Page 12 of 17 [ 267 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 17  Next


Does Democracy Really Work Since Only the Rich and Powerful are Satisfied?
Yes 12%  12%  [ 18 ]
Yes 12%  12%  [ 18 ]
No 21%  21%  [ 31 ]
No 21%  21%  [ 31 ]
I Am President Bush and You Have Violated the Patriot Act 17%  17%  [ 25 ]
I Am President Bush and You Have Violated the Patriot Act 17%  17%  [ 25 ]
Total votes : 148

anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

24 Dec 2005, 10:44 pm

eamonn wrote:
Capatilism at it's most rampant is unnashamedly about greed and arrogant selfishness without much conscience. If you and most others in the west support this draining of resources while destroying the environment then i will not care so much for your people when they die like you care little for those who die over in Africa or for those that live in abject poverty even here in the west. Democratic communism has You think you are more productive than the average African? LOLOLOL. Capatilism by it's very nature is about greed and devisiveness.


I wish you could keep your thoughts organized. One of those sentences goes on for three lines and makes three implicit (and fallacious) points, which I'll tackle separately:

First of all, capitalism doesn't drain resources. Under free market capitalism one doesn't profit unless he makes something scarce, less scarce. It is under socialistic regimes that the capital base has shrank. This is evident in former communist bloc countries where the infrastructure was allowed to erode as there was no incentive nor understanding required to maintain it.

Second of all, the environment in the former Soviet Union was polluted to hell in the name of the people. This should be of no surprise. Every form of production entails some form of pollution. The question of cost and benefit cannot be made without private ownership of property and a market economy. Pollution occurs when those making the decision are furthest removed from the repercussions. The government in this country is the worst polluter of all, and this should be no surprise. It should also be of no surprise that public lands are clear cut (and other forms of mismanagement) as the companies doing so have no long term interest in the value of such land.

Thirdly, people in many African countries are indeed in abject poverty and dying, but this has to do with the political systems which rose after colonialism and nothing to do with the market economies of the west. One prevalent problem is state control over food prices, in other words interventionism. Their poverty doesn't help me one iota. If you think I should die because I can't help people in Africa from killing themselves, or rather simply because of my ideas, I find that repugnant.

As for me being more productive than the average African, yes I am. The reason? I have more capital resources and know how to use them. Many socialists make the error of equating labour with productivity. This is false. In fact labour, like all other factors of production, follows the law of diminishing returns.

As for capitalism being divisive, that's utterly ridiculous. Class warfare is divisive, but capitalism fosters cooperation among people who would in other circumstances have nothing to do with one another. We work and trade with people of different creeds for one another's benefit.

Quote:
Under truly practised democratic communism everyone will be valued the same and allowed the chance to live a valued and productive life. How do you know my mentality is one of you must join us or else? Maybe your thinking of your "great" capatilist leader , President Bush? What you support or dont support is up to you but if you care little for people that die elsewhere (largely due to unethical western policies) why should i care for you and like-minded people?


Your caring is besides the point. You would force a system on people whether they wanted to participate or not. This force comes from the end of a gun. Your mentality leads us to what Bush termed "either you're with us or against us". You have Bush's mentality, and I find this irony delicious. I also find your association of capitalism and Bush ironic, but far less delicious and rather crass.

Your belief in communism approaches mysticism. You keep complaining about disparities between rich and poor without considering the affects of redistribution. Your belief in communism is a lot like Bush's belief in democracy, and how he will bend the world to his will in order to accomplish this utopia.

Quote:
I realise empathy isnt well known in aspies but i truly wish yourself and others awaken to the fact that thet everyone deserves a chance to live in dignified conditions or else there will never be true peace in our minds or on earth as a whole.


Yes, which is why I object to socialistic policies which create such conditions.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

24 Dec 2005, 11:02 pm

Some resources cant be made again, like our environment for instance. What makes you think i want communism at the end of a gun (unless you mean have an army which im sure you see is needed and commonplace now). Y

es this communism would be forced for a few years once voted in but so is every system or else we would have anarchy. People in Africa are dying in droves out of hunger and disease, quite apart from doing it themselves with warfare.

You are misinterpreting what im typing to suit your agenda. I dont believe in forcing everyone into submission but in this day and age with (man-made) resources aplenty we dont push for a world where everyone has a decent standard of living and we are happy for the fat capatilist greedy pig current society then i have less sympathy than i would for people that actually cared for their fellow human beings.

Even if we had a social capatilism as practised in countries like Norway and Denmark that would be at least a bit more fair but most western countries, particularly the US, are grossly unfair towards the greedy and irresponsible and they think to hell with those without priveledge and position.

I dont need you to tell me to stick to my position. I am very clear in what i believe.



Insert_Nickname_Here
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 80
Location: Northern Virginia

24 Dec 2005, 11:24 pm

Precisely, Comrade.

Socialism and Communism can work. It just cannot be forced on the people. Virtually anything further "left" than the current status quo is better.


_________________
Past performance does not and will never guarantee future results.

Force Lightning PWNS!


anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

24 Dec 2005, 11:28 pm

eamonn wrote:
Some resources cant be made again, like our environment for instance. What makes you think i want communism at the end of a gun (unless you mean have an army which im sure you see is needed and commonplace now). Y

es this communism would be forced for a few years once voted in but so is every system or else we would have anarchy. People in Africa are dying in droves out of hunger and disease, quite apart from doing it themselves with warfare.


Again, I do wish you would organize your thoughts.

1) If you value the environment (assuming I know what the hell you're referring to), then by all means work with like-minded people to conserve it. Ever heard of the Nature Conservancy?

http://nature.org/

That being said, the ecosystem isn't made of crystal and does repair itself. The better question is how can one work <i>with</i> the ecosystem instead of trying to bend its will. Again, it is the state which causes most of the problems. Consider, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers who try to bend rivers to their will instead of adapting to the natural ecosystem. The Katrina disaster was man-made, as was the Mississippi flood years ago. The state not only enforces a levys-only paradigm with tax money, they also subsidize floodplain development and flood insurance. When people are free to choose how to reap the benefits of the ecology, they would benefit from a different methodology.

It's just another example of capital mismanagement by central planners.

2) All force is at the end of a gun. You even admit as much. If people were left to work with one another without your interference, we would be better off.

3) They are indeed doing it to themselves, and warfare hasn't as much to do with it as price controls. Warfare didn't starve millions in Mao's Communist China either. Welfare kills just as efficiently, if not more so.

Quote:
You are misinterpreting what im typing to suit your agenda. I dont believe in forcing everyone into submission but in this day and age with (man-made) resources aplenty we dont push for a world where everyone has a decent standard of living and we are happy for the fat capatilist greedy pig current society then i have less sympathy than i would for people that actually cared for their fellow human beings.


1) My agenda is the truth. It is a scientific approach to economics which leads me to discard your ambitions as pure folly. In no way to I misrepresent what you want. You want redistribution of wealth. This can only be accomplished by force.

2) Once you subvert the market economy by redistribution, you destroy the very mechanism responsible for our wealth.

3) Sympathy has nothing to do with it. It is the unintended consequences of socialistic policies which results in poverty and starvation.

Quote:
Even if we had a social capatilism as practised in countries like Norway and Denmark that would be at least a bit more fair but most western countries, particularly the US, are grossly unfair towards the greedy and irresponsible and they think to hell with those without priveledge and position.


Social capitalism is an oxymoron. What you're proposing here is interventionism.

Norway and Denmark are on a road headed for poverty. There is huge institutional unemployment in both countries. Every year, the percentage of those dependent on the state for either employment or welfare grows as does the tax rate. Their economies have become rigid, and flexibility is everything in the ever changing economy.

As for the US system, it can hardly be called capitalist. Populist fascism perhaps.

Quote:
I dont need you to tell me to stick to my position. I am very clear in what i believe.


Where did that comment come from?

I'd rather you consider the positions of others rather than demonstrate your stubbornness.



Insert_Nickname_Here
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 80
Location: Northern Virginia

24 Dec 2005, 11:34 pm

anarkhos wrote:
Welfare kills just as efficiently, if not more so.


That is trash. Welfare helps people get out of poverty, not bring them further down into it.


_________________
Past performance does not and will never guarantee future results.

Force Lightning PWNS!


anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

24 Dec 2005, 11:43 pm

Insert_Nickname_Here wrote:
Precisely, Comrade.

Socialism and Communism can work. It just cannot be forced on the people. Virtually anything further "left" than the current status quo is better.


I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, especially given your avatar.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

24 Dec 2005, 11:50 pm

The comment is coming from your clear will to continue to say i cant organise my thoughts and the fact you would rather deride me as irational and without a clear mind and making out my thoughts are oppresion when i believe it to be the opposite. It is hallf-four in the morning here but i believe my argument to be sound even if i do attack capatilist regimes on many fronts, not just on economices.

You show a complete lack of knowledge of the benefits of social capatilism as practised in countries like Denmark and Norway where unemployment is less than in The US, Britain etc, many sectors are state controlled and NOBODY including those on welfare, is living under the UN poverty line compared to 12% in the US, people are richer on average there and they give much more in aid on average than the "power" economies of the west. In fact literacy rates, life expectancy, and child mortality rates are far less in the likes of Norway than nearly every other western country and particularly the US. I would also like to point out that these countries arent very religious. See how much better the poor can have things and this is still under your beloved capatilism but with a little social responsibility.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

24 Dec 2005, 11:52 pm

Insert_Nickname_Here wrote:
Precisely, Comrade.

Socialism and Communism can work. It just cannot be forced on the people. Virtually anything further "left" than the current status quo is better.


Sanity has entered the building! I take it you vote democrat then!?



anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

25 Dec 2005, 12:04 am

eamonn wrote:
The comment is coming from your clear will to continue to say i cant organise my thoughts and the fact you would rather deride me as irational and without a clear mind and making out my thoughts are oppresion when i believe it to be the opposite. It is hallf-four in the morning here but i believe my argument to be sound even if i do attack capatilist regimes on many fronts, not just on economices.


Your first sentence is a good example of what I'm talking about.

I'm not claiming you are irrational with words, just a little cluttered. Try using more punctuation. A little proofreading may help too.

As for non-economic attacks, there is but one reality. If you're complaining about people starving in Africa, only economics can explain why this occurs because this starvation is a manifestation of low material wealth. If you do not understand economics, you cannot claim to offer solutions. The intentions of policy are irrelevant; only the results are.

Quote:
You show a complete lack of knowledge of the benefits of social capatilism as practised in countries like Denmark and Norway where unemployment is less than in The US, Britain etc, many sectors are state controlled and NOBODY including those on welfare, is living under the UN poverty line compared to 12% in the US, people are richer on average there and they give much more in aid on average than the "power" economies of the west. In fact literacy rates, life expectancy, and child mortality rates are far less in the likes of Norway than nearly every other western country and particularly the US.


First I would like to point out that this collection of thoughts has but ONE PERIOD!

Do you think this is easy to read?

Secondly, Denmark, as I've said before, has huge INSTITUTIONAL unemployment! The official figures only reflect how many people are seeking employment, so it should be no wonder that there is low official unemployment! It should also be of no surprise that the poverty rate is low. None of this bodes well for Denmark's economy. Their productive capacity is dropping and there is little incentive to seek education in productive fields. There is little perceived risk of unemployment or poverty, but Denmark as a whole is slipping.

Quote:
I would also like to point out that these countries arent very religious. See how much better the poor can have things and this is still under your beloved capatilism but with a little social responsibility.


1) What does religion have to do with it?!

2) It isn't capitalism, it's interventionism, and it isn't sustainable.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

25 Dec 2005, 12:17 am

There is more than economics involved in campaigning against capatilism, there is also the moral aspect of governmental systems. Obviously all i was trying to point out was things like the environment shouldnt be ruined as a means to wealth but like everything with this capatilist system, economics is the driving force.

You are very clear, yourself. Clearly an ignoramus whose position is one of little moral fibre with a skewed position on what is good for your country and the world as a whole.

You could be a rich person trying to feather your own nest or just someone with some sort of sychophant disorder, or just arguing day is night just to be right and come across as intelligent but whatever your problem, I bid you goodnight sir.



anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

25 Dec 2005, 12:23 am

eamonn wrote:
There is more than economics involved in campaigning against capatilism, there is also the moral aspect of governmental systems. You are very clear, yourself. Clearly an ignoramus whose position is one of little moral fibre with a skewed position on what is good for your country and the world as a whole.

You could be a rich person trying to feather your own nest or just someone with some sort of sychophant disorder, or just arguing day is night just to be right and come across as intelligent but whatever your problem, I bid you goodnight sir.


LOL :lol:

Who am I? I'm a former socialist who learned of the unintended consequences of the policies I used to promote. Politically I've flipped 180°, but I've always relied on reason to tell me HOW the world works before using my heart to propose changes.

Our differences aren't moral, they're catallactic. You believe your policies will solve poverty, I say they will do the opposite.

PS: Short article on Denmark which explains some of the things I touched on, but in greater detail:

http://www.mises.org/story/905



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

25 Dec 2005, 12:31 am

That article is baised, lets not forget that they still have N/A under the UN poverty line and a higher quality of life than in the US. You seem remarkebly quiet about Norway and Iceland which are practically socialist and have high employment. You can say what you like but i dont see much will from you as far as helping the poor are concerned. Quite the opposite in fact.



anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

25 Dec 2005, 12:41 am

I mentioned Denmark because they pride themselves on being the most egalitarian.

As for my will, it's immaterial with respect to this discussion. I'm merely considering the effects of policy, not their intentions.

If I make my arguments on moral grounds, there will be no room for mutual understanding. You think theft is justified, I do not. At least on scientific grounds, we have to ultimately agree. Either theft works, or it doesn't.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

25 Dec 2005, 12:56 am

Most nordic countries pride themselves in being egalitarian.

So it's simply down to socialists agreeing with theft is it? You were once a thief or their apologist?

The fact is that everyone deserves a reasonable living but capatilists always want more to themselves. You have your snouts in the trough and you want more, how much is enough for you? The real theivery is unchecked capatilism and everyone knows it.

The land and it's resources rightly belong to everyone to devide out equally but the greedy theiving capatilists always want more, by hook or crook (usually by crook) they'll be sure to get it. Never mind the people who work like dogs in sweat factories to actually work hard to give the fat-cats their extra creamy milk, there's plenty more serfs to go round right? Your real god is the almighty dollar, the green goddess, the cash cow is who you really worship.



Last edited by eamonn on 25 Dec 2005, 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

25 Dec 2005, 12:56 am

PS: Per Henrik Hansen has written two more articles from a Danish perspective which I found interesting:

http://www.mises.org/articles.aspx?author=Hansen



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

25 Dec 2005, 1:03 am

Obviously the effects of how a system works is the bottom line but people usually need to have a will to do something if they are to acheive that goal. If there is no will to end world poverty then it is hardly likely to be eradicated no matter how great you think "free" market capatilism is.