Is poverty caused by private ownership?
“Poverty is caused by Private Monopoly. That is the present system. They have monopolized everything that it is possible to monopolize; they have got the whole earth, the minerals in the earth and the streams that water the earth. The only reason they have not monopolized the daylight and the air is that it is not possible to do it. If it were possible to construct huge gasometers and to draw together and compress within them the whole of the atmosphere, it would have been done long ago, and we should have been compelled to work for them in order to get money to buy air to breathe. And if that seemingly impossible thing were accomplished tomorrow, you would see thousands of people dying for want of air - or of the money to buy it - even as now thousands are dying for want of the other necessities of life. You would see people going about gasping for breath, and telling each other that the likes of them could not expect to have air to breathe unless the had the money to pay for it. Most of you here, for instance, would think and say so. Even as you think at present that it's right for so few people to own the Earth, the Minerals and the Water, which are all just as necessary as is the air. In exactly the same spirit as you now say: "It's Their Land," "It's Their Water," "It's Their Coal," "It's Their Iron," so you would say "It's Their Air," "These are their gasometers, and what right have the likes of us to expect them to allow us to breathe for nothing?" And even while he is doing this the air monopolist will be preaching sermons on the Brotherhood of Man; he will be dispensing advice on "Christian Duty" in the Sunday magazines; he will give utterance to numerous more or less moral maxims for the guidance of the young. And meantime, all around, people will be dying for want of some of the air that he will have bottled up in his gasometers. And when you are all dragging out a miserable existence, gasping for breath or dying for want of air, if one of your number suggests smashing a hole in the side of one of the gasometers, you will all fall upon him in the name of law and order, and after doing your best to tear him limb from limb, you'll drag him, covered with blood, in triumph to the nearest Police Station and deliver him up to "justice" in the hope of being given a few half-pounds of air for your trouble.”
Robert Tressel~ The ragged trousered philanthropists
Given that so many starve to death and go hungry all around the world often very close to great wealth I can not disagree, what do you think?I really need to read that. I keep meaning to, but I get distracted by other alternatives.
Great points though!Yeah you definitely should, it really let me see things in a new way and it also gave me this sense of continuity, how even though the book was written over a hundred years ago nothing had really changed, the rich still rule over the poor and those on the lower rung not only do not rebel but seem to be grateful for their own oppression.
This to ask 'sooner' why are you putting off the important stuff in life ??
Read it today and do yourself a favour but very important --Make sure that you read the modern book as the first ones were abridged-
jandeeThat is just breathtakingly Marxist you know.
And a whole lot of bo shizzle.
and stupidity is caused by idolatry and lack of vision.
I think that is the most convincing argument there is for socialism, but we can't forget why a free market with a monopoly breaking government has proved to work better than socialism. Socialism, in the end, prevents individuality and the majority become the tyrants over the minority. Unlike in a capitalist society, where everyone at least owns something, the minority in a socialist society have no protection. As a libertarian, that concept chills me way more than thinking about money-grubbing hedge fund managers or corrupt politicians. Those things you can fix by publicizing to the public and proving why they are immoral. But what if someone, possibly the majority, got hold of the media and other such things? There's nothing to prevent them from jerking the entire society whatever direction they want, especially if they truly believe they're doing what's right.
Of course, both systems, capitalist and socialist, in the end rely on the basic goodness of human beings. I believe in that, so I believe a society where everyone can be happy is within our reach. And I think that capitalism has more potential to become that society than socialism ever can."We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. —Ronald Reagan
True that! if only GOP2012 could remember...
You see that's exactly what ...originally any way...the Tea Party was all about.
ah the good old days... now we've got santorum, perry, and bachman.
@#$%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think there are far more convincing arguments to support socialism but the point is A: Socialism does not prevent individuality in any way, all socialism does is change who pays your wages, this misconception that censorship or tyranny is part of socialism is just that, a misconception.
B: Next under socialism everyone effectively owns everything that the government owns, it is supposedly the same in our current system.
C: A person can seize power under any system, there is nothing about socialism that precludes democracy or that mandates state ownership of the media, personally I find that some socialist governments have done that regrettable but it is not socialism.
D: On the contrary, capitalism does not rely on the basic goodness of human beings, indeed it is fashioned in such a way to punish kindness and generosity and reward greed, avarice and our basest natures by making profit far more important than life or really anything else.
E: poverty is not freedom, a small loss of freedoms (if this is required and I am not convinced it is) is more than worth it to grant people relief from the tyranny of poverty that not only restricts them from doing what they might want to but also threatens their very lives, what can possibly restrict ones freedom more than not being able to eat?A, B, C: i don't mean to say that socialism is in similar to a dictatorship. well, not directly, anyway. In both socialism and capitalism, government is not meant to be an entity separate from the people. assuming we have that, i believe capitalism has safeguards in place (i.e. private property) that socialism would not. So it would be tyranny, but not of a single person or even a government. it would be tyranny of the majority over the minority. i explained this above, but if there is something unclear about my explanation point it out to me; i think i will be able to improve it.
D: No, a proper capitalism would not be that way, though i agree our current system seems to be headed there. A fair capitalism would make government far more transparent and limit (though not eliminate) its power in programs like welfare and healthcare, but greatly increase its power in breaking monopolies of companies. this is, of course, still assuming the government is inseparable from the people, which would need the transparency i mentioned.
E: in this way, and with improved technologies that mean increased resources, people will be able to decide for and work for themselves, depending on what makes them happy and what they're aiming for in life. Capitalism would give them that freedom.Firstly, there is nothing in socialism that stands against the notion of private property, indeed socialism supports private ownership in that socialists believe that a man should own a house not owe most of it to a bank and that every person should have the basics of life, the only objection that socialism has to private property is it's current allotment so most socialist movements argue that after death people should not be able to bequeath large amounts of wealth to others but that instead that wealth should be fairly distributed as private property to those in need so that same safeguard exists in socialism.
Furthermore you state that socialism removes the consequences of actions from the individual to society and you imply that socialism raises people on the backs of others, not so, you are confusing welfarism and socialism, in general socialists oppose welfare, the socialist ideal is to offer a job to anyone who needs it because it can create jobs for that purpose, if a person does not want to work they receive nothing, if they do they get a better wage and dignity at work, there is no hand outs or charity, those who are working and live in need will receive the basics from what is redistributed, that being a roof over their head and a car everything else comes from personal labor and even those things are rented free of charge as part of their labor, they can then if they wish purchase them with the wages they earn. Socialism does of course however believe in a generous pension for those who have reached a certain age as long as they have worked to earn it.excellent, then we are more or less agreed. the reason that i am wary of socialists is because too often they seem to advocate majority over minority society. in the future, i hope the two party system will start working again, with libertarians balancing with socialists on the way to a more perfect world.
With capitalism one can only do what they can AFFORD to do. The freedom you speak of is only imagined by those who are able to afford the higher ideals the 1% has placed before the rest of us. Only so many people can be doctors and lawyers, that leaves the majority out of the picture and thus the huge jobless sector. People do not have the freedom to do what they want. They are forced to do what they have to do. You conservatives wear rose colored glasses, let me tell ya, where did you grow up? I wanna live there to.
You keep mentioning majority over minority, yet that is what the republicans are all about. They care about the wealthy minority and their freedoms, the hell with the rest of the population. They curse about the poor people on welfare and say they should go out and work for themselves, yet they ignore the uncountable hordes that are out of work. How can they find work when there is none?
When the baby boomers retire and go right back to work doing jobs that were meant for students and low skill workers that leaves all of the people on welfare out. What are their options? Until the wealthy get this and bring the jobs back from overseas and the Government reverses the damage the wealthy have done to the economy, it sure wasn't anyone on welfare that caused a 17 Trillion dollar deficit, the poor are only going to grow in number, and they are doing so by the droves. Call them middle class all you like but when you have to choose between food and your electric bill you are poor, not middle class.I do also agree on the last line, and the part about whose fault the deficit is. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs should be the focus of 2012, but nooo, we get from our lovely politicians back-and-forths about who did what to dogs 20 years ago. I would be laughing... If I wasn't crying so hard.
The thing is that the government is near helpless to create jobs, it is one of the core strengths of socialism that under that system it is not so, what can government really do? It already has a massive debt so it cannot just make government (as defined now) jobs, not that these help the economy very much anyway usually and they are powerless all they can think to do is lower the taxes on business which effectively means less money to the people more money to the owners.
This is a prime problem with capitalism, that the working man is left out to dry whenever things go south, it's much like the quote from the text I put halfway though the forum, when the economic climate looks grim the owners of business go into hibernation mode, they reduce their business and what goes first but employees, so people who have loyally worked for a company for years or even decades and in the process made them millions of dollars are suddenly told they are out of work, so the newly unemployed man asks how am I to feed my family? how am I to keep them in a house and pay my rent? to which the kind capitalist replies it is not my problem, I will take the safe option that has the minimum chance of making a loss and in the meantime the loyal employees who made them so much money is left with nothing, struggling to survive and not only that, not only do they screw the employee but the country as a whole too because when the employee is out of work the people house and feed him unwilling to see him starve while the owner simply invests the money he would have paid the employees in a safe business and watches it grow because that way it will make him fractionally more than if he had kept the worker on, so both the worker and the country suffers for the greed of the owner, then he has the temerity to turn around and tell people to get a job.
Finally when the economic climate has improved, after the employee and his family have suffered and lost their home and often broken apart under the stress of financial burden and after the state has kept those people alive with it's money thus creating more debt the owner turns around again and rehires the employee and then crows that he is creating jobs.Agreed,the current system is crap. Crap with potential, though.
This can be fixed by taxing the wealthy far more, gradually breaking monopolies, a much higher (generally) estate tax, and a far sturdier safety net. None of those are necessarily inconsistent with capitalism.I've read a little of what you've written so far. You seem reasonable. What is your opinion on the size of corporations? Should there be a limit to how big they can be?
Haha, thanks. Yes, no doubt about that. Without a limit, corporations have all the wealth and therefore the influence, and before long they control the government, whose job is to control them. Then our society goes "great money trick" and the working class-upperclass divide quickly grows... Basically where the states are headed now.
However, I am solidly a capitalist; I posted why in several places.
And yet you said elsewhere you would vote for John Huntsman... You confuse me :p but in an interesting and good way so I can deal with it
Bah, lesser of two, uh several, evils. Obama is out for me; he was too socialist to begin with for me, and (I did vote for him last time) he seems to me to have proved inefficient and unable to bring the parties together. Not saying it's easy, but it has to be done. Of course, it's looking like he's gonna get my vote again: def beats flip-flopper no backbone Romney.
Huntsman leans too capitalist for me the way Obama leans too socialist, but I had hopes he would be able with his diplomatic experience to rise above the partisanship and get something done. Probably just a fantasy (no politician gets my trust anymore), and def now that there's the like of Santorum, perry, Bachman, and Romney... Sigh...
Damn man, take it easy. First and foremost, I am not a republican. I generally stay away from any labels, but especially looking at GOP2012 (excepting Ron Paul), I can say most assuredly say I am NOT a republican. But honestly I'd prefer the avoid labels generally, so we can start from the base and build without previous stereotypes and conceptions.
Please read my post you posted this reply to, it's a couple of scrolls up in the threaded version. Like I said, a fair capitalism does look a fair amount like centrist socialism, not a bad thing at all. The major difference is in the ownership of the means of production, which I believe should remain privately owned but with strict monopoly laws.
I think that you misunderstand my majority over minority statements. What I mean by them is that socialism, if taken towards the extreme, has the potential to become a tyranny of majority rule, without the protection of indvl rights that allow every person to live their life however they are happiest, as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else. If I am still unclear, point out any fallacies, and iwill try to explain them.This is an unusually sane formulation. I never expected to see something like this in these forums.
Just as an afterthought: wouldn't it be depressing, though, if even a decent form of capitalism with every sector of society having a voice and having their concerns addressed was the best economic system that human beings could develop? There just has to be something better.Absolutely right on that second paragraph, during the Feudal system surely most would never have imagined, democracy and free market capitalism and how good it was comparatively and I am sure we cannot fathom the system that humanity will have ascended to in a few hundred years, I personally am sure that the next system in that path is socialism but we must always assume and hope that barring some cataclysmic event those who come after us will be much more intelligent, much more knowledgeable and much more ethical than we know how to be now and will look back on our systems as we now look at feudalism, systems that were beneficial in their time but since outlived their purpose just as I believe capitalism is at the point where it has outlived it's use. Marx wrote a similar thing, he described capitalism as a positive force which had aided humanity but one which was now no longer helpful, I am sure the next great thinker will say much the same about the system that follows the one we live in.
I agree that humans can do much better than capitalism; ultimately I hope for a world where everyone will be able to pursue their own happiness. However, that will take far more advanced resources (and therefore technology) so it could be quite a ways off.
I agree there, but I don't agree that socialism is the next step. I posted why both above and below. I believe a fair capitalism has much more potential to develop into a more perfect society, as it has safeguards, that far left socialism doesn't, to protect the rights of the indvl (I,e. Private property).
Thanks for the compliment, "unusually sane" rofl, never gotten that before!
Bob said; Socialism, in the end, prevents individuality?
Is that right/ Have you looked around at the USA recently? Individuality can't be smothered fast enough! Like everything else in capitalism it isn't so unless you can afford it. Teenagers strive to be thus but as soon as they are thrust into the world they soon find that if they do not stay between the lines they will not survive, at least not in a comfortable and secure fashion. everyone is expected to do things the way they have it all laid out for you before you even finish High School. Only the most talented and gifted people who have some sort of moneatary leverage are even allowed individuality in this country. Everyone else is brainwashed into thinking they are unique in some manner. More and more these days the generations are just wave after wave of unoriginal, noncreative and noninventive human beings. So, my point is, in this matter Socialism and Prolonged Capitalism are one and the same.That is certainly the case for today's America; couldn't agree more on that. However, a fair capitalism (by which I mean private property, including private ownership of means of production) with strict monopoly laws and a completely transparent government has the potential to become a more perfect society, which socialism doesn't. Like i've posted in several places, because of majority over minority, socialism doesn't have safeguards to protect the individual. I believe it is far better to reform capitalism, which has potential, rather than pursue socialism, which can't last.
Socialism has the same safeguards for the individual as capitalism.
it definitely has more than the current capitalist system (high estate tax, strict monopoly laws), but once we get close to the center you can see I'm squarely on the capitalist side.
The biggest, and honestly only, divide between fair capitalism and centrist socialism is private ownership of the means of production. In my view, complete public ownership of the means of production would be disastrous because of majority over minority. I had a post elaborating close to the top.
I'm sure people in UK have to pay green tax for having trees planted after cutting them down to make paper... o something to that effect.
For instance, since you brought it up, Governor Christi of New Jersey took a million dollar pay off from Logisticare for allowing them to come into NJ and monopolize the Medical transportation business. Logisticare changed the rules and contracts leaving approximately nine out of the fourteen contractors in the county I worked in alone without contracts. The monopoly changed nothing about the service other than not having enough companies to handle all the demand. Many, many jobs throughout the state were wiped out in a single pay off to the jowly giant, Gov. Christi. So desperate were the folks who needed to get ot their medical appointments some of the old codgers somehow got a hold of my personal phone number and called me asking for my personal service. Not only would that have been illegal but, well, ah the hell with it, If I had a car I would have helped those folks out.
In other words this is dead on. The unions and monopolizing corpocracy are running things with elitist colored whips, meanwhile the politicians line their pockets and ignore the effect this has on the work force.
Nice work as usual, Josak,There is in the same book a great explanation of "the great money trick" which I intent to write a hub about, the premise of which is that the working class makes the owner/ruling class money by working for him at a meager wage to produce things this means they get several times over the money that the working class does, then the working class has to buy the things produced by the working class to live on, things like clothes and food produced by the working class and again has to pay a markup on it to the ruling/owner class and then with that money made off the sweat of the worker the owner class corrupts the political system with bribes, campaign donations etc. to their own profit and usually to the detriment of the working class and thus the people who actually produce everything that is wealth are thrice robbed of their just reward, your example is a classic demonstration of the latter theft.
I love everything about the great money trick except the conclusion people pull from it, which is that socialism is the only way to go. Capitalism can work too, and in fact, i believe it has potential to work much better than socialism can. (posted above why, majority tyranny over minority, etc.).
HOwever, the problem you posted def needs to be addressed, especially the problem with money influencing politics. A fair capitalism would tax the rich more, higher estate tax, have a ladder to everyone that allows people to climb whereever they want... Huh? it looks a lot like socialism?
The difference is that, in a fair capitalism, there is still private property and indvl rights, necessary for the protection of the individual. if your response is that socialism can be adapted to do that: great! We are completely agreed, and the only thing remaining is to push for reform to get that done.My response is that indeed socialism can be adapted to that indeed I don't think there is much adaption to be done. I am sure you understand that when you say socialism it is much the same as me saying capitalism in that there are many different perspectives on how a socialist economy should work, just like you have libertarians, conservatives, liberals etc. within capitalism but for centrist socialism (I consider myself a centrist socialist) there is indeed still private property and indeed still individual rights, I fully support a socialist nation having in fact a bill of rights as part of it's constitution, many of them already do.
What socialism in fact aims to do is create a fair ladder for people to climb, consider education, in the US if I want to become a doctor it is extremely hard for me to do so unless my parents are wealthy enough to pay for it, otherwise it is just so expensive and even if I can I will have massive debts, if I pass medicine with my parents paying I can then become a doctor and make a lot of money on the basis of the idea that I worked to become a doctor. On the other hand in Cuba for example or Argentina or Venezuela etc. studying medicine is free not only is it free but in some of those countries I actually get paid to study and if my grades are good I can become a doctor thus the option of being a doctor is open to a lot more people and once they are doctors they don't need to be paid as much because their study was not economically difficult nor do they have huge debts, as a result Cuba has the second best doctor to patient ratio in the world, doctors are actually paid less than some laborers because there are more people who want to be doctors than there are people who want to be laborers despite this doctors in Cuba (according to the World Health Org) have a much higher job satisfaction than doctors in the US. The point being that in a socialist system instead of people becoming doctors because their parents can pay for their education everyone who wants to can attempt to become a doctor and the best of those will become doctors thus it is more merit based not less, people still climb the ladder its just that it prevents some people starting three quarters of the way up it.My freind if you do indeed believe those things you are not a Socialist. You are a Capitalist.
no need for label wars, in my experience they never end up being very productive
. Like i said above, i actually do agree with many centrist socialists; however, society can't forget that it's a delicate balance between socialism and welfare-ism, just like the fine line between fair capitalism and money takes all.
I hate to break it to ya, but being anti-monopoly means being pro free market. Being socialist/communist means favoring government monopoly of every single resource. Air included.
Myself, I'd rather resist monopolies of any kind, private or state-owned. In the end they both have the same effect.Note the very important use of the words "Private monopoly" right at the beginning, government is not a monopoly because government is the representation of all people.
Of course government is a monopoly - it is a monopoly of violence. You don't have the equal right to tax or execute anyone. The only way it would be representative would be that you had the right to skip the middle man and do what you are paying your 'representative' to do yourself. It's not representative if you've just passed over your freedom to somebody else.
No that is precisely what representative means, that you give others the power to represent you that is the foundation of democracy and this is not the place for a discussion on the merits and issues of a democratic republic, government represents us all through our vote so anything owned by the government is in fact owned by the people.
That is the central fallacy in which your arguments always fall apart. Government physically can not represent the people - at best it represents the tyranny of the majority, at worst it represents whoever pays them the most. It is a monopoly worse than any private monopoly because you are forced to participate in it.
Again this is a discussion to have on the merits or lack thereof of a democratic republic, I am sorry you don't like the democratic representation that you have.
Your main argument against government being a monopoly is that you believe it is representative, so I don't think it is off topic to discuss how accurate that is.
Nicely said, government, if it's not already, can easily become a tyranny of the majority over the minority. Society is a work in progress, josak. It's not that we don't appreciate what we have, but we shouldnt stop looking fir ways to make the world work better, for everyone.
Government is the representation of the people who run the government. It will only represent the people insofar as it is accountable to the people. It will only be accountable to the people insofar as they have individual autonomy. You can't be held accountable by people who are utterly dependent on you.
Of course you can be held accountable by people who are paid by you, do you not hold your employer accountable for you getting injured due to his malpractice even though he pays your wage? Do people on welfare not vote according to their personal views?
The idea that because we depend on the government we can't judge it is foolish, we depend on the government now, without police and the military provided by it for example life would get very hard very quickly and that is just one example.If I'm not happy with my employer or employee I can stop associating with them. There is no gun to my head forcing me to participate in the contract. If the president does not fulfil his contract, we still have to stick with him for 4 years, and if we opt out we get put in prison.
People respond to incentives. People on welfare are hardly going to question the legitimacy of their main source of income.So are you suggesting most people on welfare vote for the party giving it to them, are you suggesting there is a significant margin? Government provides a lot already and people are still capable of questioning it. Furthermore is it a bad thing if people vote for the government that backs them having a decent quality of life? Or welfare? Isn't that sort of the point of voting, voting to help your situation?
They don't seem o know that Socialism means the Government will own all the business. Do they imagine it will all then be free?
There is no free lunch.
On the contrary, most of the monopolies that exist today are the result of very public policies. You are missing very crucial government involvements that bend the market towards the large corporations and destroy competition. Imperialism, subsidies and regulation are not private. The unholy marriage between the state and corporations is responsible for the stagnation of poverty rate in the west.
To believe that the reduction of competition is the result of free enterprise and private property is such poor economics. In fact, there has not been a better method of lifting populations out of poverty than the free enterprise system. In a relatively short amount of time, countries like Hong Kong and Singapore have developed from third world status to some of the most prosperous countries in the world due to liberalised economies (I'm not saying those countries are perfect by any means, simply that their poverty rates have dropped considerably in the last century).
It may seem anti-intuitive, but private property is a key tenant of liberty, and disrespecting that can mean very grave consequences.
The hypothetical situation is nonsensical, because the air on your private property is yours, nobody has the right to come and take it from you. And not that anybody would want to in the first place, it is not in anybody's interest to kill the rest of the population in the name of making money off air.Again, private monopolies, government has the responsibility to care for its citizens.
Also I can demonstrate much better examples of the rise from poverty through government control rather than through free market. Take Cuba for example which went form having a poverty rate of more than 65% before the revolution to 1.5% (world bank number) now, compared to Hong Kong which still has a poverty rate of 20% and started out much better than Cuba.Except that the poverty rate in Cuba is 1.5% according to the World bank and 16% in America. meaning that many many more people in America can not afford housing and food, that is poverty. Otherwise they live simple lives which are of amazing quality considering where Cuba was before the revolution.
nicely said. socialism maxes out its potential once people realize the consequences of their actions are no longer on them. then society quickly denigrates. look at europe today. they are still great, but the cracks are beginning to show.
I suppose this hinges on the belief that in socialism there is no incentive to work, this is not the case, we are not so naive as to believe that people will work without incentive. Firstly people will have quotas to meet, secondly for people who exceed those quotas there will be small bonuses for people who do not reach those quotas (without good reason anyway) fines, thirdly there is, just like in capitalism the possibility of advancement for those who work hard. There is no less incentive there than in capitalism in fact there is more, not to mention that in socialism get a fair wage because most of the money is not being concentrated on the owners which should make the happier and more productive and also that instead of most of what they produce going to their bosses (most people don't like their bosses) most of it will be going to them and what is not will through taxation be going to helping them.
Might I just add that it is great having you on the forum, I love discussions between people who respectfully disagree and are willing to outline why in a non confrontational way.we are roughly agreed, though i think a society with "quotas" to meet will restrict indvl liberty to use their lives however they wish, so long as it doesn't mess with someone else's happiness. We are completely agreed, however, that the current capitalism isn't capitalism at all, but money take all. A fair capitalism looks a lot like centrist socialism.
When I say quotas to meet I mean for each individual within the job that he chooses, I am sure you agree it is necessary to have a reasonable expectation of productivity on an employee.
oh and thx for the welcome; didn't see it the first time around. New to hubpages, looking forward to some great discussions on these forums. See you around!
hmm, cut off. I was saying-
but i believe the private property in capitalism, including means of production, is necessary for a well-functioning society. if everyone has ownership of the means of production, then we go toward majority over minority again. However, a fair capitalist gov would have greatly increased powers of monopoly breaking, which would solve the ladders problem that we see today.Hello Bob, sadly there is no such thing as a fair capitalist gov. It's very nature is to eat itself ..............
jandee - There is no fair government of any kind. Sometimes in history, people living under a benevolent despot were happy, safe, and fruitful. We have our concerns set too high. We want to banter political theory and international issues instead of walking out the door and getting to work in our own community.
Don't know where to start?
http://www.volunteercentreliverpool.org.uk/
I do agree that doing is the important thing, but a fair society is possible. There is no reason why we can't think how to make our world better in many different ways.
No, actually there are ways to create a fair capitalist system. I posted some details above, but I'm hoping to get some time to write a hub about it.
The capitalist system is inherently unfair, it depends on there being many losers to keep a few winners. Anything fair would not be capitalist.
I think it depends on what we are calling capitalism, some people make the error of believing that small business is necessarily capitalist, it is not, indeed small people cans tart their own small business with a maximum of 6 employees in Cuba right now, neither is the idea of democracy, private ownership or rights and powers that limit the power of the government, the major difference between socialism and capitalism is who owns the means of production, mining, oil etc. if you believe it is OK for those to be privately owned despite being necessary for the well being of the human population then I disagree but often what people think is capitalism is just commerce totally OK under both systems.
Nicely said, Josak. Labels are misleading; it seems like when i say fair capitalism and you say centrist socialism we are talking about roughly the same thing. I do believe businesses should be allowed to grow bigger than 6, but like you said, the main thing is the means of production. I believe they should be privately owned, but with very strict monopoly rules. this would help prevent the whole majority over minority thing, which could take place as, like you said, those things are necessary for the well-being of the human population.
The problem I have with that is the concentration of wealth, ultimately always leading to an increasing wealth gap and money equals power so inevitably the owners of these companies and means of production become wealthy and that makes them powerful, in many ways more powerful than our elected leaders yet we never get to vote for them or choose them, not to mention the poverty and destitution that the wealth gap implies.
I see where that view comes from; def THE concern with capitalism. For this reason, I am very much in support of high taxes for the wealthy, strict monopoly rules, and a sturdy safety net. But where I disagree with socialists is the means of production ownership, the reason being, like previously stated, that if the majority have complete control over resources necessary for everyone, it becomes (pretty sure you can guess) majority over minority.
No my bad, that was unclear. It would be the gov's job (assuming gov is as it should be, inseparable from the people) to break monopolies. I do trust in basic goodness for humans (I don't think many, if clearly given the consequences of their action, would purposely harm others), but I see the potential for abuse if wealth is concentrated for too long and for the wrong reasons (not being productive, moving society forward). So that's why anarchy with capitalism wouldn't work. But a transparent gov could potentially make a fair capitalism possible.
Of course, you've already heard more than once from me why socialism doesn't cut it for me; it's why I'm willing to try and reform our politicians instead. You can see the depth of my belief
Nice thoughts but the government has the power to come and take your so called private property any time they wish. How private is your property then? We pay taxes so the government/voted in mafia can let us Pretend to be owners and such. That's all. While I agree with your earlier points don't let the government fool you into thinking anything is yours or that you are actually free. You have nothing and you are not free.
Is poverty caused by private ownership? No. It's caused by the high level of ignorance of the average person, which also means that those same people don't truly understand their own life, much less understand money.
agreed. it's so clear, i don't have anything else to say. Nicely phrased, Cagsil.
I personally believe that every human being born has an inherent right to walk upon the earth unimpeded. I believe that private ownnership of the land and resources sells something which doesn't belong to anyone, but everyone. It is a Conquistador attitude. It is fine justification for stealing someone else's property, livelihood and way of life. Hoarding and being unwilling to share equally what we have been blessed with. We own nothing here, we are merely transients on a path to somewhere else. Private ownership of the land is a way to keep the less fortunate down.
Ownership of petty possessions is not equivalent to private ownership over land and water, Like the the quote said in the OP, if corporations could find a way to charge for air, they would.
The only way they could possibly do that is if they had control over the government, who paid scientists to make up a phony environmental crisis and withdraw funding from their other work if they refused and put in legislation to tax the air we breathe in order to protect against carbon. Which is what they are doing if you havn't noticed.
Strict private property would solve this no problem, because the air on your property is yours by virtue of the fact that its your air and your property.Water! It's your water and your property. Doesn't stop the b*stards selling it to you for an arm and a leg.
You do realise that if you have water on your own property in this country you are expected to pay for it?Not in the states...unless of course you count places that are trying to tax private wells.
No, but neither Innersmiff nor myself live in the States.
What if I walk outside of my property? Then I cannot breathe without paying a fee! Going to work alone would become enormously expensive.
The cab on carbon emissions isn't to tax air. It's to tax a pollutant going into the air, which is warming the globe, and will have disastrous consequences if left unchecked.
But taking the free market logic to it's ultimate conclusion, it is consistent to say corporations would own air and charge fees for it if the process could practically be done.Not in a truly competitive market governed by supply and demand. With the massively high supply and comparatively low demand (let's face it, humans need oxygen to survive but they don't exactly use a significant portion of what's available), a price war would ensue and eventually the industry would collapse.
The only way they could artificially inflate (heh) the price to keep the business model viable would be by forming a trust, and no one on the planet is pro-trust except for the trusts themselves.I'm not familiar with how things work in the UK. Private companies are somehow able to charge you for water that you take from your own property?
I am also unfamiliar with this process in England (and I hope someone from there will explain it) but I do very well remember an incident in my home country, Argentina, where a massive conglomerate of landowners sold a massive tract of land to peasants at a relatively high price, the peasants were men and women who had worked their whole lives and usually also spent their inheritance just to be able to afford a small plot where they would have economic independence, the land they bought was very good land situated right along a river, as soon as it had all been sold off to thousands of peasants the landowners promptly built a massive damn up stream and rerouted the water fifty miles away, thus all the land they had sold was completely useless, many peasants starved to death that winter and the following year the landowners came back and out of the generosity of their hearts bought back the land at about two cents to the dollar of what they received for it, then allowed water flow back down the river.
Yeah except the ending is not usually as tragic in cowboy films and unfortunately they never had a six shooter toting stone cold gunslinger save them or even shoot the bastards who did it. The point of the story though was twofold one to show that private business does not have a consistent objection to causing death for profit and second to show the problem of having an economic system where cruelty and murder is just good business and profit is more important than morality.
Josak you know I feel for all the 'yesterday' victims as equally as us all today! Didn't intend flippancy....
Thinking now of Joe Hill............xxxxx
.............
About here in the U.K it is a joke !! I hate the labour party for dragging us into other peoples countries to kill and thieve from them but on the other hand the Ba.......d Tories(conservatives) are in the process of Privatising the National Health Service ! I haven't voted for years because of Evil BLAIR !
I will have to vote this time to make sure Labour retains Liverpool and again in the Parliamentary elections to rid us of these jokes called Con-DEM (coalition of conservatives and liberal democrats)
The Water companys in Britain are throttling each other in order to get our custom,offering all sorts of bribes! ??!Sorry if it came across that way jandee, I know you didn't mean to be flippant and I was not trying to imply you were.
I could not agree more that the voting options in Britain seem pretty dismal which is just a crying shame, Scotland seems to be getting it's act together at least, I also think it's preposterous how so many people who voted for the liberal democrats now find that the people they voted for are supporting a conservative government, I would be spitting mad if I was them.
this would be illegal in a fair capitalism; it would be the government's job to enforce justice.
Water, food, land. All are in great abundance, yet if I don't have the resources on my property already, I have to purchase them from a private company, who makes profit simply by manipulating the system and claiming they have ownership over something that already naturally existed.
Could air be cheap? Probably. However, how long does it take the average person to drown? 10 minutes? This means that under a private system where air was not free, unless it was on one's property, 10 minutes is your lifespan unless you pay up. The poor, like I said, would have no way to work far from home. It would actually be similar to the movie "In Time." A brutal, inhumane way to run a country.I have lived on land with a well and paid no one for the water.
The assumption that flows from the original piece is hopelessness and that why I say it instills fear.
Oh excuse my mistake. It's not hopeless if you allow the proper governmental entities to run things. Right?Wow, you've lived on land and not had to pay for water!
I bet the billions who aren't in your position are really happy for you as they cough up for a drop of badly polluted water and watch their kids starve to death!
Too right that the piece instils fear, we are all far too complacent turning a blind eye to the victims of capitalism.
Do you think it right that 25,000 people die of starvation every day, not because there isn't enough food to go round, there is plenty. What is lacking is the money to buy that food.
Government or other, the system can not be allowed to sustain.But see the nations that are doing that are never the ones to blame or held accountable for what they do to their people. That's always our fault. Somehow.
Whether we did anything or not.
Do you remember the lesson of Live Aid?So it's not our fault that food corporations grow crops in poverty stricken areas of Africa so that we can have cheap out of season vegetables whilst the growers don't get to grow food for themselves?
Why don't we get the people growing there to share there instead of waiting till it gets here so it magically becomes my fault.
Live Aid:
Bob Geldof did a marvelous job of putting on a day long concert on two continents to raise money for the starving. He raised a lot of money. A LOT of money. He then took it to the leaders of the nation who promptly kept it.
But nobody ever gets in THEIR face.Good idea, will you tell the corporations that the people have to share before it comes here?
I think it is wrong to say the Geldof never received any criticism for the mishandling of the funds, he certainly did in the UK.I don't think he mishandled them. i think he was naive enough to believe the people didn't have food because the government didn't have the means. So it went to the rulers.
I would be more than happy to tell them to share. Mostly because I grow very weary of how it's my fault and not theirs just because I am a Conservative.
Oh and a Christian. That doubles the evil effect you know.Don't be silly, it has nothing to do with your being a conservative or a Christian.
But it has everything to do with you supporting the bloated capitalists.
Just as Geldof cocked up by believing that money given to the corrupt leaders would somehow make its way to the needy!Well you see I happen to understand that as much as I would like to have a successful business with lots of things I don't and that is my fault. I don't have class envy over those that do. Everyone couldn't be wealthy. It just isn't possible.
But what happens if we take away, by force if necessary, what wealth we think it would require to satisfy the needs of those who have not. Now in whose hands is all that going to eventually end up in and aren't they going to be the bad guy at that point?
Basically the rich will become the poor and the poor will become the rich and now what do we do?How on earth do you work that one out? If Bill Gates or Warren Buffet had a few trillion less they would by no means be poor but tens of thousands of people could afford to eat.
For how long do you think?
That does not last forever and unless rulers change or people learn how to work some things out that will be needed to be done again. Don't you understand that?
There is a dream some people have of take it all away from ":the rich" and everything will be ok but no it won't.No of course not, the present system is designed for trickle up, the money would all end up back in the hands of the rich so you could say that it was only lent in the first place.
Unless of course the system was changed.See i can't get any of you to understand this.
Where do you think it will go? trickle up or down it will do like water and go to one place and pool there. There could be the poorest man on earth become the richest and then you will demand it of him.
Teach people to work and save and grow instead of creating poverty.But that is what money does already, it trickles up and pools there.
It is easy to say "teach people to work and save", but the system does not allow for everybody to work and save, it depends on there being plenty who have no work.
Capitalism has had a couple of hundred years to lift everybody out of poverty. Do you not think that it has failed? Or how many more centuries should we give it?Well considering the folks who don't like it always want to install Socialist or Communist societies which actually oppress the people more(even though some don't know it).
This is what happens here in the US. Conservatives get in office and start wanting to cut spending because...well because now they don't actually have the money, they print money for it like counterfeiters. Then the liberals hit the floor and cry and rend their clothing like old Sanhedrin from the Bible and they continue this until the Moderates....those who can't make up there own minds...think wow.....maybe we need to give it back to them.
Then the liberals get back in power and cry still about the Conservatives and nothing actually gets done. Same with your situation.
I don't want anybody to starve but thinking you can just make rich be poor won't solve the problem. Because SOMEONE will always have more than ohters .....always. Then they will be the bad guy. That's just the way it is.Will someone always be bit wealthier than someone else? Yes, need that difference be massive like it is in the US? No, in Cuba only 1.5% of the population lives in poverty, in this tiny poor Caribbean Island an yet in the most powerful nation on earth 15.5% percent live below the international poverty line. There is a thing called the GINI index it measures how fair the wealth distribution of a nation is universally every socialist nation has seen it fall and stay low without constant need for redistributing.
So what is your solution?
Or are you happy with the status quo, that 25,000 people die of hunger every day, that in your own country over 15% live in poverty (the richest country in the world!).Of course I'm not happy with the status quo. Why do you think that?
However we have to be very careful that the pendulum does not shift completely to the other side of the scale and history is littered with free societies who became unfree in the name of fairness.
As I have also said before....there are many voices that cry for fairness. They themselves are immensely wealthy yet do nothing but point to their political opponents and demand they be the ones to divest themselves.
If you want real fairness and help in this situation it must come unilaterally but I hope you don't believe that will ever really happen.
I'm not your enemy I just see people and their BS more clearly.Are you saying that I don't see the BS of the capitalist system at all clearly then?
No and please don't misunderstand. i am saying that there is BS coming from TWO directions.
They both want your money. And neither of them are lily white.I have to agree with Josak here, you don't understand socialism do you?
There's this:
Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy. Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however. Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group. Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.
Followed by:
Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests. Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.
Now which do you believe you are? I hear an awful lot of that latter stuff from various individuals here.
Socialism is precisely a system to unilaterally distribute wealth and not just wealth but also opportunity, health, education and jobs it's not really a matter of redistributing wealth though that helps it's a matter of ensuring that people work for a fair share of what they produce and rather than the profit going to individuals it going to help all of us.
You don't know the first thing about a socialist system, it is impossible for a man to become rich under it he can be slightly better off than his neighbor but by no more than 15% remember how the wages are allotted? You really need to read more on this before you can talk about it with authority, you seem to believe we just want to redistribute wealth and leave capitalism in place, we do not.
Not at all, no one need be rich or poor, we are not suggesting we all have to have exactly the same economic position but a minimum standard that guarantees us the benefits of the age we live in so that we can live free of hunger, free of the fear of not knowing how we will feed our children next and most importantly, with dignity, working for the benefit of ourselves and our fellow man not the small few at the top of our economic ladder.
The people you are looking at now thinking they are the epitome of what you wish will eventually turn into the people you hate when you start shifting all this around.
That's because there really are no good people. We all are a little evil by nature and the lucre will bring it out.I am far from naive about human nature, I have fought in two wars and been in the middle of a revolution and I have seen how cruel and evil people can be. But firstly I have also seen how good and self sacrificing people can be and more importantly it is not a matter of people needing to be good to do this but of a system that sets out humanity in such a way that their labor goes to helping others and to themselves, whats naive is the capitalist notion that the poor will get out of poverty through the trickle down effect or through the charity of the wealthy.
And the faces I was talking about were in the Congo who were in charge. Not Bob Geldof. I have no issue with him.
OR look at Cuba who sends it's best doctors all around the world by the thousands to help the people in the poorest areas of the world, who sent aid and men to fight apartheid in Africa, or Chavez who you so hate and maligned who yearly helps 200 000 Americans in the poorest neighborhoods and cities so that they can provide heating for their families, why is a poor South American nation helping the poor in the most powerful nation on earth? Because it's own government won't do it. They show us the way to be responsible members of the international community
Oh by the way.....that's what happens when you own the land. Right?
What's what happens when you own the land?
well, this air metaphor, i think, has outlived its usefulness. Air clearly must be public property, as you cannot control it. being capitalist doesn't not mean i am against all publicly owned property (i.e. state parks, roads, *air*). in a fair capitalism, it would be government's job to distribute resources fairly, until society gets to a point where everyone has enough resources. IN case anyone's wondering, we're not there yet
You are crazy. Period. You are signing on to this Marxist drivel which seeks to instill fear. You know it too. That's the problem.
I'd appreciate it if you responded to what I said. I can't really have a rational debate, or discussion, if you don't respond to my actual argument at all.
Nothing crazy about it, how many people go hungry in our country while surrounded by wealth? How many people around the world starve to death while the upper class lives in luxury? History has shown us that private ownership is quite happy to starve people for it's own profit and if it will happily starve them of food then why not something else?
Wrong there Matey! Lots of Anti-Marxists of which 'there are many ,we are few' who would disagree with you. JS.
Ah just look at it? You say there was no fear in that mess huh? Someone that can't breathe has lots of fear happening and that is a preposterous scenario anyway.
One of the big things Hugo Chavez did was start removing private ownership particularly from broadcasting entities. There;s your Socialism. Did you wish to live in a society like his?Socialism and censorship have no synchronicity and personally I don't approve of Cuba's censorship, having lived there for several years however I do very much approve of Cuba's economic trajectory and their humanitarian success in near eliminating poverty and creating a successful health care system, I am also a huge fan of their land reforms which saw land be fairly distributed, anyhow this is not really the place for a discussion about the Cuban state.
No I wasn't talking about Cuba al;thought that's another can of worms. I was talking about Venezuela. You see when you take control of the land ownership you pretty well take control of all ownership. Therefore Hugo wound up in control of all his nation's broadcasting facilities. That's a real handy thing when you want to control to dissemination of information there. Also it eliminated that nasty old free speech thing nobody like him really wants.
And somehow that's worse than Rupert Murdoch being in control of the nations broadcasting facilities?
Though in truth I should say "right wing" rather than lay it all on poor Rupert.Rupert Murdoch does not control all of this nations broadcasting, regardless of what the progressive left wants you to believe.
Rupert Murdoch is not a dictator. Hugo Chavez is.Rupert Murdoch is not even an elected representative. Hugo Chavez is.
Hey John you think he was "elected"> Just like Ahmadinejad?
Yes those are the places they call a "Democracy". Which means there may be an election but only one person is going to be elected. That keeps folks like Jimmy Carter happy.So why do they have multiple candidates?
A bit like the UK is it where no matter who you vote for the right gets in!Well they have to keep up appearances for folks like the UN and Jimmy Carter.
The right didn't get in the last US election now did they? We take the bad and the good in ours and right now some us are working to correct a problem.No. It was a legal election. John McCain was never going to be president. That is sometimes what happens when the party's nominate people.
Places like Venezuela and Iran have no real free elections and the dictator's see to that.You evidently don't know the first thing about those electoral bodies or the international bodies that regulate their elections, I can't speak for the Iranian ones but I have every knowledge of the Venezuelan process and how it is monitored and it is legitimate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan … tion,_2006
these are the organisations that monitored the election to make sure they were fair in Venezuela: Carter center, European union, Mercosur, Organisation of American States, they all reported the elections were fair and valid and that Chaves got 63% of the vote. A nationwide exit poll and two vote audits supported this data and even the opposition leader concede he was fairly defeated. The Carter Center concluded:
"The Carter Center, who in an extensive report concluded that the elections were "fair, transparent and without serious irregularities". Carter Center praised "the civic spirit of the elections" and hoped that "other Latin American nations will follow Venezuela's example in the future."[76]"
So stick to the facts and stick to things you actually know about.I hvae a very hard time believing a tyrant blowhard like Hugo would be favored over someone who was less heavy handed.
Yeah you would have a very hard time understanding the Venezuelan voter, suffice to say your political ideology would make them sick.
Well happy life to them and suffice it to day most of us are sickened by Hugo Chavez and therefore the lifestyle he promotes there would not work very well here. You actually prefer him to control all communications in that nation?
No I don't approve of that particular aspect of his leadership, apparently many Venezuelans do, on the other hand Two things are undeniable his economic policies have worked and under his leadership the position of the average Venezuelan has been much improved, in short there are a few things I would change but overall I like what he has done.
Being as he controls communications and speech there how would you know how well things have gone there?
You got the same thing out of the Soviet Union right up until the day the walls came down.I visited Venezuela and have friends and relatives there, it is one of the advantages of being a Spanish speaker that these trips are very easy for me.
Also international organisations like the world bank and others are allowed into the country freely and have conducted their own analysis their findings include things like that since Chavez took power the poverty rate has dropped by 20%.Unless you have any evidence to back the conclusion that the world bank is biased towards Venezuela, as far as I am concerned they are an excellent unbiased source.
Also the WHO (World Health Organisation) study found massive improvements in that sector.
So therefore massive lack of freedom is the cure for what ails us? Starting with giving up property I paid for?
As I said I don't agree there was a massive lack of freedom and I think economic redistribution is a good idea especially with things like land, obviously I challenge the validity of your claim to ownership but more importantly I think that people being able to eat at the end of the day is more important than a person owning a third house or a second Ferrari, I have no idea what kind of wealth you posses nor will I presume but if that wealth is far beyond what you need to live a comfortable life then yes I agree with it, being given to those who need it, on certain conditions.
I don't have any sympathy for the man who does not want to work, and I don't think he should receive a thing, socialism is about guaranteeing jobs for people and if they take them then ensuring that they have dignity at work, that they make a fair wage and that they can feed and house their family, it does this by ensuring a modicum of economic equality. I disagree this necessitates a loss of freedom. In terms of redistribution if I were in charge of this country I would merely change the inheritance laws, when people died their property would pass over to the state and be redistributed.That is just completely Socialist.
I am not wealthy nor am I likely to be. I don't envy those who may be.
Now if my government wants to see what anger looks like all they need to do is start taking the property away from simple homeowners like myself.
You see, that is why the founders placed the Second Amendment into our Constitution.I don't support taking away the property of a simple homeowner, nor would any real socialist. The point is only to take things that are not needed and give them to people who genuinely need them and are willing to do their part. Also Venezuelans are allowed to own guns, though not automatic weapons.
Ok look,
Who decides who gets to keep what and who has to give up what?
Ah of course there would have to be say....a central committee right?
There would be a knock on your door one day and a pleasant young woman(or man.....let's just be politically correct here and just say person)is there at your door with a clipboard. They are of course accompanied by someone with arms you are no longer allowed to bear.
Then said individual goes about your home taking inventory of your possessions to be reviewed later by the central committee to see what you need and don't need.
Will they actually be carry Mao's Little Red Book with them or will it be committed to memory?Actually firstly the process of deciding who needs what could be performed democratically, and certainly I would encourage that process to be generous, something along the lines of, how many houses do you have? If more than one then it is fully paid for and the rest are given to people with nowhere to live, how many cars do you own? More than two? give them to people who need a car.
The socialist government in Venezuela has passed no laws concerning gun restriction (they are as they were before the Chavez election) and I would certainly not encourage gun restriction, and it is no tenet of socialism, I own several guns one of which has deep personal meaning and would have a big issue with them being taken.
As for Mao he was a communist so yeah your confusing the two again, I am not a Maoist.I didn't say that you were. I was implying it was an eventual end to the road you wish to put us on.
Would you actually believe people would willingly vote to give up their possessions?Redistribution has occurred with popular support in many many places, it just so happens that in many places the poor vastly outnumber the rich.
That would be most places that I am aware of.
So then what would be the use in my working 45 to 50 years of my life to attain a goal if that goal is not allowed to me and I must give my hard earned treasure to people who refuse to do so?Firstly as I explained I have no sympathy for the man who wants things but does not want to work, the tag line of many socialist rebellions was "he who does not work neither shall he eat" (actually a quote from the bible I believe) so no it would not be given to people not willing to work but to those who work hard but still cannot afford the basics, second it would occur after you died, so you would have full enjoyment of it, just the people who you intend to pass it to (who did not earn it) will not receive it and will simply have to work for their own possessions rather than receive them by inheritance.
See, that's not what the left in this country wants.
What they want is redistribution now. Not later. Today.
Plus you shouldn't disagree with this government or you are a racist. No matter what or why you are a racist. That's the bludgeon.That is just a straw man attack, you and I disagree with the government, for different reasons, that is no reason to believe we are racists, people who make that jump are morons, just like people who think that democrats are socialists, or that Obama is actually a Muslim Kenyan, (as a socialist I guarantee we are different) but equally I don't think the redistribution laws that Obama proposes are very harsh nor are they relevant to this forum which was not about Obama or what he wants.
No it's the Obama administration using the racism meme. They want you to shut up and that's their tactic. Why do you think no one from the Democratic party has run against him. Wouldn't want to be labeled a racist now would we? Tyranny.
I don't agree, on the other hand I don't really care, if given a choice between Obama and a Republican candidate I will vote Obama because he is slightly closer to my political beliefs but I am not a democrat and if they are using the threat of being labelled racist as a defense that is reprehensible and stupid.
Well that's exactly what they are doing.
Now I understand what you believe a little better now. I don't agree with all of it but you have a different perspective.
Understand that those of us here who are vocal about this current administration do so out of disgust for things like using racism and so forth. It's a smoke screen for other things.
On the other hand the Iranian elections seem somewhat more dodgy, there are allegations that Ahmadinejad used illegal advertising and stuff but I don't know how reliable that is, I would also remind you there was no small amount of controversy about the Bush election over Gore.
And as to the right wing controlling it?
NBC,CBS,ABC,NPR,PBS,MSNBC,CNN.....all on the left wing view and some of them rabidly so.
Now Fox News and their business channel are the only ones who are not aligned with that.
Sorry I missed this comment, I know you were talking about Venezuela but I figured Cuba was a much better example for what you are talking about so I went with that, for Venezuela all you can say is people voted for that so whatever also in Venezuela the internet is freely accessible so for people who want other news they can have it, indeed Chavez has set out to make internet access as easy as possible for the country. I don't see it as any different as our news services being owned by mainly one corporation and as you said that does not mean they can't cover a wide variety of views.
Oh My God !! My bags are packed I'm ready to go---------
I bet you wouldn't even pick up your winning lotto ticket,some people don't recognise the good things in life ! I wish Hugo Chavez was here ,I would be out knocking on doors for him without a doubt .The good things in life????????????????????????????????
Such as? In the case of Venezuela?
Illuminate me.Why don't you tune in to Mario Silva he will enlighten you ! Sorry we have absolute giants in liverpool who are away tomorrow-something to do with the Titanic. I would miss them if I said more.........
If tomorrow I were told by whichever elected leader that I no longer had control of my property that I purchased with my own sweat and blood, that would be the end of my support for whomever said it and whomever supported them. That's not freedom no matter who there does not understand that they have lost theirs.
In terms of Latin America there is a lot you need to know before you can pass judgement on redistribution in Venezuela, before Chavez and throughout much of Latin America we still have a peasant and landowner system where people work the lands of others in exchange for a pittance and a small plot, these land owners pass down that land from generation to generation way back to the Spanish Conquista, the result is complete economic inequality with the vast majority of the population having no way to rise out of poverty through merit, the redistribution of land so that these peasants can own their own land for once without the constant fear of eviction, mistreatment and starvation is in my mind without a doubt a positive thing.
In terms of the US I am more sympathetic to your statement, I would still support redistribution but only after death or in the case of extreme wealth while still living.It is a serious shame that they had no opportunity to enact something such as our Constitution.
Venezuela has it's own constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Venezuela
A constitution however is not the answer to Venezuela's problems nor would it have solves any of the above.Ah yes you need a dictator to solve problems. That much is clear.
No dictator involved, Chavez is a democratically elected president and part of a government that includes the same separate branches of government and checks of power as does the US system. This is the overview of the Venezuelan system according to wikipedia: Overview
Legislation can be initiated by the executive branch, the legislative branch (either a committee of the National Assembly or three members of the latter), the judicial branch, the citizen branch (ombudsman, public prosecutor, and controller general) or a public petition signed by no fewer than 0.1% of registered voters. The president can ask the National Assembly to reconsider portions of laws he finds objectionable, but a simple majority of the Assembly can override these objections.
The voting age in Venezuela is 18 and older. Voting is not compulsory.
If anything Chavez has less power than Obama.We see the role of dictator in much different ways.
When someone attends the UN General Assembly and gives addresses that not once but twice(with two different Presidents both physically and ideologically)describes them as Satan i can't help but feel that person is ledd than friendly towards our people and our form of government.You have no idea the way Latin America has suffered at the hands of the US and it's interventions into our politics or how much forgiveness and calm it takes to pardon those offenses, I had most of my family killed by an American backed and aided dictatorship in Argentina, my adopted father has scorch marks in a cross hatch pattern all across his back from a CIA torturer who tied him to a metal bed frame and electrocuted him regularly for over a week, the damage was so severe he had to learn to walk again, the reason? His fiancee passed out leaflets supporting an election in Argentina, an election that would have brought a socialist government to power, she was raped and tortured for over a year before being killed by being drowned in a barrel of excrement, then her body was dumped from a plane so that she would never be found again, thus denying her family even the right to bury their child. All on the name of stopping socialism, you can read a brief overview of it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
This is just one of many such abuses, so I disagree with Chavez but I can easily understand his anger as I felt it once, anger towards the United States is common in Latin America but expressing it does not make one a dictator in any way shape or form.Sorry to hear about those things.
I am however, not willing to change our form of government on account of them.Those are not reasons to change your government. It is a response to this comment that you made:
We see the role of dictator in much different ways.
When someone attends the UN General Assembly and gives addresses that not once but twice(with two different Presidents both physically and ideologically)describes them as Satan i can't help but feel that person is ledd than friendly towards our people and our form of government.So what then was the point of the original piece of text that you started this whole thing off with?
Where we live in the US you will have to change lots of it to get the redistribution you are describing that supposedly causes poverty.Sorry I don't quite understand the question, the point of that piece was to illustrate my belief that private property in large quantities causes the poverty of others and that as such I support a redistribution of property in a fair, just and reasonable way to guarantee a reasonable level of quality of life for all people.
What does redistribution have to do with what the CIA did?
Please keep the conversation civil and productive; this is going to both sides. name-calling? come on, guys.
You are right and I shouldn't have called him crazy but I don't back away from the Marxist drivel.
hey, for me marxism seems like a reasonable hypothesis at the time it was written that was grossly over-interpreted and transformed into societies that have little or no rights for the indvl. time to get back on track with some libertarian push-back.
Private property certainly causes poverty, we need only look at what happened in Russia once the USSR was destroyed. There was massive economic contraction, alongside a growing disparity between rich and poor; the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Simply put, there was mass poverty as a result of exploitative private property (which is quite different from owning consumer goods).
On a theoretical level, public property allows for more equitable distribution and it can be used to end exploitative labour. In a truly socialist economy surplus labour value is not stolen from the worker, that alone increases wealth. But a planned economy can also enrich us in terms of public services - lower wages can be offset by social provisions which would otherwise cost us.
Historically though, Marx recognized capitalism as a progressive force which brought industry and raised many out of poverty. The problem is it outgrows its effectiveness in those regards and becomes regressive. We have reached this point.I agree with comrade Joe, completely. Well said, tovarish!
All of what you said especially that last paragraph is dead on, countries still clinging to the free market ideal are the ones failing economically and morally to provide for their citizens, while the countries growing fastest and doing best are those significantly to the left a quick look at the quality of life index and the index of fastest growing economies shows this to be manifestly true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … owth_rate_(latest_year)No! It is the people who become regressive -industry ? Explain ?
Otherwise agreement.Well it is not just industry that regresses. What I meant was that capitalist production reaches a point where it outlives its usefulness and purpose. While this is an economic phenomenon, it impacts society and thus the individuals who compose society. As the economy no longer really grows, and where it does, the wealth goes to the owners of production and the workers are further impoverished, and degraded as human beings.
I'm reminded of a recent quote from Gennady Zyuganov about private banks (though it could have been about the private economy in general) "They not only contribute to its modernization - they add to its degradation." The problem we have now, is that degradation far outweighs modernization.
The working class are degraded by the system. The owners of production could be said to be regressive in that capitalism as a historical phenomenon brought the world modernized industry and raised many out of poverty and the feudal system. Now, the owners of production no longer even serve that use - their one prior redeeming feature, that they were a historically progressive class is cast away and they become regressive as the system they implement.Social evolution? Certainly Marx's predictions are becoming a reality as clearly seen in the US with it's ever expanding wealth gap and in many other typical capitalist examples such as Hong Kong with it's poverty level now exceeding 20% and more and more people seeking to leave Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland where their lot will be much better.
Exactly so Josak. And the only cure to this stage of social evolution is revolution.
Even within China, growth is being sustained by increased public spending, not by the growth of the free market - which shows the private economy to be socially moribund.
We agree on the ends, but not the means. we have not reached the point where everyone has enough resources to do whatever makes them happiest. i think that society's ultimate goal is libertarian and communism-esque, though it would still have a government to safeguard indvl rights. However, i believe the best way to get there is through a more fair capitalism, not socialism. Socialism removes the consequences of actions from the indvl to the society, which isn't good for anyone. there is a safety net, but again, it comes from everyone else. A fairly capitalist governmetn would have a safety net only to the point where everyone is ABLE to climb up the social ladder. Everyone deserves a ladder, nobody should be carried up on other people's backs.
Additionally, a communism through socialism would restrict indvl rights intolerably. i had a post in the beginning elaborating on that.
"The affairs of the world are ordered in accordance with orthodox opinions. If anyone did not think in accordance with these he soon discovered this fact for himself. Owen saw that in the world a small class of people were possessed of a great abundance and superfluity of the things that are produced by work. He saw also that a very great number--in fact the majority of the people--lived on the verge of want; and that a smaller but still very large number lived lives of semi-starvation from the cradle to the grave; while a yet smaller but still very great number actually died of hunger, or, maddened by privation, killed themselves and their children in order to put a period to their misery. And strangest of all--in his opinion--he saw that people who enjoyed abundance of the things that are made by work, were the people who did Nothing: and that the others, who lived in want or died of hunger, were the people who worked. And seeing all this he thought that it was wrong, that the system that produced such results was rotten and should be altered. And he had sought out and eagerly read the writings of those who thought they knew how it might be done. "
Have you started reading it?
He is of course spot on, all of which is easily provable by just looking around oneself, most of us know people even in the US that work 50 hours a week and still cannot feed their family or keep them housed and yet the people who make the most money do so mainly out of the merit of simply owning something, from landowners to business owners all of which make their profit from the guy working 50 hours a week.Yes, I just finished chapter 1. It's great so far. I'm surprised the writer isn't more well known.
That was the only book he ever wrote, he was actually a poor laborer and died before the book was published, his daughter found it and published it posthumously I believe. The sincerity and simple truth of the book is largely contributed to by the fact that he is writing about his own life, his own condition.
Hi Sooner ! Yeah he died in Liverpool of T.B
He is buried in a group Paupers grave which I can almost touch from the park I go to daily with me dogs.
I have a snapshot of his grave with me and husband on the picture---I was living in Jersey C.I and was sent over by the Jersey party to honour the 'finding of his grave' and the people of the Broad Left paid to have his picture engraved on it,
the snapshot is abroad at my brothers house and when I find it I shall do a small hub on it.
I think the great American trade unionist Bill Haywood put it most succinctly, when talking about mine owners, but it could be applied to virtually any industry. "The mine owners did not find the gold, they did not mine the gold, they did not mill the gold, but by some weird alchemy all the gold belongs to them."
Perhaps the greatest trick pulled on the working class, along with "the great money trick" the idea that the people who produce all the goods that constitute wealth are entitled to none or few of them.
You will I hope forgive me if I copy out another quote from the same text, it is not a part central to the plot or anything so no one reading the book need worry about ruining it for themselves I just think it's a great demonstration of an important political point. Further apologies that is is quite long:
"Money through capitalism is the cause of poverty because it is the device by which those who are too lazy to work are enabled to rob the workers of the fruits of their labour."
"Prove it," said Crass.
Owen slowly folded up the piece of newspaper he had been reading and put it in his pocket.
"All right," he replied. "I'll show you how the Great Money Trick is worked."
Owen opened his dinner basket and took from it two slices of bread, but as these where not sufficient, he requested that anyone who had some bread left should give it to him. They gave him several pieces, which he placed in a heap on a clean piece of paper, and, having borrowed the pocket knives of Easton, Harlow and Philpot, he addressed the, as follows:
"These pieces of bread represent the raw materials which exist naturally in and on the earth for the use of mankind; they were not made by any human being, but were created for the benefit and sustenance of all, the same as were the air and the light of the sun."
"Now," continued Owen, "I am a capitalist; or rather I represent the landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present argument how I obtained possession of them, the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the necessaries of life are now the property of the landlord and capitalist class. I am that class; all these raw materials belong to me."
"Now you three represent the working class. You have nothing, and, for my part, although I have these raw materials, they are of no use to me. What I need is the things that can be made out of these raw materials by work; but I am too lazy to work for me. But first I must explain that I possess something else beside the raw materials. These three knives represent all the machinery of production; the factories, tools, railways, and so forth, without which the necessaries of life cannot be produced in abundance. And these three coins" - taking three half pennies from his pocket - "represent my money, capital."
"But before we go any further," said Owen, interrupting himself, "it is important to remember that I am not supposed to be merely a capitalist. I represent the whole capitalist class. You are not supposed to be just three workers, you represent the whole working class."
Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of little square blocks.
"These represent the things which are produced by labour, aided by machinery, from the raw materials. We will suppose that three of these blocks represent a week's work. We will suppose that a week's work is worth one pound."
Owen now addressed himself to the working class as represented by Philpot, Harlow and Easton.
"You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in various industries, so as to give you plenty of work. I shall pay each of you one pound per week, and a week's work is that you must each produce three of these square blocks. For doing this work you will each receive your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like with, and the things you produce will of course be mine to do as I like with. You will each take one of these machines and as soon as you have done a week's work, you shall have your money."
The working classes accordingly set to work, and the capitalist class sat down and watched them. As soon as they had finished, they passed the nine little blocks to Owen, who placed them on a piece of paper by his side and paid the workers their wages.
"These blocks represent the necessaries of life. You can't live without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is,one pound each."
As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were compelled to agree to the capitalist's terms. They each bought back, and at once consumed, one-third of the produce of their labour. The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so the net result of the week's work was that the kind capitalist had consumed two pounds worth of things produced by the labour of others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of one pound each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed the three pounds in money and in addition four pounds worth of goods. As for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each consumed the pound's worth of necessaries they had bought with their wages, they were again in precisely the same condition as when they had started work - they had nothing.
This process was repeated several times; for each weeks work the producers were paid their wages. They kept on working and spending all their earnings. The kind-hearted capitalist consumed twice as much as any one of them and his pool of wealth continually increased. In a little while, reckoning the little squares at their market value of one pound each, he was worth about one hundred pounds, and the working classes were still in the same condition as when they began, and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended on it.
After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their merriment increased when the kind-hearted capitalist, just after having sold a pound's worth of necessaries to each of his workers, suddenly took their tools, the machinery of production, the knives, away from them, and informed them that as owing to over production all his store-houses were glutted with the necessaries of life, he had decided to close down the works.
"Well, and wot the bloody 'ell are we to do now ?" demanded Philpot.
"That's not my business," replied the kind-hearted capitalist. "I've paid your wages, and provided you with plenty of work for a long time past. I have no more work for you to do at the present. Come round again in a few months time and I'll see what I can do."
"But what about the necessaries of life?" Demanded Harlow. "we must have something to eat."
"Of course you must," replied the capitalist, affably; "and I shall be very pleased to sell you some." "But we ain't got no bloody money!"
"Well, you cant expect me to give you my goods for nothing! You didn't work for nothing, you know. I paid you for your work and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like me. Look how I have got on by being thrifty!"
The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kind-hearted capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kind-hearted capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast."
Of course the author could go further and demonstrate that this money made by the kind capitalist is then used to influence the political process through bribes and campaign donations so as to secure better wealth for himself at the expense of the people (by lowering the minimum wage for example or giving himself tax breaks) by corrupting the government process meant to represent and protect them with the very money that they made him.
Remember! This system is built on economic growth. The more people, the more growth. No growth...economic stagnation or absolute depression. It is a bottomless pit....because all of our resources are finite....it can't sustain infinite growth. Simple math.
resources, in the future, with increased technology will not become infinite, but will become sufficient for everyone. unless i'm seriously mistaken, this forum is about how best to distribute the resources fairly and how to balance the sometimes conflicting desires of indvls.
‘Compel the poor to live upon a crust of bread, by soft mild arts.
Smile when they frown, frown when they smile; and when a man looks pale
With labour and abstinence, say he looks healthy and happy;
And when his children sicken, let them die; there are enough
Born, even too many, and our earth will be overrun
Without these arts. If you would make the poor live with temper,
With pomp give every crust of bread you give; with gracious cunning
Magnify small gifts; reduce the man to want a gift, and then give with pomp.
Say he smiles if you hear him sigh. If pale, say he is ruddy.
Preach temperance: say he is overgorg’d and drowns his wit
In strong drink, though you know that bread and water are all
He can afford. Flatter his wife, pity his children, till we can
Reduce all to our will, as spaniels are taught with art.’Thanks Josak, I should have credited it, bit didn't!
I was actually aiming for "The Price of Experience" but though that was much better, if not as poetic.Just a little bit more :
"And that slaughter to the nation
shall steam up like inspiration,
Eloquent,Oracular;
A volcano heard afar.
And these words shall then become
like oppressions thundered doom
ringing through each heart and brain,
heard again-again-again
"Rise like lions after slumber
in unvanquishable number-
shake your chains to earth like dew
which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many --they are few
I said this in a couple of earlier posts but i'll sum it up again here. I think most, if not all, are agreed that the ultimate goal of society should be one where everyone can do whatever makes them happiest. however, socialists and capitalists disagree on the means. as a capitalist, i believe that fair capitalism has potential to truly become a perfect society, which socialism doesn't. Why: capitalism has safeguards (private property) to protect indvl rights and prevent a tyranny of the majority over the minority. If anything about my view is unclear, tell me and i will clarify.
Where have I heard talk like this before?
Who's they? You don't have to worry about them. There is nothing stopping anyone from being industrious. The best way to help the poor is with feet on the ground
community develpoment. The kind that is hard grueling work when ramped up emotions die down.
I am involved with conservation and grassroots community development. We all need a regional approach to business and industry. When your community is strong, then the monopoly types are not so relevant to your well being.
Some of my hubs are about this. There are more to come. I am also working with other organizations who are expending their energy in a positive direction. We build up, not tear down. Eliminating the wealthy will not get rid of the poor. Voluntarily sharing wealth may.Oh your voluntarily sharing wealth has worked great
what with the constantly rising number of poor in the US. Those are pretty much third world statistics you've got there, we are not communists, at least I am not, it's a shame you don't know the difference. I'll compare your grass roots voluntary charity with the decreases in poverty of any socialist nation no problem, your charity (and mine unfortunately) are just balm on the wounds, they don't fix the problems nor correct what causes the poverty of the working man which is of course exploitation for the benefits of others, usually non working men.
I would love to hang around to hear more irrelevant babbling, but, I must go
now. Have a nice day, comrade.
C-Ya
I love how you presume we don't work in our communities. Also obviously you have no statistics to compare, Cuba's population below the poverty line is 1.5% Venezuela has dropped it's poverty rate by more than 20% since becoming socialist etc. etc. Charity is not a solution.
Adios compadre.I'm not talking charity or macro theory. I am talking community development.
Rhetoric is cheap.You don't know the first thing about action WD Curry, I fought a dictatorship for my beliefs, was a member of the Montoneros for years, most of my family and friends were tortured and murdered for their beliefs, I risked my life countless times, was shot twice and had to leave my home country and guess what? we won, Argentina now has a democratic socialist government that doesn't kill people for handing out leaflets like my brother was, no thanks to the US of course who backed the dictatorship financially and sent operatives to help them in their extermination of the left which of course like most Americans you know nothing about. But no allow me to bow down before you because you volunteer on the weekends.
I also imagine you think it's some kind of backhanded insult when you call me comrade it's not, I used the term regularly for many years among my brothers and sisters and it was an honor to call such courageous and selfless people comrade.
Sounds like you've just returned from Israel after building up all the stuff you'd ripped away from the Palestinians............
Like their children?
Palestinian after school program. No child left behind!
Poverty isn't caused by private ownership. Unless of course, your ownership was in real estate before the bubble burst.
Poverty is caused by not having enough money to exercise private ownership.Succinctly stated. That is how Capitlism holds down rather than lifts up. It creates a cycle of woe that is largely inescapable.
I posted above how a fair capitalism might work. It may be in the replies; sorry bout that.
I've been thinking recently. I have felt like I was a socialist for a long time. I look at the concentrations of power in corporations, and how the rich run for office so their companies can become monopolies over others. It's not even real competition if that's the case.
Maybe the problem is that everything is just too big and centralized. The government, corporations, all of it. Maybe we need a massive decentralization, where everything becomes more local, and also more democratic.
I don't want the government becoming the monopoly in place of the corporations we have now. I feel like state socialism would end up doing just that. I'm just rambling now so I'm going to stop. Interesting thoughts though.Hell yeah! Welcome to the fair capitalist libertarian boat!
Many seem to think society is all of the gov. THEY are doing this, they are doing that. In a real democracy, the gov would be inseparable from the people, and its job would be distributing resources fairly. Nothing less, nothing more.I think to a certain extent this has been tried, there was a time in the US where everything was a lot less centralized, states had pretty much free reign as long as they paid their taxes and everyone had a separate moral system, it was basically many countries within on, unfortunately that led to extremes, states went to war with each other often over the most insignificant things like who owned a certain copse of trees and there was major disagreement within the nation about what was moral and what was not, particularly centered around the idea of slavery which of course led to or at least largely contributed to the near cataclysmic civil war.
The other main problem is clearly indicated by the issue of slavery and the treatment of blacks, the thing is in America as it is now the crazies are more or less balanced out (you know with exceptions like Santorum) but imagine if every small area had it's own voting process and near total power, think how tough it would be to be gay or Hispanic in many areas or to be a conservative in others.
Lastly but I think most importantly consider this, as it stands corporations hold far far too much power in our country, I think we all agree on that, but the Union as a whole is far more powerful than any one corporation, but if you minimize government and compartmentalize it that ceases to be true, it is entirely possible for a corporation to have more power than a small part of the country, then the corporation can either become the government of whatever area it is in or simply be more important than the government, this actually happened with land owners and mining companies in several areas of Argentina at different points and if you think corporations are bad now you should see it when they actually simply become the government, as in the owner of the mine is also the mayor or governor, it's far from pretty and a nightmare for working people.I do worry about extremists who are bigoted towards homosexuals or racist towards minorities.
I've just seen a lot of stuff about National Security, such as Obama signing the NDAA, Obama fighting to keep a journalist in prison- http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/03/15/why … n-prison/, and Operation Northwoods-http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1#.T5al_fllg4o (this one will hit really close to home for you). People are abusing their power.
I love social programs, the FDA, EPA. Companies have shown they will pollute with impunity if they are given free reign. They pollute now, even with those agencies in existence. One study estimated approximately 40,000 deaths a year around the world are caused by pollution.
But there has to be a pushback. The government cannot simply spy on it's citizens without consequences. The military propositioning JFK with Operation Northwoods disgusts me.
I'm very much in favor of a strong national government when it comes to pollution and laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the police state is on it's way, and that really bothers me. You probably have also noticed how the police in a supposed "liberal" state treated the Occupy protestors. Anyone who threatens the power structure isn't tolerated well.Okay ! Did you know they have been spying on us for decades! Still are ...
True ! In the beautiful area of Yorkshire we have U.S base spying on us.
It is called Menwith Hill,YorkshireI agree entirely and that is wrong, I am not disputing that our government has in some ways become too totalitarian but I disagree with the conclusion that because it has the idea of a centralized government is a bad thing, I don't want to to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I am not but, tell me sooner, who do you think was and is putting pressure on the government to make sure the protesters were moved and mistreated? Who has most to lose from a movement calling for social equity?
agreed, this is an example of the worst from both worlds. we have the 1% controlling the gov. and the opaque-as-mud gov controlling the people. fabulous.
What I mean by less government is better government. If government was as it should be, inseparable from the people, I would have no problem. But if we lean too capitalist, we get the 1% and corporations owning the gov, and if we lean too socialist, we get majority over minority. So it's a delicate balance, but not an impossible one. We would need strict monopoly laws, but still have private property, including over means of production.
I disagree with both the FDA and the EPA in some ways. I don't like the FDA banning foods; it's not their job to tell Americans how to live. Rather, their job should be regulating labels and ingredients, and making sure the consumers are educated on health risks. I don't like the EPA because I feel it's unnecessary. Pollution should be illegal, but because of private property laws. If someone is polluting someone else's air, it would the gov's job to stop it. effectively the same thing as the EPA, but without additional regulations that limit the gov's transparency.
I think the Civil Right's Act is an entirely different story. That was to counteract laws and practices that contradicted basic human rights, like its offshoots. I think America is pretty close to done with getting rid of legal human rights violations, so I don't see that as a problem in the future.
Sooner, your point about the police state is dead on. Too much ower to the gov is always dangerous.Bob! What is too socialist ? What is your experience of it ?
I posted in some earlier posts what is too socialist for me, but please tolerate my repeating it again. Too socialist means to me that private property is threatened. Far left socialism is completely intolerable to me because it has no safeguards for the rights of the individual. For example, if the majority want to destroy your home and build a ranch on it, they could, as it isn't your property, but everyone's. This is especially dangerous if they believe they're doing right. Arrogance and close-mindedness that always will exist somehow, in whatever form, makes socialism too abuse-able to be viable.
Also, socialism will slow, then stop, progress of society. In a fair capitalism, even though there is a safety net to catch you, the consequences of your actions are still on you. In socialism, risking your well-being will affect everyone else, and understandably they would rather you not do that. This is what I mean by socialism encouraging restriction of personal liberty.
another flaw with far left socialism is that those who work hard don't get their reward, and those who do nothing get carried on the backs of those who do work. I know centralist socialism deals with this flaw, so I won't get too much into it, but like i said before, everyone deserves a ladder, no one deserves to be carried up by other people.
That's just the basic points i can think up now, if you see any fallacies i will correct them.Socialism still has private property, the idea of completely shared property is actually communist and not part of socialist doctrine, and the ladder in centralist socialism is the same as that in capitalism just a lot fairer, people are carried a lot less than they are in capitalism because there are no unemployment benefits and such people still earn everything they have it's just some people don't start five feet from the end in a hundred meter sprint .
that firmly reestablishes that we basically agree on everything but means of production ownership. Unless you agree private with strict monopoly laws is better than public? In which case, we would be completely agreed.
Fair enough, but that completely removes the ability of the government to create jobs.
On a side note your avatar image is making me hungry.I fail to understand (and this may well be my failing) how the government owning mining and oil and such threatens the individual as long as he is protected by a robust constitution.
Because the constitution has the potential to be ignored or abolished if the gov gets too much power. I view mining and oil a bit differently, as I believe those will soon not be necessary with green energy. my point is more on things like the oceans, or farming. If the gov (ie the majority) have control over things necessary for the well-being of everyone, they effectively have veto and control over the indvl. If we head down that path, it likely won't be a problem anytime soon (too much benefit from overall increased well-being) but sometime, once resources have grown, a system based off socialism will have no safeguards for the indvl.
not necessarily a problem.
if the gov was transparent and the market was truly free (strict monopoly laws required to prevent dominance), jobs and industries would be created based on demand. the current lack of jobs come from what you posted from "the great money trick", over-influence of the 1%.I'm a bit puzzled, how do you have a truly free market with strict monopoly laws?
sorry, i didn't mean to use "free" in economic terms, but in terms of fairness. Free because it makes individual liberty possible by both protecting the indvl from majority over minority and still preventing the wealthy from over-influencing the society. I believe that would be the best system for everyone's happiness.
So you're telling me that if Mega Corp wanted your house they wouldn't be able to find a way to get it off you?
LOL, believe it or not, i have never heard that comeback. that is fabulous
On a serious note, fair capitalism would only work with a transparent gov and strict monopoly laws. those things would have to be in place, otherwise the entire system becomes owned by the rich. I believe that's where America is headed if we don't do something quick.
I'm not familiar with British politics, what's the situation right vs left over there? New to hubpages, so dunno if discussion should be on this forum, i can start another if i should.
"Anyone who threatens the power structure isn't tolerated well."
***********
"Seventy-six people were arrested Monday at a demonstration protesting cuts in Medicaid proposed by the House Republican leadership, authorities said.
"To institutionalize a disabled American costs four times as much than to give assistance for independent living. This issue is about civil rights, not about medicine. People who have the ability to live in integrated, affordable and accessible housing should have the right to do so."
Instead of home and community support when she's older and unable to live on her own, protester Madeleine McMahan of Pennsylvania told CNN, "My generation? The Baby Boomers? we're looking at nursing homes if we don't do something about it."
She spoke in handcuffs, waiting for police to escort her to an elevator for arrest processing.
Also in handcuffs and a wheelchair, Denise McMullin-Powell of Delaware said lawmakers proposing the Medicaid cuts are "completely ignoring that we even exist in the stupid budget that they have."
She said "it's worth getting arrested, it's worth dying for, but they're gonna kill us first because of the cuts. If we can't stay in our home, if we can't get the things we need through Medicaid, we will die in the streets without that type of thing."
Wyle said, "This effort is to end the longstanding bias of the Medicaid system toward institutions and away from community care. The real shame is to see so many productive, intelligent people expending their energy on the fight for basic services to ensure their survival."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/us/medica … amp;page=1
******************
Institutional care, eh? Wouldn't be PRIVATE institutional care, would it??....along the lines of PRIVATE prisons??
These R's are truly diabolical. Shame on every single one of them.Nothing against public health care, but it can't be mandated. Private companies must still be allowed so Americans have the choice; additionally, the competition from public will drive ip quality.
We recently had a privately owned care home closing down and giving the residents (in their 80s and 90s) 48 hours to find alternate accommodation.
bastards.
I am completely for public health care for this reason. But i'm completely against mandated public health care.Why? Ours costs us about half what you pay and it covers everybody for just about everything unlike your system.
though it may not happen now or even soon, giving all control to the gov over health care creates potential for abuse. i don't want to repeat myself, but you can see my posts above on majority over minority.
And putting health care into the hands of for profit insurance companies doesn't lead to abuse!
not if there is an alternative competitor, which is why i am for a very good public health care system that is not mandated. it will also force the privates to step up their game, while making sure everyone is at least covered for the necessities.
My experience of the American medical system is limited. While I was in the States I needed medical services. When I came to pay I was asked if I was paying myself or was I covered. When I asked what difference it made I received an answer that made it pretty clear that there was one price for me and another for my insurers. If that isn't abuse of the system I don't know what is.
We of course in Argentina and Australia also have free healthcare with the option for private care which is better but both are very good, it still blows my mind that people in America have a problem with free healthcare, if a politician suggested privatising in either of those two countries he would be laughed out parliament.
Its not free health care, somebody is paying.
I'm not familiar with argentina or austrailia's systems, but it sounds like I should be!
Repairguy, are you saying we shouldn't care for those who get hurt? We all have a stake in each other, and no system can provide happiness for everyone if most are completely selfish.
But this has been done all overt he world with nothing but positive consequences.
Your health care is ranked 75th out of 190, Its below Mexico! Standard and Poors gives your Country a negative credit rating. Please don't tell us what we do wrong.
Which country? If you mean developing third world country Argentina then sure. But the results since it was instituted have been nothing but positive.
If I cut my finger in Argentina I would be better served by going to Mexico for treatment, thats scary.
For now yeah, but you know we just came out of a fascist dictatorship and two conservative governments that ruined our economy so what do you expect? GDP growth last year was 8.5% though so I suspect there will be some catching up.
good point, josak. i don't believe public health care is the problem with argentina.
UK health care ranking 18
US health care ranking 37well I don't know where you guys are getting your placements but apparently Australia is top 10 according to some links off Google.
I must confess undue haste and admit to the WHO rankings, last compiled in 2000.
Yeah, well Googles wrong. Its in 32nd place 5 ahead of the U.S.
Well still better isn't it. Could you give me the link to the list I am curious to see it.
Darn, the way you Brits talk I thought it was number 1.
Yes, I remember, by 2010 the Netherlands were first and the UK second with the US bringing up the rear.
Even 36th is better 37th for what was once the greatest nation in the world. What are we now?
ha true that! time for some serious reform!
exact rankings are irrelevant. what is clear is that the US health system needs reform. However, this shouldn't mean mandated healthcare, it should been great public healthcare with options for private.
The knack is voting in the right people and MAKING them do our bidding..
Then it is that we are the Government-We ,Britain have had a superb health service NHS for 60 odd years,people from all over the world welcome to use it ! Now the wonderful tories are attempting ,almost done it , to privatize it !
I haven't voted in years 'cause of traitor Tony Blair but this time I shall get people in their thousands and more to vote labour in order to stop this strangulation of our Nationalized Health service not to mention the eviction of thousands TODAY in LONDON 'cause of the vindictive slashing of housing benefits-might be your turn tomorrow so get clued up over therenicely said. i don't think anyone truly knows how much it hurts me to say this but- e- e- ok. whew. bri- bri- britain is now an e- e- example to follow for the United States of America. damn.
I hope I am not insulting the Brits, you know I love you guys but I think there are better examples to follow, if you must stick to capitalism have a look at Norway.
Why would anybody want to follow us where we're going!
Well I still have hope, Scotland at least seems to be shaping up.
Bah, yeah. Based off my quick google search
, seems like Britain is headed towards where we're going to. well, like josak said, i still have hope for britain. And the rest of europe too, but in the opposite direction.
Yeah, I am a big fan of Norway, as well as Switzerland. Why i used britain is, no offense guys
i love you too, i'd always thought that as many problems as there are in the US, hey, look at those uptight brits. Now...
That's right....private means they do what they want....you do what they say.
All that matters is the bottom line. Humanity, reduced to a dollar sign.But it was all right of course, the public sector moved in and rehoused the evictees, thus saving the private home even more money.
The current American capitalist system is crap, but we shouldn't forget why it's stood for a couple of centuries while socialist (and definitely communist )countries haven't. i have a post in the beginning elaborating.
maybe 50%, other factors like opportunities and hard work could be put into the equation
Related Discussions
- 8
Is land ownership and private property at the root of all wars?
by Reality Check 3 years ago
Is land ownership and private property at the root of all wars?
- 78
Are the poor useful for the society in any way?
by Goodpal 7 months ago
Are the poor useful for the society in any way?Is it that Poverty and the Poor are mere burden on the society? Do they serve any meaningful purpose?
- 53
Immigration - Obama Saves America Yet Again
by theirishobserver. 8 years ago
Meeting Another Great Challenge: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Good morning,In a time of unprecedented challenges, President Obama has risen to meet them in unprecedented ways. And today, the President will be addressing yet another issue our nation has faced for decades -- our broken...
- 25
Should your political representative be a theoretical purist or represent all of
by Don Bobbitt 5 years ago
Should your political representative be a theoretical purist or represent all of their constituency?Think about it. When you vote for your local and national representatives, do you expect them to continue spouting political rhetoric and standing their ground on ideas and ideals, or do you want...
- 9
Ron Paul to lead Libertarians when he resigns from Congress.
by Doodlehead 5 years ago
According to Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul has plans to lead the Liberty Caucus Republicanswhen he resigns in December. Lew says Dr. Paul has kept his typical low profileuntil he is out of Congress. What do you think he has planned?
- 72
The Sanctity of Private Property
by Nickny79 9 years ago
Our Founding Fathers codified a profound respect for the common law notion of private property as between the gov't and citizens as well as among citizens themselves.The Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment are two obvious examples of this codification. To...