Socialism/Capitalism?

Members Area Member Polls
61

Government (elected officials) is elected by the people for the people. If people want officials to implement policies and spending the way they like it they vote in the person that represents this…

What about banning potentially life saving research, including certain areas of stem cell research? The government did such a great job, intervening did they? Can you explain what exactly they did that was so great?

Again, Government is elected by the people for the people. If people want officials to implement policies and spending the way they like it, they vote in the person that represents this… Governemtnt entities like the CDC, and FDA, etc. (like Corporations) are not perfect, but they have done a fairly good job over the years.

Was it compromise or was it agreeing that everybody has different ideas and thoughts? This is not necessarily compromise. The biggest compromise you could consider made in the Constitution was allowing everyone personal freedom. I would hardly consider that a “compromise” as it infringes on nobody’s rights.

Mostly cooperation, some compromise…It is well known that Jefferson, Franklin, and the lot did not share ALL the same ideas. Furthermore, the 3/5th of a complete person clause was a compromise between some of the Southern and Northern States Representatives.

If those people truely need help, there are non-profit organizations for them to go to. Without having to pay as high of taxes, people would have the ability to give to the causes they saw fit. If they still did not do so, then that reflects on the society.

Yes, non-profits are good… that along with a more efficient government should be responsible for people’s health and safety.

Quite frankly, the elimination of federal programs coupled with tax reform is not sufficient enough to halt the culture of poverty and disintegration of civil society! What needs to be done is personal involvement through education and continued training to wean people away from welfare dependency. A healthy and productive citizenry is what makes a nation strong.

And not nearly as high. SS and Welfare are just two of the socialistic programs the US implements. Many more could be taken out as well, reducing this even further.

All complaints aside, on average, Americans pay some of the lowest taxes in the world… But, I can understand some not being happy until their taxes are anemic to non-existent…

Eliminating some of the “criminals” for victimless crimes (i.e. smoking pot, etc.) would help drastically as well

Agreed. The Prison Industrial Complex needs a cut back. It cost more to house these people in cells than to educate them….

Oh yeah? It isn’t because people are taking out more than they put in and a smaller population has to pay out to a larger one?.

The excess in Social Security contributions, coming from equal amounts paid by employee and employer taxes, currently provide more money than is currently spent on Social Security benefits. Furthermore, The more than 100 Billion Dollars in annual excess Social Security contributions have been used to reduce the Federal deficit.

Part of that would include getting rid of social security, welfare, and the like, which are all fiscally irresponsible.

Or the Federal Government like some States should have a mandate requiring them to balance the budget. Additionally, MOST programs could use a cut back! Not just the one’s you deem unnecessary.

62

If the people vote in a communist government, does that make it right? Anytime property rights and/or liberty is violated, you must take some hard looks at what is happening. The country is not a dictatorship of the minority, but neither is it a dictatorship by the majority.

Mostly cooperation, some compromise…It is well known that Jefferson, Franklin, and the lot did not share ALL the same ideas.
They did not share the same ideals, fine. That does not mean they “compromised” because they decided to not impose his on others.

Yes, non-profits are good… that along with a more efficient government should be responsible for people’s health and safety.

Safety, yes (that goes under liberty). Health? No. That is not a natural born right and you are the one who should be the one looking towards leading a healthy life. Look at how much medicare helps people then look towards the non-profits and you can see how efficient the government really is. Health is something people can take care of themselves in many cases, but they choose not to. If you smoke and get cancer or emphezema, it is tragic, but it is not the government’s responsibility. If you get diabetes from overeating your whole life, it is not the government’s responsibility, although a very hard time for the person. If somebody gets skin cancer from laying out in the sun too much, it is again very sad and something that nobody could possibly wish upon another, but it is not the government’s responsibility to pay for healthcare for the person. There are organizations that can take care of this much more efficiently and are have done so. No need to outright rob people to support an inefficient system.

Quite frankly, the elimination of federal programs coupled with tax reform is not sufficient enough to halt the culture of poverty and disintegration of civil society! What needs to be done is personal involvement through education and continued training to wean people away from welfare dependency. A healthy and productive citizenry is what makes a nation strong.
The culture of poverty is not simply because they may not have as great of a formal education. If this was the case, every immigrant turned millionare would be a lie as would any rags to riches story. I know a kid who mother and father came to the US with less than $300 and are now multi-millionares after years of hard work. Funny enough, the rest of his family had similar situations, but all came through with hard work. The CEO of Kellog was a truck driver and later became CEO of the company, again, after much hard work. Carnegie, wow, well he was a freakin bobbin boy turned arguably the richest man in monetary value ever. Being allowed to stay in the condition they are by subsidizing them obviously does not work in practice (nor in logic). You can say education all you want, but the fact is they do not NEED to become educated or even get a job half the time when they can live lives that are of a good standard because the government pays them to. Again, if you’re on Welfare you are more likely to be overweight and obese. Documentaries have shown how most of those in poverty have cable tvs, telephones, and plenty of food in the fridge. Don’t kid yourself with the poverty argument when there are first world countries that live healthy lives below our poverty line (Portugal for example).

All complaints aside, on average, Americans pay some of the lowest taxes in the world… But, I can understand some not being happy until their taxes are anemic to non-existent…

Yeah, the poor don’t pay taxes at all in many case, but when you fall in the 30+% a year income tax government (before social security, medicare, state taxes, etc.), you are talking a hefty amount of change. Just because it is lower than socialists who are on the verge of economic collapse does not mean it is right by any means.

The excess in Social Security contributions, coming from equal amounts paid by employee and employer taxes, currently provide more money than is currently spent on Social Security benefits. Furthermore, The more than 100 Billion Dollars in annual excess Social Security contributions have been used to reduce the Federal deficit.

So social security isn’t going bankrupt like the politicians and everybody with half a brain is telling us?

Or the Federal Government like some States should have a mandate requiring them to balance the budget. Additionally, MOST programs could use a cut back! Not just the one’s you deem unnecessary.

I’ve already stated that there are more socialistic programs in place in the government and I would include those in there. The government’s responsibility is to ensure your freedom (which includes security) and to protect your property rights. Other than that, for the most part, everything else is fair game with very very very few exceptions that don’t come to mind automatically.

63

[i]I don’t see how people not wanting to pay him for his entertainment because it wasn’t wanted somehow undermines the democracy. I stated it once and chris p has stated it, very clearly I might add, again. I was hostile? You first of all outright lied in saying that he was kicked out of the country, you attempted to justify a mass murderer, and apparently cannot differentiate between the right to say something and the ability for people to accept and agree with it. I think saying “Are you that thick?” is about as mild as one could get in a situation like this.

EDIT: Saying the attacks were deserved is not justifying them?[/i]

The issue here is the US didn’t let him in the country because of something he said. Now you’re being the thick one, because it was only an opinion based on what he saw as fact.

That’s what I was meaning to say by using the term “kicked out”. Outright lied is hardly applicable in this situation, Davan. Misuse of words possibly, or not thinking as deeply about each phrase. But sorry for the misunderstanding, now you know that “kicked out” meant “not let in”. Similar thing.

64

This is completely wrong, unless everything I have found on google is lying to me here. If you can post a link that says the US government barred him from coming in because he said that the US deserved September 11, then you have a case, otherwise, get a grip. There are hundreds, if not thousands (maybe even millions) in the US who have said the same thing and none have been kicked out nor banned from entering the country because of it. Lying is an easy way to get your point across I suppose.

65

This is completely wrong, unless everything I have found on google is lying to me here. If you can post a link that says the US government barred him from coming in because he said that the US deserved September 11, then you have a case, otherwise, get a grip. There are hundreds, if not thousands (maybe even millions) in the US who have said the same thing and none have been kicked out nor banned from entering the country because of it. Lying is an easy way to get your point across I suppose.

No way man. I’m not lying, just saying how I remember things. His fight was changed to somewhere else (Germany, I think), and thanks for the idea of a google search, 'cos I just found out that the comments also got Mundine stripped of his international ranking by the World Boxing Council, the President of which was (Is he anymore? Don’t know) Jose Sulaiman. Check out this link, if you like:

http://66.102.7.104/custom?q=cache:6xM8MgeRTvQJ:www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2001/sportsf/s406401.htm+anthony+mundine+september+11+2001&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Give me a fucking break, mate.

66

That is the site I looked at before posting my comment and NO WHERE does is state that the US banned him from entering the country because of his comments. Also? ALSO?? The only thing that happened to him was that an independent group no longer ranked him. Again, you can say what you want (justifying murder for example), you just may not have people interested in your services any longer. It goes from being banned from boxing, to being kicked out of the country, to being not allowed in, to just having his ranking dropped by an independent organization, who then would not sanction a fight in the states? Wow. I am done with that topic.

67

Agreed!

Safety, yes (that goes under liberty). Health? No. That is not a natural born right and you are the one who should be the one looking towards leading a healthy life. Look at how much medicare helps people then look towards the non-profits and you can see how efficient the government really is. Health is something people can take care of themselves in many cases, but they choose not to. If you smoke and get cancer or emphezema, it is tragic, but it is not the government’s responsibility. If you get diabetes from overeating your whole life, it is not the government’s responsibility, although a very hard time for the person. If somebody gets skin cancer from laying out in the sun too much, it is again very sad and something that nobody could possibly wish upon another, but it is not the government’s responsibility to pay for healthcare for the person. There are organizations that can take care of this much more efficiently and are have done so. No need to outright rob people to support an inefficient system.

I can agree with that up to a point. But I think there is a big picture here. Yes, a person should be held responsible for their health care. However what about the cases that involve polluted or toxic environment and water that causes the cancer. Is it still their fault? Additionally, how about a hard working person making minimum wage and unable to pay medical bill? If a Non-profit is available, Great! However, the government should ultimately be the one to make sure that citizen is taking care of. So that citizen can continue to be a productive member of society.

The culture of poverty is not simply because they may not have as great of a formal education. If this was the case, every immigrant turned millionare would be a lie as would any rags to riches story. I know a kid who mother and father came to the US with less than $300 and are now multi-millionares after years of hard work. Funny enough, the rest of his family had similar situations, but all came through with hard work. The CEO of Kellog was a truck driver and later became CEO of the company, again, after much hard work. Carnegie, wow, well he was a freakin bobbin boy turned arguably the richest man in monetary value ever. Being allowed to stay in the condition they are by subsidizing them obviously does not work in practice (nor in logic).

There are people that are resourceful, and as Donald Trump would also say “lucky.” Nevertheless, its common knowledge that a formerly educated person, on average, makes more than just one with a high school diploma. However, when I stated education, I also meant training for a specific job or trade. And, education in terms of learning how to cope without welfare by managing money, time etc…

Documentaries have shown how most of those in poverty have cable tvs, telephones, and plenty of food in the fridge. Don’t kid yourself with the poverty argument when there are first world countries that live healthy lives below our poverty line (Portugal for example).

A few documentaries and you take it as the Gospel truth?

So social security isn’t going bankrupt like the politicians and everybody with half a brain is telling us?

At its current pace yes it will… However, A lot of that has/had to do with mismanagement of 100 billion surplus annually, as I stated previously…

I’ve already stated that there are more socialistic programs in place in the government and I would include those in there. The government’s responsibility is to ensure your freedom (which includes security) and to protect your property rights. Other than that, for the most part, everything else is fair game with very very very few exceptions that don’t come to mind automatically.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…

On Non-Profit… Non-profit like many other businesses have experienced inefficiency and corruption. Don’t forget the United Way of America/Bill Aramony scandal and several other surrounding scandals of high media visibility in the 90’s. The fact is every entity whether it is private or public has inefficiencies and abuse…doesn’t mean we get rid of all of them…

68

Palmtag,
I haven’t had time to read through the posts in this thread, but if you’re looking for acedemic material on socialism, I recommend the book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig von Mises. It was originally published in 1922 and is still the definitive book on socialism. The entire text is avaialable online here:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msS.html

I recommend starting with Mises’ original 1920 article on Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth:

http://www.mises.org/econcalc.asp

Regarding the idea of a “third way” between capitalism and socialism I recommend the article Middle-of-the-Road Policy
Leads to Socialism:

http://www.mises.org/midroad.asp

Regarding the exploitation theory of Marxism, I recommend Book VI in Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk’s Capital and Interest:

http://www.econlib.org/library/BohmBawerk/bbCI1.html

Also regarding class conflict and the confusion between capitalism and mercantilism, I highly recommend Hans Hoppe’s article on Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf

as well as David Osterfield’s Marxism, Capitalism, and Mercantilism:

http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae5_1_5.pdf

On the fundamental philosophical underpinnings you will do no better than Hans Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism:

http://www.mises.org/etexts/Soc&Cap.pdf

69

Palmtag:

For an interesting take on Capitalism. Check out the following:

The Reconstruction of Capitalism

http://www.schalkenbach.org/restructure-of-cap.html

For info on Middle Way betwen Capitalism and Socialism:

Progress and Poverty

http://www.schalkenbach.org/library/george.henry/ppcont.html

Social Problems addresses the complexities in American Society
http://www.schalkenbach.org/library/george.henry/spcont.html

Interrogation of Henry George addresses Labor and Capital issues.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/george_testimony.html

70

In addition to what’s been suggested, I would recommend reading the works of Charles E Lindblom. His works have been around since the 1950s, and he’s one the major scholars of economics and market systems. He’s also a strict advocate of liberal economics. He’s Currently Sterling Professor Emeritus at Yale Univeristy. I especially recommend his newer works: (1) The Market System, What It Is, How It Works, and What To Make of It; (2) Inquiry an Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand & Shape Society. Btw. His critique of communism and closed market systems is rather illuminating. I’m afraid you have to dig into the books (no online rescources).

71

Davan, sure, dwelling into epistemology goes beside the point for the general topic in question. In short, I’m objecting to the notion that considers altruism (unselfishness) in the general sense as something hideous, and therefore, by reversed logic, considers selfishness as a virtue.

Surely, darker sides of altruism can also be something harmful, like when members of Heaven’s Gate did a collective suicide; a suicide that a friend of mine, in his master’s theses, concluded as an altruistic suicide (in the meaning of what Emile Durkheim proposed). There is always a question about scale, going from good to bad, both extremes being almost theoretical in nature. Please be careful when you label someone a ‘typical altruist’ or a ‘typical collectivist’; because when you do that, you subjugate yourself to ignorance.

Altruism, when talking about society, has also to do with “the tragedy of commons”, where: “Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit - in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons.” (Hardin, 1968)

I just don’t think you’ll find the answers to problems in society in a novel with fictional characters and a fictional plot. Real life, when looking at it from a perspective that goes beyond the features of ones own belly, is somewhat different in nature: never equal and hardly at equilibrium. Freedom always comes with responsibility, to yourself as well as to the collective – “united we stand, divided we fall”. Idealistic nonsense or realistic in the end: You decide!

72

That is the site I looked at before posting my comment and NO WHERE does is state that the US banned him from entering the country because of his comments. Also? ALSO?? The only thing that happened to him was that an independent group no longer ranked him. Again, you can say what you want (justifying murder for example), you just may not have people interested in your services any longer. It goes from being banned from boxing, to being kicked out of the country, to being not allowed in, to just having his ranking dropped by an independent organization, who then would not sanction a fight in the states? Wow. I am done with that topic.

You’re done with nothing yet, yankee doodle. You make it sound like its nothing - “an independant group no longer ranked him”. But just face the facts dude - they (whoever they are - whether the government or the boxing council) didn’t let him fight in the country because of something he said. FACT.

73

For a general treatise on economic principles, check out Murray Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State:

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp

74

Again, if you want to critique Rand’s logic and examples, please at least take a look into the material before tearing it down. Altruism doesn’t have to be necessarily harmful to other people, but it can be harmful to the individual as well, including not fulfilling goals that would lead to their own personal happiness.

Altruism, when talking about society, has also to do with “the tragedy of commons”, where: “Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit - in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons.” (Hardin, 1968)
This sounds nice and all, but neglects new resources being produced, scientific advancements, etc.

I just don’t think you’ll find the answers to problems in society in a novel with fictional characters and a fictional plot.
Never said you would and I even have said I disagree with her on some things. I am saying though that if you are going to do a critique on her beliefs, at least read her most significant material.

Real life, when looking at it from a perspective that goes beyond the features of ones own belly, is somewhat different in nature: never equal and hardly at equilibrium. Freedom always comes with responsibility, to yourself as well as to the collective – “united we stand, divided we fall”. Idealistic nonsense or realistic in the end: You decide!

Idealistic nonsense? Right. If individuals are NOT infringing on the freedom, safety, or property rights of others, why in god’s name force anything upon them? If you’re going to talk about compromise, it can only happen if both sides agree to it, not if one (the government) has a gun pointing at the other.

75

Generally, if you are making minimum wage and have only a single job, then it would be hard for me to talk about hard work or not, considering you can get a job at a supermarket full time that pays above minimum wage and covers most healthcare requirements through benefits. Government ultimately responsible? Umm no, that is again, not what it is here for. It is here to protect us and to ensure our rights are protected. It is not here to take care of us. Also, if you are working a full time job, I am willing to be you are getting benefits.

There are people that are resourceful, and as Donald Trump would also say “lucky.” Nevertheless, its common knowledge that a formerly educated person, on average, makes more than just one with a high school diploma. However, when I stated education, I also meant training for a specific job or trade. And, education in terms of learning how to cope without welfare by managing money, time etc…
You can teach them this all you want, but without an incentive to change, it isn’t going to happen. One with a college degree on average makes one with just a diploma, obviously. That is not earth shaking news. It isn’t a bad thing either. One may have other desires and ambitions that require a college diploma, while the other does not. Some of the richest men in the world do not have a college diploma and some have neither, so that isn’t an absolute at all.

A few documentaries and you take it as the Gospel truth?
If that was it, I would not have referenced the studies showing those in welfare to have higher rates of obesity and those who are overweight. I also would not have mentioned the fact our poverty line is above that of a handful of 1st world, European countries and most 2nd world countries. The term 1st, 2nd, 3rd world are pretty archaic, but I am sure you get my point.

On Non-Profit… Non-profit like many other businesses have experienced inefficiency and corruption. Don’t forget the United Way of America/Bill Aramony scandal and several other surrounding scandals of high media visibility in the 90’s. The fact is every entity whether it is private or public has inefficiencies and abuse…doesn’t mean we get rid of all of them…

The difference is, one has the choice to get involved with a non-profit and/or business. One does NOT have the choice to get involved with the government.

76

Well, let me give you a real life example that I am aware of… A 70year old retired machinist has to work full time in retail (making appr. $8hr.) Not JUST because he needs the money, but needed the medical benefits for his sick wife that was not at the age to receive SS benefits. Now this man’s mental ability is diminishing with age. Yet, he has to work at a fast pace retail store on his feet 8hrs.per day plus.

Only good news is that his wife has hit retirement age and is now illegible for SS benefits and now he can go back into retirement and enjoy his golden years!

You can teach them this all you want, but without an incentive to change, it isn’t going to happen.

The incentive comes through knowledge and pride. Do you even have/had any interaction with people on welfare ?? Trust me ALL of them are not just low life pieces of shit with no ambition. Some of them just need to have someone help them to get on the right path. Sometimes believing in someone and giving them the tools to accomplish things is all they need. Try it sometime. Instead of siting down criticizing people that you obviously have never had first hand contact with…

One with a college degree on average makes one with just a diploma, obviously. That is not earth shaking news. It isn’t a bad thing either. One may have other desires and ambitions that require a college diploma, while the other does not. Some of the richest men in the world do not have a college diploma and some have neither, so that isn’t an absolute at all.

There are very little absolutes… You give me example of few success stories of men without higher education. But, the reality is there is only one Bill Gates, one Trump etc. On the other hand, a higher education is something that many can achieve…

I also would not have mentioned the fact our poverty line is above that of a handful of 1st world, European countries and most 2nd world countries. The term 1st, 2nd, 3rd world are pretty archaic, but I am sure you get my point.

On the one hand you don’t want to compare taxes to other countries tax brackets. But, now you want to compare level of poverty to other countries level of poverty? But like YOU stated:

To compare to “socialists who are on the verge of economic collapse does not mean it is right by any means.”

Take your own advice…

The difference is, one has the choice to get involved with a non-profit and/or business. One does NOT have the choice to get involved with the government.

Well, you are not totally helpless with government. 1) You can elect or lobby an official to change the system, 2) you can run for office and change the system yourself or 3) you can give up your citizenship and move to a country with very low taxes. Where you can hold on to basically most your money and live happily ever after…

77

My ideas, again, on socialism and capitalism have been cracked and some shattered, by Davan and the tidbits of Rand that I’ve read. But they’ve recrystallized mostly in the same form as they were prior to gettin’ my post responded by ya’ Davan. My urgency to get a response just went to show how important I thought your opinion was (whether I agree with you on every point you make or not, I enjoy the debate)

Income taxes, suck, they abuse all of the classes- upper, middle and lower. But a government needs a way to raise money, in order to support the beaurocracy (I know the evil B word, but there has to be at least some beaurocracy). One of the problems, in America today, is that officials get stipends, and salaries, instead of “compensations” (which is according to the Constitution what they should be gettin… Stupid career politicians) but I digress. A blanket low level sales tax, like you’ve stated , Davan, is probably the best way to support the government.

But every time I try to bring up the subject of capitalism gone wrong, you toss my points into the bin you have so labeled “Anarcho-Capitalism”. That’s a capitalism economy with no organized government, right? I don’t think I quite follow your point, though, what do you describe as Anarcho-Capitalism? I thought that laizze-faire just ment hands off. As in the government does not deal with the economy or private business in any way whatsoever, whether that be financial aid, restriction of production, or the demanding of different business practices. Let the businesses and the people do with their money what they choose, no matter what the consequences of that choice are. Now, you say that laizze-faire capitalism is the best economic system used to protect expressly the rights of the individual, because society is made up of individuals. Davan, you would probably agree that any law or ordinance passed that is abusive to society as a whole, would not be a violation of the “rights of society” because society is not a seperate entity from the individual it is dependant. Rather, that ordinance would be a violation of Jeff’s, Betty’s, Robin’s, Arnold’s, Jacob’s, and Freddy’s and a few hundred other million people’s rights. Stalin said something along the lines of “You kill 1 man, that’s murder, kill a million, that’s a statistic.” That is the basic socialist point of view! That the collective is a seperate and greater entity than the individual.

The problem I run into with a laizze fair economy, and really this is my biggest and only beef with capitlaism, is that USING the capitalism system it is possible to violate the individual rights of others. It’s possible corroborate to drive labor prices down to mere sustinence wages, you can drive down the quality of products to the point where they are deadly or at least dangerous for the consumer to use-now I’m not talking like pogo-sticks being inherintly dangerous which to a certain extent they are, I mean that if a government isn’t able to hold a company responsible for making pogo-sticks that explode and kill their riders during normal use. In capitalism you can do a whole slew of things that are not very faire :stuck_out_tongue: ((You said on your response to my post that we had a right “to be lyed to” WHAT?! please… clarify))

I’m not saying that the individual has a right to be successful, and that big businesses should just bend over backwards and let us do whatever we danm well please. I’m saying that businesses, big or small, have no inherint right to lie, oppress the laborers or consumers, or monopolize a business. ((again, please clarify what you mean, Davan, by an “Illegal-Monoply” for my sake, anyway :stuck_out_tongue: )) What I am saying is that every person has a right to opportunity, they have a right to attempt to be successful and that no one, be it government, or business has the right to take that away.

78

Some Libertarians try to differentiate between laissez-faire capitalism and capitalism or Anarcho-capitalism. But, in practice, there is VERY little difference. As a matter of fact some would argue that laissez-faire capitalism is redundant because “capitalism” is already a laissez-faire system by definition.

However, proponents of laissez-faire capitalism would say they believe in some government intervention when it comes to unfair competition (Illegal monopolies), while Arnacho-capitalism does not… But in reality, there is very little difference. Additionally, laissez-faire capitalism tends to subsidize the rich while denying similar subsidies to the poor and working classes.

79

There are various different problems with different forms of anarcho-capitalism (in itself, it is poorly defined). IoP.com had a bit on it, but I have some other thoughts. First of all, it is based on having either no government, or a government too weak to initiate power over anybody. Now, this may sound good to somebody who wants to protect their individual rights, but it does not protect them from other people and organizations because there is no longer a group (the government) to protect their rights and keep them safe. This would go right along with the exploding pogo sticks example. If there is a government too weak to address this, then the citizens are victimized. Not only those who buy the pogo sticks though, but those who may later suffer from this ever growing and expanding organization. Creating something that harms its customer without information detailing this is a violation of one’s freedom and rights.

Laissez-faire on the other hand does have enough government strength over its people to address this. If a company created these exploding pogo sticks, with knowledge of their defect, and sold them to people without telling them, then they did in fact violate these people’s rights. The government would then have the right to dismantle this corporation and/or imprison any of the people who created and/or approved the product.

An illegal-monopoly would be one the infringes on the rights of its customers and competitors. Microsoft putting Internet Explorer with Windows would not be infringing on anybody’s rights as it is their own product and the consumers know that there is going to be an internet browser with it and they voluntarily buy it from Microsoft. If Microsoft did though include Spyware that collects information on where the users surf on the internet and their activities without substantial notification of this, then they would be committing an illegal act and have an illegal monopoly over this information. In a more traditional sense, during the robber barrons era there were companies that would mislead their customers to the point where it took their money, which would be an invasion of their property rights in a sense. A company that is successful because of a superior product in quality, price, or availability is NOT an illegal monopoly in lassez-faire capitalism. They are not infringing on anybody’s inherent, born rights. Now, if a company does do things that are misleading, but not infringing on anybody’s rights (extreme transformations accredited to fat loss products, etc.) they are legally okay. It is a very immoral and wrong thing to do, but it is up to the consumer to inform themselves of the situation and make a choice.

On collectivism in general, I’ve said most of what I can say. I can reference different collectivist countries from the least worst to the worst, but someone will come up with an excuse. Whether they are in economic ruin (Portugal, soon to be most of Europe with ridiculously high unemployment), committing genocide (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Salazar, etc.), or just restricting from people from doing what they really want (France enforcing a 35 hour work week, people being required to do government service in various Euro countries), collectivist nations have done little to nothing positive for the world except give us more reasons of why it is not an appropriate or proper system. Scarface, taking my statement of why you cannot compare them out of context does not exactly make it right. I was referencing people who are attempting to point towards working Socialism and the point was that it just does not exist.

I do know people on welfare. My half sister was on welfare for some years (no longer on it). Pride? ODB cashed a welfare check after riding up in a limo (joke). In reality, telling them they will have more pride because they work harder yet have the same amount of monetary resources as they did does not exactly fix anything.

Your story of the older couple is a sad one, something they should have looked into family and various non-profit groups to take care of if working was too tough. I do not know the entire situation (including the medical history) so I can only comment briefly on the issue. While it is very tragic that an old man had to work to get benefits for his sick wife, it does not make something right. There are stories of that at all levels in all countries. Here in Portugal you have a wait time of over 2 years for a surgery that is not an emergency (like a gun shot wound). In Canada it is over a year. Other socialistic countries have similar wait times along with lower quality of healthcare. The most effective way for something to be done is to have it done privately, which in the case you mentioned, required the older gentleman to get a job. Appropriate saving during ones lifetime is a great thing to do if you are very concerned with your life when you’re older. This is not Darwinism of any kind, but simply doing what you need to do to get to the end you want.

80

If it was truely a laissez-faire capitalist system, there would be no money for the government to subsidize anybody. I fail to see any working examples of what you mentioned. I detailed in the post above some of the key differences that are VERY significant between the two systems. Saying laissez-faire capitalism is not redundent, as there are plenty of examples of “capitalist” countries, as some would say, that are far from it including South Korea and Singapore, both having extremely strong and large governments while having capitalism in place at one point in their histories.