the old. This keeps the pack strong by allowing the hunters to remain strong, it ensure the future of the pack by feeding the young, and takes care of the old. If there is not enough food for the entire pack, they do go hunting again.

              If only humans could be so caring…

              And many people want to kill wolves because they’re so ‘vicious’…

  12. Ok here goes:
    USW,
    good article, I agree with your conclusions.

    Charlie,
    good retort, I agree with your criticism of the arguments made. There does tend to be an apparent contradiction designed to make capitalism inarguably better. I will work on better arguments.

    True free markets devoid of the use of force (i.e. slavery, government intervention, or genocide and theft of property) are difficult to find on a full national scale because there have been governments and mistreatment of others throughout most of history. There are smaller scale examples and there is an indication of superior growth in regions of the country that were less involved in matters of force and coersion. The industrial revolution in the US was in the northeast and midwest for a reason. Also, while there are examples of government intrusion most of those have direct negative impacts (such as government support of the railroads creating the railroad tycoons, an instant example of 2% being made and maintained by government). It is interesting, however, that the vast majority of growth and solid economics occurred in regions free of slavery, long removed from wars with the natives, and in sectors of industry not regulated or subsidized by government.

    Now, while my examples may be imperfect because they are not universal, there is still an indication that more freedom equals more growth for all and a growing middle class. So it falls to you, do you have any examples of your preferred socio-economic system increasing the middle class and helping the plight of the lower class at the same time? The only collectivist/socialist examples I have seen were voluntary by all members involved, were very small scale, and did not last beyong the lifetimes of the founders.

    Buck,
    Concerning distribution of power. There are 5 types of power:
    1. Physical
    2. Mental
    3. Wealth
    4. Authority
    5. Influence
    The first two are individual items that are based on genetics and development. Some people are smarter than others, some are stronger than others. With technology, physical power can be magnified, but it remains a matter of mere force.
    The third is the one that anti-capitalists fear most. They fear those who have more than them, and they fear losing what they have. They fear this because they do not understand the source of wealth. Wealth comes from production. It is not static. If it were static we would have less and less wealth as the global population increased. This is obviously not the case. Thus, any system which encourages growth increases wealth. An increase in wealth in a system based upon trade will distribute that wealth to everyone who is productive. Will that sort of power be distributed equally? No. But wealth only creates the power to do what you want to do by buying it. In a free society, no amount of wealth can buy you authority, thus one cannot engage in slavery. The job of government in a free society, is to use their power (authority) to make certain that no one is engaging in force (physical power) to steal or coerce (a might makes right sort of authority).
    Authority is what a free society equalizes. No one has the authority to control another person. This is what is missing, right now we have those with wealth purchasing authority, thus granting them both things. This is a problem, it is corporatism and/or facism, and it is evil and bad for all but the upper class.
    Influence is society’s power. It should be used to encourage behavior that is beneficial to society as a whole and to maintaining freedom. We have a failing here as well, influence has been given over to government, making government even more powerful, and since government in owned by super-rich persons, it makes them the most powerful group imaginable.

    If you try to equalize wealth power by using authority, you are, at best, trading one sort of aristocracy for another. In practice, you are simply shuffling the elite members into different roles, often shaking loose only the ones that are not corrupt, and consolidating power among the most corrupt and evil men in society.

    Capitalists fear authority power the most, because it can be used to bring physical force and to control wealth most easily, and if it is granted influence (i.e. the education system) as well, then it is a full consolidation of power. Capitalism might allow the consolidation of wealth, but that is only one type of power, as such, it is less consolidation than any form of societal system that depends on the actions of a government. Also, wealth, physical, and mental are the only forms of power that can be changed without taking anything from those who currently have it. One can learn and become smarter without taking intelligence from another. One can develop technology or physique and become more physically powerful without taking from another. One can increase one’s wealth power without theft through production. One cannot increase their authority without reducing someone else’s authority. One cannot expand their influence without displacing those who had influence before. Authority and influence are static things, there is a fixed amount of it. Things which are fixed are the only things which must be equally distributed.

    • Good clarification points, Jon!

    • They fear this because they do not understand the source of wealth.

      Jon, I appreciate what you’re saying, but … why not assume for once we do understand the source of wealth and happen to take great issue with it coming from 1) an illegally or immorally reprehensible starting point and then blossoming into greater illegal and/or immoral wealth to the point where it owns government on the backs of workers?

      If the starting point required the force BF and others claim is evil (force); the taking of this country from its native inhabitants, how can you justify it in any way shape or form? Unless you are willing (as many here are/some are not) to dismiss what happened and then continue justify what came next (whether you want to cloak it in government intervention or not), how do you expect those of us who don’t buy that paradigm to accept it? We don’t.

      In a free society, no amount of wealth can buy you authority, thus one cannot engage in slavery.

      That’s one hell of an assumption that has yet to prove itself. I fear we’re back to that “truly free market” nonsense that none of you can point to.

      Frankly, you last paragraph is too difficult for my muddled mine to digest. I have too many problems with that simplistic an argument based on absolute assumption (the “truly free market”. I see authority and influence (as it exists today) being the direct result of capitalism gone awry.

      • Ok, I think I see part of our impass here. We are both arguing our philosophy against the realistically applied version of the other person’s philosophy. When I talk about what is and is not capitalism, I am attempting to get you to see what the philosophy of the free market is, and how, when you see corruption, it is almost always the employment of something that is outside of the philosophical concept of capitalism. In return, I point at all of the corruption and failure of socialism and communism if it were applied, rather than arguig purely against the idea itself.

        So, let me attempt to set aside philosophy in my argument and argue the merits of capitalism applied, while simultaneously looking at the philosophy, not the application, of communal society.

        Capitalism is not employed currently by anything other than colloquial definition. What we have currently, at best, is a hybrid. We are more of a free market than many, however, but I think we are hanging on the the worst points of capitalism only, because those in power have found a way to make that work to their advantage. Capitalism does allow for exploitation and accumulation of wealth. This creates great advantage for some on the backs of the few. I get that. However, it creates the greatest opportunity of any system because it is based on reward for a combination of effort and the meeting of a demand. Is this equal opportunity for all in practice? No. Is it greater opportunity than anything else? Yes. So the key is, as VH says, if you are going to have a capitalist system and you cannot make if perfect because of the reality of mankind, you have to at least try to keep it as close to free as you can. Capitalism is a little bit fragile, it has the hazard of being uncontrolled, or more accurately, collectively controlled, and therefore it is easy to lose the freedom upon which it is based. Such a thing requires vigilance and an understanding of the philosophy and reasoning in order to make the whole concept work. Also, capitalism does not fit with a paradigm of economic equality, only equality of rights and freedom. If that is your paradigm, then there is nothing I can do to convince you of capitalism merits without first chaning your view of equality itself.

        Socialism as a philosophy is not bad, but ONLY if it is voluntary. Anything non-voluntary REQUIRES control. Regardless of whether it would ever be possible to find uncorrupted leadership for such a system, because my paradigm is freedom and equality of rights I will never be convinced of the merits of socialism. I see that risk, opportunity, and freedom are inexhorably linked. Any attempt to mitigate one will necessarily limit the others. I also find that a man who is free can live with dignity in a whole host of economic levels, but a man who is not free will not have dignity no matter what material posessions he has.

        In many, if not most ways, capitalists, the ones who subscribe to the capitalist philosophy, are far less materialistic than socialists. We recognize that freedom and the mind of man is what matters far more than what he has. Now I know better than most that in real life it matters how many resources you have, but when it comes down to it, my mind and my freedom matter far more than any amount of capital I have, or ever will have. If all were equal, I would still rise about because of that. If I am not allowed to rise above, to thrive, to succeed in my goals with dignity because I might get too far ahead of someone else, then what good is this life? What reason do I have to respect others if their only role is to limit my success and my abilities? Loss of freedom would be a loss of all that makes life and humanity valuable. No system that is not based on freedom will allow me to live in dignity, or to live at all.

        • Well Said!!!!!!!

        • Salient points all …. I’d suggest this:

          If I am not allowed to rise above, to thrive, to succeed in my goals with dignity because I might get too far ahead of someone else, then what good is this life?

          What if there was a structure built into a social democracy whereby you could earn and live better than the next guy through hard work (actually earning it) but not so great that you acquire so much wealth and power as to directly influence the game itself (gov’t)?

          I don’t see myself or others giving up freedom as much as you do, but I respect your beliefs. What makes the $2.4 million per hour so repugnant (and why I use it so often) is the absurdity of such a salary vs. how many “worthy” people (those not laying around for the hell of it) have to do without because of past inequities, social situations, etc. A guy making huge bucks over time vs a guy barely above minimum wage trying to raise a family will just repeat itself over and over and the few and far between who manage to scrape their way to the top are replaced by thousands who never see the light of day (often by no fault of their own).

          I do understand your position, though … and it is valid.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Charlie asked: What if there was a structure built into a social democracy whereby you could earn and live better than the next guy through hard work (actually earning it) but not so great that you acquire so much wealth and power as to directly influence the game itself (gov’t)?

            G says : Charlie, this is why I actually sided with the Wisconsin governor on the Union issue. Unions became so wealthy that they could influence the game (govt), and that’s exactly what they were doing. The Wisconsin law eliminated that.

          • It would be more interesting, to me, to have a system where wealth was treated as I think weapons should be. You can have as much as you want, but if you are caught misusing it, the you lose your right to it. In other words, I do not care if you make 2.4 million an hour, but if you use your wealth to influence the game, using it to affect government,etc, then you get it confiscated.

            Havent thought that out, just an interesting thought.

            • I do not care if you make 2.4 million an hour, but if you use your wealth to influence the game, using it to affect government,etc, then you get it confiscated.

              I could live with that in a heartbeat, so long as the government/legal system making the decision isn’t owned by the guy making the huge bucks (as it currently is). I’d have no problem at all knowing there were genuine consequences to those who tried to rig the deck (what should be happening today for damn sure–all the abuses on wall street prior to the bailout and not a single banker in jail. what a joke. not a single politician in jail. a worse joke.

              • Charlie

                Holy Crap, never thought I would see it.

                You have just agreed to the basic concepts of a free society and free market economy. That is all we have been trying to point out to you all along while you railed against us.

                Freedom, Charlie REQUIRES that no man IMPOSE his will upon another. NO initiation of FORCE against innocent people. This is also the ethical standard expressed by Rand, whom you so love to hate.

                Now you say that you could live with that “in a heartbeat”.

                The only question remaining is HOW to prevent that use of force or coersion. BF and others say no govt. My self and others say VDLG. We must find a way to sever the cord that binds corruption to govt, because it is Govt that holds the gun, LEGALLY.

  13. Canine Weapon says:

    GASP! I wonder how the pirates in these waters feel about THIS!

  14. Why are people like Charlie often muddled between economic outcomes and political choices?

    Economics is easy – so let me help out.

    To keep from getting economically confused, start with verifiable facts.

    Second, follow a train of logic that begins with these premises:
    (1) supply and demand,
    (2) high bid wins.

    The economy is a gigantic auction. Analyze it as an auction.

    People show up with money to buy.
    Sellers show up with things to sell.

    If there are few buyers, or buyers without much money, prices will be low.

    But if lots of sellers come, buyers will hold back on their bids, since they will have to save money if they want to bid on lots of things.

    Let us begin.

    Often someone will start with an economically impossible scenario, such as:
    “Say all the car manufacturers stopped making cars, but consumer demand didn’t change. Prices would rise right?”

    My answer:
    <bIWhy would all demand for cars cease without warning?

    It wouldn’t. It couldn’t.

    People need transportation.

    Such things as the used car market is the most developed used goods market on earth. It is continual. It is predictable. Auto companies are constantly running the numbers.

    So, the basic premise of the question begins in a fantasy. How can you apply the lessons learned by fantasy?

    Never begin with a hypothetical example of a market failure that is inherently inconceivable. This is what will confuse you.

    Always begin with the market as it exists. Then ask how it works.

    For example, the car example:
    People bid against each other for cars.

    Prices rise for the reduced available supply of products that are facing demand.

    But this market affects only a small segment of the economy – the car economy.

    Prices of cars will rise: same demand, but a reduced supply of cars.

    But this will tend to depress prices for consumer goods other than cars, because people are not spending money in other areas of the economy that they have to pay extra for the rise in price (due to supply/demand) of the cars.

    When people do not buy, means the demand is low, the price falls in other areas. The Total CPI will not change.

    Again, when you ask an economic question, ask a question based on evidence about what is happening, not about a world in which something different is happening.

    Some economists trick Ph.D. candidates in their oral exams by asking them to explain something that has not happened. The student should begin with this: “I am unaware that this has happened. Could you explain this further? When did this happen?”

    So when Charlie identifies some negative outcomes of human choice, one needs to start from the discussion of the reasons those outcomes happened and not a discussion on the merits of human choice

    • “Often someone will start with an economically impossible scenario” like people stop buying mohair. So the government steps in and pays them to produce something nobody wants.

      http://origin-www.congress.org/news/2011/04/14/deal_cuts_mohair_subsidies

      • Mohair? Like what we used to wrap around those class rings when we went “steady”?

        • I can’t really answer that, I never wore another guy’s ring.:D
          Stossel did a segment on mohair, that after WW2 demand dropped, but it was considered crucial for military cold-weather gear, so had to be saved. It is for sure no longer a crucial military item, but once the government picks something up, they never let go…

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      ” The Total CPI will not change”
      So simple, yet it never occurred to my thick skull before, and it raises other ideas/questions in my head. Thanks for more enlightenment yet again from our economic genius !

  15. :|

  16. Let us begin.

    With that example of the “truly free market” … whenever you’re ready.

  17. Charlie,

    Why do you believe that a social democracy form of society would be any less corrupt than what we have now? What evidence of a successful social democracy do you have to offer as proof of your claim?

    Why is it that you can claim – even indirectly – that such a social democracy won’t have it’s own 2% elite corrupting and controlling the whole shebang? Where would be your evidence of that?

    • And I am not being a smartass Charlie. I truly am interested. Convince me Charlie that I would be free under it and not in just another hole dug by another group of corrupt individuals.

      • Plainly, I do NOT believe a social democracy wouldn’t have corruption and I don’t know how we could fix that problem without shuffling government officials in and out of office (and having a more broad spectrum of representation (i.e. workers alongside lawyers, etc.), but … I prefer knowing that what I put into the state over a lifetime will guarantee me some form of human dignity in the form of healthcare and quality of life when I retire (Holland) … and that there is universal health care along with equal educational opportunity (as a starting point). If that means someone “earning” (I put that in quotes because no one can earn that much or as little as $10,000 an hour) a gazillion dollars a year needs that much. I feel certain that a much less corrupt government than we have today could figure out (whether by referendum or otherwise) what is “needed” to live a life with dignity. I do not include people who are looking to scam the system and not work or have a dozen kids to stay out of work. The advantages in our society today were not (could not) have been fully earned on the up and up. That needs to be addressed (the have nots getting an equal shot — not necessarily an equal share–an equal shot. But I have no problem with hedge fund managers earning what teachers earn. “Earn” being the key word.

        • Okay. So, and please correct me if I am wrong here, are you saying that dignity of life = freedom?

          I understand dignity for all. I understand the idea that each wants sufficient resources to live a dignified (in their view) life. I understand the system is corrupt and will take every advantage (fair or otherwise) that it can. I do not wish to see anyone suffer – which was the point of the comment I made about not caring about the plight of the Native Americans or those who suffered in slavery historically. I have no control or responsibility for that – but what you chose to ignore was the second half of my comment – I do care that it not reoccur or happen in today’s society. Oppression of anyone is wrong.

          But, what I don’t understand is how we can clamor for ANY system to exist over us when we can’t answer how to prevent any of those systems from being corrupt or becoming as corrupt as what we have right now?

          In the end I guess it’s that I see it as not being the system (capitalism, socialism, communism, totalitarianism, mercantilism, etc) as the root problem – it is the compelling behavior of humans to crave control and authority over others that is the root of all evil.

          Probably why I may long for BF’s ideals of society and at the same time believe it will never be possible because of those very evil aspects of human behavior.

          So all I can strive for is very limited government with very limited interference in my “dignified” lifestyle – not imposing upon my freedom and right to live in peace, without being oppressed by any group calling themselves by any name they – as a government – wish to give themselves.

          Also, about what a person earns. If we want to get into it on a moral base standing, then you and I will see eye-to-eye as far as the need to earn $10,000.00 – hell, even $1000.00 – an hour. But morals isn’t something one should be legislating.

          • Probably why I may long for BF’s ideals of society and at the same time believe it will never be possible because of those very evil aspects of human behavior.

            Plainly, I agree (or I’d be an anarchist against gov’t). BF will counter argue (rational thinking) that if we assume man to be inherently untrustworthy/greedy, how could we assume a group of men (gov’t) wouldn’t be? I say man always looks to protect himself and formed gov’ts originally for that purpose (so that the strong/violent, etc., wouldn’t overrun everyone else). BF says that is irrational and that the universe won’t allow it (yet it has).

            But I do agree that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and therefore gov’t needs genuine checks (people power).

        • A further comment Charlie.

          I want to acknowledge that you have said – more than once – that you do not, nor will you, advocate for a free ride to the freeloaders of the system. It is something we – in arguing against you – overlook and slap at your position with, using it as an emotional point to stir controversy against your views. Let me also add to that the fact that you have also never said your ideals for a system won’t have it’s own corruption and imperfections to deal with.

          We do it, as we many times accuse you, or Buck, Mathius, and Todd of doing it. My apologies for the tactic and my failure to be fair when I argue against your thinking.

          • Plainly, no problem. I’m sure I’m guilty of the same when lumping generalizations around.

            I became introduced to socialism at around 21 when I visited Europe on my first honeymoon (young and naive, no doubt–now old and thick headed). But my wife (at the time’s) great uncle was explaining the system; good and bad points and even he made it clear that Holland’s brand of socialism (in 1977) could not work in the USA because of our size, etc. and he admired quite a bit about this country as well. I eventually returned to school and finished a degree and learned a lot more about it; still didn’t adopt it as a full solution … and I had been a loyal democrat until Clinton’s 2nd term … I then drifted to the right, backed Bush twice but was very upset when I felt like a fool over supporting those wars (both of them). The cost of which to all of us has become absurd & insane (and a good reason to support BF’s anarchistic position). I doubt any drastic changes to any of our preferred systems can happen in our life times but sometimes a crisis can speed things up. We may have one coming sooner rather than later … I only hope conservatives vote Libertarian and liberals vote socialist for the simple fact that our current government should be jailed (except, of course, for Bernie) …:)

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Very well said Charlie :)

              I don’t think it matters which side you choose, us middle and lower class will get screwed. I believe that we are in for a major crisis, Black Flag has the same conclusion, we just came to it in different ways, but’s it’s still the same ending. This may be the only chance in our time, to stop the corruption. They way to do that is coming soon!

            • Charlie, I have no illusions about our politicians willingness to “fix” anything. With the exception of a few lone voices – Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, or Paul Ryan (whether these men are right or wrong, or even rational and reasonable) – will ever stand in a group and take the hard, extremely hard, steps to stop the runaway destruction being wrought on the country. They’re all to afraid of losing their spot as a member of Congress.

              You say they should be jailed – you’re nicer than I as to what should be done with them. I’d love to see voters go different routes and turn both parties into nothing more that history lessons for what not to do in the future.

              From 1982 to 1987 I lived in England. I watched the twists and turns of European politics and societies. I don’t see any greater freedom for people there than I do here, and less is some areas.

              Right now I consider the only real “fix” to be economic turmoil and collapse of government. It will be very, very ugly and painful for the people in the nation – legal or illegal. Yet, no realistic option comes to mind beyond this since the one constant over the past 50 years is the greater division of the different perspective groups. We’ve come to hate each other so much we’ve destroyed any cooperation.

              Just my out loud thinking.

      • Plainlyspoken,
        I’ve thrown this example out before, so I’ll throw it out again. Singapore is an example of a successful social democracy. They have very tight government controls on everything, so I’m not saying I’d prefer Singapore to the USA, but compared to where they started in the 1960’s, and compared to the economies of many of their neighbors, Singapore is a pretty good success.

        They have reduced/eliminated corruption by paying government officials very high salaries. This eliminates the need and the temptation to take bribes, etc. They want to keep their well paying government jobs.

        So, do you have an example of a successful free-market capitalist society? It doesn’t have to be perfect, just a good example.

        • I have worked in Singapore, if my family were not rooted in the UK, I would be buying a 1 way ticket for us all as soon as possible.

        • I know little about the background and history of Singapore, though I do know they’ve had more success than not. What I would ask then is how reasonable it is to scale this up to a country as large as ours? The strictness of their government control over daily life also keeps me from any thoughts of desiring it here, freedom is granted by government and not to the government from the people.

          I can not give you an example society and won’t try because – even like Singapore (regardless of the salaries paid) – the evil of men pervert to some (or a great ) degree the society governed. The importance of capitalism – for me anyway – is that it is the system in which we can maximize our individual freedom in.

          (My apologies for the slow answer – they last two days have been hectic dealing with livestock issues)

          • Plainlyspoken,
            Here’s link to a story about Singapore if you’re interested.

            http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/singapore/jacobson-text

            I’m not suggesting this could or should be scaled up to the USA, or that I want to live under this system. It’s just an example of a successful progressive social democracy.

            I find their solution to corruption interesting, and it really hit home after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. One of the issues that came to light was that government inspectors were afraid to report problems or issue citations because they’re usually hoping to get better paying jobs in the industry. If they issue citations to BP, it probably decreases their chances of getting a job with BP.

            However, if the government inspectors is paid better than the BP employees, than they would be more inclined to do their jobs – so they can keep their job. And BP employees would be more likely to cooperate with the government inspector because they might want to get that “better” job as a government inspector.

            I’m not trying to increase the size/cost of government, and this is just an off-the-cuff analysis of this problem, but I’d like the government that we do have to be as effective as possible. If that means paying alittle more with the potential to stop things like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, I’m ok with that.

            I hope the livestock issues are under control!

            • Thanks Todd, I bookmarked it and will give it a read over for sure.

              I do believe there are aspects of what is being done in governments that could work here, we just have to be smart enough to pick and choose the right ones. So all that they do may not fit here in our society but I won’t turn my nose up to looking at individual ideas from them.

              And, as a general thought, I could see paying premium wages to our public sector employees provided we were reining in government bloat and streamlining it (yeah, the old “smaller govt” argument) Our public employees should be encouraged to perform to a high standard and I know if you want high caliber employees we have to pay high caliber wages.

              There is, like everything, a balance we would have to find.

              The livestock are getting better. Cured one of the goats who had a serious case of bloat. Our lamb (who is a bit over 1 month old now – and is still living in the house with us for now) has been having problems – especially a worry over copper toxicity. Fever’s are hitting her nightly. May have to bring in the vet tomorrow if she can get here through the snow storms we having through Tues. Not a lot of sleep at night rioght now – got to keep medicating her to keep the fever broken if we can.

              • Plainlyspoken,
                I hope the little lamb has a fast recovery. It’s so tough when animals are sick – especially young ones. They can’t tell you what’s wrong and where it hurts.

  18. How long are we going to discuss this on the basis of a totally free market vs. a controlled market-instead of a slightly controlled market vs. an overly controlled market or in other words a big Federal government vs. a small Federal government. We are never going to agree on the first and we must come to some conclusion on the other.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Why do we need to reach a conclusion at all?

      • Because our country is being destroyed economically and our people are being divided.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          But we’re never all going to agree on anything. Why take the fun out of just debating?

    • I think it’s because they like to keep us on the “third path”, saying it can’t be only either left or right, so we must compromise and meet in the center. But we are not really talking about left or right, we are talking about freedom and how much we have to give up. But look at how much freedom we have already given up, and where it has us today.

      Ex. TSA is in charge of airport security. Airports had the option of employing private security firms that followed the same standards. TSA has refused to allow any new airports to opt out of TSA for private security. If the private security company violated your rights or failed to provide security to the required standard, you/we could sue them. If TSA screws up, they are exempt.
      Airline controllers song….
      While you were sleepin’
      I was listenin’ to the radio and wonderin’ what you were dreamin’ when
      It came to mind that I didn’t care

      Ex. If a private company we operating an aircraft control service and caused a plane to crash, massive lawsuits. FAA does it, they will investigate, end of story.

      Rest Stop, Matchbox 20
      We’re just 3 miles, from the rest stop
      And she slams on the brakes
      She said I tried to be but I’m not
      And could you please collect your things
      Well I don’t wanna be cold
      I don’t wanna be cruel
      But I’ve gotta find more than what’s happened with you
      So if you’d open up my door

      (chorus)
      She said while you were sleepin’
      I was listenin’ to the radio and wonderin’ what you were dreamin’ when
      It came to mind that I didn’t care
      So I thought hell if it’s over
      Then I had better end it quick or I could lose my nerve
      Are you listenin’? Can you hear me?
      Have you forgotten?

      Just 3 miles from the rest stop
      And my mouth’s too dry to rage
      A light was shining from the radio
      And I could barely see her face
      But she knew all the words that I never had said
      She knew the crumbled up promise of a broken down man
      As I opened up my door

      (chorus)

      But I’ve forgotten, yeah
      Have you forgotten?
      You just don’t love to love like I love

      (chorus)

      While you were sleepin’
      I was listenin’ to the radio and wonderin’ what you were dreamin’ when
      It came to mind that I didn’t care
      I thought hell if it’s over
      I had better end it quick or I could lose all my nerve
      Are you listenin’? Can you hear me?
      Can you hear me?

      • Maybe-but I personally believe that they keep us on the third path while labeling the right anarchist and the left socialist-knowing that between those two options there is no compromise. But I simply don’t believe that most of the people fit either definition. And at the point we are in this society I think we could make reasonable steps towards more freedom if we didn’t make the extreme positions the point of debate.

  19. Oh shoot! Did I miss Passover completely? Happy Passover Mathius :)

  20. Charlie

    You constantly blame “capitalism” for the ills of this country’s early history. Let me reveal the culprit. Which by the way also explains why Free Market Capitalism was never given a FULL CHANCE of existing in this country.

    Excerpts from Wikipedia if you care about source:

    Mercantilist ideas were the dominant economic ideology of all of Europe in the early modern period, and most states embraced it to a certain degree. Mercantilism was centered in England and France, and it was in these states that mercantilist polices were most often enacted. Mercantilism arose in France in the early 16th century, soon after the monarchy had become the dominant force in French politics. In 1539, an important decree banned the importation of woolen goods from Spain and some parts of Flanders. The next year, a number of restrictions were imposed on the export of bullion.[19]

    Over the rest of the sixteenth century further protectionist measures were introduced. The height of French mercantilism is closely associated with Jean-Baptiste Colbert, finance minister for 22 years in the 17th century, to the extent that French mercantilism is sometimes called Colbertism. Under Colbert, the French government became deeply involved in the economy in order to increase exports. Protectionist policies were enacted that limited imports and favored exports. Industries were organized into guilds and monopolies, and production was regulated by the state through a series of over a thousand directives outlining how different products should be produced.[20]
    To encourage industry, foreign artisans and craftsmen were imported. Colbert also worked to decrease internal barriers to trade, reducing internal tariffs and building an extensive network of roads and canals. Colbert’s policies were quite successful, and France’s industrial output and economy grew considerably during this period, as France became the dominant European power. He was less successful in turning France into a major trading power, and Britain and the Netherlands remained supreme in this field.[20]

    In England, mercantilism reached its peak during the Long Parliament government (1640–1660). Mercantilist policies were also embraced throughout much of the Tudor and Stuart periods, with Robert Walpole being another major proponent. In Britain, government control over the domestic economy was far less extensive than on the Continent, limited by common law and the steadily increasing power of Parliament.[21] Government-controlled monopolies were common, especially before the English Civil War, but were often controversial.[22]

    British mercantilist writers were themselves divided on whether domestic controls were necessary. British mercantilism thus mainly took the form of efforts to control trade. A wide array of regulations was put in place to encourage exports and discourage imports. Tariffs were placed on imports and bounties given for exports, and the export of some raw materials was banned completely. The Navigation Acts expelled foreign merchants from England’s domestic trade. The nation aggressively sought colonies and once under British control, regulations were imposed that allowed the colony to only produce raw materials and to only trade with Britain. This led to friction with the inhabitants of these colonies, and mercantilist policies were one of the major causes of the American Revolution. Over all, however, mercantilist policies had an important effect on Britain helping turn it into the world’s dominant trader, and an international superpower. One domestic policy that had a lasting impact was the conversion of “waste lands” to agricultural use. Mercantilists felt that to maximize a nation’s power all land and resources had to be used to their utmost, and this era thus saw projects like the draining of The Fens.[23]

    Mercantilism helped create trade patterns such as the triangular trade in the North Atlantic, in which raw materials were imported to the metropolis and then processed and redistributed to other colonies.

    The other nations of Europe also embraced mercantilism to varying degrees. The Netherlands, which had become the financial center of Europe by being its most efficient trader, had little interest in seeing trade restricted and adopted few mercantilist policies. Mercantilism became prominent in Central Europe and Scandinavia after the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), with Christina of Sweden and Christian IV of Denmark being notable proponents. The Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors had long been interested in mercantilist policies, but the vast and decentralized nature of their empire made implementing such notions difficult.

    Some constituent states of the empire did embrace Mercantilism, most notably Prussia, which under Frederick the Great had perhaps the most rigidly controlled economy in Europe. During the economic collapse of the seventeenth century Spain had little coherent economic policy, but French mercantilist policies were imported by Philip V with some success. Russia under Peter I (Peter the Great) attempted to pursue mercantilism, but had little success because of Russia’s lack of a large merchant class or an industrial base.

    Mercantilism also fueled the intense violence of the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe. Since the level of world trade was viewed as fixed, it followed that the only way to increase a nation’s trade was to take it from another. A number of wars, most notably the Anglo-Dutch Wars and the Franco-Dutch Wars, can be linked directly to mercantilist theories. The unending warfare of this period also reinforced mercantilism as it was seen as an essential component to military success.

    It also fueled the imperialism of this era, as each nation that was able attempted to seize colonies that would be sources of raw materials and exclusive markets. During the mercantilist period, European power spread around the globe. As with the domestic economy this expansion was often conducted under the aegis of companies with government-guaranteed monopolies in a certain part of the world, such as the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson’s Bay Company (operating in present-day Canada).

    CRITICISM
    Adam Smith and David Hume are considered to be the founding fathers of anti-mercantilist thought. A number of scholars found important flaws with mercantilism long before Adam Smith developed an ideology that could fully replace it. Critics like Hume, Dudley North, and John Locke undermined much of mercantilism, and it steadily lost favor during the 18th century.

    In 1690, John Locke made perfectly clear that prices vary in proportion to the quantity of money, but in general, the mercantilists did not put this together[citation needed]. Locke’s Second Treatise also points towards the heart of the anti-mercantilist critique: that the wealth of the world is not fixed, but created by human labor (represented embryonically by Locke’s labor theory of value).

    Mercantilists failed to understand the notions of absolute advantage and comparative advantage (although this idea was only fully fleshed out in 1817 by David Ricardo) and the benefits of trade[citation needed].

    For instance, suppose Portugal was a more efficient producer of both wine and cloth than England, yet in England it was relatively cheaper to produce cloth compared to wine. Thus if Portugal specialized in wine and England in cloth, both states would end up better off if they traded. This is an example of the reciprocal benefits of trade due to a comparative advantage. In modern economic theory, trade is not a zero-sum game of cutthroat competition because both sides can benefit.
    Hume famously noted the impossibility of the mercantilists’ goal of a constant positive balance of trade[citation needed]. As bullion flowed into one country, the supply would increase and the value of bullion in that state would steadily decline relative to other goods. Conversely, in the state exporting bullion, its value would slowly rise. Eventually it would no longer be cost-effective to export goods from the high-price country to the low-price country, and the balance of trade would reverse itself. Mercantilists fundamentally misunderstood this, long arguing that an increase in the money supply simply meant that everyone gets richer.[24]

    The importance placed on bullion was also a central target, even if many mercantilists had themselves begun to de-emphasize the importance of gold and silver. Adam Smith noted at the core of the mercantile system was the “popular folly of confusing wealth with money,” bullion was just the same as any other commodity, and there was no reason to give it special treatment.[25] More recently, scholars have discounted the accuracy of this critique. They believe Mun and Misselden were not making this mistake in the 1620s, and point to their followers Child and Davenant, who, in 1699, wrote: “Gold and Silver are indeed the Measure of Trade, but that the Spring and Original of it, in all nations is the Natural or Artificial Product of the Country; that is to say, what this Land or what this Labour and Industry Produces.”[26] The critique that mercantilism was a form of rent-seeking has also seen criticism, as scholars such Jacob Viner in the 1930s point out that merchant mercantilists such as Mun understood that they would not gain by higher prices for English wares abroad.[27]

    The first school to completely reject mercantilism was the physiocrats, who developed their theories in France. Their theories also had several important problems, and the replacement of mercantilism did not come until Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. This book outlines the basics of what is today known as classical economics. Smith spends a considerable portion of the book rebutting the arguments of the mercantilists, though often these are simplified or exaggerated versions of mercantilist thought.[14]

    Scholars are also divided over the cause of mercantilism’s end. Those who believe the theory was simply an error hold that its replacement was inevitable as soon as Smith’s more accurate ideas were unveiled. Those who feel that mercantilism was rent-seeking hold that it ended only when major power shifts occurred. In Britain, mercantilism faded as the Parliament gained the monarch’s power to grant monopolies. While the wealthy capitalists who controlled the House of Commons benefited from these monopolies, Parliament found it difficult to implement them because of the high cost of group decision making.[28]
    Mercantilist regulations were steadily removed over the course of the Eighteenth Century in Britain, and during the 19th century the British government fully embraced free trade and Smith’s laissez-faire economics.

    On the continent, the process was somewhat different. In France economic control remained in the hands of the royal family and mercantilism continued until the French Revolution. In Germany mercantilism remained an important ideology in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the historical school of economics was paramount.[29]

    LEGACY
    In spite of Adam Smith’s repudiation of mercantilism, prominent figures continued to favor it: in the U.S., the likes of Alexander Hamilton,[30] Henry Clay, Henry Charles Carey, and Abraham Lincoln[citation needed]; and in Britain Thomas Malthus. When Britain passed its Corn Laws in 1815, Malthus thought such restrictions were a good idea, but Ricardo disagreed. Eventually Smith’s view was accepted in the English-speaking world, and in 1849 the corn laws were repealed largely on “Free Market” arguments given by Sir Robert Peel.[citation needed]

  21. More on merchantilism.

    Mercantilism is an economic theory which holds that the prosperity of a state is dependent upon its supply of capital; that the global volume of international trade is “unchangeable;” and that one party may benefit only at the expense of another. “Unchangeable” in this sense may be taken to mean that the European and global economies are seen as zero-sum games, though that economic concept did not yet exist in the mercantilist period. During it, economic assets (or capital) were represented by bullion (gold, silver, and trade value), which was best increased through a positive and healthy balance of trade with other states (exports minus imports).

    The theory assumes that wealth and monetary assets are identical. Mercantilism suggests that the ruling government should advance these goals by playing a protectionist role in the economy by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, notably through the use of subsidies and tariffs respectively. The theory dominated Western European economic policies from the 16th to the late-18th century.[1]
    Mercantilism was the dominant school of thought in Europe throughout the late Renaissance and early modern period (from the 15th-18th century). Mercantilism encouraged the many intra-European wars of the period and arguably fueled European expansion and imperialism — both in Europe and throughout the rest of the world — until the 19th century or early 20th century.

  22. SUFA

    I believe that the source of much of our arguments stems from the same old place. We operate from differing definitions of the same thing. Because those who develop these concepts are constantly trying to change the term or use the same term to describe different things.

    If the water was not muddy enough let me help.

    Wikipedia: “Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit. Income in a Capitalist system takes at least two forms, profit on the one hand and wages on the other. There is also a tradition that treats rent, income from the control of natural resources, as a third phenomenon distinct from either of those.” PLEASE NOTE HERE THAT WE MOVE FROM A HARD DEFINITION TO “ALSO A TRADITION”. DON’T WORRY, IT GETS WORSE.

    “In any case, profit is what is received by virtue of control of the tools of production, by the capitalists – those who provide the capital. Wages are received by those who sell their labor with those tools, i.e. the workers.” DON’T BREATH EASY JUST YET.

    “There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor how the term should be used as an historical category.[1]” GOT THAT? NO CONSENSUS EVEN TODAY.

    “There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[2]” AH, FINALLY SOME AGREEMENT. BUT WAIT, WHAT IS THIS…

    ” There are a variety of historical cases to which the designation is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[3] Some define capitalism as where all the means of production are privately owned, and some define it more loosely where merely “most” are in private hands — while others refer to the latter as a mixed economy biased toward capitalism. More fundamentally, others define capitalism as a system where production is carried out to generate profit and governed subject to the laws of capital accumulation, regardless of legal ownership titles.” IS YOUR HEAD THROBBING AS BAD AS MINE? BUT LETS LOOK AT A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE.

    “Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including determining how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property.[4]” HERE WE FINALLY SEE A CORE PRINCIPLE THAT TIES TO FUNDAMENTAL “RIGHTS” AS EXPRESSED BY LOCKE AND OUR FOUNDERS (WELL SOME OF THE FOUNDERS).

    BUT DON’T GET EXCITED JUST YET. WAIT A FEW MINUTES.

    • The different definitions of capitalism didn’t make my head throb but the history of mercantilism did :) :)

      • V.H.

        Heck, that was just a little of it. When your headache subsides you should go to Wikipedia and call up Capitalism and then follow some of the links.

        But then also call up Mercantilism separately.

        Also suggest a quick check on Adam Smith.

        That should keep you busy until Monday…………LOL.

        By the way. I wanted to commend you on your comments yesterday and today. Seems to me you have formed some pretty solid concepts and defense. Time to start teaching your neighbors if you haven’t already. Perhaps a little letter to the editor. :)

        • Thanks! I’ve been talking to them for awhile now but it’s only been the last about six months that I could talk without getting loud. I think they listen to me better when I am less emotional. :)

  23. MORE FROM THE WIKI WIZARD

    “Types of capitalism” TYPES YOU ASK? YEP…….DIFFERENT TYPES.

    “There are many variants of capitalism in existence. All these forms of capitalism are based on production for profit, at least a moderate degree of market allocation and capital accumulation. The dominant forms of capitalism are listed here.

    Anarcho-capitalism
    See also: Free-market anarchism

    Anarcho-capitalism is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as dispute resolution organisations and private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.

    Mercantilism
    Main article: Mercantilism
    See also: Protectionism

    A nationalist-oriented form of early capitalism that uses the state to advance national business interests abroad, and holds that the wealth of a nation is increased through a positive balance of trade with other nations.

    YEP, YOU SAW THAT RIGHT. SOMEBODY DECIDED TO CATEGORIZE MERCANTILISM AS A FORM OF CAPITALISM, EVEN THOUGH CAPITALISM AS MOST OF US KNOW IT REPLACED MERCANTILISM.

    Free-market capitalism
    See also: Laissez-faire

    Free market capitalism consists of a free-price system where supply and demand are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by the government. Productive enterprises are privately-owned, and the role of the state is limited to protecting property rights.

    JUST WANT TO POINT OUT FOR CHARLIE AND BUCK THAT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY, NOT TOTALLY, THE CONCEPT USED BY AYN RAND.

    Social market economy

    A social market economy is a nominally free-market system where government intervention in price formation is kept to a minimum, but the state provides for moderate to extensive provision of social security, unemployment benefits and recognition of labor rights through national collective bargaining schemes. The social market is based on private ownership of businesses.

    OUCH!! BUT IT GETS WORSE.

    State capitalism

    State capitalism consists of state-ownership of profit-seeking enterprises that operate in a capitalist manner in a market economy: examples of this include corporatized government agencies or partial ownership of shares in publicly-listed firms by the state. State capitalism is also used to refer to an economy consisting of mainly private enterprises that are subjected to comprehensive national economic planning by the government, where the state intervenes in the economy to protect specific capitalist businesses. Many anti-USSR socialists, as well as many anarchists, argue that the Soviet Union was never socialist, but rather state capitalist, since the state owned all the means of production and functioned as an enormous corporation, and exploited the working class as such.

    GOT THAT? STATE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION IS CALLED CAPITALISM BY THE SOCIALISTS, WHO WANT PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

    Corporate capitalism
    See also: State monopoly capitalism

    Corporate capitalism is a free or mixed market characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic corporations, which are legally required to pursue profit.

    State monopoly capitalism refers to a form of corporate capitalism where the state is used to benefit, protect from competition and promote the interests of dominant or established corporations.

    I AM AT A LOSS FOR WORDS……………..

    Mixed economy

    A largely market-based economy consisting of both public ownership and private ownership of the means of production. In practice, a mixed economy will be heavily slanted toward one extreme; most capitalist economies are defined as “mixed economies” to some degree and are characterized by the dominance of private ownership.

    SO YOU SEE THE FASCIST MODEL IS REALLY CAPITALISM.

    Other
    Other variants of capitalism include:

    * Crony capitalism
    * Finance capitalism
    * Financial capitalism
    * Late capitalism
    * Market economy
    * Neo-Capitalism
    * Post-capitalism
    * State monopoly capitalism
    * Technocapitalism

    SORRY, NOT EVEN GOING TO EXPLORE THIS STUFF.

    SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. ACCORDING TO THE WORLDS EXPERTS EVERBODY AT SUFA IS CORRECT.

    BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER SYSTEMS LEFT BUT CAPITALISM.

    DON’T YOU ALL FEEL BETTER NOW??????????????

    I REALLY, REALLY, DO APOLOGIZE FOR DOING THIS TO EVERYONE. BUT I THINK YOU WILL NOW HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHY CHARLIE SCREAMS ABOUT THE ILLS OF A CAPITALIST SYSTEM, THAT SOME OF US DON’T RECOGNIZE AS CAPITALISM AT ALL.

    BUT LETS GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING.

    USW CLEARLY PROVIDED HIS DEFINITION FROM WHICH HE POSED HIS ARGUMENT. SO FAR, THE ATTACKS HAVE RELIED ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF THE TERM.

    I ALSO WANT TO RESTATE SOMETHING I SAID TO CHARLIE EARLIER.

    NO WONDER THE YOUTH OF TODAY ARE SO CONFUSED.

    AND NOW EVEN I AM CONFUSED. :)

  24. OK, SINCE SOMEBODY DECIDED TO INCLUDE MERCANTILISM AS A FORM OF CAPITALISM IN THE WIKI POST I THOUGHT I SHOULD GIVE YOU SOME MORE ON THE SYSTEM, FROM THE SAME SOURCE. WIKI CAN BE CONFUSING IF YOU DON’T READ EVERYTHING.

    “Main article: History of capitalism
    Mercantilism

    The period between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries is commonly described as mercantilism.[33] This period was associated with geographic exploration of the Age of Discovery being exploited by merchant overseas traders, especially from England and the Low Countries; the European colonization of the Americas; and the rapid growth in overseas trade. Mercantilism was a system of trade for profit, although commodities were still largely produced by non-capitalist production methods.[3]” SEE THERE, PRODUCED BY “NON-CAPITALIST” METHODS.

    “While some scholars see mercantilism as the earliest stage of capitalism, others argue that capitalism did not emerge until later. For example, Karl Polanyi, noted that “mercantilism, with all its tendency toward commercialization, never attacked the safeguards which protected [the] two basic elements of production—labor and land—from becoming the elements of commerce”; thus mercantilist attitudes towards economic regulation were closer to feudalist attitudes, “they disagreed only on the methods of regulation.”

    Moreover Polanyi argued that the hallmark of capitalism is the establishment of generalized markets for what he referred to as the “fictitious commodities”: land, labor, and money. Accordingly, “not until 1834 was a competitive labor market established in England, hence industrial capitalism as a social system cannot be said to have existed before that date.”[34]”

    POOF, CAPITALISM WAS BORN IN 1834…..OK JUST JOKING. BUT YOU GET THE PICTURE.

    KEY POINT HERE IS THIS. FROM A PURELY HISTORICAL STANDPOINT MANY OF THE TERMS WE USE AND THE VARIOUS SYSTEMS THEY DESCRIBE REPRESENT AN EVOLUTION OVER TIME. AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN TIME THEY CAN INCLUDE A MIX OF VARIOUS SYSTEMS AND MEANING.

    SOME OF THIS IS THE RESULT OF INNOCENT DIFFERENCES IN ACADEMIC VIEWS. SOME IS THE RESULT OF DELIBERATE OBFUSCATION, THE REASONS FOR SUCH CAN WIDELY VARY.

    OK, ENOUGH FOR NOW. I HAVE DONE MY PART TO MUDDY THE WATER AS MUCH AS I COULD.

    I HOPE YOUR HEADS DON’T EXPLODE WHILE YOU TRY TO DIGEST ALL OF THIS.
    :) :) :)

  25. gmanfortruth says:

    Is this a test? Learn to protect yourself!

    ATLANTA — Two Delta Airlines employees were attacked on a MARTA train.

    Violent Attack On MARTA Train Under Investigation

    MARTA police said they were investigating the incident. A witness said he watched the violent attack unfold Sunday.

    “We were intimidated. Everyone was terrified. People were trying to run, but there was nowhere to run,” the man, who requested anonymity, told Channel 2’s Erica Byfield.

    Around midnight, a MARTA train pulled up to the Garnett Station in Downtown Atlanta, authorities said. The witness said up to 30 people boarded the southbound train.

    “Once the doors opened, it was like a bum rush of people,” he told Byfield. “The next thing you know, they started just beating him. There was blood everywhere. People were hollering and screaming,” he said.

    A MARTA police report identified two victims as Delta Airlines employees. The report said one victim had a soda can smashed in his face and his wallet stolen, while the other was punched repeatedly in his face.

    The witness said the attackers were teens chanting “B. F. P. L.”

    “I don’t know if that’s a gang,” the witness said.

    By the time the train made it to West End stop, some riders were desperate to get off, but the car doors would not open, the witness said.

    “So basically we were just trapped,” he said.

    The witness told Byfield he saw the teens exit the train at the Oakland City stop.

    “For people to have to witness that it is ridiculous,” he said.

    http://www.wsbtv.com/news/27608434/detail.html

  26. Finally! All problems are under control. Some wicked weather blew through a couple nights ago and fried these items: 2Tvs, 2 comcast modems, 1 wireless router, and 1 furnace circuit board. Luckily my computers were spared. What a mess!

    So as I catch up on news I found this:

    Quran-burning pastor Terry Jones appears in court in Dearborn

    DETROIT (WXYZ) – Quran burning pastor Terry Jones will be back in court on Friday to continue a hearing about his planned Good Friday protest outside the Islamic Center of America.

    During his appearance on Thursday, the judge ordered that Jones had to post a peace bond, a court order that requires a person to submit money that would guarantee that they would not commit a breach of peace.

    Jones refused to post the peace bond, and now has a right to have a trial by jury to decide if the court was correct in imposing the bond. The pastor chose to have a trial by jury instead of letting the judge decide. The main purpose of the trial is to determine what is Jones’ intent in holding the protest.

    The main issue of the trial will be whether or not Jones’ main purpose was to say or do something that would incite violence. If they jury decides that is the case, Jones will be told that he cannot protest. If he goes through with his protest, he could be arrested.
    Read more http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/wayne_county/quran-burning-pastor-terry-jones-to-arrive-in-metro-detroit-today

    I’m not agreeing with the pastor but a peace bond? Isnt that the same as guilty until proven innocent?

    • Sorry you had so much trouble-storms were all around us-but we were lucky-it missed us for the most part. Some areas close to us are still without electricity.

      As far as this situation-haven’t studied up on peace bonds but it sounds like their twisting a law around to fit their purpose, in order to deny the jerk his rights. Maybe Buck will give us his legal opinion. :)

  27. V.H., Anita and for you Cyndi P.

    OK, this is creeping even me out.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ibrahim-abdulmatin/what-islam-teaches-about-_b_851781.html

    • In honor of Earth Day (started by the eco-wacko from WI, Gaylord Nelson):

      http://www.ihatethemedia.com/fifteen-foolish-forecasts-how-did-environmentalists-get-it-so-wrong-on-earth-day-1970

    • April 22, 2011
      Good Friday and Earth Day: Freedom and Slavery
      Anthony J. Sadar and Susan T. Cammarata
      Good Friday and Earth Day fell on the same day this year. Friday, April 22, 2011 marked the solemn Christian holiday memorializing the crucifixion of Jesus, but this particular Friday also featured the 41st Earth Day. The two occasions could not be more dissimilar.

      The message and acts of Jesus focused on people. And, in addition to love and grace, freedom was one of his main evangels. This freedom was from all ungodly yokes, which includes the sacrosanct norms and standards of today’s progressive environmentalism.

      While familiarity with the structure and strictures of world religions is quite common, familiarity with environmentalism as religion is not as common. Progressive environmentalism from its modern inception in 1962 with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring quickly emerged as a kind of faith that rivals the traditional religions of the world. It has all the trappings of a religion including a god (Mother Earth or Gaia); holy writs (Silent Spring, The Population Bomb); mantras (“Love your Mother,” “Save the Planet”); doctrines (capitalism and industrialization are evil; socialism and eating low on the food chain are righteous); dead saints (John Muir, Rachel Carson); and, of course, holidays. Besides Earth Day, there is the U.N. sponsored World Environment Day on June 5 and World Ozone Day on September 5, among others.

      In practice, progressive environmentalism has by no means been a compassionate religion. The number of casualties and calamities resulting from its environmental crusades has been almost incalculable. Elimination of the use of DDT to fight malaria-carrying mosquitoes alone has contributed to the deaths of millions upon millions of human beings in third-world countries over the recent decades. The diversion of U.S. corn crops for the production of ethanol raised world corn prices and lead to riots across the globe. Restrictions on the ability of the U.S. to drill for its own ample supplies of oil and natural gas, mine its own abundant coal, and construct its own nuclear power plants have resulted in national insecurity, worldwide instability, and even “war for oil.” Environmentalism’s culpability to world misery ranks with the worst of them.

      No sensible, caring person denies that good stewardship is required for the wise use of natural resources and arable lands. However, what has arisen with progressive environmentalism is a careless denial of the sensible.

      Despite the mania over resource depletion, there are plenty of raw materials including fossil fuel and food supplies to keep everyone who is permitted access to such substances warm and fed. And, any lack has historically been satisfied by innovative products and technologies such as plastic substitutes for many metallic raw materials, novel devices and techniques to extract previously inaccessible minerals and fossil fuels, and nuclear power to supplement or replace other energy sources.

      So, instead of subjecting people as servants to the Earth, as the earth-first environmentalists would have it, why not enlist the Earth in a more humane service to people? The focus, as with Jesus, should be on people first and the freedom to diligently use the resources that are abundantly available to sustain everyone. Our primary care of people should subsequently lead to effective management of the global environment.

      In other words, as we come to the compassionate aid of the world’s desperately needy with the world’s readily accessible copious resources, our ethical priority should translate into careful stewardship of the Earth’s bounty.

      As the apostle Paul proclaimed, “It is for freedom that Christ liberated us, therefore stand firm and do not be burdened again to a yoke of slavery.” Such Good-Friday advice should be embraced to break the bondage to any unholy worldly practices, especially many of the ones celebrated on Earth Day.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/good_friday_and_earth_day_free.html

      “It is for freedom that Christ liberated us, therefore stand firm and do not be burdened again to a yoke of slavery.” Agree with these interpretations but am having a problem placing when Paul said the above. Help would be appreciated. :)

  28. Here’s the problem USWeapon – what do your free market capitalism and BF’s government-less society (and every other society for that matter) have in common? They both involve people. And if either one of your senarios were to occur, the day after your free market capitalism or BF’s government-less society was created, two people would get together and decide that Mathius and Buck have an unfair advantage. These two people would work to create whatever “government” they needed to stop this unfair advantage. And pretty soon we’re right back where we are today…

    You can’t apply textbook definitions to 300 million (or 7 billion) people.

    You claim that “all” the problems in our society are caused by government interference and truly free-market capitalism would solve those problems. But your truly free-market capitalist society has never existed, so this is only theory.

    Meanwhile, my version of a “perfect” society has existed and been changing and evolving for 225 years. And for all its faults, it’s still a pretty good place. Maybe that’s just me and my rosy glasses…

    NOTE: As a nifty little side game for those playing along, name me a systemic problem with Capitalism that is CAUSED by the truly free market in the last 100 years. Bonus points if you can find something that government didn’t actually make possible. Extra bonus points if you find something that is even remotely possible in today’s climate.

    Answer: None – because it’s never existed, right?

    Question back at you! Name one systemic problem Capitalism has solved? :)

    I answered one of these little quizzes about a year ago, and you never responded USWeapon. Any chance you’ll ever respond to that one?

    • Truthseeker says:

      truly free-market capitalism would solve those problems.

      Todd, please point to where USW, BF or anybody else stated that a truly free market would solve all those problems? It has been stated that a truly free market offers the best chance for econimic growth and opportunity for everybody.

      • Truthseeker,
        truly free-market capitalism would solve those problems.

        That’s the general impression I get from the articles and comments here. It’s not meant to be a direct quote or claim.

    • Todd

      “Question back at you! Name one systemic problem Capitalism has solved?”

      Large scale poverty and starvation.

      • JAC,
        So when and where did this occur?

        • Todd

          Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and every where it has been adopted.

          Most recently the Iron Curtain countries after the fall of the Wall.

          Oh, wait………….most recently China.

          Yes I know these are not totally Capitalist countries. But they used to be none and now they have much.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            None of the examples provided are true free-market capitalist models. All have varying degrees of government influence.

            Perhaps it is finding the appropriate mix of free market capitalism and government involvement that solves these problems?

            • Buck

              I outlined the “proper mix” below in my explanation of liberalism.

              Do not commit the same error as most who try to defend corrupt systems by comparing their current status to the horrendous place they started.

              Do not ignore there eventual possibilities if they continue towards “free markets”.

          • Sorry JAC, you lose the “nifty little side game”! :)

            USWeapon poised the original question, and I don’t think he would allow us to skip the truly free market part. All your examples are part Capitalism, but they also include large parts of EVIL government.

            Maybe government isn’t so bad after all????

            • Todd

              A polluted lake has a few fish still living within it, although very lethargic and sickly.

              JAC comes along and starts removing the pollution. The fish become more active and soon begin to reproduce.

              As the amount of pollution continues to decline the fish become more numerous and healthy.

              JAC and Todd are looking at this and JAC exclaims that a pollution free lake is responsible for the fish thriving.

              Todd exclaims that no, it is the pollution in the lake that is good and allowing the fish to live a better life.

              • Oh JAC, you can be so mellow-dramatic sometimes!! Are you suggesting that I should take a softer view of things? Perhaps put on my rose-colored glasses? :)

                I’m just sticking to the “nifty little side game” USWeapon posed. If the rules are too rigid, take it up with him. ;)

                I’m sure you would never demand that we must use the strict definition for anything… :)

  29. “Capitalism is not perfect,but it is not the cause of a shrinking middle class.”

    I agree. If any one thing can be blamed for a shrinking middle class, I think it’s the entitlement society created by government,

  30. @Buck and Charlie…..Esteemed sirs…..I have not been able to get back to you as promised. Still have my hands full with corrdinating and supplying troops to fight our fires in the Western portions. It is getting a little serious now with over 300,000 total acres burned, some homes..(around 300) or so…wildlife being displaced and creating problems…We are running out of marshmellows and burgers….starting backfires now…

    The one that I am concerned with is the one that is SE of Possum Kingdom Lake. It is only 30% contained even with the rain yesterday and the wind is up to 30 MPH again today. The fire is jumping 1/2 mile wide firebreaks…So, I am a little busy.

    HOwever, take a look at Texas from 1836 to 1844 and you will see a true free market society…the problem for continued existence was capital…..We even had our own currency but nothing to back it up as a Republic. HOwever, we used various currencies from various states as the medium for trade plus our own assets. We did not rely on ONE currency at all to exist. What happened? We became a friggin state and then elected representatives and went to Washington. There is more….but do a little homework on it. I will be more expicit upon returning from our litte fraca out west…

    Adios.

    • Oh….@ BUck…..just to show that we are compasionate to illegals…The chopper that I was on spotted a group of illegals trapped between two fires….a cyclonic wind storm created by two fires converging was about to eat them up…so, being the benevolent ones we are….we landed (a flight of three) and tokk them on board and few them to safety…gave them food and water….then put them in jail for deporation….so see? We gave them food and water and saved their lives….and a free ticket home……how much more benevolent can one be?

  31. I am a RADICAL RIGHT WING LIBERAL

    While I provided my definition of this term some time ago, I thought it time to expand on the LIBERAL portion of this relative to economics and the role of government. You know, laissez-faire Capitalism. You may be tired of my Wiki posts but it does seem quicker and more comprehensive than rewriting if it isn’t needed. So a little something to digest:

    “Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism.[1] It is one the the main components of the ideology of capitalism. It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics and private property in the means of production. Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom, and use philosophical arguments promoting liberty to justify economic liberalism and the free market. Although economic liberalism can be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. Economic liberalism opposes economic planning as an alternative to the market mechanism. Economic liberalism contrasts with mercantilism, state capitalism, socialism, market socialism,[2] and fascist economics (Third-way Corporatism).[3]

    Economic liberalism opposes government intervention on the grounds that the state often serves dominant business interests, distorting the market to their favor and thus leading to inefficient outcomes. Ordoliberalism and various schools of social liberalism based on classical liberalism include a broader role for the state, but do not seek to replace private enterprise and the free-market with public enterprise and economic planning. For example, the social market economy is a largely free-market economy based on a free-price system and private property, and includes government regulation to promote competitive markets and social welfare programs to address social inequalities that result from free-market outcomes.

    Theories in support of economic liberalism were developed in the Enlightenment, and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith, which advocates minimal interference of government in a market economy, though it does not necessarily oppose the state’s provision of a few basic public goods with what constitutes public goods originally being seen as very limited in scope.[4] These theories began in the eighteenth century with the then-startling claim that if everyone is left to their own economic devices instead of being controlled by the state, then the result would be a harmonious and more equal society of ever-increasing prosperity.[5] This underpinned the move towards a capitalist economic system in the late 18th century, and the subsequent demise of the mercantilist system.

    Private property and individual contracts form the basis of classical economic liberalism. The early theory was based on the assumption that the economic actions of individuals are largely based on self-interest (invisible hand), and that allowing them to act without any restrictions will produce the best results (spontaneous order), provided that at least minimum standards of public information and justice exist, e.g., no-one should be allowed to coerce or steal.

    While economic liberalism favors markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods.[6] For instance, Adam Smith argued that the state has a role in providing roads, canals, schools and bridges that cannot be efficiently implemented by private entities. However, he preferred that these goods should be paid proportionally to their consumption (e.g. putting a toll). In addition, he advocated retaliatory tariffs to bring about free trade, and copyrights and patents to encourage innovation. Robert Cox’s further research highlighted the importance of innovation and its deeper implications on the free market.[6]

    Initially, the economic liberalism had to contend with the supporters of feudal privileges for the wealthy, aristocratic traditions and the rights of kings to run national economies in their own personal interests. By the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, these were largely defeated.

    Today, economic liberalism is associated with classical liberalism, “neoliberalism”, “propertarian” libertarianism, and some schools of conservatism.”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I would have to agree with the premise of this. Had we had this form of economic system, this country would be much better off today. Too bad that those who perverted the system for their own gains, will also be the one’s who destroyed it.

  32. gmanfortruth says:
  33. Here’s an example of what we are turning into-and it is not the principal’s of Capitalism that is the problem. :(

    Federal Fiat
    April 22, 2011 10:37 A.M.
    By Jonah Goldberg

    This is truly outrageous. The NLRB wants to simply order Boeing to build a factory in Washington State and not South Carolina. From the Examiner:

    Can federal bureaucrats tell a private company where to build a factory?
    Members of President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board think they can. In a decision that even the New York Times is describing as “highly unusual for the federal government,” Lafe Solomon, who was appointed to the board by Obama, filed a complaint on behalf of the NLRB on Wednesday seeking to force the Boeing Co. to build an assembly line in Washington state instead of South Carolina. The NLRB action stems from Boeing’s October 2009 decision to build a new factory for its new 787 Dreamliner airplane near Charleston, S.C. Boeing first sought to build the new plant near its existing facility in Puget Sound, but negotiations with the International Association of Machinists broke down when the union refused to agree to a long-term no-strike clause. The IAM had struck four times since 1989, costing Boeing at least $1.8 billion in revenue.

    That’s when Boeing chose South Carolina, a right-to-work state where, unlike Washington, workers are not forced to join unions. As a result of this policy, only 6.2 percent of South Carolinians belong to unions. Construction of Boeing’s new Charleston factory is nearly complete, and the company has already hired more than 1,000 new employees, drawn mostly from within the immediate region. And back in Washington, Boeing has actually increased employment at its Puget Sound plant by 2,000 workers. But that isn’t good enough for the IAM or the Obama White House. After suffering major defeats in Wisconsin and Ohio, the labor movement is looking for a scalp. Obama’s NLRB is trying to turn Boeing into one.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265460/federal-fiat-jonah-goldberg

    • I look at State rights as a biggie-and to tell a company they cannot move to another state-if they want to-is so Un-American-I feel like -hell I’m scared to say what I feel like-I would probably be arrested-and that is a real big problem too.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Obama and his socialist cronies are way out of control. Their day will come, and they won’t like the outcome.

  34. Todd

    While I disagree with much of your commentary you and V.H. have finally hit the nail on the head with respect to the long term problem. One that I was preparing to write about, especially with respect to the idea of “no government”.

    Ironically, it is the very issue you present regarding human nature that led Ayn Rand to her conclusions about government. Funny isn’t it that the very person despised by so many actually made the case for govt to control the greed and corruption you identified.

    Of course, BF and his tribe will argue that the presence of Govt itself then leads to the erosion of the controls of Govt power. Which begs the key question.

    Under which system is it easier and more likely to reduce the effect of the evil and corrupt? One where they can use the power of Govt. or one where no such power exists.

    If no govt, then how do the people prevent the corrupt from establishing govt?

    If limited govt, then how do the people prevent the corrupt from establishing greater govt?

    I would like you to address one question regarding your comments. You stated:

    “If everyone truly follow the tenets of Capitalism or Communism, either system would work.”

    What is your criteria for determining if a system “works”?

    • JAC,

      What is your criteria for determining if a system “works”?

      It’s subjective and it’s not perfect.

      Provides the most benefit to the largest segment of the population. Has very few “left behind”. Helps those “left-behind” learn the skills to catch up.

      It’s like many things – it’s hard to define, but I know it when I see it…

      Gotta run – more later.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Todd,

        The real question is…

        What system works in spite of subjectivity?

        What system works to the advantage of subjectivity?

        What system is about equality with respect to subjectivity?

        What system is based on the fundamental concept of the freedom and respect for the individual’s right to exist freely as they and they alone choose?

        What system recognizes natural rights of the individual above all and is absent of coercion for sake of an edict?

        There IS a system that works for everyone equally, that rests on non-subjective universal truths.

        Anarcho-libertarian individualism is agreeing to disagree.

        It is neutral, live and let live, mutually beneficial to the freedom of all.

        • Bottom Line,
          Do you have any examples of an Anarcho-libertarian individualism society? I have a hard time believing that type of society could actually work.

          • Bottom Line says:

            How did mankind ever survive before government?

            Do you not recognize the countless examples all throughout history of societies living independent of a central body waving a weapon in their face and stealing from them?

            Did you hear about the Amish Union Collective Bargaining Rights Coalition? Did you see them throwing a temper tantrum in WI? Why not?

            Does government coercion, assault, murder, theft, kidnapping of innocent nonviolent people for the sake of an edict “actually work”?

            Do you value freedom, life, etc.?

            What gives anyone the right to force anyone to do anything?

            Beyond one’s self, family, friends, and neighbors/community, who/what is one really responsible for?

            A: Nothing.

            Live and let live is neutral, the big win/win. Everything else is confliction.

    • JAC,
      I don’t understand the part in bold. Can you clarify?

      Ironically, it is the very issue you present regarding human nature that led Ayn Rand to her conclusions about government. Funny isn’t it that the very person despised by so many actually made the case for govt to control the greed and corruption you identified.

      But my response to Ayn Rand in general is the same as my response to the “no government” and “truly free market Capitalism” arguments:

      They don’t work cause they involve people!

      • Todd

        Rand made the case on philosophical grounds for freedom, liberty and justice. She went on to show why only a laissez-faire capitalist system would support, or result from, such a society, and why Govt was needed to protect it.

        She provided the moral and ethical basis for Govt in this process. To prevent where possible the use of force and to punish those who used it other than in self defense.

        Education and the application of reason to build and maintain a moral system and a Govt to protect it from those who would seek to destroy it.

        That is why I am always responding that I do not support Regulations but I support a robust court system. Fraud and other such crimes should be punished and Govt is the appropriate mechanism.

        So my point was that Rand supported the notion of govt and went to great lengths to describe its role, which was to control the types of crimes that we associate with greed and corruption. I did use “greed” in my statement, adopting the more widely accepted meaning. She would not have used that word as no govt can control “desire”. Only the results of immoral behavior. And of course her definition of greed was more in line with BF’s. She used a more “traditional” meaning of the term. You know, before the Catholic Church got hold of the world.

        I do get a kick out of watching the Left go apoplectic over Rand when she laid out the philosophical case to defend some of their individual positions. Like no use of military force except in self defense.

        If we use your final conclusion then NOTHING works because people are involved.

        Social, political, economic systems are supported by the philosophical tenants that support a society of people. A key trait of humans is our ability to reason and to deliberately change accordingly.

        I find your conclusion quite Nihilistic Todd. I didn’t suspect you of living in that camp.

        I do not see the issue as it won’t work because it hasn’t existed. The barrier is setting aside the fear and then applying our over sized brains to the means by which to change from a society of brutes to a society of civilized men..

        • JAC,
          Ok – I understand the Ayn Rand comment. Still don’t agree – but I understand it.

          I find your conclusion quite Nihilistic Todd. I didn’t suspect you of living in that camp.

          Well, it took long enough for someone to point that out!! Gees, how many times did I post that??

          I do not see the issue as it won’t work because it hasn’t existed.

          I see the issue as it hasn’t existed because it won’t work. All three (truly free market capitalism, anarchy, and objectivism) require everyone to follow rather strict rules. There will also be too many brutes in a large society.

  35. Mathius, what were you doing riding your bike on the sidewalk (with your man purse no less) causing all this commotion? I mean come on, I suppose the next thing you’ll do is play wiffle-ball, or red rover, or add salt to your fries. You should know better when you are a NYer!

    http://www.ihatethemedia.com/travel-alert-all-readers-should-avoid-new-york

  36. Fitting example of what you get with a “mixed” economy.

    from Wash. Post.

    “Automakers wants a break from environmental rules when gas prices are low, reports Josh Mitchell: “Auto makers are pushing to link federal fuel-economy and emissions targets to the price of gasoline, saying consumers won’t pay enough for fuel-efficient cars to make them profitable if gas prices aren’t high. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the industry’s main trade group, is proposing that regulators periodically review gas prices and other market factors, and scale back fuel-mileage and emissions requirements if gas prices don’t hit certain targets. The White House is under pressure from environmental groups and California officials to require the U.S. fleet to average as much as 62 miles per gallon by 2025, compared to the current average of 22.5 miles per gallon for 2010.””

    So given the greeny agenda where do you think gas prices are going to go???????

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Day to you JAC :) Hope all is well in your life.

      As I said in January, gas will be $4-$5 by October. It looks like it may be sooner. By the middle of 2012, gas will be $7 or above. Expect foods prices to follow.

    • Yes and ten years ago CARB (CA Air Resources Board) mandated a certain percentage of electric cars. They had to back off that. Recently, they ordered upgrades to all diesel engines in the the state. After most had complied or left the state or went out of business, we learned the “Ph.D.” who wrote the report got a paper degree from a diploma mill. CARB knew about it all along. Most of the report was incorrect. Those outside, CA, please do not follow our bankrupting trajectory.

  37. gmanfortruth says:
  38. gmanfortruth: Went 11/11! Even got their little trophy!

    Of the first part I believe that the definition of capitalism to be correct; however, although it is not intended to be socio-political in nature, I do believe that as long as there is freedom, liberty, rights, and ownership involved with humankind’s demand for freedom of choice then I believe there will always be some political maneuvering regardless of economic system. (Nothing could ever fall out of the government’s purview.)

    In re: Communism I believe it is far more appropriate to establish that the means of production are not owned by the people – although that what they would want us to believe – rather, ownership belongs to the State, hence commune-ism. “Regardless of input to the system, everyone gets only what they need to survive, and nothing more or , more importantly, nothing less. I think this statement refers to theoretical communism. I mean theoretically speaking ideally communists do not have a classless society; moreover, it is the government’s responsibility to dole back to the individual what they have put in, albeit minimal.

    In re: Communism v Capitalism humankind is humankind and I seriously doubt that any of the major three economic systems puts any more “hedonism” into the equation than the other two.

    In a quick point regarding the alleged shrinking middle class; who is to say that it is shrinking? What about the notion that there is becoming an entirely new class that both cuts into the middle class as well as the wealthy class.

    People would be better off to understand that life – albeit capitalism, social democracy, or communism – do not exist in a vacuum. Every single portion of the whole is constantly in flux. Pre-World War II there was not a middle class to speak of; however after the war just about all entities capable of making money designed their products and wares and advertised to a new middle class.

  39. Significant changes in the last century – that the USA government has done nothing about, and continues to do nothing about – At one time in history the “senior class” was the smallest demographic; however, with life’s enhancements, medicine, technology, etc., the “senior class” has been the largest and fastest growing demographic of Americans. Why hasn’t the government addressed this situation re: social security?

    It is nothing anymore to become a millionaire; growing up I believe there were only approximately 1500 in the entire nation; now all one needs to do is purchase the right lottery ticket. Lottery tickets are items that should be factored in when it comes to measuring the “middle class.”

    As for the slavery sentiment particularly in this thread, all white people to some measure are being accountable for something. It’s more like reverse discrimination than anything else. I appreciate what JB’s posture is and at the same time I certainly understand V.H.’s perspective as well.

    I’ll be the first to admit that I have a bias in this area but as long as I keep it to heart, then I’m not offending anyone. However, I do wholeheartedly believe that Barack Obama AND Eric Holder are both racists as well as Whoopi Gberg.

      • A shame all the way around! Saw this on several sites yesterday. I thought we pretty much had racism licked and it was all media hype anymore but after reading NOT SOME..but many.. of the comments on these sites I now concede that racism is alive and well..and it works both ways. Ridiculous!
        I still hold that its not apparent anywhere near my circle-friends/neighbors/city.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Anita,

          I judge people on their what’s in their heart, not what covers the person. Sad that so many don’t think the same, which continues the cycle of racism. It will get worse, and our great, great grandkids will likely be dealing with a new civil rights movement, time will tell.

  40. Govt that holds the gun, LEGALLY.

    JAC: My problem is this gov’t was born of capitalism … i don’t see it changing under the same economic system (or any shade of it that doesn’t require worker representation). The questions becomes who do you want influence the gov’t more, the rich or the average? I’ve had enough of the rich’s version of democracy.

    • “My problem is this gov’t was born of capitalism” Then your problem is with Freedom. Or with the existence of government. Or the existence of business. Or with the fact that money makes power and power makes money. Charlie I listen to you and I understand and share your frustration but you stand and point out the problems, while basically acknowledging there is no answer-so you go from anarchy to communism in your remarks. So I just have to ask-is the problem to much government-or not enough-I am confused? No offense meant but it is pretty easy to just condemn everything.

    • correction-that should have been- there is no perfect answer

    • Charlie

      Our Govt was born of Mercantilism. I have shown you this to be true, and not by my words alone. I have also shown you how some very clever people managed to teach generations that Mercantilism and Free Market Capitalism were the “same” by grouping them as “Capitalism” in their writing and political rhetoric.

      Without the power of Govt to back them up, how could all these “rich” people maintain power over you Charlie? Seriously. There are 300 million of us and a few thousand of them. Without the Govt trick on our minds, and the Govt guns they would not stand a chance. It is important here to realize it is the “trick” that is most powerful.

      We Americans can rise up against nothing but guns. It was the pollution of our minds and muddling of our ability to think that allowed this rot to infest our Republic.

      You want to help solve the problem then start doing some very hard thinking. Address your contradictions, all of them. V.H. just pointed out one that is glaring.

      You must first resolve this basic moral truth. You can not create a civil and caring society by using force to take from one person and then giving their property to another. It is this philosophy that has undermined our civility and our humanity.

      Then STOP accepting second or third best. When you see a crook expose him/her for what they are.

  41. Charlie

    When has there ever been a “free market”

    As I’ve pointed out many times before, it exists whenever a free man voluntarily trades with another free man.

    It happens millions upon millions of times a day, including to you

  42. Charlie

    prefer knowing that what I put into the state over a lifetime will guarantee me some form of human dignity in the form of healthcare and quality of life when I retire

    Your fallacy here.
    There exists no such guaranatee

    The State can – as easily – deny you your life, your dignity, eliminate healthcare and destroy the means to your life.

    So your statement here is a horrifically dangerous one to base political system of overt violence, imposition and tyranny.

  43. I was watching the new Tron movie with my son last night.

    Funny how I grow ever more sensitive to the messages placed within our media, especially the art form of movies.

    “It is his game now. The only thing we can do to win is not play.”

    Now my question is who is inserting these lines and why?

  44. Charlie

    BF will counter argue (rational thinking) that if we assume man to be inherently untrustworthy/greedy,

    This is not an assumption – it is a fact
    Some men are bad.

    Do not make an assumption where facts exist,

    To do so makes it appear that there is an assumption -just as plausible – that can be stated in its opposite, that is assume all men are “good” – which is wholly false.

    Such errors turns the argument into debates of fantasy and are pointless.

    how could we assume a group of men (gov’t) wouldn’t be?

    Building a political system which rewards the worse aspects of humanity – his violence will attract the worse of humanity’s violence.

    I say man always looks to protect himself and formed gov’ts originally for that purpose (so that the strong/violent, etc., wouldn’t overrun everyone else). BF says that is irrational and that the universe won’t allow it (yet it has).

    Man protects himself = true.
    Gov’t original purpose to protect = false and a lie.

    Gov’t only purpose is to centralize and legitimize its use of violence.

    There is NOTHING in government that determines its use of this violence.

    Thus, some government power is used to resist violent criminals. To Charlies, this is why government exists.

    But when he witnesses government power being used to kill and destroys innocent human life, his understanding becomes confused, as it appears to contradict its reason for existence. He then will go into all sorts of twirls trying to explain why government the protector is killing those that he believes need to be protected.

    When one understands that government is nothing BUT violence and it is men who determine the use of this violence, clarity will begin to form in the understanding.

    The use of legitimized violence is a tool – and evil tool.

    Evil men seek evil means.
    Good men are repulsed by evil means.

    Evil means will be used by evil men.

    Use of violence upon the non-violent so to obtain any want, including the want of protection is evil, and such means will be sought by evil men.

    But I do agree that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and therefore gov’t needs genuine checks (people power).

    • Charlie

      But I do agree that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and therefore gov’t needs genuine checks (people power).

      Irrational.
      Government power is power OVER people.

      Government makes the laws that government enforces ON the people.

      To believe the people have the power to enforce themselves over government is wholly irrational. What means do the people have to enforce against government????

      A piece of paper?

      • Ultimately it lies in gun powder and lead.

        • JAC

          Ultimately it lies in gun powder and lead

          The very tools government uses on the people.

          Even after “victory”, with no surprise, nothing changes.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            It can with the right minds in victory circle. At some point in human evolvement, understanding and changing the mistakes has to occur, or humans will face extinction. A difficult task indeed, our great, great, great, grandkids might appreciate the effort.

  45. Todd

    Anarcho-libertarian individualism society? I have a hard time believing that type of society could actually work

    You are a 15th Century man unable to believe that a society that did not have a Pope to talk to God could not exists either.

    And, just like in the 15th Century, there were many men who did not use a Pope to talk to God.

    Reflect on these historical fact and then apply your thought of Archo-Capitalism, and see what bubbles up.

  46. Unbelievably frustrating article:

    http://pragcap.com/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street

  47. It’s Saturday -Woo Hoo-everybody have a good Easter weekend.

  48. Update on the McDonalds beat down.

    From American Thinker:

    “There is more to this story than what’s apparent on the video, although there is clue in the attackers yanking a wig off the victim’s head. That’s because while the media’s description of the victim as a 22 year old woman is politically correct it is also anatomically inaccurate. The victim is transgendered and chose to use the ladies room. That facility was already in use by a girl who evidently had not learned in school that gender is merely a social construct.

    What has to be giving local politicians and prosecutors heartburn is that just recently the Maryland legislature voted down a controversial bill that would have made it legal for the transgendered to decide which public restrooms they want to use. Thus we have the gay lesbian and transgendered community agitating for prosecution as a hate crime even as prosecutors wonder how they will find a local jury who won’t think that a 22 year old man who entered a bathroom occupied by a 14 year old girl wasn’t out of line to begin with.”

    As is so often the case these days. It would be better if we all just took a deep breath after such events and give the truth time to be revealed. This is one of the “problems” with the new media. The first reaction becomes viral before the real answer is known.

  49. :) :) :)

  50. I mentioned this the other day-but it’s worth mentioning twice.

    Who is running Boeing?
    Lee DeCovnick
    Imagine you own a company that just introduced a newly designed widget that sells for $150 million dollars each. This improved widget is designed and manufactured in America. Even better your company has already booked 835 confirmed orders for your new widget. Not surprisingly, your primary production facility does not have the capacity to produce enough of the new widgets while maintaining production of prior generation widgets, which are a cash cow for your company. So naturally you built a new production facility to handle the overflow of new orders. Even better, you built the new facility in the United States, rather than going overseas.

    From the Chicago Tribune editorial page we read:

    This week, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint over Boeing’s plans to open a plant in South Carolina. It plans to open a second production line of its 787 Dreamliner plane there. The plant has been built.

    Boeing executives have acknowledged that they were reluctant to expand in Washington state because of the risk of a labor strike. Boeing’s workers in Washington belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Its plant in South Carolina would be nonunion.

    Boeing is not being alarmist. Workers in Washington went on strike for nearly two months in 2008. The company said it couldn’t reach a deal with the union to expand operations at Puget Sound, Wash., for the Dreamliner.

    Seizing on the words of Boeing executives, the NLRB inferred that the decision to choose South Carolina was retaliation against the union. The labor board demands that Boeing open the second production line in Washington. [Emphasis added]

    Appointments by President Barack Obama have given the five-member NLRB a pro-labor tilt.

    The plant is ready for about 1,000 workers. The NLRB filed its complaint 18 months after Boeing announced it would expand in South Carolina. The NLRB says Boeing is free to do business there – but its second production line has to run in Washington.

    Imagine you own a company and a five unelected appointees of a government board, among them unconfirmed recess appointees, tell you where must open your new manufacturing plant. Would you ever consider opening another manufacturing facility in the United States? Is this the tyranny that Thomas Jefferson warned us of?

    Karl Marx wrote in 1865, “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    We are there, are we not?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/who_is_running_boeing.html

  51. The New World Order

    Many here have asked what this is all about. I give you a summary by one of their own.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gordon-brown/post_1937_b_852228.html

  52. Todd

    First just to clarify – I’m not an advocate of Communism or Socialism. But I’m also not an advocate of “truly free market Capitalism” because I don’t think that would work either.

    So let me get this straight.

    You do not advocate government intervention into the market place (communism/socialism/fascism) and you do not advocate non-government intervention into the marketplace (free market capitalism).

    It appears you do not advocate the market place – period.

    What you describe is how Communism has worked in human societies – USSR, China, etc. But that’s not how its suppose to work…

    In nature it tends to work better.

    In a wolf pack, the leaders (male and female) do eat first, but they also share with the entire pack, and they bring food back for the young and the old. This keeps the pack strong by allowing the hunters to remain strong, it ensure the future of the pack by feeding the young, and takes care of the old. If there is not enough food for the entire pack, they do go hunting again.

    If only humans could be so caring…

    And many people want to kill wolves because they’re so ‘vicious’…

    • Todd

      If only humans could be so caring

      We are, even more so.

      Its called charity but you do understand the word.

      • I’m pretty sure I understand that word.

        • Todd,

          Understand the word

          Prove it.

          Post dialogue where you acknowledge its existence -historically from the dawn of civilization to current – as the method and means of mitigating the misfortune of other people.

  53. Todd

    First just to clarify – I’m not an advocate of Communism or Socialism. But I’m also not an advocate of “truly free market Capitalism” because I don’t think that would work either.

    So let me get this straight.

    You do not advocate government intervention into the market place (communism/socialism/fascism) and you do not advocate non-government intervention into the marketplace (free market capitalism).

    It appears you do not advocate the market place – period.

    • BF:
      It appears as though the clarity of the writing has lost its meaning. It furthermore seems that although people don’t advocate Communism and/or Socialism as economic systems, then there is some kind of lesser intent with Capitalism? Man, this entire thread is so confusing – regarding a “Free market” it simply doesn’t exist; ergo, if one thought that it did, please allow for some kind of example insofar as I, as well, don’t believe one exists either.

      In order to maintain some legitimacy to capitalism and/or a “free market system” there must be regulation. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the gov’t need do it. Cheers!

    • Black Flag,
      I believe in a market place. Just one with some regulation.

      And I’m sure you’ll just LOVE that! :)

  54. Jon

    regarding a “Free market” it simply doesn’t exist; ergo, if one thought that it did, please allow for some kind of example insofar as I, as well, don’t believe one exists either.

    I have -more than merely often- give such an example.

    Did you trade some currency for a coffee today? Did you do this trade voluntarily or was there a gun to your head?

    I think the big mental block here is the understanding of scalability.

    The Free Market exists when two people trade voluntarily all the way up to 7 billion people trading voluntarily. The Free Market exists in many places at once, and in some places not at all.

    Any time you witness people in voluntarily exchange you are witnessing the “Free Market”.

    What you and Todd hold is that such a thing cannot exist unless it envelopes some sort political geography of lines on a map.

    But that’s the power of freedom. It is INDIVIDUAL in its exercise. Freedom does not need a government, a nation or borders to exist.

    It merely needs free men.

    And as the Free Market is a direct consequence of the action of Free men, the Free market merely needs men in voluntary action to trade.

    Capitalism is a direct consequence of the Free market.

    To trade goods requires ownership. I have this “thing” – which is a statement of ownership of that thing – and you have that “other thing” – an equal statement of ownership. We trade ownership of those things.

    The only questions within Capitalism is the determination of ownership and its enforcements.

    In order to maintain some legitimacy to capitalism and/or a “free market system” there must be regulation.

    This statement is false because it is incomplete.

    There are two “regulations”.
    One set – enforcements against violence.
    Second set – use of violence to enforce edicts upon the non-violent.

    To argue “regulation” without declaring which (or both) set(s) are in play makes your statement false.

    One maybe necessary.
    The other is never necessary.

    Adding both of these together creates a contradiction.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 138 other followers

%d bloggers like this: