Jump to content

Obama The 1st Black President


Recommended Posts

Yeah, and that's what the ranking system is trying to get at. The difference between, say, the US and Sweden is dwarfed compared to what occurs on a world scale. But the trend is still clear: the bigger the government, the worse the economy. Considering that wealth is the strongest indicator of longevity worldwide, it's dangerous to play the "let's just do a little socialism" game.The Euro socialist lite nations have had slower economic growth and higher rates of unemployment for decades. Their economies are generally described as "sluggish". So what are the exceptions? Ireland, who freed their economy and moved up on the "Economic Freedom Index"; they are now one of the fastest if not THE fastest growing economies in Europe.As I said, this experiment has been done, we don't need anymore painful trial runs.
I'd say basically according to your definition of socialism, every dictatorship is socialist then. And right wing dictators are as socialist as left wing dictators. Basically if you go to the extreme at some point they'll meet. BUT, in this country, we as most democrats would agree are more in line with a progressive program rather than a socialist per se. And I agree with most of what progressives have done over the history of our country compared to what raw capitalism is capable of. Each and every one of the items I list below was because of an excess by capitalists in our country. I'm sure maybe some of it you don't agree with but I'd say most of it made this country better not worse. From Wikipedia's article on Progressivism TenetsMany of the principles that were laid out by early progressives continue to be the hallmarks of contemporary progressive politics. While the precise criteria for what constitutes progressivism varies somewhat worldwide, below is a list of the most common tenets.[2][edit] DemocracyMany progressives hoped to make government in the U.S. more responsive to the direct voice of the American people by instituting the following institutional reforms:Ballot initiative A procedure whereby citizens could vote directly on whether to approve proposed laws. Initiative A procedure whereby ordinary citizens could propose laws for consideration by their state legislatures or by the voters directly. Direct primary A procedure whereby political party nominations for public office were made directly by a vote of rank-and-file members of the party rather than by party bosses. Direct election of U.S. Senators A procedure to allow the citizens in each state to directly elect their Senators. Previously, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures. Direct election of Senators was achieved with the addition of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1913). Referendum A procedure whereby citizens could vote directly to rescind a law which was passed by the legislature. Recall A procedure by which a public official could be removed from office by a direct vote of the citizens. Secret ballot A procedure by which citizens could keep their votes secret. Previously, voting was a public act witnessed by others. The voting records of individual citizens were recorded and made public. Many progressives argued that public voting allowed for voter intimidation. An employer, for instance, might require his employees to vote for certain candidates on pain of losing their jobs. Women's suffrage Granting to women the right to vote. Women's suffrage was achieved with the addition of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1920). The progressives achieved their greatest and most enduring successes in the effort to make governments more democratic.[edit] EfficiencyMany progressives hoped to make American governments better able to serve the people's needs by making governmental operations and services more efficient and rational. Reforms included:Professional administrators Many progressives argued that governments would function better if they were placed under the direction of trained, professional administrators. (This practice is derided by some opponents as the "nanny state," and more cynically is seen by some as the inclination toward the rise of dictators, the ultimate government professional.) One example of progressive reform was the rise of the city manager system, in which paid, professional administrators ran the day-to-day affairs of city governments under guidelines established by elected city councils. Centralization of decision-making process Many progressives sought to make government more rational through centralized decision-making. Governments were reorganized to reduce the number of officials and to eliminate overlapping areas of authority between departments. City governments were reorganized to reduce the power of local wards within the city and to increase the powers of the city council. Governments at every level began developing budgets to help them plan their expenditures (rather than spending money haphazardly as needs arose and revenue became available). The drive for centralization was often associated with the rise of professional administrators. Movements to eliminate governmental corruption Corruption represented a source of waste and inefficiency in government. Many progressives worked to clean up local governments by eliminating the power of machine politicians and urban political bosses. Often this was associated with the effort to restructure the ward system. Power was transferred from urban bosses to professional administrators. The progressives' quest for efficiency was sometimes at odds with the progressives' quest for democracy. Taking power out of the hands of elected officials and placing that power in the hands of professional administrators reduced the voice of the people in government. Centralized decision-making and reduced power for local wards made government more distant and isolated from the people it served. Progressives who emphasized the need for efficiency sometimes argued that an elite class of administrators knew better what the people needed than did the people themselves.[edit] Regulation of large corporations and monopoliesMany progressives hoped that by regulating large corporations they could liberate human energies from the restrictions imposed by industrial capitalism. Yet the progressive movement was split over which of the following four solutions should be used to regulate corporations:Trust-busting Some progressives argued that industrial monopolies were unnatural economic institutions which suppressed the competition which was necessary for progress and improvement. The federal government should intervene by breaking up monopolies into smaller companies, thereby restoring competition. The government should then withdraw and allow marketplace forces once again to regulate the economy. President Woodrow Wilson supported this idea. Regulation Some progressives argued that in a modern economy, large corporations and even monopolies were both inevitable and desirable. With their massive resources and economies of scale, large corporations offered the U.S. advantages which smaller companies could not offer. Yet, these large corporations might abuse their great power. The federal government should allow these companies to exist but regulate them for the public interest. President Theodore Roosevelt generally supported this idea. Socialism Some progressives believed that privately owned companies could never be made to serve the public interest. Therefore, the federal government should acquire ownership of large corporations and operate them for the public interest. Laissez-Faire Some progressives argued that marketplace forces were the best regulators. A company which paid low wages or maintained an unsafe work environment would be forced to change its policies by the loss of workers. A company which made an unsafe product would eventually lose customers and go bankrupt. In the long run, a free market would best protect the public interest. The laissez-faire and socialist approaches were less popular among American progressives than the trust-busting and regulatory approaches.[edit] Social justiceMany progressives have supported both private and governmental action to help people in need (social justice). Social justice reforms have included:Development of professional social workers The idea that welfare and charity work should be undertaken by professionals who are trained to do the job. The building of Settlement Houses These were residential, community centers operated by social workers and volunteers and located in inner city slums. The purpose of the settlement houses was to raise the standard of living of urbanites by providing schools, day care centers, and cultural enrichment programs. The enactment of child labor laws Child labor laws were designed to prevent the overworking of children in the newly emerging industries. The goal of these laws was to give working-class children the opportunity to go to school and to mature more naturally, thereby liberating the potential of humanity and encouraging the advancement of humanity. Support for the goals of organized labor Progressives often supported such goals as the eight-hour work day, improved safety and health conditions in factories, workers compensation laws, minimum wage laws, and unionization. Prohibition laws Some of the progressives adopted the cause of prohibition. They claimed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind's potential for advancement. Progressives achieved success in this area with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919. [edit] EnvironmentalismDuring the term of the progressive President Theodore Roosevelt (1901 – 1909), the largest government-funded environmentalism-related projects in U.S. history were undertaken:National parks and wildlife refuges On March 14, 1903, President Roosevelt created the first National Bird Preserve, (the beginning of the Wildlife Refuge system), on Pelican Island, Florida. In all, by 1909, the Roosevelt administration had created an unprecedented 42 million acres (170,000 km²) of national forests, 53 national wildlife refuges and 18 areas of "special interest", including the Grand Canyon. In addition, Roosevelt passed the Newland Act of 1902, which gave subsidies for irrigation in sixteen western states. Another conservation-oriented bill was the Antiquities Act of 1906 that protected large areas of land. The Inland Waterways Commission was established in 1907 to control the United States' streams and waterways.[3]
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Meh. I've heard your argument before, HBlask, about socialism and death. It's really not all that convincing.For example, do you really think all of Hitler's deaths came because he nationalized some factories? Or did it maybe have to do with the fact that he burnt jews, gypsies, blacks, and homosexuals in ovens? Stalin killed most secret police.Mao is the best example that fits what your argument is trying to say since most of the deaths under his regime came from incompetence. But again, they came because he directly forced people off of their land and into communes.Just because something hits a maximum at an extremum doesn't mean it's necessarily a sliding scale. You can't simply look at the far end of a function and extrapolate the nuanced details of that function toward the center. Especially when the function is something as complicated and jumbled as "quality of life" versus "lack of government control on economy."But really, it's beyond silly to say that it was Hitler's "socialist" tendencies that caused the deaths. Rather, it was his "murder jews" tendencies. If you want to argue that he wanted to murder jews because he was a socialist and therefore viewed them as cogs, well, you're free to do that, but it's a terrible, terrible argument.
The ideals of socialism attract and encourage power-hungry kooks; as socialism is enforced it takes more and more firepower to enforce it, because it is not natural for people to surrender their lives to some obscure notion of "the greater good". So yes, the socialist system gives undue power over people's lives, it attracts people who wish to run other people's lives, and rewards those who are the most ruthless in reaching the goals demanded by society.Seriously, 100 million dead after trying the same experiment again and again; how many more million have to die before there is no more doubt that yes, it's the system?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The US is among the top in both per capita GDP and in longevity... But just because they don't know *exactly* what the contribution of wealth is doesn't mean it's not a factor. It clearly is the biggest factor in longevity -- bigger than smoking, in fact.Why are they ranked highly? I don't know, because people think quaint outdoor cafes are more important than adding a couple years to their life? Again, if you want to argue that the other things gained from socialized programs offsets the harm to the economy and to the health of the people...
this seems to directly contradict your assumptions:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...life_expectancyi never said money wasn't a factor, but re-read your words.
But pretending you can get a free lunch by expanding the government is just plain silly. If you keep biting the hand that feeds you, you will not be fed for long.
i never said anything about a free lunch.i don't exactly know how u equate socialism with 'biting the hand that feeds you'. doesn't that imply the socialist citizens harming the socialist state, then not receiving good health care, education, quality of life, etc? really, i don't know what u r getting at.we can do without the clichés, they tend to over-simplify things.
Could you give an example of a dictator that believed in smaller government and capitalism that caused great harm to others and their own people? Since there are "countless examples", perhaps you could at least give one.
Yes, there are countless, and yes, i will give just one. in fact, this example is virtually always regarded as the 'right' vs the 'left':http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
And LOL at socialism being more moral than capitalism. I think the numbers of dead speak for themselves. That's a mighty fine morality you got there. Sure, hundreds of millions died, but they died knowing they were "equal partners in society". It was a compassionate and fair death, right?
first off, your examples are flawed. most, if not all, were not socialists. Is this your idea of the 'right'?http://www.nodo50.net/foroporlamemoria/doc...me_26042006.htmi assume u would say no. just as i disagree with being lumped in with stalin (who isn't a socialist, socialists at the time opposed him) and the others.there are examples of right-wing/capitalistic dictators, that should not even be under debate. what of the right and capitalists who fund/support/harbour dictators? there's a pretty huge example not too far off...
Link to post
Share on other sites
The ideals of socialism attract and encourage power-hungry kooks; as socialism is enforced it takes more and more firepower to enforce it, because it is not natural for people to surrender their lives to some obscure notion of "the greater good". So yes, the socialist system gives undue power over people's lives, it attracts people who wish to run other people's lives, and rewards those who are the most ruthless in reaching the goals demanded by society.Seriously, 100 million dead after trying the same experiment again and again; how many more million have to die before there is no more doubt that yes, it's the system?
So tell me H. Which of the items in the wikipedia article I posted do you say have led to millions dying in the United States? I think that you'd love to lump us all in with Stalin but it just doesnt' fly. There aren't very many in the United States that would support what you're trying to pin on us. And in fact progressives have been responsible for many of the freedoms in the United States today that you take for granted while conservatives have been dragged kicking and screaming all the way.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? The US is clearly near the top there. Notice that all the countries near the top are very rich.
i don't exactly know how u equate socialism with 'biting the hand that feeds you'. doesn't that imply the socialist citizens harming the socialist state, then not receiving good health care, education, quality of life, etc?
Capitalism has been shown, by a dramatic margin, to be the best system for feeding the world and raising standards of living. There are deep philosophical reasons for this, but it boils down to one thing: people only say they want socialism/socialist programs when they think they will get something for nothing. And the truth is, some people do. The problem is, that means that other people are getting nothing for something. And those people are the people who are feeding and clothing the world (and blowing up their balloons). If you start telling them, oh, by the way, the last couple hours of your work each week are for people who are too lazy to look for a job, the result will not be "oh well, I guess I've lost a couple hours of my life", the result will be "oh well, I might as well produce less and go golfing those last couple hours, since I don't get to keep it anyway." That's what it means to bite the hand that feeds you: if you start screwing the people who are making the nation rich, they will stop making it rich.
really, i don't know what u r getting at.<br />we can do without the clichés, they tend to over-simplify things.<br /><br /><br /><br />Yes, there are countless, and yes, i will give just one. in fact, this example is virtually always regarded as the 'right' vs the 'left':<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War</a>
This is your example of a small government war? Here's the first sentence:"The Dirty War (Spanish: Guerra Sucia) refers to the state-sponsored violence against Argentine citizenry from roughly 1976 to 1983 carried out primarily by Jorge Rafael Videla's military government."But let's say that that is somehow "right wing". Again, the definitions have become blurred. I have no problem criticizing "big government right", I'm just not sure what that means. Even if that is right, the death toll was listed as 30,000. So now you just need to come up with around 99,970,000 more to reach the leftist death toll. But again, I'd rather argue statist vs individualist, and the fact is, statism kills.As to your further examples, etc, the same thing comes up: people claiming to be on the right but espousing big government can definitely kill people too, but historically, people who support smaller government have been less dangerous to their people. And the leftist big governments have been WAY more dangerous than the right wing big governments. So while I'd prefer smaller government that respects individual rights and rule of law, history says the so-called "right wing" dictators are less dangerous than the so called "left wing" dictators. I don't support either reason for killing citizens and harming economies, but hey, that's just me.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So tell me H. Which of the items in the wikipedia article I posted do you say have led to millions dying in the United States? I think that you'd love to lump us all in with Stalin but it just doesnt' fly. There aren't very many in the United States that would support what you're trying to pin on us. And in fact progressives have been responsible for many of the freedoms in the United States today that you take for granted while conservatives have been dragged kicking and screaming all the way.
I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this with every post, but OK. I don't think that any politicians in the US are advocating genocide, even kooks like Nader and Hillary. But they do want bigger government, and we have a long historical record that demonstrates one fact very clearly: big government kills. To the tune of hundreds of millions of deaths. Does that mean that giving corporate welfare to ADM will lead to detention camps? Well, not directly, but it is another brick in the wall. Liberty isn't lost all at once, it's bit by bit. We need to prevent you from taking drugs, because you might hurt yourself. Once you buy that, then we need the right to search your car. And your house. And, oh, we now own your car and house. And we don't have to prove you guilty, you have to prove yourself innocent, and oops, we froze your bank accounts, so you have to use a public defender.FDR started farm subsidies with the theory that they were needed them to get through the depression (as if taking from some people and giving to others somehow magically improves the economy). What it has led to is a blatant corruption where laws and tax codes are tweaked to give corporate welfare to those with the biggest campaign contributions, at the expense of those who are working hard and producing.So no, it's not like "let's start killing people today". But we now live in a country where the gov't can listen to our phone conversations without a warrant, take our home, car, and bank accounts without proof due to a bad tip, a mistake or just greed, and imprison US citizens on an island off the coast without charging them with a crime or letting them speak to a lawyer. These things didn't happen overnight. This is a century of "progressive" reforms. Each time you give the govt power over some portion of your life or the economy, it finds a justification for that next thing. Any belief that "oh, it will just be this one thing, then we'll be done" is naive at best. Never in history has it been "just this one thing".
Link to post
Share on other sites

I"m pretty sick of the "wealthiest country in the world" crap, from both sides of the ideological spectrum. We have huge debt, and since we have a free market and a free society, INDIVIDUALS own the vast majority of the wealth, not the government. So don't whip out "oh why can't the richest country in the world do this or that for it's citizens" bah bah bah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? The US is clearly near the top there. Notice that all the countries near the top are very rich. Capitalism has been shown, by a dramatic margin, to be the best system for feeding the world and raising standards of living. There are deep philosophical reasons for this, but it boils down to one thing: people only say they want socialism/socialist programs when they think they will get something for nothing. And the truth is, some people do. The problem is, that means that other people are getting nothing for something. And those people are the people who are feeding and clothing the world (and blowing up their balloons). If you start telling them, oh, by the way, the last couple hours of your work each week are for people who are too lazy to look for a job, the result will not be "oh well, I guess I've lost a couple hours of my life", the result will be "oh well, I might as well produce less and go golfing those last couple hours, since I don't get to keep it anyway." That's what it means to bite the hand that feeds you: if you start screwing the people who are making the nation rich, they will stop making it rich.This is your example of a small government war? Here's the first sentence:"The Dirty War (Spanish: Guerra Sucia) refers to the state-sponsored violence against Argentine citizenry from roughly 1976 to 1983 carried out primarily by Jorge Rafael Videla's military government."But let's say that that is somehow "right wing". Again, the definitions have become blurred. I have no problem criticizing "big government right", I'm just not sure what that means. Even if that is right, the death toll was listed as 30,000. So now you just need to come up with around 99,970,000 more to reach the leftist death toll. But again, I'd rather argue statist vs individualist, and the fact is, statism kills.As to your further examples, etc, the same thing comes up: people claiming to be on the right but espousing big government can definitely kill people too, but historically, people who support smaller government have been less dangerous to their people. And the leftist big governments have been WAY more dangerous than the right wing big governments. So while I'd prefer smaller government that respects individual rights and rule of law, history says the so-called "right wing" dictators are less dangerous than the so called "left wing" dictators. I don't support either reason for killing citizens and harming economies, but hey, that's just me.
I may give you that in a big government economy the government does more killing of citizens at least if it's a dictatorship. However, in a totally capitalist system, the government might not kill more citizens but the individual entities within that system do. Take a look at our captialist history and try to tell me that more slaves, more indentured servants, more workers working in dangerous conditions, more native Americans have not been killed in pursuit of the almighty dollar. You want to take from outside the United States but what I was talking about was IN the United States and it's precursors. And it still goes on. Take a look at the W.R. Grace case in Libby MT. where a large portion of the population was poisoned by this company's product (vermiculite that had asbestos in it) and they knew it had asbestos in it and they chose to cover it up to the workers in their plant and the community at large. There are a lot of people dying a painful and slow death because of this and this is what unbridled capitalism is capable of. I am not a big government person. But I do believe that government intervention and regulation is necessary to keep the dark side of capitalism in check and to preserve precious resources for future generations to use and enjoy. I don't like the fact that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for Bush's grandiose power plays. And for the deficit that has come roaring back with it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I may give you that in a big government economy the government does more killing of citizens at least if it's a dictatorship. However, in a totally capitalist system, the government might not kill more citizens but the individual entities within that system do. Take a look at our captialist history and try to tell me that more slaves, more indentured servants, more workers working in dangerous conditions, more native Americans have not been killed in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
First of all, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that capitalism does not allow rule of law and protection of rights. I suppose there is some theoretical loophole in which there is something called "capitalism" in which there is no rule of law, but I don't see how it could work. Nonetheless, you've still got a lot of counting to do to reach the 100 million+ that have been killed by governments run amok.I'm the one who has been arguing for rule of law and protection of rights; I am trying to protect that from those who would claim that "the good of society" or "our country" is more important than these individual rights.
You want to take from outside the United States but what I was talking about was IN the United States and it's precursors. And it still goes on. Take a look at the W.R. Grace case in Libby MT. where a large portion of the population was poisoned by this company's product (vermiculite that had asbestos in it) and they knew it had asbestos in it and they chose to cover it up to the workers in their plant and the community at large. There are a lot of people dying a painful and slow death because of this and this is what unbridled capitalism is capable of.
First of all, under rule of law, intentionally harming people is not allowed, so a corporation harming people and getting away with it is a failure of one of the few legitimate functions of government: to pursue, prosecute, and punish lawbreakers. I hardly think the fact that the govt failed at one of their most basic functions is an indication that we need *more* of what they have to offer, to distract them from their job. Second, if I were to grant you this, which I don't, you've added a couple hundred more people? How close are you to 100 million now?Third, I'm assuming you realize that most of the so called "supersites" that the govt decided were the most polluted and needed special laws to clean up were govt owned and run, right? The difference is that when a corporation polluted, they lost a lawsuit and had to pay. The govt just dismissed the case and told the people affected to get lost.
I am not a big government person. But I do believe that government intervention and regulation is necessary to keep the dark side of capitalism in check and to preserve precious resources for future generations to use and enjoy. I don't like the fact that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for Bush's grandiose power plays. And for the deficit that has come roaring back with it.
It's not a dark side of capitalism, that's just anti-corporate rhetoric. There always have been bad people in the world, and always will be. Sometimes they work for corporations, sometimes they are privately employed. Killing customers and employees is not good business, and therefore not a part of capitalism. It's just a result of certain people having a broken moral compass. I live on a gravel road out in the country. Someone dumped a mattress in the ditch by my driveway. Should I complain about "the dark side of individuals"? Of course not, harming others is not allowable for anyone, whether it is a corporation or an individual.
Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that capitalism does not allow rule of law and protection of rights. I suppose there is some theoretical loophole in which there is something called "capitalism" in which there is no rule of law, but I don't see how it could work. Nonetheless, you've still got a lot of counting to do to reach the 100 million+ that have been killed by governments run amok.I'm the one who has been arguing for rule of law and protection of rights; I am trying to protect that from those who would claim that "the good of society" or "our country" is more important than these individual rights.First of all, under rule of law, intentionally harming people is not allowed, so a corporation harming people and getting away with it is a failure of one of the few legitimate functions of government: to pursue, prosecute, and punish lawbreakers. I hardly think the fact that the govt failed at one of their most basic functions is an indication that we need *more* of what they have to offer, to distract them from their job. Second, if I were to grant you this, which I don't, you've added a couple hundred more people? How close are you to 100 million now?Third, I'm assuming you realize that most of the so called "supersites" that the govt decided were the most polluted and needed special laws to clean up were govt owned and run, right? The difference is that when a corporation polluted, they lost a lawsuit and had to pay. The govt just dismissed the case and told the people affected to get lost.It's not a dark side of capitalism, that's just anti-corporate rhetoric. There always have been bad people in the world, and always will be. Sometimes they work for corporations, sometimes they are privately employed. Killing customers and employees is not good business, and therefore not a part of capitalism. It's just a result of certain people having a broken moral compass. I live on a gravel road out in the country. Someone dumped a mattress in the ditch by my driveway. Should I complain about "the dark side of individuals"? Of course not, harming others is not allowable for anyone, whether it is a corporation or an individual.
Corporations, by law, (called fiduciary responsibility) are required to fight the implimentation of any law or regulation that takes profit away from their shareholders. That includes most environmental laws which if you look at the past performance of corporations in this country, they've fought any environmental laws tooth and nail and are still fighting any new ones. So sorry if this blows your impression of how capitalism works but you only have to look at our own history to see that without regulation , capitalist corporations would have continued on their merry way, polluting the environment and wasting our precious resources. These laws and regulations were fought for and implemented by the very progressives that you say are out to take rights away from you. Unbridled capitalism is in the long run would have been more harmful to more people than your dictators ever thought about being if not for those laws and regulations reigning them in.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Corporations, by law, (called fiduciary responsibility) are required to fight the implimentation of any law or regulation that takes profit away from their shareholders. That includes most environmental laws which if you look at the past performance of corporations in this country, they've fought any environmental laws tooth and nail and are still fighting any new ones. So sorry if this blows your impression of how capitalism works but you only have to look at our own history to see that without regulation , capitalist corporations would have continued on their merry way, polluting the environment and wasting our precious resources. These laws and regulations were fought for and implemented by the very progressives that you say are out to take rights away from you. Unbridled capitalism is in the long run would have been more harmful to more people than your dictators ever thought about being if not for those laws and regulations reigning them in.
And this theory is true because the people who make the decisions in corporations live on other planets? Or have special space suits? Their own special water supply?You are quickly becoming a parody of yourself. And you are not listening. Under capitalism, it is illegal to harm people. Get it? Illegal. Under socialism, it is legal, because the people doing the harm are the ones making the laws. Under rule of law and a capitalist system, if you harm someone, you go to jail. Under Stalin, you get more power.Your notion that corporations have a legal responsibility to fight laws is really too silly to address.Corporations fight environmental laws because this country has a long history of implementing stupid and expensive laws that do very little at a very large cost. The theory of environmentalism and trade is too complex to go into in this post; there are entire college courses on it. But basically, a clean environment is a "good" that people pay for. It fits into Maslow's hierarchy, just like everything else. When starvation is the biggest issue, people don't care a whole lot about the garbage next door. Once we get rich enough to afford "clean environment", we buy it. Pollution is, in the end, a poor use of resources, one that is anti-competitive. But sometimes, cleanliness is more expensive than the payoffs. As society gets richer, we buy our way clean. People have spent their lives studying this, and they can tell you the per capita GDP where "clean environment" becomes a value people care about. So making people poor turns out, once again, to be a bad way to reach the goals that leftists/statists so love to claim they want. The continued irony of the leftist-statist ideology: the more of their politics they implement, the further they get from their goal.Again, this experiment has been done in the real world: East Germany vs West Germany. When the wall came down, one of them was polluted and filthy, the other was clean and livable. I'll let you figure out which was which.History is a wonderful thing.EDIT: I don't mean to give short shrift to the issue of negative externalities, but that would require an even larger essay. Let's just say that yes, there is definitely a place for regulation there, but that's not just an issue with corporations, as anyone who drives or ride any form of internal combustion engine should know.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And this theory is true because the people who make the decisions in corporations live on other planets? Or have special space suits? Their own special water supply?You are quickly becoming a parody of yourself. And you are not listening. Under capitalism, it is illegal to harm people. Get it? Illegal. Under socialism, it is legal, because the people doing the harm are the ones making the laws. Under rule of law and a capitalist system, if you harm someone, you go to jail. Under Stalin, you get more power.It is you that's not listening. I didn't say anything about Stalin in my question did I? And you're telling me that all through our history the corporations haven't been fighting EVERY environmental law regardless of whether it was good for the people and environment or stupid and expensive as you claim. In fact, capitalists have fought any regulation whatsoever that might cut into their profits. If you truly read all America's history instead of just selectively picking and choosing you'd have to admit this. Tell me one environmental law that's been implemented that industry HASN'T opposed. Your notion that corporations have a legal responsibility to fight laws is really too silly to address.Wikipedia definition of fiduciary : This page is about fiduciary in the legal sense. For optical field of view markers, see fiduciary marker. The court of chancery, which governed fiduciary relations prior to the Judicature ActsThe fiduciary duty is a legal relationship between two or more parties (most commonly a "fiduciary" or "trustee" and a "principal" or "beneficiary") that in English common law is arguably the most important concept within the portion of the legal system known as equity. In the United Kingdom, the Judicature Acts merged the courts of Equity (historically based in England's Court of Chancery) with the courts of common law, and as a result the concept of fiduciary duty also became usable in common law courts.A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care at either equity or law. A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom they owe the duty (the "principal"): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents. The fiduciary relationship is highlighted by good faith, loyalty and trust, and the word itself originally comes from the Latin fides, meaning faith, and fiducia.When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a stricter standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law. It is said the fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be in a situation where their fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and a duty not to profit from their fiduciary position without express knowledge and consent. A fiduciary cannot have a conflict of interest. It has been said that fiduciaries must conduct themselves "at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd"[1] and that "[t]he distinguishing or overriding duty of a fiduciary is the obligation of undivided loyalty."[2]Corporations fight environmental laws because this country has a long history of implementing stupid and expensive laws that do very little at a very large cost. The theory of environmentalism and trade is too complex to go into in this post; there are entire college courses on it. But basically, a clean environment is a "good" that people pay for. It fits into Maslow's hierarchy, just like everything else. When starvation is the biggest issue, people don't care a whole lot about the garbage next door. Once we get rich enough to afford "clean environment", we buy it. Pollution is, in the end, a poor use of resources, one that is anti-competitive. But sometimes, cleanliness is more expensive than the payoffs. As society gets richer, we buy our way clean. People have spent their lives studying this, and they can tell you the per capita GDP where "clean environment" becomes a value people care about. So making people poor turns out, once again, to be a bad way to reach the goals that leftists/statists so love to claim they want. The continued irony of the leftist-statist ideology: the more of their politics they implement, the further they get from their goal.Again, this experiment has been done in the real world: East Germany vs West Germany. When the wall came down, one of them was polluted and filthy, the other was clean and livable. I'll let you figure out which was which.I didn't say that dictatorships didn't pollute. And we're not talking dictatorships here though it seems that is what you always want to come back to. What I said was that unbridled capitalism will go as far as it can to make a profit and will fight anything that takes away from that. Therefore if you have no-one looking out for the common good then there will be negative consequences of unbridled capitalism the same as a dictatorship. Only difference is it will be the corporations that will be in control instead of the dictator. Do you really think that without anti-trust laws that there wouldn't be just a handful of megacorporations controlling everything by now. As it is, the mainstream media is already concentrated in the hands of about 5 or 6 corporations. The danger of this is that we're being spoonfed only what those corporations want us to hear. History is a wonderful thing.EDIT: I don't mean to give short shrift to the issue of negative externalities, but that would require an even larger essay. Let's just say that yes, there is definitely a place for regulation there, but that's not just an issue with corporations, as anyone who drives or ride any form of internal combustion engine should know.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say that dictatorships didn't pollute. And we're not talking dictatorships here though it seems that is what you always want to come back to. What I said was that unbridled capitalism will go as far as it can to make a profit and will fight anything that takes away from that. Therefore if you have no-one looking out for the common good then there will be negative consequences of unbridled capitalism the same as a dictatorship. Only difference is it will be the corporations that will be in control instead of the dictator. Do you really think that without anti-trust laws that there wouldn't be just a handful of megacorporations controlling everything by now. As it is, the mainstream media is already concentrated in the hands of about 5 or 6 corporations. The danger of this is that we're being spoonfed only what those corporations want us to hear.
OK, I'll stick to one thought, since you won't listen to more than that: under any capitalistic system with rule of law, it is illegal for corporations to harm citizens. It is only under leftist/statist systems that it is allowed. All your discussions of some theoretical "unbridled capitalism" make no sense, since it has never happened in the history of the world and never will. We have, on the other hand, seen "unbridled leftism". (You seem to be arguing against some ridiculous strawman in which have have both a free industrialized society AND no legal system. I've been hoping you were not wasting my time so flagrantly, but I'm running out of options).
Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftist/central planner death tolls:Stalin: 43 million.Mao Tse-tung, 38 millionAdolf Hitler, 21 millionChiang Kai-shek 10 millionVladimir Lenin 4 MillionTojo Hideki 4 MillionPol Pot 2.4 MillionDon't worry, I know the next argument, those deaths weren't *because* they were leftist, it's because they were kooks. It's just a coincidence that they happen to believe that central planning is better than individualism, that people are cogs for the greater good rather than individuals with wishes. Every time it's happened, it's been a coincidence.Unfortunately for that argument, we don't have to look to individuals, because the regimes persist beyond the specific leaders:USSR, 1917-1987 -- 62 Million deathsPeople's Republic of China, 1949-1987, 35 million deathsGermany, 1933-1945, 21 million deathsnationalist China, 1928-1949, 10 million deathsJapan, 1936-1945, 6 million deathsetcetcetcThese aren't accidents. These aren't coincidences. A philosophy that believes that humans are cogs to be used for the greater good will *always* treat them, well, like cogs, to be used and discarded as necessary.Does this make Hillary a killer? Of course not. But each step down that road puts us one step closer, and it's such a dangerous road, why even start?And that's not even counting all the indirect deaths and suffering due to the economic harm caused by central planning. This experiment has been done, there's no need to try it again. Causing harm a little bit at a time isn't a good idea just because we can say that "Stalin was worse".
Please don't tell me this was a serious post.That someone would take some of history's worst dictators and attempt to link them back to modern America's govermental system is quite disgusting and repugnant.You are lucky enough to live in one of the freest countries in the world with a constitution that I shouldn't need to remind you was bought at the cost of countless lives and immense sacrifice. This constitution protects you and your fellow citizens from facing the horrors of political tyrants and that you should attempt this link is to reduce these sacrifices to no more than a footnote in history.Not to mention the total ignorance in you little propoganda speil.Stalin - Totalitarianism: a concept used in political science that describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cults, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party states, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.Hitler - Fascism: an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalismBoth are far-right.Does this imply that the policies of Bush, McCain and the Republicans lead to the mass murders and death camps of Hitler and Stalin? In your world it does. In the real world - not even slightly.Others on that list can be described as far-left. Does that mean the policies of the Democrats or even Hillary ultimately end in the same? Of course not.However you see fit in your ignorant propoganda drive to belch out crap like But each step down that road puts us one step closer, and it's such a dangerous road, why even start?I highly recommend that you:
  • Apologise to those that have suffered under all the tyrants you listed for invoking the memory of their suffering as part of your uneducated trash. To attempt to tie their losses and pain to a political point is digusting. You should be ashamed.
  • Seek out those who educated you and apologise to them for wasting their time
  • Remove yourself from any further political conversations. Your inability to distinguish mindless propganda and rhetoric from fact is dangerous in that it allows these horrific analogies to live on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Under capitalism, it is illegal to harm people. Get it? Illegal. Under socialism, it is legal...
That's pretty funny. I cannot find that definition of capitalism or socialism anywhere.
Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, I'll stick to one thought, since you won't listen to more than that: under any capitalistic system with rule of law, it is illegal for corporations to harm citizens. It is only under leftist/statist systems that it is allowed. All your discussions of some theoretical "unbridled capitalism" make no sense, since it has never happened in the history of the world and never will. We have, on the other hand, seen "unbridled leftism". (You seem to be arguing against some ridiculous strawman in which have have both a free industrialized society AND no legal system. I've been hoping you were not wasting my time so flagrantly, but I'm running out of options).
It's obvious that you refuse to read even the most basic history of the United States if you believe that under the capitalistic system it's illegal to harm citizens. Explain then why new laws governing and regulating the capitalistic system in the United States was necessary? Explain to me why environmental laws, labor laws, anti-trust regulations have been necessary if it's illegal for the capitalistic system to harm citizens? Explain why it takes, taking a company to court to get them to pay for harm to citizens if it's illegal to harm citizens? Explain to me if those lawsuits didn't take place, would any reforms have taken place and would those companies have stopped harming it's citizens? Here in Montana we have a history of companies coming in, taking what resources they want and leaving the mess for us to clean up. Those companies really didn't care about harming the citizens or environment. And it took the enactment of ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS BY PROGRESSIVES to make those companies clean up their act. cap·i·tal·ism (kăp'ĭ-tl-ĭzəm)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------noun An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. From the American Heritage Dictionary comes the above definition of capitalism. And I don't see anything about rule of law or harming individuals in that definition. And that's what I'm talking about. It's also what allows companies to go overseas with their production and why most of those new jobs that have been touted by Bushare in the low wage service industries. Much as I hate to say it because Kramit and I have clashed on the Religion forum, I have to agree with him. It's offensive to compare progressives in this country with Stalin or Hitler.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's correct to say it's "illegal" in capitalism to hurt customers or consumers, as there's no governing body of capitalism to enforce such an idea. I think Hb is trying to say that hurting customers seems to be anti-profit and therefore against the tenants of how capitalism works. Business work in their own interest, period. There will be times that, in the short-term, what is best for that business is not what is best for the utility of the consumer of their product. If the consumer is not immediately aware of this OR their demand is inelastic (look that up), then the consumer will be hurt, in the short-term. I think this proof shows the necessity of effective anti-monopolistic regulation of businesses, as well as regulation against the occurrences of short-term issues that could do serious harm to the consumer (i.e., salmonella exposure).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't like the fact that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for Bush's grandiose power plays.
I also worry about what is being dumped on my children and future grandchildren. Social Security and Medicare which are nothing more than a Ponzi scheme are going to be dumped on them. In fact Medicare will pay out more this year than it brings in (see link below).In stead of dealing with and fixing these two government programs, socialists Hillary and Barak want to start a new government program (Health Care).Yep, I worry for the next generations who are going to be asked to carry the burden created by a bunch of corrupt politicians. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1
Link to post
Share on other sites
The progressives' quest for efficiency was sometimes at odds with the progressives' quest for democracy. Taking power out of the hands of elected officials and placing that power in the hands of professional administrators reduced the voice of the people in government.
Hmm, sounds like what the Supreme Court has done with State Powers (States Rights).
Link to post
Share on other sites
Please don't tell me this was a serious post.<br /><br />That someone would take some of history's worst dictators and attempt to link them back to modern America's govermental system is quite disgusting and repugnant.
I've pointed out several times that I don't think we're anywhere near these systems. My point is that moving toward them is dangerous. They'll feel just as bad when we get there whether we go there a little at a time or all at once.
Not to mention the total ignorance in you little propoganda speil.Stalin - Totalitarianism: Hitler - Fascism: Both are far-right.
I've already explained all this. Both of these based their policies on the belief that the government was central, to be used to shape society to meet some idealized goal, whether it be "equality of result", or "freedom from need", or "from each according to his abillity, to each according to his need". This is what is currently referred to as left. But as I've said repeatedly, these labels make less sense than they used to. It is now Statist vs Individualist, and in terms of the major candidates, it appears that Nader is the most statist, then Hillary, then Obama, followed closely by McCain.
Does this imply that the policies of Bush, McCain and the Republicans lead to the mass murders and death camps of Hitler and Stalin? In your world it does. [/yes]Probably not on that scale, but they've already imprisoned innocent US citizens, many of them tortured, without a trial, without being charged, solely on the basis of their heritage. Would you like to argue that we need more government in our lives?As for the rest of what you wrote, take a breath, think, and read the whole thread before you take one post out of context.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's pretty funny. I cannot find that definition of capitalism or socialism anywhere.
Capitalism cannot exist without rule of law, because no investment would ever take place.You guys seem to be arguing against some theoretical society where government springs up from nowhere, passes laws creating corporations, then disappears into the night, never to enforce any laws again. If you have evidence that such a system ever existed or ever could exist, please let me know.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's obvious that you refuse to read even the most basic history of the United States if you believe that under the capitalistic system it's illegal to harm citizens. Explain then why new laws governing and regulating the capitalistic system in the United States was necessary?
Which new laws are you referring to? Sometimes new laws are necessary because of changes in technology or our understanding of economics, sometimes in response to new ways to cheat. But never has it been legal for anyone, a corporation or a private individual, to willfully harm another in the US.
Explain to me why environmental laws,
The good environmental laws are in response to something called 'negative externalities' -- basically, the innocent side effects of human activity. These have nothing to do with corporations being evil, any more than you driving a car that emits exhaust makes you evil. This is an ongoing problem, and one that needs to be addressed in an economically efficient way.The bad environmental laws are in response to people who don't understand either economics or the environment. They just see some pollution collected in one place, decide it's a problem, and pass a law that causes more harm than good.
labor laws
Which labor laws? 40 hour weeks? That was just lazy union members wanting something for nothing. Child labor laws? That was a response to our nation's increasing wealth, and the fact that children didn't need to work anymore. It should be noted that child labor laws pushed many children from working 12 hours days in slightly dangerous factories back to working 16 hour days on extremely dangerous family farms. It wasn't a questions of whether children should slave 12 hours in a factory or stay home and play video games; the question was about survival -- should we work 12 hours in a factory to survive, or 16 hours on a farm to survive. Once a critical mass of society got wealthy enough that they didn't NEED to have THEIR kids work, they took that right away from other families that DID need the extra income, instead making those kids lives worse. This is progress?
anti-trust regulations
Few serious economists believe anymore that anti-trust regulations are a good thing. They are finding that there is no such thing as a "natural monopoly", which was *supposedly* the chief motivation behind such laws, and are finding that instead such laws stifle innovation and economic growth.
Explain why it takes, taking a company to court to get them to pay for harm to citizens if it's illegal to harm citizens?
Um, because that's how the legal system works? If my neighbor throws their trash over the fence into my yard, and refuses to stop, I need to get the law involved. That doesn't make it legal for him to do it; just the opposite. This isn't a problem unique to "evil nasty corporations", this is a problem with humanity. It's an issue we'd have to face whether we had corporations or not.
<i>cap·i·tal·ism (kăp'ĭ-tl-ĭzəm) -- An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned And I don't see anything about rule of law or harming individuals in that definition.
Again, you guys seem to be arguing about some theoretical system where the only law is about how to become a corporation, as if a govt sprung up out of nowhere solely for that purpose, then disappeared. That has never happened and never will. So if you are just wasting my time arguing about some ridiculous, non-sensical, impossible strawman, I'm going to be really pissed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's correct to say it's "illegal" in capitalism to hurt customers or consumers, as there's no governing body of capitalism to enforce such an idea. I think Hb is trying to say that hurting customers seems to be anti-profit and therefore against the tenants of how capitalism works. Business work in their own interest, period. There will be times that, in the short-term, what is best for that business is not what is best for the utility of the consumer of their product. If the consumer is not immediately aware of this OR their demand is inelastic (look that up), then the consumer will be hurt, in the short-term. I think this proof shows the necessity of effective anti-monopolistic regulation of businesses, as well as regulation against the occurrences of short-term issues that could do serious harm to the consumer (i.e., salmonella exposure).
Thanks for the clarification, but actually, yeah, I'm saying both, because no capitalist system can exist without rule of law. Commerce would not be possible, so capitalism could not exist. In other words, rule of law is a prerequisite for capitalism to exist. It is not a prerequisite for socialism to exist; in fact, the opposite seems to be true: when socialism exists, rule of law has, in every trial so far, been thrown out almost immediately.As to the other point, this is exactly why a system based on voluntary consensual behavior can never kill as many people as socialism: if people are given a choice, they will not do business with murderers. Seems a trite point to make, but with the level of logic I'm seeing here, I guess I need to point out every single thing. So yeah, corporations may hurt people in the short term, just as Ed Gein, Son of Sam, David Chapman, etc, etc all did. But that doesn't make it legal or sustainable.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Capitalism cannot exist without rule of law, because no investment would ever take place.
There is investment in socialism as well, and any society cannot function without laws, that's a pretty basic concept.as for not harming customers...that happens all the time, no matter how logical it may seem to do otherwise.fast food?cigarettes?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...