Page 6 of 17 [ 267 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 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

Psychlone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 713
Location: Michigan

27 Sep 2005, 6:55 pm

eamonn wrote:
The west doesnt have free market capatilism. They employ policies that are in favour of big corporations. That is why we have the monopolies that are in existence today. Governments have policies that helps big companies here stay in control of certain markets and block sales from poorer countries who produce goods for much cheaper.


Agreed. That's not the kind of Capitalism I support. I do not support capitalism which makes slaves of people or is in bed with politicians. I do support free enterprise and liberty, though.

eamonn wrote:
Big companies get to move people on and steal their resources. They also get off with paying slave wages to people in 'third world countries'. A lot of these tyrinical governments have been backed by the west because they help the rich people here become richer and influence their control over the rest of the world and the paupers here.


Isn't the term "slave wages" an oxymoron? Slaves do not receive any wages whatsoever. They also work voluntarily and can quit if they choose, which is something else which means this isn't slavery. I agree the wages are bad, but look at it this way... if the corporations left there would be no jobs whatsoever. So what is better, low wages or no wages? Keep in mind that goods and services are also cheaper in those countries so even though they make less than we in the west do the stuff for sale is also less expensive so it balances out to a degree... I also think as the economy grows the situation would improve and people would gradually become richer in time.

eamonn wrote:
Africans leaders found out the value of money, corruption and the ability to control large sections of the population from western leaders and companies. The west is scared of losing it's position of financial and political control so dont want such a vast continent as Africa to be in a position of power. They have good reason to worry about their position, China's economy will surpass Britain's within years if not sooner and India etc are catching up rapidly.


Well, I have no problem with that. I'd like it if every country was economically prosperous as the west is...



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Sep 2005, 7:22 pm

Psychlone wrote:

Isn't the term "slave wages" an oxymoron? Slaves do not receive any wages whatsoever. They also work voluntarily and can quit if they choose, which is something else which means this isn't slavery. I agree the wages are bad, but look at it this way... if the corporations left there would be no jobs whatsoever. So what is better, low wages or no wages? Keep in mind that goods and services are also cheaper in those countries so even though they make less than we in the west do the stuff for sale is also less expensive so it balances out to a degree... I also think as the economy grows the situation would improve and people would gradually become richer in time.


Some things are a lot cheaper some things are dearer though. I used the term slave wages because the people who work for these ridiculously rich international countries dont live any better than a lot of existing slaves and in fact worse than most slaves that lived in the US before it became ilegal.

They work long, long hours and just to keep from dying of hunger but certainly cant afford the to live what we here would call a basic standard of living. To quit from these jobs are no choice either as it would lead to living even poorer and possibly death. These same international companies are flooding Africa with their goods and so stopping a lot of potential for the Africans developing their own growths.

The companies could afford to give thse people what would be considered a rich wage over there and still make huge profits as the wages there are rediculously low. Yes Africa has a lot of growing up to do as a continent but we need a better system here in the west for them and us to succed in a fairer world were everyone can live with dignity imo.



Mithrandir
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Location: Victoria, BC Canada

27 Sep 2005, 7:46 pm

How about they get paid the same amount just that we buy shoes for 50 cents.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Sep 2005, 7:56 pm

Not what i want, but that's better than nothing.lol.



RobertN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Location: Cambridge, UK

28 Sep 2005, 3:16 pm

Perhaps my comments last night were a bit heavy handed, Psychlone, but Democracy (although not perfect) is the best system there is. The trouble with libertarianism is that it gives way to anarchy and the total collapse of civilised society.

In a true libertarian society, people could do what they want. OK, sounds good. However, if I was starving and I could see someone who was very wealthy, I would steal. There is no reason why I should respect his wealth if I had nothing. Whats more is that according to true libertarianism, you couldn't stop me either. I could take what I damn well pleased and unless he had the physical strength to protect his property, I could and would - after all, I was hungry. There would be no law and order or police force because that is dictatorial and military rule, which opposes the philosophy of libertarianism.

Eventually, rich people would have their own private armies and bully weaker people into submission and perhaps force them to work for them. There would be no State to stop this, no recognised government, just ruthless anarchy.

Doesn't sound so rosy anymore, does it???



Psychlone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 713
Location: Michigan

28 Sep 2005, 3:54 pm

RobertN, you are confusing Libertarianism with Anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-Capitalism proposes an end to all government, but Libertarian Capitalism proposes a minimalist government which would still provide a police force and a military for defense and law and order, as well as other basic services. I am not an anarchist and I don't advocate abolishing the state, but I do want to see it in chains so that it doesn't put its citizens in chains.

Libertarianism also opposes the use of force and fraud. So if corporations are using slave labor or cheating people, I as a Libertarian would be very much opposed to that and that is where I see some government as being necessary.

Now, there is also left-wing libertarianism and anarchism which might appeal to some of you better. They propose abolishing both the state and private property. Instead of nationalizing property, they propose having communal ownership of property. Some say they are the real Marxists. :wink:



adversarial
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 549

28 Sep 2005, 7:28 pm

RobertN wrote:
Eventually, rich people would have their own private armies and bully weaker people into submission and perhaps force them to work for them. There would be no State to stop this, no recognised government, just ruthless anarchy.?


And that doesn't happen now? We don't have ruthless anarchy, because the power-blocs that exist have everything sewn up quite comfortably.

My difference in this is that an allegedly 'objective' and 'non-partisan' state apparatus proves itself, time and time again, to be amazingly pliant and aporic when it comes to challenging the doings of the truly rich and powerful.

Guess which side the police take whenever there is Industrial Action.


_________________
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw (Taken from someone on comp.programming)


RobertN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Location: Cambridge, UK

29 Sep 2005, 11:07 am

Quote:
Guess which side the police take whenever there is Industrial Action.


What side do you take when there is industrial action? hmm. Let me guess............



Mithrandir
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Location: Victoria, BC Canada

29 Sep 2005, 11:14 am

RobertN wrote:
Perhaps my comments last night were a bit heavy handed, Psychlone, but Democracy (although not perfect) is the best system there is. The trouble with libertarianism is that it gives way to anarchy and the total collapse of civilised society.

In a true libertarian society, people could do what they want. OK, sounds good. However, if I was starving and I could see someone who was very wealthy, I would steal. There is no reason why I should respect his wealth if I had nothing. Whats more is that according to true libertarianism, you couldn't stop me either. I could take what I dam* well pleased and unless he had the physical strength to protect his property, I could and would - after all, I was hungry. There would be no law and order or police force because that is dictatorial and military rule, which opposes the philosophy of libertarianism.

Eventually, rich people would have their own private armies and bully weaker people into submission and perhaps force them to work for them. There would be no State to stop this, no recognised government, just ruthless anarchy.

Doesn't sound so rosy anymore, does it???


There will be a time don't worry.
People can only be pushed so far.
The most depressing scenario I see is one where we don't solve our environmental problems.
Or we solve them as badly as Inquiry to the Urban Prospect.



SineWave
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 157
Location: Canada

30 Sep 2005, 5:17 pm

<i>"In a true libertarian society, people could do what they want. OK, sounds good. However, if I was starving and I could see someone who was very wealthy, I would steal. There is no reason why I should respect his wealth if I had nothing. Whats more is that according to true libertarianism, you couldn't stop me either. I could take what I dam* well pleased and unless he had the physical strength to protect his property, I could and would - after all, I was hungry. There would be no law and order or police force because that is dictatorial and military rule, which opposes the philosophy of libertarianism.

Eventually, rich people would have their own private armies and bully weaker people into submission and perhaps force them to work for them. There would be no State to stop this, no recognised government, just ruthless anarchy. "</i>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

The Paris Commune existed for a few months, but nation-states eventually tore it down. An Anarchist system would have a very hard time existing, because it's in the interest of all nation states to not allow such an arangement. Might give people ideas.



kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

30 Sep 2005, 10:28 pm

Superweird said
"REAL Communism has never been applied"

So RIGHT it never has it just had Dictatorships.



Assassin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,676
Location: Not here, Not there, not anywhere.....

13 Nov 2005, 12:00 pm

Psychlone wrote:
Why anyone thinks we should try Communism again is beyond me. It has failed each and every time it is attempted. Just because you support communism through elections instead of through violent revolution doesn't mean the outcome will be any different. As Ayn Rand said, it is merely the difference between murder and suicide.


Communism has failed every time its been attempted ONLY becos its allways been done usin a dictatorial system. Any system ruled by one person only, with no checks or balances, will inevitably turn fascist eventually. Im sure ive sed that at leest once before in this topic.

Allso, what you sed about the Nazis. Nazism is NOT [socialist] in nature. Like Sovietism, its socialist in name ONLY.

EDIT "socialist" in "Nazism is NOT socialist in nature" was "scialist" until i re-read the post


_________________
Chronicles of the Universe: Sons of Earth Volume 1 - Bounty Hunter now at 98 pages! Ill update this sig when it gets published.

<a href=http://s13.invisionfree.com/the_project>Project Legacy, building the future</a>


Last edited by Assassin on 14 Nov 2005, 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Klytus
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 259

13 Nov 2005, 3:18 pm

Assassin wrote:
Psychlone wrote:
Why anyone thinks we should try Communism again is beyond me. It has failed each and every time it is attempted. Just because you support communism through elections instead of through violent revolution doesn't mean the outcome will be any different. As Ayn Rand said, it is merely the difference between murder and suicide.


Communism has failed every time its been attempted ONLY becos its allways been done usin a dictatorial system.


How could it be any other way? If you want a communist society, who's going to do all the income levelling? Answer: the elite, i.e., the state. All communism does it take power away from the people.

It's no accident that communism has been a miserable failure in every country that's adopted it (and I include Cuba in that).



SineWave
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 157
Location: Canada

13 Nov 2005, 11:50 pm

All types of government do income leveling. They're called taxes. A taxation system within a democratic government doesn't sound that odd to me.



Klytus
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 259

14 Nov 2005, 4:46 am

SineWave wrote:
All types of government do income leveling. They're called taxes. A taxation system within a democratic government doesn't sound that odd to me.


But income levelling is not the primary motivation behind income tax in the West.
And I'd be in favour of lower taxes anyway.

A truly communist government assigns all jobs, makes sure everyone earns the same, and suppresses anyone who tries to change their lot in life.



SineWave
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 157
Location: Canada

14 Nov 2005, 5:26 am

I think you're playing the definition game. You're giving your own, subjective definition of what Communism is. I could just as easily give my own definition of what communism is. At that point we'd bicker needlessly, so I'll skip that part.