Socialism are services provided by the state, e.g. medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc. Socialism can also include things like subsidized transport, subsidized electricity, etc.
Socialism is part of democracy and Canada, the US, the UK, all countries in western Europe, Australia, South Africa, etc. have socialistic programs.
Socialism is simply about the state using some of its taxes to provide either subsidized services or services that have been paid for through taxes to the people of the country.
A little while ago, a journalist approached an old man at an Obama town hall meeting. He had come to protest Obamacare because he said he didn’t want socialism in America. The journalist asked him if he was using medicare. The man smiled and said, “Yes, that’s why I don’t want socialism. I want to protect medicare.” The old man was so ignorant he didn’t realize that medicare was socialism at its best and that Obamacare would intended to improve medicare.
It has occurred to me that some confuse socialism with communism because the name USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It’s a misnomer. The USSR was never socialist. It was communist. There is a vast difference between the two!
So why do so many people use the words communism and socialism interchangeably?
It is the same system but different stages. Karl Marx said: "democracy is road to socialism". The socialism is first step of communism. Both are brutal dictatorial systems and should be outlaw. Now we are in the stage as Czechoslovakia was in 1948. Then troubles came an there was no way out. The Soviets collapse since is is bad economic and political system. But there is another reason for "collapse". Soviets used perestroika when they were in troubles. Naive US politicians bailed them out and then Soviets continue kick us, you know where.
Medicare? Worse system I seen in the West. Government do not know how to rule or rung anything well.
Socialism is system where still exists: states, religion, family, money, naming few. Communism is system when are eliminated those plus distribution of wealth. All became poor and controllable.
Soviets were Bolshevik socialists. Germany had national socialism, Nazism. All evil is the same no matter what one uses the name.
Because socialism and communism are closely related in the manifesto of Karl Marx and there is only a major/minor thread of difference between them.
Capitalism on the other hand is what both of these two espouse against - one of them being the ownership of private property which leads these people to say is the basis of class warfare - the problem is that there are still a lot of people(poor) who battle against their situation and make it - in a society of soc/com this would not be possible unless the govt looked the other way OR allowed it in order to feed soc/com.
The old man, when he was young, at that time socialism and Communism were almost synonyms; and America was against Socialism and Communism; his memory must be of the Cold War period.
Maybe they are scared that the country is going there. According to some literature socialism is the next stage to communism.
It could be also that they are misinformed, scary tactics anywhere
or just plain ignorance
History is a good teacher, I don't think people will be comfortable in a communist society.
Amen to that! I'm from Cuba... I am terrified of communism! YIKES!
Happy New Year klara, the "Miami Heat is on"..bet they have a chance this year!!
Wooooohooooo! Yes! That's right!!! The HEAT is ON, baby!!! Woooohooooooo! LOL
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU TOO. ALL GOOD THINGS WILL COME THIS YEAR!
Celebrate YES......why not? the weather is great there right now too...I saw Lebron James the other day when I was watching Dora the Explorer, he is promoting Dora the Explorer and helping pre schoolers with some programs..it is funny how he talks with Dora.
That is healthy in a capitalist country - with some tinge of socialism -- like the US - it rocks.. sports players earn a lot, commercials, salaries - then they give to charities at their own discretion. You sell your talent - you don't have talent or you cant find a job, you live by some welfare, LOL
I haven't seen that commercial. I'll look it up. It's not playing here in Miami.
Cubans have been lied to for so long that we are afraid of anything remotely close to communism, and the way they sold us communism was by calling it "socialism". I know it isn't. I know socialism when it goes hand in hand with capitalism works well. It certainly does in Europe. I still panic though.
that is understandable klarawieck,
I think it will work well here too, as I suspect patterns of economy follows the European trend, the US is heading that way...
The problem is that the services provided by the state are pretty bad as it is. Have you tried to renew your driver's license or go try to get rabies shots through the public health department?! I DID and let me tell you... I came close to dying with foam coming out of my mouth!!!
Because people often fear what they don't understand. This goes back to the cold war era, where America was terrified of communism so much that people even started to finger point at each other. Thus, making it like a witch hunt. The bottom line is that the majority of America (thanks to the brainwashing by the corporations and media) has made us hypnotized to where majority believes that capitalism is the fairest form of society; while damning other ways.
However, I think with the ways things are going, you might get your wish, as even economic specialist believe we're heading into being a socialist society within the next few decades. (assuming we're not dead in 2012 that is. )
Nazis were (and still are) national S o c i a l i s t s. Did you miss it?
Kind of like how East Germany was and North Korea is democratic, right?
Well, if you did not notice yet, East Germany does not exist for about 20 years already, so "is" in relation to it does not cut it. As for NK, it is about as democratic as the USA, with the only difference being USA elite is a bit smarter and gives citizens a choice out of two more or less equal evils - instead of the only one evil in Korea.
EDIT Ah, I see you used "was", my bad. Does not change my tune though.
Ah, I am just a silly girl...
Have a question to you though - was Hitler a Christian?
Milla - do you really equate N.K with U.S. democracy, such as it is? I think the U.S citizen has quite a few more freedoms than N.K. citizens.
Certainly - yet democracy is not about freedoms, you may want to check the dictionary. That said, the USA is not a democracy, it is a republic.
What I asked was do you think the U.S. is as stringent as N.K with regard to the form of democracy? The U.S. is a federalist republic. I don't know what N.K. is. No need to get snippy.
Hi Milla. It should be republic but now is getting to be Socialistic Capitalism. Thanks to import socialism from Europe.
Hi Vladimir. Weren't that emigrants like my parents and you who imported it here?
If seriously, I had an interesting thought recently - looks like the whole world turned in the socialist direction in the beginning of the last century. Some countries like our motherlands had it harder, others like Northern Europe and the USA much lighter. Though everybody got it. It's like a pandemic disease. Hope we will get well eventually, but looks like it will take a while...
What you call pandemic was the cure for rampant capitalism - what existed before was far far worse, the experiments of socialism and communism about trying new ways of doing things - any one part of the whole may have been bad to live in - but before it was all bad to live in. We watch historical movies and identify with the Princess and the brave knights rushing around - but we would have been the dirty ragged peasant that they sprayed mud on as they rode by, not hte 0.1% of the population that had it easy and whom history talks about.
Did you live before socialism? So how do you know it was that bad back then? History gets re-written with every new victor, and socialism is obviously at least a temporary victor...
For example: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101206/lf_ … n_medieval
And here is an example of how really bad things become under the full-blown socialism http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101206/lf_ … n_medieval
You live in China I recon, ask around about cultural revolution. Looks like your cure is worse than a disease, you know...
Some folks think if there is a big sign on an elephant that says 'frog' then that changes the beast entirely. Funny how the big gray 'frog' with the trunk won't dine on flies and never hops .
Taxes are theft, thus socialism is wrong.
Socialism can't work on numerous fronts:
1) Who's going to take out the garbage? -- In any socialist set-up, there is an incentive to not be the person to do the cruddy work. This is the reason why when you live with a room-mate, it's difficult for both of you to agree to clean up the place: "why should I bother to clean it all up, they're making a mess, too! they should clean it up!". In order for things like this work you need to actually sit down and set up a system; as opposed to living on your own, you do things the way that you like.
2) You're investing other people's money. -- When you talk about socialism, you're talking about taxes. Thus, when a government employee decides to create a system of, say, health care, he's saying "we need to allocate $20 million to help pay for things!". But what you don't hear is that he's using OTHER PEOPLE'S money to do those things. He has no personal incentive to make sure things are lean and fit -- if the endeavor is profitable, he makes no money; if it loses money, he doesn't get punished. Socialism doesn't reward efficiency because you're spending other people's money.
3)How do you calculate prices? -- Socialism ONLY can work if there's a Capitalist market to support it. If EVERYTHING were paid for by the state -- i.e., taxes were 100% -- then everything would be paid for through other people's money. If you could spend other people's money to get what you wanted, then you aren't really discussing prices. If you spend other people's money, then nothing you buy is yours, and thus doesn't have a real price.
4)Do you really think that politicians are angels? -- No offense, but politicians are only able to be "socialist" because they have a military backing up their special-benefit-jobs. Imagine if I declared that, from now on, you were a member of my gang, and that I had the right to take your money to make both of our lives better. You'd probably shoot me right there! Yet government does the same thing.
Anyway, I hope this highlights a few issues of socialism's failures. Check out my hubs, read the book "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt for more information.
This has nothing to do with Socialism's failures. It has to do with why so many confuse socialism with communism.
I'm just curious. What exactly do you think taxes should be used for if not to make the life of the people better?
More than half the taxes goes to US Military.
And most of thte money the US Military spends is on weapons and planes and things - and that is where most US tax goes.
So, you think that the State ought to eliminate pensions, medicare, social security, unemployment, food stamps, etc?
So, currently 25% of Americans are either unemployed or they're only working one or two days per week.
If unemployment and food stamps weren't there, then their crime rate would skyrocket because robbery (in order to survive) would increase massively.
In any events, again, that has nothign to do with this thread.
The question is why do so many confuse socialism with communism?
To answer your question: Ignorance and brainwashing that's why! Scary tactics, that's why!
why do taxes need to exist? They don't. Taxes are a price on goods that are provided by a monopoly. If you buy things from a company and have competition, it's a price; if you buy something from the government, then they call it a tax. Either way, the government provides things through coercion and monopoly granted privileges enforced with a military.
Why do people confuse socialism with communism? Because they're remarkably similar - the only real difference is the degree of socialism - if it's 100%, it's communism, if it's not quite up there, it's Socialism (pretty much).
Social, Commune, basically the same thing.
-- according to these definitions, the things you claim are socialist are actually communist! Communism is the only one that demands a State's control of resources (although, it's kind of implied in socialism). Marx even argued that socialism was the in-between of capitalism and communism. (pointed out in the 3rd definition of the socialism definition provided).
The only real difference is the degree to which it's carried out. I wrote a hub about redistribution of wealth and showed that both socialism and communism are complete nonsense. Demanding a difference between the two is less than important, and more on the side of pointless.
Both are statist (statist = those who demand that a state protect them, etc. The opposite of anarchy) demands of reductions if freedom.
Glad you got in front of all those stupid economics types who have been talking about this for the last couple hundred years. The arrogance of assuming you know best is only matched by the shallowness of this kind of thinking.
Without your tax dollars you would be a sub-state of any other power who decided to take your country - might have been better if they had some might say. Wiothout your tax dollars you would not be driving anywhere fast because of toll gates every mile, and so on in an endless stream of reasons. Before taxes there were regional barons and you worked only for them, and they took what they wanted including your wife and daughter if they wanted. Maybe you should pull your head out and read a little history related economics stuff in a real book.
awww, thanks buddy! nothing like insults to lighten the mood!
Taxes don't need to exist. It's foolish to think they do. When i take money at gunpoint from my fellow man, it's called theft.
When someone who is called "a politician" does it, it's called "the glorious act of taxation! yay"
It's clearly nonsense.
Whether you think you are being robbed or not, the point is clear: organized societies need funding. A world divided into small tribal factions might not need taxes, but our current world does. Nations currently in a state of near-anarchy, such as Somalia, don't need taxes. The United States does and every other first world country does.
It's foolish to think that private entities would be able to collectively take the place of government. Sure, there would be less waste of tax dollars (since there wouldn't be any), but you'd still be losing just as much money (and likely much more) to private companies who are able to gain a stronghold on the parts of life we deem "essential".
The roads you drove to work on were likely built with taxes. Imagine if all those roads were private. Now imagine you had to pay to use them. Even if the payment system was seamless, with a computer chip in your car telling the road you are driving on it and the bill being directly deducted from your banking account, would this be better than the current system? What happens when the company that owns the roads doubles the rates? You can choose another route, but that might mean taking twice the time to get to work, and then you'll be paying road tolls to another company (or maybe the same one). If only there was a tax-dollar supported government to protect you from such monopolies.
Now you get home from work late at night (because of the extra time spent taking the longer route) and find that vandals have lit your uninsured house on fire (the insurance company wouldn't insure your home because they think you live in a "bad neighborhood" with lots of poor minorities. There's no tax-dollar supported government to tell them that's wrong). Now you've got to call the privately-owned fire department, who charge $5,000 per house call (as opposed to collecting a hundred or so dollars from each taxpayer each year). You've also got to call the privately-owned security force (no police without tax dollars) to take care of the vandals, who are still lurking in the neighborhood and have their eye on your car. That'll be $1,000 per house call.
The point is, life isn't at all like an Ayn Rand novel. People working in their own best-interests without government control do not create a utopia. They create a world where everyone tries to grab resources and monopolize sectors of the economy as quickly as possible before anyone else has the chance to.
Taxation would be far less objectionable if it wasn't plunder to keep politicians in office by creating a vast dependent class. If we treated taxes as if every citizen should be served by those things funded by taxes - thus, fire and police departments, inter-state highways and national defense all serve each of us without regard to income, status or political affiliation. This is not the case in current tax/spend policies in any level of government.
You are talking about a completely capitalistic running of teh country? So no state military, no state utilities, no state roads, no state buildings, no state protection of those who find themselves unable to look after themselves?
Tell me who will build the roads in your economy, who will look after the disabled, who will provide education to the lower classes, and remember if the lower classes become uneducated you are losing a huge amount of your educated populace, because they are the ones with the drive.
Great theory! Is it always true?
Answer - no. Compare the UK's National Health System and the USA's health "system". The former is far more "socialist" than the latter. And also much, much more efficient. We spend half what you do on health care and live longer.
1) It's pointless to argue that UKs system is necessarily better than the US's via statistics because there are waaaaaaay too many variables to even try to compare them: you live in a completely different part of the world, enjoy a completely different diet, and have a completely different population,
2) you don't see the hidden costs of your governments' endeavors - taxation hides the costs
3) the vast majority of the best hospitals in the WORLD are in the US.
I don't hear the numerous "capitalist" corporations who receive their funding from government dollars (corporate socialism/welfare) complaining about the money they receive....
I don't hear Dyncorp badmouthing the government assistance that pays its bills...or that ensures its executives are living very well to do lives......while they peddle sex slaves to pedophiles in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere the U.S. government authorizes them to work....
It is only when the common American is the beneficiary of assistance that the "socialism" rants begin....
Halliburton and their government handout ilk and their Dick Cheney esq "socialism haters" are the biggest economic charlatans I have ever seen....
I think that if we believe receiving government assistance is wrong that these companies need to be dropped first.... Let them create their own revenue streams without government aid....let them show us how capitalism really works....or rather, doesn't work...at least not on its own...
"I don't hear the numerous "capitalist" corporations who receive their funding from government dollars (corporate socialism/welfare) complaining about the money they receive...."
Because that "funding" is the fee for doing a job.
"I don't hear Dyncorp badmouthing the government assistance that pays its bills...or that ensures its executives are living very well to do lives......while they peddle sex slaves to pedophiles in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere the U.S. government authorizes them to work...."
"It is only when the common American is the beneficiary of assistance that the "socialism" rants begin...."
If you pay into Social Security and Medicare and your taxes have funded Medicaid then its not exactly socialism when you get some of the services YOUR money provided.
"Halliburton and their government handout ilk and their Dick Cheney esq "socialism haters" are the biggest economic charlatans I have ever seen...."
If you ran a business and you were going to fail and government offered you a lifeline wouldn't you take it? The politicians gave them the money and thats why they were replaced in the last election. This democrat controlled congress keeps spending our money against our wishes, the interesting part is they don't care, its what liberals do.
"I think that if we believe receiving government assistance is wrong that these companies need to be dropped first.... Let them create their own revenue streams without government aid....let them show us how capitalism really works....or rather, doesn't work...at least not on its own..."
You won't show that capitalism doesn't work, you will show that if you are not competitive and honest you will go broke. Thats how capitalism works.
In conclusion, its your side that has brought us to this precipice, please do not give us anymore advice on how to be capitalists.
This is clearly why countries like New Zealand and Canada are sliding into complete anarchy. No... wait...
If you don't want police, roads, schools, an army or hospitals--feel free to move to a country that doesn't charge taxes. Perhaps Somalia.
And yes, socialism and communism are very different. America is a bit socialist (tax, medicare) but not very communist (government monopolies, one party system).
I assume you're talking to me. Please reply to my posts, not to the forum so I can better keep track of the responses.
America has no government monopolies? How many companies can put a gun to random people's heads and then say "pay up or we'll throw you in a prison for 10 years"? None? Yeah - that's what I thought. The government has a monopoly on taxation, money production (although they outsourced that to the Fed), road building, schooling, and so many other things.
Sure, you can build your own road, but why bother since the government can compete better by just stealing money? Sure you can build your own school, but why bother when the government can just steal money and pay for its own? etc etc etc.
It's not a 100% monopoly, but it's pretty close.
I'm blinded, simply blinded by the brilliance of that remark...
Social snipers are alive and well in the HubPages' forums...
the capitalism you think is bad is actually plagued by government, and thus is more aptly called "socialism" or "mercantilism".
@ Even G Rogers.
" The government has a monopoly on taxation, money production (although they outsourced that to the Fed), "
Actually, the 'printing money' arm of the 'government' is a private company that is owned by Rothchild.
right, but who gave them that power?
The Constitution clearly states:
"No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"
... so, every single piece of paper in your pocket is Unconstitutional.
Either way, it took government to grant the monopoly.
Evan - read your own Constitutional quote.
""No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"
The money is not made by any state. It's federal.
the power wasn't granted to the federal government, it was denied to the states.
thus the 10th amendment makes it a private endeavor
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sorry bud, but I'm right.
Evan - you'd better explain who the Fed is. Many think the Fed is the Federal Government.
this'll take a lifetime.
Check out my hubs. I explain it pretty good through them.
I had a look at your first hub.
I got as far as, "I do not blame those who still buy into the notion that it is possible, for it was only until recently that I came to fully understand why it is impossible."
And decided that being patronised quite that much (in dodgy English, to boot) isn't my idea of fun.
Evan....I think you are completely wrong...
Just think how many communities across this nation would have schools and roads, let alone bridges, electricity, water, if it was not for the ability to collect funds through local, state, and federal taxation...
I suppose you would like to go back to the living conditions of the early 19th century?
Then again...I don't think we would have lasted through the War of 1812 without the government's ability to raise money to pay for guns, bullets, men, horses, food, so on and so forth....
We wouldn't have the money to negotiate treaties...or to pay for the representation to even attend such meetings....
Taxation is not a problem....there is a useful purpose.... But, there is abuse...
I would much rather want to know about the companies and individuals who profit from tax dollars while not paying any of their own.... I am more interested to learn about how tax dollars intended for hospitals, schools, and infrastructure end up in Dyncorp's coffers....in Halliburton's bank accounts, and in Dick Cheney's wallet....
900 million dollars per year alone to one company......while it enables Afghan and Bosnian men to buy child prostitutes....while American bases provide the venue for the illegal sex to take place....
These wasteful, immoral expenditures of our wealth are the problem.....
The corruption that enables companies like Dyncorp and Halliburton to get government funding is the problem....the illegal wars that send our dollars to sheiks in the Middle East....
It pays to point the finger at the real problem, instead of hiding behind some weak form of fiscal conservatism or libertarianism...
Taxation itself is not a bad thing..... But, it is what we do with the tax dollars that is more important....
How many roads would your city have Evan, if there were no tax dollars to construct or maintain them?
All of those things that governments "provide" -- through monopoly control -- are profitable. Thus they can all be provided through private enterprise.
If we get rid of government, we won't go back to the stone ages - quit making statements that are clearly ludicrous.
The War of 1812 wouldn't have happened without government, thus your argument is nonsense. It's not an official uber-academic website, but it's just the first one google popped up - http://www.warof1812-history.com/Causes … -1812.aspx -- notice how much government is involved with the causes.
You don't need treaties when you're simply agreeing with another business partner - they're called "contracts".
You then go on to point out all the idiocies of government: dyncorp, halliburton, dick cheney, etc. But you still defend it?!
Taxing the people and then giving it to a company is NOT capitalism, it's mercantilism or feudalism. And in that sense, it's still government's fault, not the company's. You're arguments against these acts are arguments against GOVERNMENT, not Capitalism.
Please notice the incentives at work in such mercantilist systems: "I grant myself power to tax the populace. I grant myself the power to then choose how to spend that money. I enforce these powers through a military paid for through such theft". This is how government works!! Fight government's monopoly power, not the competing companies.
Hiring lobbyists costs money. LOTS of money. If it weren't profitable to bribe congressmen, then the practice would stop immediately. Stop the government's ability to dish out stolen money and mercantilism ends.
the corruption you discuss is 100% the problem of government. When a company is corrupt, it loses money. lots of it. When a government is corrupt, it just murders those who resist it. Companies have a strong incentive to trim the fat.
Taxation is theft. If I claimed the power of taxation, you'd be sorry. But for some reason we give 500 people in washington the power to do so, and it's a "good" thing.... clearly taxes are bad, just that no one wants to admit it.
My city would be an efficient place. Roads would only be built if resources couldn't be spent in better more efficient places - this is how things like "interest rates" work.
I mean this with no disrespect: your post shows a lack of economic understanding. I highly recommend reading the book "Lessons for the Young Economist", by Robert Murphy (this book is online for free because the author and publisher both agree that intellectual property is nonsense, and so they put it up for free - link below), and "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. They are fantastic and will likely rock your world.
Here are synopses/commentary/author's discussions of the books in video form.
http://mises.org/books/lessons_for_the_ … murphy.pdf
Do any of those discussions point at real-world countries who have prospered under the system of no taxation - no government participation or intervention in education, schools, police, fire, justice, roads, workplace safety, environmental protection.....
Any REAL examples where it ever worked....
the wild west (which wasn't actually that wild at all) used a system of limited government because government couldn't get out there.
And thus was born numerous private court systems for regulating ownership of property.
I could find more examples but I know it won't change your mind.
It's absolutely nothing to do with feudalism whatsoever.
Anything is profotable if you charge money for it and deny it to poor people. but I would argue making education, justice, search and rescue and healthcare are in fact not innately profitable. If they had to be those minors would have been left to rot like they were in times past.
@ Evvan Rogers...
From the SA Libertarain Website.
The Hundredth Man
Imagine that there is a small community, of say a hundred people. These hundred people slog all day every day merely to survive. They live at the foot of a mountain, and the only water is at a spring near the top of the mountain. They must have water, so every day every one of these people climbs to the top of the mountain, collects his water, and brings it down again.
Getting water takes up a large part of each person’s time each day. Eventually somebody hits on the idea of building a furrow to run some water down the side of the mountain, into a dam which he builds at the bottom. Then he says to the 99 others: “You can save several hours a day, by taking water from my dam, if you will work for me for 10 minutes a day.”
The other 99 agree, so he makes a profit. But the other 99 are also better off, because nowthey have much more time to use for other purposes.
Then, that hundredth man observes how the water running down the furrow pushes stones and wood along ahead of it. He thinks up the idea of providing power from the running water, and builds a waterwheel with which to grind corn. He has more power than he needs for his own purpose, so he says to the other 99: “I will allow you to grind your corn in my mill if you will give me one tenth of the time you save.”
The others agree, so the entrepreneur increases his profit. The others are better off thanbefore because they have still more time to themselves. They use that time for leisure and to improve their houses and their living conditions. One of them spends his spare time making himself good shoes.
The entrepreneur then says to the shoemaker: “I have spare food and shelter andclothing now, because I am being paid by all the people who are using my water and my mill. I will feed and clothe you better and enable you to stop spending your time on necessities, so that you can devote all your spare time to making many of these good shoes. I will then sell the shoes to the others, who will pay me a small portion of the time they save by not having to make their own shoes, and I will pay you a portion of what they pay me.”
So the entrepreneur makes even more profit, but the shoemaker is better off because he receives some of the benefit, and the other 98 are once again better off because they do not have to spend time making shoes.
Then the entrepreneur notices that someone else makes good clothes, so he makes the same arrangement with him, and so on. Eventually, everyone is doing what they are best at, and everyone has more water, and better food, clothes, shoes, shelter and facilities than they would have had if they were spending all their time looking after their own needs, and everyone has more leisure time to pursue other interests.
Now, what would have happened if, when the entrepreneur had built his furrow down the mountain, the others had said: “We will not pay you for your water; you are not working for it. You want to exploit us. We are 99 and you are only one. We will take what we want.”? Then the man who invented and supplied all these wonderful things which benefitted the whole community would have had no incentive to create those benefits. There would have been no further advancement in the community.
But in our example, the “other 99” do not do that. They accept his proposals in mutual freedom, so he goes on to make more and more proposals, all of which create extra benefits. Eventually, there are children in the community, and now there is enough production for some people to devote themselves to teaching the children – because the community is producing enough to free some of its members from having to take care of the production of immediate needs. Art and music become possible, with those who are good at them able to spend their time on these pursuits, giving the benefit of their creativity to others for a share, in return, of the community’s production.
The First Corporation
So there’s this small community of 100 people living at the bottom of a mountain. Their only source of water is a spring bubbling out the side of the mountain halfway up its flank. Pretty obviously, this water does not stay halfway up the mountain, but forms a stream which flows randomly down the mountain. All the residents draw their water from this stream at the point nearest to their respective small farms.
One day a resident called Fred gets a brilliant idea. He digs a furrow from the source of the spring directly to his property, then builds a dam on his property. All the available water now runs down the furrow into his dam, and none runs down the old stream. He offers his water in his dam for sale to the now thirsty neighbours. The gripe and moan, but end up agreeing to his terms, working 10% of their time for him in return for water. With his free labour and free water, he quickly becomes the most prosperous farmer in the village.
A couple of the other villagers get together and decide to build their own furrow from the spring. However, when they arrive at the spring they find it has been fenced in, with signs proclaiming “Private Property. Trespassers will be prosecuted. By order of Fred.” Disappointed and fearful of prosecution, they search for another water source, finally finding one much further up the mountain. With considerable difficulty, they dig a furrow back down to the village. When Fred sees the second furrow he flies into a rage. “You cannot use a furrow, or a pipe, or any device for directing the flow of water without my approval. I have claimed the intellectual property right to all such arrangements, and you must immediately desist, or pay me a royalty.” Ten strapping young lads from the village have been hired by Fred to enforce ‘The Law’, as well as the local school teacher to act as ‘The Judge’. When the villagers object, the judge shows them a book in which Fred’s claim to the property around the spring is recorded. He shows them another book in which Fred’s claim to the intellectual rights for furrows and pipes is also recorded. Somewhat bemused, the villagers concede to Fred’s demands and scrap their furrow. To cover his costs, Fred doubles the price of water.
On his property Fred has a tree which grew nowhere else in the district. This tree has many tough leathery leaves. Fred calls it the dollar tree. To simplify the rather complex recording of hours worked by the villagers, Fred now pays a worker one dollar leaf for each hour worked, and charges one dollar leaf for 10 buckets of water. You can only buy water with dollar leaves. Fred owns many dollar leaves.
In order to obtain the water required for survival villagers must now spend 20% of their time working for Fred. Their own farms begin to suffer and fall into neglect. Finally a protracted drought occurs. Water no longer falls from the sky, and the farmers are totally dependent on Fred’s water supply to stay in business. Due to the increased demand, Fred increases the price of water to one dollar per 5 buckets. Many farmers cannot afford to pay for sufficient water to keep their farms going. Fred lends them dollar leaves at a reasonable interest rate, using their farms as collateral. Within a year, Fred owns 50% of the farms in the village. He centralises control of the farms and evicts many of the ex-owners from the land. He controls the village water supply, the food supply, law enforcement and administration, the money supply, the village records. Villagers doff their caps when he walks by.
Pretty soon, Fred moves on to the next village. Using his considerable resources, he repeats his success in village after village. He calls himself the Fred Corporation. Occasionally he encounters a village where a similar entrepreneur has succeeded like himself. Generally he makes an offer which is hard to resist, and his empire grows a little bigger. Sometimes he just ignores a competitor, sometimes he must destroy him. But always he grows, because growth is everything
Sophia - that's a great post.
The 'For' argument has merit, but it describes a utopia that has never existed. The second example is closer to reality in the US. However, the functional advantages of the 'for' system CAN be realized - IF there is a government who regulates the market for the good of the 99, not at the expense of the 1 percent..
The first part of your story, while providing a fantastic description of how voluntary contracts benefit society, unfortunately leaves out an important aspect.
When the first guy built that furrow of water, it cost HIM time and resources. It took him a HUGE risk, and he likely went into debt (i.e., he asked his friends for food and the sort -- this is similar to a modern day loan from a bank). So, to just clarify, the entrepreneur takes a huge risk to help society, and those entrepreneurs who don't provide what others want lose money,and those who do, make money.
The second discussion shows that whoever wrote it, and everyone who agrees with it, completely has no understanding of why property rights to land were developed:
Clearly, no one owned the mountain, but everyone enjoyed it's value. This shows that a) no one had any vested interest in being singled out as the person who handled any problems that might have come up, and b) that there was little to no incentive for anyone to improve on the system.
In libertarian thought, property is made when someone finally "homesteads" something. This means that when someone starts to use something first, they claim ownership of it (so long as there was no ownership to be had first). For example, you go through a forest with 1,000 other people, and you're the first person to pick up a rock to use as a hammer for something -- the rock becomes "yours".
So, the issue with the hill, or whatever, is that there was no one owning it. It was socialism, and when someone tried to make it better, everyone got mad at him for making life suck less.
Also, the second story illustrates the idiocy of "intellectual property".
I'm not quite sure I agree. The people in both scenarios were de facto owners of the stream. The difference is that Person A was a practitioner of enlightened self interest rather than the psychopathy shown by Person B.
in no instance were either entrepreneur directly in ownership of the stream in the very beginning.
In the first instance, he claimed ownership by homesteading the land and building improvements.
In the second instance a similar thing happens, but then he claims that if others use a similar product then no one else can.
This is obviously ludicrous. Intellectual property is nonsense.
Either way, the lead in problem was that property wasn't addressed initially.
Point taken - at least if it hadn't been for the intellectual property part, the villagers would have been able to circumvent Person B's shenanigans. Although even without intellectual property laws, he could still have hired the heavies. When the Mafia run protection rackets and do drug running, they don't invoke any laws - they just use strong-arm tactics!
That's the point that libertarianism doesn't address - it doesn't take into account the fact that some people are just plain bad and will use any means they can to get one over on the rest of us. That's why your idea of a private court system fills me with dread.
Barring a miracle (i.e. everyone waking up, smelling the coffee and realising that there is no freedom without responsibility, and that long-term it really is best to treat others as one would be treated oneself), I think the best we can hope for in politics/life is a sort of tension of opposites between government on the one hand and private enterprise on the other, to prevent either from becoming too powerful.
either way, it's hopeless to even argue about those two posts: they're just made up stories.
But in a situation where there's a person claiming "intellectual property" and then enforcing it with a militia....
... that sounds an awful lot like a government!!! LOL.
But seriously, even if he was doing such things, the price of water would skyrocket (as evil monopolies that are enforced by government/militaries tend to do), there would always be the competition of an outside company coming and selling water for cheaper to the villagers. And since this outside company wants the money, they might just very well help defend the citizenry.
Either way, there is a limit to the amount of gouging that can be undertaken, and that gouging is always limited by competition.
no, denying people the ability to buy it makes it UN profitable.
And then charging money doesn't make something profitable.
For something to be profitable you need to receive more (wealth) when selling a good or service than it took to create and sell it.
This is the reason why if I take my 10-day-old gym underwear and tell a hobo he can't buy it, but charge rich people $50mill for it..
... i'll be thrown out of the country club.
To make something profitable, you have to be PROVIDING A GOOD OR SERVICE that someone WANTS or NEEDS and charge more than it costs to serve that item or service. Roads would EASILY match this profile, health care does as well, so would protection, so would water services (how much do americans pay for bottled water?), and COUNTLESS other services.
To claim that something is NOT profitable, but NEEDS to be provided by a government, is to admit that the service a) is not needed, and b) that government is the definition of inefficiency.
Very good discussion, thanks Evan.
In old time (I am sure I am much older that all you) there was all affordable cheep products and were also best quality. Of course we would like to be there, not in socialism, running by nonprofessional politicians. They are interesting in control, power, money and lack of thinking. It is typical for socialists. They fool everyone being concern about poor. They produce poverty.
The part of the entire capitalist structure that not a single liberal can fathom on these posts is that:
"Making a crappy product, screwing over your customers, and destroying your capital structure for short term gain; are all horrible business practices that lead to bankruptcy, not profits."
For some reason, liberals (i'm not a conservative, but this problem plagues liberals more than conservatives), just can't understand what life is like from the producer's perspective.
Funny, that fact seemed to pass over the heads of businesses that really established themselves in the 19th century by adulterating foods for example.
Can you give us some idea of when bankruptcy kicks in, I would have thought 100 years would be long enough.
The truth is that market forces, competition or any thing of that matter did nothing to stop capitalists from making a crappy product or screwing over their customers, they almost all did it and in reality the traders who suffered were the ones who did not abuse their customers.
The practice of adulterating food was curtailed not by the capitalist system, but by government.
Yeah yeah yeah
"Businesses are evil, government is a holy angel sent to protect us"...
... despite the fact that the incentives in both systems are aimed directly in the opposite direction of your conclusion.
Build something that is bad: you lose money. (Businesses)
Build cruddy levies: get rehired to do the same job. (Government)
When does bankruptcy come in? Well, the companies lose money for serving inferior products. If they don't change, they go bankrupt. Thus, they change.
So your thesis depends on ignoring any facts that disprove it?
I know it doesn't suit your reality but you don't automatically lose money by building something bad, history is littered with companies that have served up inferior products and not gone bankrupt.
Even when the company has gone bankrupt the principal has not been bankrupted and has continued to profit from screwing the customer.
Wake up and look around you, it isn't as simple and clear cut as you claim it is.
you didn't... really.. provide any facts.
You just threw a broad generalization at me...
But anyway, you wanna talk about screwing the customer? I could easily point to any government service and say the same thing. Post office... waiting for 3 hours after a car accident for a cop to come and file a report... welfare... yada yada yada.
As you throw broad generalisations around on any topic you choose to pontificate on. . .
Actually, the adulteration of foodstuffs is not a broad generalisation, it is well documented and still on going.
The fact that you can point to any government service and say the same thing does not "prove" that private enterprise is in any way better, rather if it proves anything it proves that people are not so wonderfully efficient and that given half a chance, be it private enterprise or public enterprise,if it involves people who can screw up the system they will screw up the system, doesn't matter what the system is, out right capitalism or extreme communism, watch people screw it up.
here's an example (2 links of the same event) of 12 tons of meat being recalled simply because it was trying to be sold without the federal government's approval. Apparently the seller NOR the buyer really cared either way; no one got sick; and the real problem was just that the wrong label was applied to it...... but the gov'ts gotta be a jerk! Basically the lesson is: pay the government or lose millions of bucks - If I did this it'd be called "bribery" or "theft" or "illegal", but if the government does it, it's considered a nice thing.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … 95d432e378
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/12/t … ound-beef/
Here's an example, in India, that pretty much shows that the government is protecting foreign Hotel investments by shutting down mom-and-pop places through the strong arm of the law:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city … 129839.cms
So... I dunno, I provided two examples, you have yet to show one...
either way, ensuring that food is properly kept safe and tidy is a valuable and profitable industry, and would thus be a profitable undertaking in a free market. So I could easily argue that the reason why so many people SUPPOSEDLY get away with evil business practices (you haven't shown an example yet) would be because the government is horribly inefficient. But whatev.
Durh! Neither the seller or the buyer cared if the meat was fit for purpose! The big bad nasty government stopped the meat being sold on and hurting anybody, how stupid, they should have waited until they had a food poisoning epidemic on their hands!
Here's an example of private enterprise policing itself
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 04125.html
Actually, all that I see in the piece you linked is a failure of government.
The market wasn't free to begin with, so there's strike one.
Government claimed the authority to decide if the meat sold qualifies for certain labels (and with this job claimed, it was likely completely and horrendously unprofitable to compete against it -- after all, how can you compete with an institution that gets its funding from theft?)...
... and then it failed to do its job....
... and not one regulating industry (the government) will lose money on the failure...
... and the regulating industry in question (the government) actually knew about the information for MORE THAN A YEAR!!!!
"According to the Bavarian Chamber of Veterinarians, the regional health minister, Barbara Stamm, was informed about the racket more than a year ago but failed to act."
Translation? - The government crowded out the free-market from policing itself, did a horrible job, knew about a problem for over a year, and then ONLY ONE PERSON LOST A JOB
However, the company in question will likely lose a huge percentage of its value because of its lies and deception. -- I couldn't help but notice that the article didn't name any of the meat companies in question... perhaps this is because of a law imposed by government?
it was funny that you thought this was all about the market policing itself, though. The entire article was about the failure of government to do its job.
it was funny that you thought this was all about the market policing itself, though. The entire article was about the failure of government to do its job
But according to you, a job that the government shouldn't need to do as all these honest traders would never dream of adulterating the food that they produce!
you didn't even read what I wrote, or what you wrote, did you?
Your quote (in an obvious sarcastic tone before you posted your link):
"Here's an example of private enterprise policing itself"
Thus you were saying that the private sector can't police itself.
Then your link was nothing but failures of government.
Then I pointed out that the government claimed the responsibility to do its job, and how it failed - horribly.
Then I pointed out that no one in govt is going to lose their own money on the complete failure.
Then... you twisted my words and obviously didn't read what I wrote, and also claimed that you said something other than what you said...
"it was funny that you thought this was all about the market policing itself, though. The entire article was about the failure of government to do its job"
Whatever dude. If you're not going to read, then I'm not going to write.
On the contrary, I do read what you write, though you could be forgiven for thinking that you don't.
You claim that there is no need for government to police manufacturers, I post an example showing that there is a need and all you can see is government failure to police a situation that you previously claim that the government should not need to police as industry left to market forces will police itself!
Try keeping to the point and not moving the goal posts every time you score an own goal, just to remind you, you argued that government had no place in regulating industry, that left to market forces industry would regulate itself, industry offering poor quality would quickly go bankrupt. I give you an example of this not happening. You then changed tack completely and laid all the blame for industry not policing itself on government which you previously claim should have had no say in how industry regulated itself!
once again, let me point out that you did NOT point me to a post where "the market failed".
You pointed me to a post where the government claimed the authority to decide if meat was good or bad, and then they failed at their job.
My comments are completely consistent with my argument - if the government steals money from people and claims the authority to do a job, and then fail at doing that job, then the market didn't really do anything wrong (except, obviously, the lies about the product. But the regulatory agency was a government one, and this is what i"m pointing to.)
You fail to address a single point that I raise!
I argue your claim that the market will police itself, you respond by changing the topic!
Hi Evan, I agree that the government was hugely incompetent in your example, but the government didn't make those farmers pump their livestock full of antibiotics.
In a non-regulated world, how would anyone get to know that these practices were being carried out? It would presumably depend on a "leak" by someone working at one of these farms, and a publicity campaign by the originator of that leak to tell consumers about the sort of things that really went into their roast dinner.
Business isn't evil.
However, many people who go into business use the business to screw people. And the bigger the businses, the more they screw people. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It doesn't matter whether it's big business or big government.
Both have forgotten that there is a social contract over here. The social contract is that we're all people. And that we help each other in order to live. Yes, some contribute a bit more than others and so receive a bit more.
The social contract, however, is broken, when big brother says, "I was savvy enough to make the stream mine, so I can dictate where it goes and charge what iI like."
That is not because big borther is more savvy. It's because Big Brother is more ruthless, doesn't comprehend the hidden agreement between the people that the stream remains open for everyone. In days gone past, when chuches and things went wrong, the entire village helped out. So I don't buy it that the owner takes responsibility. That's absolutely not true.
What is true is that when someone comes along and takes all the profit and makes it difficult for everybody else, then no one is going to help.
Essentially, big business and big government have during the past 30 years broken the social contral that evolved in the first part of the 20th century and peeked about mid 60s.
I, for one, have no time for libertarianism. They completely and utterly don't take into consideration that it will absolutely and utterly be taken advantage of by those that will enslave others.
Arguments from libertarians that pure capitalism is the answer ignore what was pointed out about Somalia. It's the textbook case of anarchy for over a decade and one would expect to be the textbook example of how anarchy becomes pure capitalism and solves all problems. It's a hell hole.
Not a fair example? What about the countries of the former USSR. They sunk into the pure anarchy Evan advocates. Did they become a utopia with capitalism? Ummm nope. 'fraid not. Look at the countries with the strongest economies and best social services for the people... Pure capitalism?? nope socialist all (with taxes).
Germany has socialized medicine, Canada also,, Where are the examples of pure capitalism societies that are better than socialist democracies.. In fact where are ANY countries without taxes that are superior in ANY category to 'socialist' democracies??
Hint - they don't exist.
SO what you're saying is that, to go from a pure statist rule, to an anarchy in a short short period of time is ludicrous?
And that, in order to bring about anarchy, we need to be weaned off of statist control?
I can agree with that.
But to say that "we went from horrendous government power to anarchy in under a month, and then things went bad" is NOT to disprove anarchy. It's to prove that power gaps are dangerous things.
I've lived in the USSR for almost 40 years. It was a socialist, pure socialist country all right. Don't mix socialism as a system with socialistic features as we see them in Canada(welfare, healthcare) or to certain extent in America. Yes, we need back up for socialism, because it is not livable by itself and USSR proved it! System collapsed finally and now there indeed a lot of anarchy in many regions that are left to their own means of survival, they just don't know how to do that. They are used "to get something for free", they don't know how to produce what they are used "to get for free". Communism is the second more developed stage of socialism and USSR fell apart before they managed to get into that stage. Though they boasted for decades, "we are almost there". It never happened. Lenin their Leader was bright enough to realize soon enough that socialism is not livable without capitalism and tried to reestablish part of it through the NEP(New Economy Policy). His comrades - Party leaders prevented him from doing that. They wanted "clean" socialism. That was a costly mistake. The way I see it, and I am not an economist or politic, capitalism in it's pure form is as unlivable as socialism in it's pure form, we have to combine these systems somehow. And government and corruption have to be controlled better. Ant it's not an easy task to do.
Home Girl, in Australia, Europe, and South Africa, we don't see the USSR as being socialistic. We use the word differently. We see it as a communist state.
I've lived in six countries that were socialistic and I've never experienced the horror that you have lived through.
Allt those countries call themselves socialistic.
I am talking about the words socialism and communism. We were taught at school in the 50s and 60s that socialism was a form of government in which some industries and services were paid for by tax so that everybody could have them. That could include a number of things, including public transport, medical or social security. That was the definition of what socialism was.
Communism was never defined as socialism.
The two words mean different things outside the USA.
Pure Communism and pure Capitalism have one thing in common - the working class is the ones that suffer. Our country, the US, was pretty close to a pure capitalist country up until the 20th century. Things were so out of hand that the government started cracking down with a new wave of laws and regulations. There's nothing wrong with socialist programs that the industrialized nations all have. Our schools, postal service, etc. are all government funded. China is now a mixture of free enterprise and communism and I don't have to point out how well they're doing economically. Although there health care rates lower than ours. A country with lots of renewable resources and doesn't get involved in fighting wars can work under a Communist government to a point.
Communism is an idea, that if it were not for people....would work very well. No ego, no theft, no misuse, and it would be awesome! Problem is, we're people. And we are pretty notorious for concerning ourselves with...well....ourselves. You get the same product as everybody else gets...good or bad....you don't get to vote for quality or value, or taste for that matter. Option A or go without.
Socialism is a system that while similar to communism in that it imposes a few "no option" items on selected community members, it endeavors to provide a guaranteed level of existence for all of it's community, by taking the "excess" of it's masses and giving that to the few left behind. Option A and if you don't mind the costs...Option B or C or whatever.
A free market system... hmmm...well it is the best system in the world because it allows you to vote with your dollars, and it's becoming the worst system in the world because we do just that...vote with our dollars...but ask someone else to make that decision for us...or worse yet...forget that as consumers....we ARE the market. We can make it go this way or that way....if we all agree to do so... The biggest little words you will read today.... IF...WE....ALL....AGREE...
Time was, that was not such a stretch. But, the tiny (less than 3%) percent of our (US) population that controls 95+% of the wealth, has been very busy helping us hate each other. "It's the Blacks!" "It's the Hispanics!" "It's the Whites!"" It's the Gays!" "Straights" Liberals...Conservatives...Christians...Agnostics...Democrats...Republicans,,, yup...labels... just labels...and like a bunch of dumb sheep...we buy it. If tomorrow, everyone of us said "NO!" I won't pay a penny over $1.75 a gal for gas, and no one did... some of us would miss work...some of us would loss jobs...but answer me this...how long would it take (if we all said no, we tell YOU what WE will pay) before gas came down?
"China is now a mixture of free enterprise and communism and I don't have to point out how well they're doing economically."
you know that China maximizes it's profits in the free-market FROM SLAVERY! Political Slaves that are born of Communism. Kind of a bad example.....
What does government, in its essence, represent?
In Evan and Jim's limited tax, or no tax, world....where would justice fall?
I think both Evan and Jim missed my point...
The executives...men like Cheney and those who run Dyncorp will be the first ones to point to capitalism as the way to do things...they will be the first to demonize "socialism".....but without their government handouts....they would have nothing...
Yet, using Jim's words, Dyncorp is getting its handout for a "service"...... Yes....breaking laws to provide child sex toys.....
I want to make a point very clear and see what you have to say...
People talk about corporations and government as if they are separate things....
But when the line between the corporate and government cannot be discerned....when business is using government as an indirect way to turn its profit (especially to the extend companies like Halliburton have) this taxation cannot be connected in word or deed to the moneys generated to:
1) Erect and protect the Bill of Rights....which (especially when the federal government was weaker) do not have a very good history of even enforcement.....
2) Establish courts to mediate conflicts between persons and businesses...and ensuring that the rights of the accused and the minority views/populations are protected....
3) Ensure that proven powerful abusers....(shall we go back to slavery....to the early labor models of the robber baron/early industrial age?) are punished, and making sure standards are put in place to keep future abuses from unfolding on the public....
In my mind, these are the basic ideas justifying taxation while pointing out obvious abuses that, while connected to "taxes" are not the same category...
You can throw around analogies about some theoretical guy and water issues....
But it was, for example, Roman taxation that enabled equal access water rights....
So, while the wealthy can ensure that they will be at the source of the water....Roman authority made sure that every person (citizen or not....how novel a thought) had equal access....even if that meant that the fields of the poorer had the right to feed from canals cut across the lands of the rich. And the wealthy person could not limit access in any way....could not charge a fee or any price....
For Roman law, and even Sharia Law both recognize that every person (human being..not citizen) had an inalienable right to water...among other things...and it was taxation and regulation that made sure these systems succeeded for hundreds and hundreds of years....
But, as today, the idea of taxation which is beneficial...supporting a legal structure protecting rights, has morphed into a way to gather wealth for private vanity and self-glorification.......
And the post-western Roman world....and the laws that protected the rights of the small guy, disappeared.....and serfdom was to follow....
Therefore, with my limited economic mind, apparently, it is important to point out that without taxation, our government cannot exist...
And while there are some here who claim the frontier life (either in the "West" or in any other region of limited governmental control) isn't so bad.....
This is because, as with their opinions of taxation...they have selected to define reality in the imaginary....
I believe firmly, as most do here, that our system of taxation, and the relationship between business and the government needs to change.....
But, I think there are a few people here who need to broaden their knowledge of history before they focus solely on the semantics of "economics"....
Don't tell the hypothetical story about some guy....pick out some real characters.....like perhaps Celis Huntington...or some company...like Standard Oil..or how about United Fruit.and let us see what the "minimum" government world would look like...
Being a Californian....and thinking to the deregulated energy crisis perpetrated criminally by Enron and others like Pacific Gas and Electric...I would much rather have some taxes go to enforcing laws that seek out and punish abusers like these....and to pay for the prisons and guards to lock the CEO's, traders, and others who put together and carried out this, and other, scams...
I'll pay those taxes gladly.....and I do. As for financing Cheney and the Dyncorp party scene....(or the military bases overseas that supply the "fun")....this is another issue entirely.
I get it Cheney....Dynacorp...but Why is Obama and the DEMS NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT? It's still going on.
indeed. Those corporations call "Mercanitilism" "capitalism" so that they can sound nice but actually screw people over.
Learn what laissez-faire capitalism is (y'know, REAL capitalism), and then realize you're being hoodwinked by your own government.
"People talk about corporations and government as if they are separate things....
But when the line between the corporate and government cannot be discerned....when business is using government as an indirect way to turn its profit (especially to the extend companies like Halliburton have)"
This system you're describing IS mercantilism!! We don't live in a capitalistic system. This is mercantilism. Some have dubbed it "Cronyism".
I would like to demand that things like the "bill of rights" and "a constitution" are completely meaningless -- Read the 10th amendment - actually read it - and then understand that 90% of what our federal government does is unconstitutional.
But it DOESN'T MATTER if it's unconstitutional because the power to decide if something is unconstitutional is given to the very entity that would corrupt the system!!
Demand that we DON'T have a government. Demand an end to tyranny.
As opposed to Republicans....I have yet to see a unified Democratic party...
As I have said elsewhere on hubpages....there are conservative Democrats...but zero progressive Republicans....
Concerning why this type of corruption isn't taken care of?
Look back to the earliest days of our republic....this is the norm...
I was very disappointed when Obama said he would not pursue any investigations into Bush/Cheney abuses of power....I was very upset with this...
As for Dyncorp....I want to see some bipartisan support for the weeding out of corruption...
But, what will it take to do this?
Socialist and capitalist countries were enemies always. They lied to each other and about each other. If you never lived and worked in a country like USSR or Cuba or China, - you have no idea and it's hard to explain. Right now here, in North America,we are in crisis, why? Wrong government? Politics? Taxation? I don't know. May be we should stop bringing inside all that junk that China produces, and sell it to consumers as a real thing for real money.
$950 for a TV made in China? How long I am going to use it?
Clothes that badly fit and falling apart before you wash them? Kitchen gadgets that never work? That means that I have to buy and buy and buy new things that again not working properly or for long... It's not economy, it's a muppet circus, sorry.
This is a fascinating discussion. To me it is a big huge mess the whole globe is in. The left and right extremists are the total problem. There is a balance in the middle that has logic and fairness.
I am all for the chance for anyone to better their life for efforts and service. But when 96% of the globes wealth is controlled by 4% of the population greed and power tripping have taken the lead and ruined what capitalism is all about.
Those same 4% cause us to fight.... meaning left fights right. We fight each other so they can gain.
Have you not noticed that when the right is in power, someone is capitalizing? And when the left comes into power, other services and business capitalize.... and guess what - the same people own the corps on both sides.
They want to keep us fighting - left vs right - that way they shift their cash cows from side to side and capitalize more.
The right is in power - they capitalize on war, manufacturing of military, energy, automotive etc.
When the left is in power - they move their money to "green energy," health care insurance, manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, pollution controls ETC.
We need to stand together. The Middle Class is disappearing globally. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.
As I said in one of my hubs - "on the backs of the middle class the mega corps climb, and on the back of the working middle class the governments ride" --- and it is always the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
There is a road down the middle - AND THEY DO NOT WANT US TO SEE IT!
You are just proving OPs point that a lot of people don't know the difference between socialism and communism.
no kidding - I am amazed at how dumb some of these opinionated so called experts really are.
Capitalism without controls would become communism through the control of wealth.
A I see it - both socialism and capitalism are doomed without the balancing point. We need each other - thus the point we should all be focusing on is the middle... with logic, fairness yet with freedom to grow (prosper) as individuals. Balance is key!
I think you have it right - but backwards - socialism is only the opposition to capitalism, without capitalism it would not need to exist. The balance point - which I can agree - would mean no capitalism or socialism, so we would have something else, a new way of dealing with the isues from which the two sides arise.
good point - the message remains the same. Balance is key!
Anything that isn't a completely free-market is socialistic in nature.
Capitalism basically professes that each individual is a single state that can voluntarily engage in "treaties" so long as those contracts don't interfere with anothers' right to their own property.
Socialism makes it so that each business becomes a nation of some sort - Group X owns "X's factory" and group Y collectively owns "Y's factory". Socialism doesn't work well with large industries because it's nearly impossible for 500 people to properly direct a factory if they each need to give input on all decisions.
I think you should get out more and see unrestrained capitalism at work young Evan !! there is no 'rule' that filling their trough must not interfere with your property - in fact it exactly the opposite, go to a free-capitalist state like Nigeria and tell the man to respect your contract - you live in cloud cuckoo-land.
LOL - Cuckoo-land is very well inhabited...... in fact over populated!
Nigeria isn't a free-market capitalist system. Sorry to burst your arrogant argument's bubble.
I typed "nigeria wikipedia" into a google search and clicked on "recent history".
Wasn't much work...
So if Nigeria is not run by capital then what is it run by ? whatever apparent system is in power the country is run by money, the more you have the more power you have.
Nobody protects anybody's contract or property, you do it yourself - that is why those of us who have been there have armed protection when we go outside of the major cities.
You think your redneck buddies in the various cults and clans and gangs are going to respect your property or your contract without the laws and checks that government supply (on behalf of all the people) - I don't think so.
Well: Socialism can exist without a state. Communism can't.
I'm not sure that's right.
there are lots of local, voluntary forms of communism. Such as the classic Kibbutz.
socialism creates states -- how can you have mutual ownership of the same piece of capital without it being a government?
Communism is when there is one state controlling everything.
Capitalism is when each individual is his own state and is entitled to make any voluntary treaty with another state that they both wish (so long as it doesn't interfere with another's ability to be free).
Socialist societies sound harsh and correlate with the USSR and Nazi Germany. They are, as they are unsustainable, and start with a Robin Hood mentality. Take from the rich to give to the poor, distribute money, eliminating the middle class, which is the mainstream population that keeps our machine running.
Eventually, yup, a Communist state develops, especially if the leader has a Malignant form of Pathological Narcissistic Personality Disorder( Hitler, Mussolini, Obama).. Egos run wild, an ability to empathize and feel for others, or care about others as anything but a means to their rise, which is never high enough. The resentment and loathing is obvious, and this leader's preferential treatment of a group of radical extremists who slaughtered 3,000 of our people when they were off guard, on our own soil, is atrocious.
The more we let him get away with the deceit and negligence, the worse things are going to get. He purposely took an economy that was already in a down swing, and put it into a downward spiral by printing more money, spending more, and devaluing the dollar to the point off impending doom (depression). Then we can say bye bye to our country as we knew it, get in line for bread, and wait for Islam to take over. All non-muslims, infidels, will know what the Jews went through when they encountered the Nazi's. Good times to come if we don't get this Socio-Path out of the White House and keep the reigns on him tight until the door hits him on his sorry lame ass.
And not just jews!
Nazi tried to eliminate Polish people as a nation, to wipe them out as an "inferior" people. And they(Nazi) worked on a socialist platform. We should learn history very diligently and try not to repeat our mistakes, they are very devastating.
II World War helped to end up 1939 depression in North America very fast. Do we need another World War to boost economy? That's what worries me I should say.
You mean the "harsh" socialist democracies of Britain, Canada and New Zealand. Yeah, those places are hell.
Evan.....you are mistaken...
Please list your complete definition of mercantilism, and please cite a source that backs up your defininition...
I have studied mercantilism for a long time....and I do not draw your conclusion....
In fact...private control of government....witnessed through Bush/Cheney.....viewed through the Huntington/Stanford influence over federal and state government during the 19th and 20th century did not represent mercantilism......
It is one thing for government to be in control of business...it is another for business to be in control of government...
These guys made sure that legal regulations either were dropped, or not followed (like Cheney's Halliburton illegally doing business with Iran through an "offshore" subsidiary)....
Laissez Faire? That is exactly what these people have created..... They have proven that you can have laws and regulation on the books and that they can run around it...
When it was found, by government, that Halliburton was doing an end run around Anti-Terrorism Sanctions imposed by the United States, did Halliburtion or their CEO get punished?
No.... Cheney, CEO-turned Vice President, squashed the allegations...and made sure that the legal loophole that he had exploited remained wide open.... Is this mercantilism?
Enron? PG&E? These companies took advantage of the Laissez Faire energy market that their crony in office (Bush) deregulated... The actions of these companies damaged government...not benefit it.. These regulations sucked California state wealth and put it into the private bank accounts of traders and executives...
How is this mercantilism? It is most definitely crony capitalism...and nowhere near socialism...
Here's my definition of mercantilism. It was generated when I typed in "define: mercantilism" in a google search. the definition is provided by Princeton.edu... that seems reputable.
"to increase a nation's wealth by government regulation of all of the nation's commercial interests"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we … rcantilism
Seems close to me.
Whatever mercantilism actually is, it's a heavy use of government to increase the wealth of just a few industries at the expense of others. All of your examples show government benefiting one industry (or company) at the expense of others. That seems close enough to mercantilism to draw the connection - but even if it isn't "true" mercantilism, it's still sure as hell not Laissez-Faire Capitalism.
You then define laissez-faire capitalism as the opposite of what it is. Laissez faire capitalism would require NO government.
"(the doctrine that government should not interfere in commercial affairs"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we … ez%20faire
So... I got mercantilism pretty close to the head, and you argued that government intervention is laissez-faire economics.
How would companies exploiting the public through government be similar to socialism? Well, there are 2 types of economics: Laissez-Faire Economics, and Communism. If it's got government involvement, it's some degree of Communism. This might be a wild statement, but ti's just a rule of thumb.
You said - "Communism is when there is one state controlling everything.
Capitalism is when each individual is his own state and is entitled to make any voluntary treaty with another state that they both wish (so long as it doesn't interfere with another's ability to be free)."
When 80% of the worlds wealth is in the hands of 4-10% of the population we have a form of communism. Capitalism unbalanced becomes communism. Those with the money control everything.
Socialism is the balancing lever to bring about the freedom that capitalism in it's infancy had. Now that capitalism is more mature we are seeing way too much wealth in the hands of way too few and a communistic control to the tides of economics. Not a good thing!
Both the extreme left and the extreme right make too much noise. There needs to be a balance between the two (left and right) and at the moment the two extremes fight without really seeking solutions.
I've addressed your argument:
"When 80% of the worlds wealth is in the hands of 4-10% of the population we have a form of communism. Capitalism unbalanced becomes communism. Those with the money control everything."
Directly in a hub entitled "Redistribution of wealth is impossible". Please check it out, it would be too tiresome to retype it all.
Socialism is the NEGATION of liberty. When one person invests money into a factory, but then everyone else claims owner ship to it.... ... that ain't freedom!
when one person invests in a company that employs people in his area - then the company shifts it's plant over seas - that ain't freedom either.
Redistribution of wealth is easy! Just make it a global law no-one can be worth over 100 Million bucks. That would still give everyone the chance to build a personal empire, but would make it illegal to be a wealth controlling greedy power tripper!
Capitalism, Un-governed will no doubt become communism through wealth control..... and it is close to that now! The Government is manipulated too much by right wing extremists who push their weight around to get what they want becasue they "think" their wealth is more important than fairness.- NOTE I don't like left extremists either... Left has also gone crazy! On the left wing extremist platform there are too many hand outs and way too many ridged dumb rules..
Thus between the extremists two platforms and flipping noise - we have the rapidly dwindling middle class.
When 80% off the wealth is in the hands of 10% of the population - that ain't freedom either.
How is "I own my property and can do with it what I want" NOT freedom?
The freedom to be robbed, oppressed and murdered by warlords and their gangs. Don't sign me up for that.
When YOU are the property they want to do what they want with. Keep on taking that decrease in wages you seem to welcome, what makes you think it will stop at 0.50 cents ?
"Hey, China-Man, I got a job for ya - I want you to go into the coal mine and dig ALL day long for $0.50 every day. Sound good?"
The obvious answer is:
"No, screw you".
A~~~~~~and, that should answer your question.
I don't think laws like this are a good idea - all it would do is ensure that the very wealthy hire better accountants and lawyers, to ensure that their wealth is hidden. And "global law" implies "global government" which in turn implies "global tax". I pay enough tax already thanks!
That's why I'm actually against anti-trust laws. They don't work. The likes of Microsoft can fight against them because they've got the money to take on the best legal advisors available. In the end, it's small, "niche" companies who could well fall foul of these regulations - if you're the only person making widget donglers then someone can come along and claim you have an unfair monopoly!
As mentioned, balance is the kay. And the United States is an example of this just as recognised socialist democracies are. Taxes are socialism, the provide education, roadways, policing and the justice system, conservation and national parks, the financial support of the elderly and many other important shared social goods.
once again, all of those services are profitable and valued, thus they can provided EASILY in a free-market.
Once again, they aren't profitable unless you charge or them, and deny them to those unable to pay. Yes, people will pay for life savig surgery, for toll rodes, for private secirity firms, *if they can afford it*.
Socialism = realising that every one is safer and happier if everyone is provided with basic services (justice, roads, fire response, national parks) out of a common fund.
I am just agreeing with you China Man..... You seem to know what you are talking about .... These forums are scary sometimes so much arguing.... I cannot cope.
there is a lot of b.s. that is for sure. I am playing in the silly games, it is good for the concentration, and you kinda end up falling in love rather than arguing...... still wasting time, but i like to talk to people around the globe, it's cool
If we had true democracy in America, I suppose we could say that. But politicians hate democracy and it is not true democracy in America.
Ron Paul hits the nail right on the head here:
See Evan, people are scared of life for life. Christians seek protection by God, Socialists - by government. Some prefer to have both, just in case
You can't talk reason to scared to death people, they don't hear
If ever Evan decides to talk reason, I'll welcome it.
Unlike you and people like you Evan talks a lot of reason IMO. You are too scared to hear it, again IMO
Why on earth should I, or anybody else, be afraid of Evan's illogical ramblings?
Oh, you are not afraid of Evan is saying per se, you are afraid of other things like being lied to or poisoned - just out of what I see on this thread, and don't seem to hear what Evan is trying to say because he does not share your fear.
Er! Evan doesn't share my fear! What are you on Misha? Tis Evan who is terrified of any form of centralised control, not I.
As for being afraid of being lied to or poisoned, no more or less than any other sane person but I certainly can't see how the risk is a government creation that would disappear if left to market forces!
So, let me see, the centralization of power in the hands of individuals is far less frightening than the decentralization of power in the hands of individuals? Is that it? The men who would command all authority, economic, political and military power in the center are more virtuous, reasonable, intelligent, moral, measured, restrained(a "master race") - than those who make up the remaining millions from whom that power must be ceded. The people who would wield this great central power would be angels? Or would they merely be the "New Soviet Man." Or perhaps a race of "Uber Mench?" Or would they just be Communist Party members?
What are you on?
How do yo get there from government vs industry in policing industries sharp practices?
John, you keep claiming that "i'm changing the goal posts" or whatever.
Please point me DIRECTLY to what your argument is and I'll address it.
I thought I addressed it like 9 times already, but you apparently think I haven't.
Are you simply upset that I point out that the premises that you base your arguments for are completely absurd?
Your argument was that left to their own devices the market would regulate itself, that those screwing the consumer would go bankrupt. That those scamming the consumer would quickly be driven to the wall by consumers refusing to buy adulterated goods (despite needing a laboratory to find the adulteration)and other far fetched claims.
Misha are you scared of anything, just wondering????
LOL I am certainly a human, so yes of course. Right now my biggest fear is sharks. I know that chances of being bitten by a shark are way less than chances of getting cancer for example or getting into a fatal auto accident - yet I do fear sharks and it spoils my beach holidays - cause I love to swim in the open. So I am working on eliminating this fear, too
Quick sands? Just avoid them, they don't have brains. Spiders? Certainly cautious against, but not scared - the vast majority is harmless. Bees? No harm at all, just need to be aware of them, as well as wasps. May be snakes, those are easy to overlook...
LOL Yeah, Uncorrectedvision probably have it right, The Jaws must be in the root of this irrational fear. Or may be this was my last death, or may be even the coming one - who knows.
Every rational being should be afraid of sharks. They are nothing but killing machines. Period.
Nah Alla, a rational being cannot be afraid of sharks, unless this said being is lost in the middle of Pacific on a piece of a broken mast. This or similar is the only situation when shark attack chances are serious.
LOL I used to be on government brainwashing, but managed to quit a while ago
I think you confuse disgust for a fear in Evan's case. Though any government certainly is a superpower in comparison to its citizen and should not be taken lightly, no question about that. Does not mean one has to fear government, but one certainly needs to always keep an eye on it - if one wants to survive of course.
Government certainly did not create risks, yet it did not eliminate or minimize them either. At best it is useless and a waste of money, at worst it is a tyranny. Sound risk analysis and corresponding actions are the responsibility of a person IMO, if that said person wants to survive of course. Once you start outsourcing this to government in exchange for pieces of your freedom, you lose both safety AND freedom as one of you former presidents rightly put it.
Patriot act is a recent bold example. The scared country gave up a serious portion of its freedoms for an illusion of safety...
All well and good Misha, but totally irrelevant. You don't address Evan's claim that government action is evil, theft even but the same action by private people is noble and desirable.
You know it's a delightful thought to think that everybody is honourable and would never knowingly do anything to harm his fellow man but you know as well as I do that it is a hollow dream, that there are plenty out there who would put their own wants and desires ahead of their fellow men.
We all put our own wants and desires ahead of our fellow man. You or me or government people are not an exception. When you realize it, we can talk seriously.
As for the government and private people, surely either can try to screw you. The difference is private people don't own you - but government does. Look at Assange for an example.
Still avoiding the point completely, why is private action good but identical action by government bad?
I guess I am having trouble finding the original point matching your definition on this thread. Do you mind re-iterating exactly what you want me to address, in detail?
Quite simply, Evan was postulating that the state was incapable of policing industry/commerce whilst industry/commerce would do an excellent job of policing itself.
That market forces and economics would see off the shysters and thieves.
I presented one example of this not working, the habit of industry to add water to meat to increase profit, at which point Evan moved the goal posts.
Umm, if anything this would prove that state policing does not work - it all happens under the state control, isn't it? Or am I missing something again? Somehow I am not aware of any truly unrestricted/unregulated free market economy around.
Yes, you are. That people policing themselves, regardless of who it is, always play to self interest. The rule of law was introduced by people either to promote the self-interest of some, or prevent the self-interest of some...
Umm, I guess I do agree to all what you said there, I would just replace "or" with "and" in the last sentence.
Yet you pointed to one facet that I missed in my answer to John, thank you
John, I think you are misinterpreting what Evan said. I do not remember him saying that industries will police themselves if left to their own devices. What he was saying - I think - is that market forces will force industries and firms to police themselves. Those who wouldn't - would not survive. Pretty much like a theory of evolution.
Misha, so far, for the past 30 years, industry has robbed people blind. They have killed the poorer classes and are decimating hte middle classes. The owners of corporations are now richer and more powerful than they have ever been in history.
When the powerful become very powerful, yes, there is a point at which they lose the power, as in the French REvolution and the Russian Revolution. However, by that time, things have become so bad that the outcome isn't very good either.
The self-policing caused by 'market forces' isn't very efficient.
We don't agree on this. IMO you fail to recognize that there are no free market currently, nothing even close - so attributing any failures to free market forces is absurd. And I already noticed that you passionately hate rich and businesses - no need to reiterate it.
industry robs people via government legislation. Point me to ONE instance of an industry ACTUALLY robbing people, and I'll point you to a failure of government.
*note: if you say "companies only pay people minimum wage" or something like that, then you are incorrect in calling it theft - because things of that sort are COMPLETELY voluntary.
G'head. Give it a shot. It will be easy for me.
Government isn't 100% effective, big deal,
If people being underpaid is a failure of government how will abolishing government rectify that?
Where do you live were working is entirely voluntary? Certainly where most of us work there is nothing voluntary about working.
It's funny how you get so worked up about government "stealing" taxes off people but you are more than happy for private enterprise to tax people with no right to representation, in fact no right even to know what the money stolen off them is being spent on.
"Point me to ONE instance of an industry ACTUALLY robbing people, and I'll point you to a failure of government."
Hey, I'll let you into a little secret. Not all governments are made up of wishy washy liberals, many governments are made up of capitalists who see their role in government as preventing government from stamping down too hard on the money making machine. I mean, come on, you've shown yourself to be pretty naive but even you can't be so naive as to believe that anybody elected to government is suddenly going to change, that people who share your views don't get elected to government and dedicate their lives to fouling things up?
OK, in this country we pay national insurance, , it was collected by employers on behalf of government. Some less scrupulous employers would collect this money and rather than pay it to the government, pocket it.
And the government shouldn't have been collecting it won't wash as a demonstration of government failure.
Either way, a little unlikely.
Take for example the BP transgression? How would market forces have brought them in line and made them cough any compensation? Remembering that there were concerted calls for the boycotting of BP and remembering that BP were very quickly back in profit despite calls for a boycott.
I think a belief that industries will either be self regulated or regulated by market forces is naive beyond belief. After all, without compulsion which food manufacturer is going to admit to adding pollutants to food? And without that information how exactly are market forces going to work?
You fail to recognize that there would have not been any deep water offshore drilling at all if not for government incentivising it. I don't remember exact details, but they were certainly presented on these forums, search for them if you need proof of this.
This is your responsibility as a customer to use your brains when you shop. If you do, you won't buy poisonous food. Those that don't use the brains tend to die faster and produce less offspring, and over time the population becomes smarter. And those businesses smart people don't buy from go underwater. Theory of evolution, again
BTW here you are scared that natural regulation forces will not work
Misha, I'm from Europe. At some point I'm going back. One of the reasons is that there is no such thing as affordable healthy food in America.
When people are given a choice between life and death, regardless of how bad the life choices are, they will choose life over death. That's why cartels are illegal - precisely because they eventually cause that kind of decision making.
I disagree with you that there would have been no deep water drilling if government hann't incenttivised it. Right now, there's a private company moving into space. Those with sufficient money move into areas where they see the opening and the profits. Sometimes, that's governments. Sometimes, that's kings. Sometimes, that's peasants.
Also, Misha. Mother Nature isn't perfect. And you're essentially talking about survival of the best adapted here.
Someone with high intelligence might be more desirable in a certain situation than someone who is dumb as dishwater. However, because that person is sensitive to various viruses, he dies.
Also, Mother Nature seees the big picture. She doesn't exactly have mankind's interests at heart. So it's up to mankind to make sure he survives. And survival of the best adapted often means the most vicious. Civilization is about the caring of all in the community - not just the priviled few.
Mostly, those that get stinking rich and powerful don't get there because they're smarter.
They get there because they're more vicious.
Well,not scared that natural regulation won't work, jhst convinced that it won't unless you can convince me that human nature has changed.
If you think brains are all that is needed to keep you safe then you are probably way ahead of just about every other person and you should really have a little more compassion for your fellow man.
How exactly do your brains tell you that that piece of meat you are about to buy has been infected with BSE?
I tend to think that natural forces always work, no matter what some humans think about it. Human nature did not change, we are still pretty much the same gullible arrogant bunch on average that we were a few thousand years ago. And a beauty of natural regulation is that it works exactly in that environment.
It does not take much brain to grow your food yourself or buy it from a local mom and pop store or on a farmer's market. It might be a bit more expensive, yet if you use your brains to prioritize and instead of the latest and coolest gadgets buy good food, you should be OK even on a tight budget.
And what is BSE?
Happy Christmas Misha - this whole deregulation argument should be considered agianst history. The periods of time when there was pretty much deregulation are times of robber barons and other minor royals in complete control of their minions. The idea of total deregulation is attractive in many respects - in threory - but it has already been found not to work, in the same way that Communism has many good ideas in theory but has been found not to work in practice.
It is not the basic good idea of deregulation that is the issue it is the ridiculous idea that we should abandon any government control over the excesses of business - that cares for profit not its customers. If want to promote total trade freedom then you need to explain how my freedom will be protected from the future Lord Wallmart and Baron McDonald ?
You could almost say that it takes no brain at all to grow your own food but there are really too many of us around now to revert to a peasant economy responsible for every scrap of food that passes our lips. As for the local mom and pop store or the farmers market, well the only mom and pop store I have access to sells exactly the same factory made foods as the super stores, the monthly farmers market sells exotic vegetables, exclusive cheeses and speciality goods.
Mankind being what it is, very quickly would things revert to specialisation, the miller would find that he didn't have time to mill all the flour and grow all his own food.
BSE = Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, a brain disease in cattle transmittable to humans via the consumption of brain and spinal tissue when it becomes known as new variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.
It has a long incubation period measured in years.
Caused by feeding normally herbivorous cattle the remains of other cattle.
mish, he does that.
He accuses you of missing the point... even when you address it directly. but then he doesn't tell you what the point was....
Er, I told Misha he was missing the point because he wasn't addressing the point, even indirectly, I then reiterated the point.
It's quite intriguing the way you can evade the point and then try to pass the buck.
Ok... how about this.
Please restate the point in fewer than 3 sentences.
OK, here's one;- The market has no incentive to regulate itself.
Competition is the ultimate regulatory device for man-kind. That's why there WERE 50 independent states; that's why McDonald's doesn't charge $50/burger, and that's I got free windshield wiper fluid at my last tune-up (they want me to come back, and not visit their competition).
Companies want profits, but they can't gouge (at least, not for too long) because they'll create competition.
Every single "evil" monopoly (companies that continuously price gouge) that you could ever cite was created through government legislation.
That is not proof of anything apart from your blinkered view point.
They don't give you free wind-shield wiper fluid, you pay them for it.
Sure Macdonalds don't charge you $50 for a burger, they don't need to charge that much for scrap meat and bone.
Have you never considered that the "evil" government legislation was put in place by the very people that benefit from it?
"Have you never considered that the "evil" government legislation was put in place by the very people that benefit from it?"
Now you are beginning to see! Now you are understanding!!!
Of COURSE the people who want to benefit from legislation will be the ones writing the laws...
Who writes laws? Government. Who accepted the bribes to write those laws? Government.
You have bit your first piece of revelation. Go with it.
Well yes, but in reality it's a bit more complex than that. Often you'll find that government has written laws as a result of extensive lobbying by large corporations. The people who end up being squeezed are either (a) individuals or (b) small companies who can't afford to hire armies of lawyers and consultants to deal with all the red tape.
It ain't called corporate socialism for nothing.
I know you believe that libertarianism will take care of this stuff, but being some twenty years older than you (and therefore a lot more jaundiced/cynical), I can't say I'm so sure. There are some extremely ruthless people out there who IMO will simply use the lack of government regulation to establish Mafia-style fiefdoms. Ironically, you could actually end up with a society that looks a lot more like the Middle Ages (i.e. feudal) than anything else.
Plus you also have the fact that to be honest, most people are authoritarians who need to have something to follow - be it government, religion or whatever. In doing away with government, you will simply allow another form of authority to replace it. I've debated this with other libertarians before (who disagreed with me, naturally), but I actually think that a libertarian society would in some respects be LESS free than what we in the West have now. Why? Well for example, you would do away with the welfare state. This would mean that it was no longer nearly as possible for people (mostly though not always women) to escape from abusive marriages. Marriage and family would once again become more like what it was in Victorian times, with all that implies.
Believe me, I'm not a fan of the side effects of today's welfare state. But what it replaced was in many respects - for a good number of people - a lot worse.
every time i make a valid argument, the only response I get is "I'm older than you, listen to me".
But to be fair, that wasn't my only response.
In view of the fact that I've never pulled the age card on you I have to accept that as an admission on your part that you accept that none of the arguments you've confronted me with are valid!
Oh don't be such a patronising little git!
You mate, are the one arguing that the people in government who twist things for their own ends would if left to their own devices would be fair and upright in their business affairs.
BSE is Mad Cow's Disease.
One gets it from eating cows that are infected. If there was no government regulations, we'd probably all have died of things that we aren't protected from by regulation.
What you're advocating is the law of nature. Natural law says that only those well adapated will survive. Humanism, which is the basis of civilisation, says that we will treat each other kindly and help us ALL to survive.
When people begin to live according to natural law, then there is no reason not to murder the people they don't like. It is civilisation that stops us from murder, plunder, rape, theft, etc.
In order to live like we do, we need laws. If we remove those laws, we will regress to the law of the jungle. You seem to think this is preferable. I'm not quite sure why.
If you honestly believe that some people won't take advantage of others if there is no regulation, then you need to be exposed to life a little longer.
And if you believe that taking advantage of others because they are 'stupid', then I think this conversation is done.
THE SOCIAL IDEOLOGY OF LIBERTARIANISM IS TO LEAVE THE FOX FREE INSIDE THE HENHOUSE WHERE THE HEN ARE ALSO FREE
Wow, all caps you must feel very strongly about this. Democracy is five foxes and four hens voting on the lunch menu.
The implication of your analogy is that there are some who are incapable of caring for themselves and still others who are without scruples. Though I would agree that scruples are in rare supply among a small portion of humanity as is the complete and total inability to care for ones self, the vast and overwhelming majority can, if properly informed and educated, engage in totally free, enlightened self interest to the benefit of all.
It is always interesting to read opinions that would be taken as reasonable but are, instead, filled with contempt. The libertarian position, with which I do not fully agree, is that all people are capable of tending to themselves and should be left to do so. But, to paraphrase Madison, we are not angels.
Does the tiger in the forest know it is free? Does the tiger in the zoo know that it is not? We are not foxes and chickens, we are all tigers. Some know they were intended to be free and still others crave the cage. The problem arises when those who know they are free wish to be left to their freedom but are forced into the cage by those who want the cage for everyone.
The conservative and the libertarian who does not like firearms does not buy one. The liberal who does not like firearms doesn't want anyone to have one. Wait this is not entirely so, because, the liberal, elitist, hypocrites - like Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell - want you to be denied a fire arm for your protection but hire armed bodyguards for theirs.
Oh come on guys, I am just an old lazy bum and not an information center LOL. Wait for Evan to show up, he is young and has a lot of energy, I don't. I am already regretting getting into this thread with serious posts, so I won't be posting anything serious in it from now on, though I don't want to be impolite and therefore am trying to touch on all your questions now.
China Man, I won't even ask for examples of deregulation and robber barons, and I can't think of any now. Living without government is certainly not possible any time soon, here I agree to you - yet for different reasons. I still hope that people will one day realize that they can live much better without government - communism on the other hand is never going to happen IMO.
As for walmarts and such - they are corporations, therefore they are not possible without government regulations that define corporations. When you have all your wealth at stake, you treat your customers quite differently than when your only responsibility is within the boundaries of your corporation capital. Easy.
Sophia, how did we manage to survive all those countless thousands years without FDA? We will survive just fine without it in the future, too
I disagree on civilization saving us from rapes, plunders, etc. - just look at all the wars civilized nations fought.
Yeah, I do think what you call "the law of jungle" is preferable. Dolphins and apes are no less smarter than us, and live much happier following natural laws instead of fighting them as we do.
During current incarnation I have been exposed to life in different parts of this planet under different regimes for a little longer than 50 years so far. And my views are the result of this exposure and my pondering about it.
Not sure what your last para means, cause I don't remember saying anything close. Ciao.
John, if you can't see any healthy food around you need to look harder or to move to another place where it is available - of course if healthy eating is your highest priority. It really is a question of priorities and choices, your personal ones. And I never said that everybody needs to grow their own food and eat only the food they grow. Though if one wants to be absolutely sure he/she eats healthy food, this is the only way.
As for the BSE - of course my brains cannot analyze the meat, yet if I buy locally and take my time to research which farmer does what, I pretty much know which meat is likely to be safe, and which is not. The main criterion being how close to natural ways particular farmer treats his cattle.
OK, as I said this is my last serious post on this thread, so no response required and no more questions will be answered
"Sophia, how did we manage to survive all those countless thousands years without FDA? We will survive just fine without it in the future, too"
The world was a much smaller place. One has to take the effects of over population into consideration.
If anybody wants to see the caring face of unfettered capitalism, look at drug dealers and how they care for their customers.
The profit in drug dealing is a direct consequence of government regulation. Without the effort by government to make drugs illegal there would be far less profit in their sale. If not for government regulation the allure of a taboo practice would not help create new customers. If not for government interference the consequences of drug use would not be concealed out of fear of arrest or public shame. If not for government influence the consequences of drug use would not be ameliorated by the welfare state.
It is the insinuation of government and the addictive nature of the product in drug dealing that makes it so profitable. Government interference compels restrictions on competition. A highly addictive product distributed by a severely limited market creates high risk/high reward for the seller and high cost for the buyer. The viciousness of the drug dealer remains concealed from his potential market - what other business can be so vicious and keep its customers. The addictive nature of the product insulates the drug dealer from the consequences of his brutal practice.
This is hardly a free market model. If anything a freer market in drugs would remove the brutality and profitability. A freer market in drugs would ultimately result in a reduction in their use. The negative consequences of their use, the pedestrian nature of the permitted, the diving price and, therefore, profit would serve to reduce their use. So you see, it is government insinuating itself into a market that skews that market toward the inefficient and immoral.
Regarding BSE, what happened to beef sales in the UK when "mad cow" stories hit the papers and air waves? The market responds more quickly and more effectively to a situation than does the state. The rancher who wants to sell his beef must show prudent practices to his customers or he will go out of business. The only government regulation that makes any real sense is the requirement to fully disclose how ones product is produced and what goes in it.
If the government restricted itself to guaranteeing an informed market place no other regulation would be require after all who would willingly buy infected beef? And if they would willingly buy infected beef what law would stop them? After all, aren't drugs poisonous and yet there remains a demand for them regardless of the legal consequences?
Nice try, John. But the reason drug dealers are "evil" is ONLY ONLY ONLY because they're illegal.
This was your first attempt to show a failure of market, and I was able - easily - to show that it was actually a failure of government.
I await round 2
So if the drug dealers were legal it would cease to be evil to inflate their profits by cutting drugs with strychnine?
I'm afraid you failed to demonstrate a failure of government.
No, i illustrated it pretty fully.
I've never seen Subway firebomb their competition...
... must be because their competition has recourse to the law...
... which is because "selling sandwiches" isn't illegal.
Again, when it suits you you resort to the law! You've stolen all my arguments off me!
you keep assuming that "the law" has to be created by government.
This is incorrect. Private courts have existed, and would exist without a government.
Chaos Theory, by Robert Murphy, discusses this thoroughly.
What is the law for if not for governing?
Chaos Theory, by Robert Murphy
Firstly the writer bases his argument on a fundamental misunderstanding of language. Government has nothing intrinsically connected with the state. True, the state governs and that is pretty much all it does but government can, and does, happen without and outside the state.
Just as the church governs the lives of its followers, the professional body governs the lives of the enrolled professionals, the medical authority governs the lives of the enrolled doctors, schools are governed all without the state, so the private law system that the writer expounds would take over from the state in governing the lives of all members of society and I would add, with much higher levels of control and much less freedom than is enjoyed in state run governance. Imagine having to show your insurance policy every time you enter a building or buy a coffee!
The assumption that those who pervert state government for their own gain would somehow become honest and cease to pervert private government for their own gain. That insurance companies would overnight cease to be concerned with profit over service, that there would be no small print excluding rightful claimants from claiming on their policies, market forces would prevent this from happening! Why? It doesn’t stop them now does it?
Market forces would ensure that the employer who did not carry insurance against workforce abuses would have a distinct advantage over those who did (remember there is no way of enforcing compliance). And of course the murder victim that is uninsured would not benefit from action against their uninsured murderer!
His whole idea seems heavily dependent on the media for even handed and open reporting with no political bias or commercial interest.
How does he propose to bring this radical change about? Do you fancy telling Murdoch what he can or must report?
And of course all funding is purely voluntary! As it must be to avoid being taxation.
Then of course there is the cost of it all, the inconvenience of all these insurance polices! It would instantly make tax look very desirable, after all there would be no spreading of the load, no relief if you were poorly paid or unemployed. How would you even get a job if you were unable to insure yourself first?
All in all a poorly thought out and argued thesis. Argued from the point of view that the present system has flaws so any proposed alternative would be free of flaws. He makes no allowance for human nature, still what would you expect from somebody who does not understand the English language?
He concludes by asking “that the reader resist the
temptation to dismiss my ideas as “unworkable,” without first
specifying in what sense the government legal system “works“.”
It would make more sense to look at why the “state” legal system doesn’t work and that’s pretty easy, by and large the failings of the state legal system are human failings, venality, lack of commitment, lust for money etc. All failings that the author fails to recognise and which private government would do nothing to address.
Now, in fairness, I ask you to discuss the article with at least the same degree of thoroughness that I have given it.
What's up Evan, cat got your tongue?
I thought by the way that you insisted I read chaos theory that you were eager to enter into a debate about it.
It couldn't be that you thought it such a powerful piece of work that it would instantly sway me to your way of thinking!
what? no, i just haven't been back here in a while.
Quote: "Firstly the writer bases his argument on a fundamental misunderstanding of language. Government has nothing intrinsically connected with the state."
Indeed government happens outside the state, he discusses this quite thoroughly in the book when he discusses insurance taking much of the role of governing through a free-market. Thus, he didn't make any mistake of the sort.
Quote: "The assumption that those who pervert state government for their own gain would somehow become honest and cease to pervert private government for their own gain."
Well, imagine if, when your government invaded another country that was innocent of any wrong doing, and you disagreed with it... you could ACTUALLY leave and join a different government with ease!
The Governments in question would tirelessly be striving for gains that they wouldn't do stupid things that would scare off customers/citizens.
Quote: "His whole idea seems heavily dependent on the media for even handed and open reporting with no political bias or commercial interest."
Well, things like Wikileaks apparently exist - despite threats of being thrown in prisons. Consumer reports, customer reviews on websites, and COUNTLESS other businesses exist for the sole purpose of grading different businesses... why would they cease to exist just because a state failed to exist?
Quote: "How would you even get a job if you were unable to insure yourself first?"
umm... how do you do it now?... you get a job... and then buy insurance...? ?
His arguments are pretty solid. You seemed to pick up on some of it: Basically it would be governance without a State forcing you to abide by their rules. You could leave as you wish, and you could easily join other governments without, necessarily, the issue of moving. If your government did improper things with its money, it would be punished via competition.
Basically, it'd be non-location specific government that would actually be punished through competition.
Now, here comes the easiest part: to convince existing governments - and citizens, that see their government and their country as the same entity - to start doing things differently
Indeed, As much as Holden and I argue, he indeed bring to light the difference between state and government.
Here in America (apparently he's not an American) the words are pretty much synonymous.
Imagine if your government had to compete for your business!!
WEll - they do - you have elections where different parties compete against each other to put their candidate into power. The fact that it does not work very well and so you can only get into power if you are a multimillionaire and/or backed by the rest of the multi millionaires is an argument as to why your no-govenment would not work also. Enough money means monopoly - or it always has until now - and before you could blink there would be one aggressive 'corporation' running all the others ans when the father hands over to his new CEO, his son, they will get around to caling him King or Emporer. And we would go round that cycle again.
"Indeed government happens outside the state, he discusses this quite thoroughly in the book when he discusses insurance taking much of the role of governing through a free-market. Thus, he didn't make any mistake of the sort."
Replace tax with insurance premiums! That actually strike me as a retrograde step.
"Well, imagine if, when your government invaded another country that was innocent of any wrong doing, and you disagreed with it... you could ACTUALLY leave and join a different government with ease!"
But I'm not talking about people who disagree with their government, I'm talking about crooks who steal from their government. Why would privatised law make them change their ways?
"Well, things like Wikileaks apparently exist - despite threats of being thrown in prisons. Consumer reports, customer reviews on websites, and COUNTLESS other businesses exist for the sole purpose of grading different businesses... why would they cease to exist just because a state failed to exist?"
They wouldn't cease to exist, they would increase the power of the press.
We have competition in government at the moment, don't like the party in power, vote them out. Then notice how very similar their replacement is, why would privatised government be any different? It makes no difference in industry.
Here in the UK we've seen all public utilities privatised, the water and gas etc is unchanged from the state provided stuff, we've a choice of providers but they all provide the same product and they all charge much more for it than when it was provided by the state. Hey, can you believe that my water bill is now higher than my electricity bill!
I was with you all the way till this paragraph.
We *don't* have competition in government. Had you noticed that there's actually no difference between any of the mainstream parties in Britain where you and I both live? Actually, politicians are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to "government", which is really a sort of network of politicians, media and national/global corporations. As well as the lovely (not) EU, which has quietly taken over a lot of the functions of government and which is not in any way democratic, except in a cosmetic sense.
Hm, you missed out on "notice how very similar they are".
The suggestion being that if government were privatised it wouldn't end up very different from what we all ready have.
Oh yeah, I did miss that bit
I think it would be quite different myself, but not necessarily in a good way though.
My point has nothing to do with government affects on prices of illegal drugs, it was purely as demonstration of unfettered capitalism-businessmen who happen to sell drugs rather than food items or flash cars or the latest fashion and who, though totally uncontrolled by government, they do not care about their customers well being or even their lives.
You ask what other business can be so vicious and keep its customers. I say many or do you not see a blind disregard for the welfare of customers as viscous if not accompanied by open displays of violence?
In what way is the drugs market not a free market? It's open to everybody irrespective of age, social class, gender or anything else.
You say that the market responded to BSE more quickly than the state! Um, how do you think the market was made aware of the problem in the first place? Do you really imagine that it was a bunch of farmers?
Oh shoot, look what we've done by trying to increase profit by feeding cows dead sheep. We'd better get on to the press right away!
I'm inclined toward agreement on your final statement but consider it too harsh really. If the government restricts itself to making people aware of BSE you then have a situation where everybody boycotts beef and all beef producing farmers go out of business or, more likely, many people will say that the government doesn't know what it talks about and there is no risk from BSE.
no, john, the reason why they beat their disrespectful employees is because they are completely barred from normal recourse.
If drug dealers were allowed to use the court system in place (whether it be government or private -- private courts can easily be created to meet the need), then they wouldn't need to rely on violence.
It is, once again, a failure of government: government claims a monopoly on court decisions, and they fail to deliver.
I await round 2.
Oh wait, you already provided a round 2: BSE.
Ok, here we go.
The FDA claims the monopoly right to regulate and investigate all food in the US. They failed their job miserably -- a quick search on Wikipedia results in the following info: (they provide links at wikipedia)
"In February 2001, the USGAO reported that the FDA, which is responsible for regulating feed, had not adequately policed the various bans. Compliance with the regulations was shown to be extremely poor before the discovery of the Washington cow, but industry representatives report that compliance is now 100%. Even so, critics call the partial prohibitions insufficient. Indeed, US meat producer Creekstone Farms alleges that the USDA is preventing BSE testing from being conducted."
"A contributing factor was suggested to have been a change in British laws that allowed a lower temperature sterilization of the protein meal."
On top of that, did you eat less beef when you heard about this disease?
If the answer is "no", then that shows that the issue really wasn't that big of a deal to you.
if the answer is "yes", then that shows that the market works again - you decided that eating meat was unsafe, and you refused to eat it. Thus, meat producers lost money because they couldn't deliver a safe product.
So--- once again, government regulation, surprise surprise, failed. And the fact that you likely ate less meat because of the issue showed that you punished the meat producers and they likely lost LOTS of money because of the ordeal.
The "free"-market punished those responsible, and the government failed to enforce their own rules.
Oh and what reason do those who have recourse to the law have for beating their employees?
Been veggy for decades.
You miss the point completly, sure the market works again, but only after the government has spotted that producers are producing meat that isn't fit for human consumption. Without government intervention there would have been no story for the press to run.
If you own a restaurant, and you find some guy stealing money... you don't just fire him, you arrest him; you use the court system to show that he has broken the law.
If your business is deemed "illegal" and thus are not allowed to use the court system, and you find someone stealing money from your restaurant... what do you do? Tell him to go away?
On top of that, you don't have recourse to the police to enforce others' aggression to you - thus you have to "act tough" even if you don't want to. Otherwise someone might kill you -- knowing full well that they won't be arrested -- and take your place on the social ladder.
So what do you do if someone steals from you? You beat the sh!t out of him and teach the man -- and everyone watching -- that YOU are the police; that YOU are the court system; and that YOU are the one enforcing the law.
This behavior (which unfortunately has been attached to the poverty-stricken African American population) is a DIRECT result of government monopoly of law enforcement, and a DIRECT result of the War on Drugs.
And thus, blacks are considered to be violent etc. The government is aiding racism.
A privately run police force no doubt :-)
I'm not disagreeing with anything you say there, at best it is irrelevant, otherwise it just supports my claim.
how does that in ANY way enforce YOUR argument that "drugs are a free market, and thus free-markets lead to violence"?
That's utter nonsense. Complete nonsense.
Your response either shows a complete lack of understanding of what I wrote, or you're just trolling.
I'll reiterate in a single sentence that won't take you long to read:
Drugs are illegal because of government, thus the industry can't rely on the government-monopoly of law enforcement, thus they have to resort to violence.
Government is clearly to blame
Well no, I argued that a free market lead to a lack of control.
If you like the lack of government in the drugs market leads to violence, not as you claim, the presence of government.
Government is clearly not to blame.
Actually the drugs issue is one thing where I am in (almost) complete agreement with Evan.
Although unlike Evan, I would argue for legalisation *and government regulation* of drugs so that people knew what they were buying and didn't end up getting an overdose or an intake of strychnine they hadn't bargained for
Plus the tax revenues would be very handy. Maybe those of us who didn't indulge would benefit then.
I'm only using the drugs market as an example of free marketing.
I share the views of Evan and your self on legalisation, and especially yours on government regulation.
The problem with your use of this as an example is that the drug market is NOT a free-market because it is a black market.
If ANYTHING were made illegal, and thus could not rely on the monopoly-created court system or any other industry for help, you would find violence abound.
Hey, if you're Pro "letting-people-have-more-freedom", then we can dance and be merry.
I'd much rather see there be no taxation and no regulation of the drug market, but we can agree that it should be legal.
After reading through this thread all I can add is wow, some of us really need a civics/american history class.
As far as I can tell, a monopoly is the total control of any given industry. There is no example of that in the u.s. that I know of, and saying the government has a monopoly here is not true. In Mexico, nobody pays taxes, they have complete health care for all the citizens, and they pay for all government needs by means of a monopoly. The government there owns and runs all of the bread companies, and all the gas stations, Pan Bimbo, and Pemex. To me, this is socialism, and I am not saying it is a bad thing for I lived there for almost ten years and the people there are just as free and in some instances freer than we are here.
As far as taxes, we agreed to pay taxes way back in Roosevelts day. If you look up the case files for stating court case revelency you will find that nothing can be found before a certain year, and this is when it became "law" that one must pay taxes. This is how it was just slid into becoming law.
True government corruption is everywhere, yet we as the people, that is for the people, and by the people, are the ones who are supposed to be in power here. If anyone could agree on anything we could possibly fix the system, but it is to vast and far gone, as most of our tax dollars is eaten up by the bureaucracy and red tape it take to get anything done. So many people have their chance and their hands into the pot that by the time the soup is finished there is only enough to feed a handful of people.
Then on top of that we have the corporations, bad politicians, the ship is sinking as far as I am concerned. If anyone could fix it, that is a good question.
I am not speaking for communism, for that system is a cruel and obsolete one, but to me it would seem that somewhere down the middle would be a socialistic type system that the people would not have to pay for.
The US government has a monopoly on Legislation, Court systems, Law enforcement, Taxation, food regulation, money production (this power was granted to a private institution via the monopoly of legislation); it has the power to prevent people from voluntarily leaving, claims monopoly power of military, a near monopoly over most civil services.
And before you retort with "go build your own country", or "leave, then" -- You must realize that the South DID try to build their own country - they were forced back into the "union". And then you must realize that by leaving, you are usurping my right to freedom -- it makes NO sense to demand that "people who live in a rectangular piece of land ALL have to follow the rules, even if they don't agree with it."
[i]"As far as taxes, we agreed to pay taxes way back in Roosevelts day."
1) I wasn't alive back then, so I decided on nothing.
2) The income tax is involuntary servitude, which was outlawed in another, earlier amendment. Working for one year, then having 25-35% of your wealth (about 3-5 months worth of work) go DIRECTLY to an institution that enforces the taxation with a military.
In the UK we do not use the Military to enforce taxation!
And what about the taxation enforced by employers without any form of representation?
At least with government taxation if you can get enough people to agree to its abolition, it can be abolished, not such recourse to private taxation by employers.
IF you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. This jail is created through the monopoly of the military. Taxes are enforced via military. This is the reason why if you commit a crime in China, and then flee to another state, they might not hand you in - they have a military to back themselves up.
"And what about the taxation enforced by employers without any form of representation? "
I have no idea what you're talking about. Please clarify.
It seems that threads here devolve to those willing to argue the longest rather than those with the best argument. It's like "endurance debating".
well, we already addressed the argument of "differences between socialism and communism", and it seems that ... y'know... there wasn't more to say.
So you decided to derail the thread into beating a false dichotomy to death?
well, the argument is here, and I'm arguing my side.
I guess you'd rather just let the forum page die? I can do that.
It takes two to tango, and you're only talking to me. bias?
Anyway, the OP was about Socialism and Communism's differences, I answered that. No one responded to it (and when they did I answered back).
in order to understand socialism and communism, one needs to understand government. I'm arguing about what government is.
It's completely on topic, and it's your fault for coming on here and reading it -- if you don't like it, then quit reading it.
If people see a system as a threat they tend to confuse it's terminology for something more extreme.
Interesting comment. I need to think about it. Thanks.
I agree with that line big time - Extremists are the problem. In both religion and politics - extremist are the problem. A path of understanding and co-operation is down the middle. Both extreme left and extreme right thinkers are causing the middle class to disappear. Too much wealth in the hands of too few - and too high tax debts..... and the "working" middle class carry the load of both problems.
A: "we need to find a path of cooperation between monopoly and dictatorship!"
B: "But both of those options are evil, and if we find a 'middle ground' then it'll be just as bad! Life will be miserable under any such agreement!"
A: "Tut Tut, you extremist! All you do is invoke fear to sway political arguments! You are a terrorist!"
B: "NOOOO!!!" (He shouts, as he is dragged away to Gitmo).
In actuality - the same people win with either a left or right extremist philosophy in power. Monopolies are dictators in different cloths.
Gitmo is the only military base the US has inside a Communist country in the whole world, just to let you know.
I think either term, based on the cultural conditioning/ brainwashing we Americans have enjoyed over the last 60 years or so, produces a strong, visceral reaction in all of us. We have been "taught" through our schools and our media that these two systems of government are "evil." Think I'm nuts? Say the words outloud. Look over at your significant other and say, "I am a communist/ I am a socialist," and notice the uneasy feeling in your gut that quickly follows, notice the strange look your partner gives you.
I don't advocate either polictical philosophy, but I don't villify them either. Still, it's curious that our society has done a very good job in making these two systems out to be the ultimate evil in our world when, at their root, who do they threaten???
by Brian 8 years ago
I was talking with a group of friends the other day. and I suggested that there should be a national tax, where the money collected should be distributed evenly among every U.S. citizen, and I was labled as a socialist.I don't understand what would be so wrong about distributing that kind of money...
by Josak 5 years ago
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist government.Let's examine that claim factually, a quick analysis will prove it false.For...
by mrnasir 6 years ago
Choose a name,you think is a better system and tell at least one reason of choosing.
by Peter V 5 years ago
What do you think about Socialism? Good or Bad for America?I have my own opinion but what do you think of the current direction America is heading (towards socialism)? Do you think this is very bad and goes against what America was founded on or is this generally a good thing? Please support your...
by Peeples 4 years ago
What is the big deal about socialism?Can someone explain to me why Americans (USA) typically say "socialist" in a negative way. I've been doing some research and many of these "socialist" societies are quite happy AND well provided for. So what is the big deal? Why are so many...
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
FYIQ. Why does this title look so scary? A. The word socialism is very scary to the average US citizen who values his democratic republic.Q. Who pays taxes? A. We The People do.Q. Who is taxed the most? A. The wealthy.Q. Why is President Obama allowing so many needy illegals to stay in the US? A....
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|