CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
if this were truly a democracy, capitalism as we know it would be dead. fact of the matter is, each time a country tries to be democratic, they aim for socialism, but the u.s. and other western capitalists always seem to go in for the sabatoge. america claims to support democracy, but if you look at their foreign policy, its the exact opposite.
No, being a democratic country doesn't mean that that just because the majority of people voted for something, it means the government has to take action. For example: Say that the majority of population in Canada wants people who wear turbans on Canadian soil to be executed, or sent to jail. Just because Canada is democratic, doesn't mean that people wearing turbans need to be dealt with, why is this? because it infringes upon the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms(FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS in the Charter to be exact). Same if same-sex marriage was banned, it would violate Fundamental Freedoms because it takes away your freedom of association, and it also violates Equality Rights because you like your own sex.
What type of democracy is possible when "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States ?
add to that how much money it takes just to have a viable chance to run in an election and its pretty clear that the interests of the top 10% of the population is certainly catered to more then other groups. Their voice is louder so to speak.
The debate shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both. Any government, democratic or otherwise, is impossible without some means of wealth distribution. Any form of wealth distribution, capitalist or otherwise, is impossible without government.
1) This argument is flawed to begin with, because Democracy and Capitalism can co-exist.
2) Democracy... every citizen gets a vote, to select a representative that he or she believes will govern on his behalf.
3) Capitalism is just the concept that private citizens can own and exchange property however they see fit.
That being said, let's assume we're trying to decide which is MORE important, rather than which should be the law of the land.
That being decided, it's Democracy.
All you have to do is answer this question:
Would you rather your fate be decided by someone who was born owning all the land around you (who could in fact be very greedy and evil), or would you rather decide for yourself which person decides your fate (who if is evil, the mistake was yours for choosing him)?
In one instance, you have a say, in another instance, you are put upon by prior generations.
Democracy wins, hands down. You don't think this is accurate? Capitalism is the system by which Paris Hilton exists with more money than you'll ever see, and simultaneously has zero skills and a horrible personality.
Democracy wins, hands down. You don't think this is accurate? Capitalism is the system by which Paris Hilton exists with more money than you'll ever see, and simultaneously has zero skills and a horrible personality.
Lol
Question isn't whether or not they can co-exist.. because they do. Question is which is more important.
democracy can never co exist with capitalism because in order for there to be rich people, there has to be poor people, and the rich people will never want the interests of the poor to be represented. thats why corporations are constantly busting up unions. it is also why the corporations always send economic hitmen into countries to overthrow democratically elected governments who do not allow sweat shops to be opened. one obvious example is indonesia. many other examples exist throughout latin america.
Democracy is more important - not because it keeps capitalism at bay but because it gives everybody a say and the ability to be manipulated rather than a small amount of people.
Capitalism should always reign supreme in a society because of one's own self interests because if capitalism is reigns free, the two are so interconnected that Democracy must follow suite.
I've already explained how capitalism is not interconnected with democracy. Democracy harnesses the power of collectivism wherease capitalism builds upon individualism....
capitalism, must be regulated or else it destroys the free market. Monopolies naturally develop and once that happens opportunity is nill for the vast majority of people. Democracy can act as a type of limited check against capitalism, so that competition still stays in the market, working conditions are good, etc. capitalism is naturally anti-democratic. It concentrates power, both economic and political in the hands of the wealthy. Democracy can use regulated capitalism as a tool, but its like keeping a nasty beast of a dog that might turn and bite you(if not maul) if you ever let it off its leash.
I feel as though you yourself have misunderstood a little.
Money=power in any type of modern day political/socio-economic system so your statement that Capitalism concentrates power to the rich isn't really valid. Moreover in my opinion, Capitalism simply gives everyone the opportunity to become rich through their personal hard-work and dedication, and thus capitalism can work in correspondence with democracy.
capitalism, must be regulated or else it destroys the free market. Monopolies naturally develop and once that happens opportunity is nill for the vast majority of people. Democracy can act as a type of limited check against capitalism, so that competition still stays in the market, working conditions are good, etc. capitalism is naturally anti-democratic. Democracy can use regulated capitalism as a tool, but its like keeping a nasty beast of a dog that might turn and bite you(if not maul) if you ever let it off its leash.
Greed is present in no matter what economic system either capitalism or socialism. At least in capitalism, it is concentrated in individuals instead of government or co-ops.
Desire is present in any economic system, is it best to have a few wealthy men with the power to make their desires reality, and the rest of society with just the power to get by if even that, or is it better to have power distributed such that the common desires of all the people can be attained, things like bread, water, air conditioning/heat, good working conditions, shoes, clean air, education, etc?
Under the current system of capitalism, is bread, water, air conditioning/heat, good working conditions, shoes, clean air, education not all common desires already distributed?
You cannot debate on which is better due to the fact the capitalism is an economical system and democracy is governmental system. People these days -__-
If we characterize Democracy and Capitalism as enemies, must we assume that one must defeat the other? Such a defeat would be comparable to stopping a high-speed train with a concrete wall. In order for our Society to continue to thrive, we must agree on a common interest shared by the conflicting ideologies of Democracy and Capitalism and build our future through a cooperative effort that satisfies the needs of both. Otherwise, we are, as many have characterized, an out of control herd stampeding toward a cliff. Our downfall will come from our own arrogance, ignorance and indifference.
In the USA we are not capitalist, we are free market. We have anti Trust laws that break up monopolies.
Sometimes, especially in our current environment, there is an unfair over correction that is harmful to a business owner. They aren’t big enough to sustain it, but are forced into loosing their businesses because of “a war on capitalism” Like the raisin farmer in California. I believe he won in the Supreme Court, but he didn’t deserve the cost he incurred to stay alive.
These are the people that need protection from this society we are becoming!
Teddy Roosevelt broke up the capitalist in the early 1900's. And it needed to be broken. They built great industry. We are where we are because of them. It was corrected, they kept the wealth they made, but the monopoly was broken and out of 1 came many oil and gas companies, for competitive free market competition. .
But keep in mind, without these businesses we'd be far behind in the progress we know and enjoy today. And also they employed much of the population of the day. Although, we did need corrections to improve working conditions, increase safety, and pay higher wages. But the beauty of America isn’t that we were perfect. But the systems we have to correct greed when greed doesn’t correct itself!
We are a land of equal opportunity
Anyone can take an idea and create a successful business, and charge "what the market will bare" and make a living and/or gain wealth.
Many have overcome obstacles for the successes they achieve, with risk.
And as far as inheritance and the hand me down wealth - inheritance tax is probably the highest proportional tax in our society. So if you consider "fair share" we accumulate wealth to provide a better life for our families and to pass to our children.
The starting point, or tipping point varies of both failure and success in over generations. And sometimes it continues as it is for generations without change.
American success is built on ideas, enterprise, risk, and the wants and perceived needs of the general market.
Many through our history are "capitalist" but not many did so without loss, even bankruptcy.
Here is a Capitalist Parade – And while your at it look at the giving back some of these people did. Do you think that would happen in the USSR or Denmark or Turkey?
Milton Hershey – Drooped out of school, he was a poor student. Apprenticed for 4 years then - after two failed attempts, he set up the Lancaster Caramel Co. sold it then made the worlds largest Choc factory – then built a community and a home and school for children.
Walt Disney - fired by a newspaper editor because, "he lacked imagination and had no good ideas, started a number of businesses that didn't last too long and ended with bankruptcy and failure
Henry Ford – businesses failed and left him broke five times
R H Macy - Macy started seven failed business before finally hitting big with his store in New York City
F W Woolworth - Before starting his own business, young Woolworth worked at a dry goods store and was not allowed to wait on customers because his boss said he lacked the sense needed to do so. I guess he said F... YOU, and opened his own store, followed by successful chains of stores!
Good ole Colonel Sanders and his Fried Chicken - rejected 1,009 times before a restaurant accepted it
Albert Einstein - teachers and parents to think he was mentally handicapped
Thomas Edison - teachers told Edison he was "too stupid to learn anything
Sidney Poitier brutally rejected by American Negro Theater for his heavy Bohamian accent
Others with similar stories - H J Heinz - Emily Dickinson - Lucille Ball - P T Barnum - Fred Astaire - Jerry Seinfeld
Like anything in the social front, with twisting, and media led head hunting, and the public's eagerness to follow without knowledge. Capitalism is redefined, then accepted for whatever they want.
Like the urban racial legends believed with a fury, that Democrats and Republicans switched places. So those Republicans who believed in Civil rights and paid for it putting their money and their lives where their heart was on the matter, are NOW called White Supremacists, while Democrats who were always white supremacists (and also some Black slave owners also) are hailed as civil rights heroes!
I hate to say, I’m not name calling. But that’s just stupid!But if we think its true then it must be. Regardless of history of facts and even the blatant manipulations in our society today.
Supporting Evidence: An Informative History Lesson on Capitalism (www.khanacademy.org)
A democracy is a system of government while capitalism is an economic system and they are like oil and water. Capitalism puts corporate profits above all else and abhors democratic decisions or controls that impede increasing profits. Capitalism aims at reducing workers compensation in favor of higher profits and abhors unions. Slavery is a goal of capitalism. While capitalists say they favor a free market, they strive for monopolies and as they continue to swallow up smaller corporations there is not where to go but implosion.
Well, despite this debate being retarded, I will say that Liberty is more important than popular opinion.
This is why we have a Constitution in the United States; so that Liberty can not be voted out by the Majority. Democracy is a good system for issues that are not a question on individual rights, but for issues like private property and civil liberties, there shouldn't be a populist decision. The decision should be natural: Liberty comes first.
but they are perfectly compatible and basically it's how it's always been. even back during the City-State democracies of the Greek times. Merchants sold their goods and consumers had choice. And, of course, the big issue of Communist Dictatorships vs. Capitalist Democracies when the USA and USSR were at a rivalry.
The USA has always been Capitalist. Over time, regulation started to grow majorly once the Industrial Revolution took place. Before, Capital was farm land, saloons and the occasional oil tycoon. Once work became a 9-5 thing and life was becoming easier (people didn't have to worry about dying if they didn't water their crops during the Spring), the working class decided to raise the issue of worker's rights (since many even believed that slaves were treated better than workers). So laws were passed, and then FDR comes along during a Depression. He puts in laws that make government even larger and more involved with business regulation, and even though it technically didn't work, the War helped boost the economy, so everyone thought that it did. So that's how it's been since.
Are we still Capitalist? Compared to the rest of the world, we are very Capitalist. All we have, really, is Ireland, Israel, Australia and Japan left to back us on Capitalism. The rest of the world is either Fascist, Socialist, Social Democracy, Communist or even Hierarchy/Monarchy. Or just some shitass Dictator who has his own crazy laws (like Iran).
But America, one of the first countries to bring Democracy back into Modern Civilizations (let's face it, they made it popular again, no matter what you skeptics might think on the other developing countries in Democracy) has been very Capitalist for years.
What does this all say? That your debate is stupid and doesn't work. Capitalism can work with Democracy.
Cuntface, you've got millions of facts wrong. But who cares what you think - you'd rather have people running around crazed up on drugs raping and killing each other than give up your fucking liberties (lmao!)
90% of your post isn't even relevant to the question. All you've got is a rant about how deregulation is good (even though the global economic meltdown proves it's bad) and that regulation is bad (even though it's been the real reason for America's economic advancement) and how you're capitalist etc.
Capitalism is the hoarding of power in the hands of 1% of America's population v.s democracy which is the distribution of power into 100% of America's population
Right, because making drugs illegal has helped so much in stopping addiction.
Once we accept that drugs can never be stopped, we can effectively help people even better. But as long as we pretend that we can stop drug use with unnecessary legislation, addiction and crime will always be rampant.
To you Socialists, you seem to forget that freedom is what keeps us safe in the end. A hostile government keeps people in the dark, making it unsafe for everyone else.
Capitalism is merely the use of capital in order to extend business. Nothing in the definition says that it's Corporatism (which is actually against libertarianism and capitalism).
Right, because making drugs illegal has helped so much in stopping addiction.
Legalising it would obviously help!
To you Socialists, you seem to forget that freedom is what keeps us safe in the end. A hostile government keeps people in the dark, making it unsafe for everyone else.
LOL. Scared of the government huh? How many governments in history have been hostile, compared to those who have not been hostile? Your fear of the government is completely baseless.
Capitalism is merely the use of capital in order to extend business. Nothing in the definition says that it's Corporatism (which is actually against libertarianism and capitalism).
Who said I've got anything against with corporatism?
You've got your definition of capitalism wrong. There's so much more to it, you're focusing on a small non-essential part of it.
Capitalism will eventually lead to an aristrocat or big brother (similar to equilibrium) or worse. None of the outcomes I can think of are good. Democracy however remains a force that prevents this.
As I've said before, I enjoy listening to your views - I find it amazing people believe the things you do and aren't locked away somewhere. But your arguments are nearly always wrong. You really don't know how the world works. You've voiced your opinion. Capitalism to you is more important than democracy.
Making them legal would make it easier for users to get help. People will be able to learn to properly balance their substance since when it's legal, it will technically be alright to teach people how to do drugs properly. DARE programs don't teach children how to not OD, they just tell kids "drugs are bad and you'll die". when kids realize that DARE was lying to them, they do a shit load of drugs not realizing their limits. Drugs being illegal kills 10x more than what it would if it were legal (less ODs and less gang violence).
Most governments have been hostile. What kind of history reinventing have you been brainwashed with? People complain about the United States and the Patriot Act (which is bad, don't get me wrong); so imagine all the other shit that civilians went through before the 1700s. People were executed for what they said; and that was normal. Even today, most Middle Eastern countries execute their citizens for their ideology. The South American governments are corrupt. Africa is torn between warring tribes and governments that take the side of one of the militias. Countries of the Orient are split between good governments and Communist/Fascist Dictatorships.
The West has to deal with some shit, and if you don't find it hostile, fine. But the rest of the world is fucked up STILL. And in the past 2000 years, government has been very hostile.
As for Capitalism, you still do not seem to know what Capitalism is. My definition is the most essential part of Capitalism. It's not Capitalism if it does not include:
use of Capitalism
opportunity for free trade
that's it. Capitalism can not lead to Big Brother. Big Brother is the government watching over us. Equilibrium is based off of 1984. You seem to know nothing about Capitalism or Big Brother. Do more studying, please.
Allocates resources where they can make the most profit.
Essentially a market democracy where supply and demand dictates everything.
Consumption of goods is promoted.
More goods are made for consumption.
More goods are turned into capital goods (goods that have a price tag)
Like land.
Like buildings.
Like air.
Like water.
Like ideas (patents).
Like labor (wages).
Therefore people become a commodity.
The profit margin creates efficiency.
Efficiency and profit comes with better technology.
Surplus profits are needed to pay for this technology.
This surplus also comes with lower wages.
It also comes with more efficient labor power.
Labor is encouraged to work harder, produce more each hour paid.
Work hard and you will be rewarded?
Once technology and efficiency is at a maximum, the cost of things can go down.
Companies mass produce.
Machines do industrial work.
Supply becomes surplus to demand.
Supply of labor becomes surplus to demand.
People are made redundant.
There are less jobs available for them to go back into.
People are encouraged to work for money.
They work for money to pay for goods.
Companies need to find better markets.
Companies become larger.
Inequality between consumers and capitalists becomes greater
Companies do market research to find markets.
Companies watch what everyone spends through rewards cards.
I could go on and on and on, but I'm sorry, I have no more time.
Democracy means the marginalized majority can have some say over what happens with government policy. Democracy is being hijacked by big money. Big money comes from the capitalist dynamic.
You suggest that capitalism=free trade, but reject the idea that democracy=equality. The way you reject it is by anecdotal evidence of the worst cases, and disregard the best cases. I suggest to you that you "do more studying, please" and find out what the dynamic of capitalism does to the country. I suggest that without democracy this dynamic would run rampant. I suggest that capitalism would have failed already and fallen into the past if it was not for supporters who DEMOCRATICALLY voted for it.
ha ha drugs being legal makes it easier for users to get help-it makes it easier for users to get drugs also
ha ha people will be able to learn to properly balance their substance... alright to teach people how to do drugs properly (is this an argument for or against? Alcohol is legal. tobacco is legal. Lot of money going into teaching people correct use. Many people using them correctly, many dying every year from them)
lets look at your argument...
Drugs should be legal.
Capitalism is awesome.
Democracy is bad.
Drugs are the PERFECT commodity! (everything is there for them. Can be produced efficiently and cheaply. Makes users want more. Is easily transportable. Many people already want it. Already a lot of technological advances and knowledge base around it)
IMAGINE the devastation that would happen if the Capitalist dynamic (and as you say, free trade) was given full legal use to sell drugs!!
Oh, the government would put regulations about age limits, amounts sold... no no, thats democracy. Lets not let the majority of the country that KNOW that drugs should definitely be illegal stop drugs from being legal! They don't know whats best! Plus I want to be able to walk into a petrol station and pick up a tinny of bubblegum skunk five tabs of acid and ten grams of cocaine, even though I am only 13. Ive been to the educational school programs that teach me how to correctly use them. Oh no wait, thats right, we have no democracy, and capitalism is free to do what it wants, and it doesn't want people to under-consume!
Big waste of time since you failed at interpreting my argument... how sad.
Anyway, I do not think that Democracy is bad. People should be able to vote on certain decisions, so long as they don't restrict liberty (like making drugs or gay marriage illegal).
If you believe that Democracy should be 100%, you would also support that it was justifiable to sentence Socrates to death and Plato to banishment. No; Democracy, in its purest form, does not work. Even Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of the Independence) pointed out the evils of the majority opinion (religion is a majority opinion in this country, and luckily, today, we accept the idea of Separation of Church and State, because we realize that Liberty is essentially more important than Majority Opinion/Democracy). I do give us too much credit, though, since many states still ban gay marriage and some even ban gay adoption. Why? Because whenever a bill is presented to try and legalize these things, they majority say "no". That is Democracy trumping Liberty.
To me, it's important for the majority of citizens to have their way in some issues, like when choosing a representative or deciding on what kind of gun regulations and such; but to let them just take away civil liberties is a reason on why direct democracy doesn't work. Now, this is only based on my opinion that civil liberties are important so I can see how someone who always manages to not be affected by the taking away of certain liberties (like straight, white Christians who don't do any drugs) can be okay with these outcomes, but as a person is none of those things (well, I'm straight, but I have plenty of gay friends who I sympathize for), I do not accept this at all.
Can True Capitalism exist in a society that is 100% Democratic? It could, but only if the majority allows it. But that isn't the case in a country like this. Instead of True Capitalism, we have Corporatism which is also a major result of the straight, white Christian who doesn't do any drugs (well, he probably does, but he's rich and doesn't give a fuck).
As for this idea of the legalization of drugs leading to more people doing them... that has never happened. We can take the example of the one country that did decriminalize all narcotics (Portugal), and that showed that substance abuse went down... wow.
As well, it is even being supported by some Republicans (and none of the Democrats, but that's because Obama is the incumbent and he already has his mind set on not legalizing any drugs, even marijuana) who are running for president that drugs should be treated as a public health issue instead of a criminal issue. Instead of arresting people for possession of certain narcotics (so that they can be sent to a prison where they will easily get their hands on harder drugs, which will make them addicted and dependent on a gang, forcing them to kill, even when they get out of prison, but none of that shit matters, right?), do what Portugal does and give them a mandatory one hour session where they learn the dangers of their actions and can be offered treatment (if they accept). This would save us a bundle of money (dare I say billions?) on the War on Drugs, deter the needless cop vs. drug dealer killings, and help end addiction.
There truly is no reason to keep drugs illegal. It is a result of paranoia and fixed values. Same for why Prostitution was made illegal. It's against the white Christians' morality, so instead of just accepting that some people live different lives from them, they say that we must ban these lifestyles. At least gays are able to make this an issue of bigotry... harder to do it with drugs and prostitution (and gambling).
I will try to be succinct in my response because I fear our comments will lengthen into a thesis of postmodern(?) debate...
First point:
I never said democracy should be 100%, I just suggested democracy is generally a good thing, and capitalism is generally a bad thing, Due to its dynamic and logic which I spelled out to some degree.
Ohh corporatism? Isn't that a product of capitalism? You have given no explanation of capitalism that is different to what I suggested capitalism to be so I assume your version of True Capitalism is be something along the lines of this:
This presents a well thought out argument with one or two flaws, essentially a capitalist environment solution made up of small semi-socialist businesses. I could have read it wrong(? or replace "wrong" with "subjectively"). I am not sure if this is your idea of True Capitalism, so I won't argue any flaws/benefits, But its relevance to this debate over Capitalism vs Democracy it sits quite fairly in the middle as it relies on "effective regulation" to put it into place, and unless democracy is replaced, it is the current way to put regulations into place, so both capitalism and democracy are needed..
Plus, another perspective debate, I live in New Zealand, and you live in USA(do you?) so our subjective experience of democracy comes from different examples.
Second:
Wow. So what you are saying is Portugal decriminalized all narcotics (in 2001) and that resulted in lower substance abuse? I never knew that! It sounded like a compelling argument against me. So I checked. When did you last check? Did you ever check? Or, like most pro-drug statistics people stumble across online, the date was never a factor?
1)Personal use is decriminalized yes, but "Trafficking and cultivation of illicit substances, as well as possession of quantities exceeding a ten days’ supply, remain criminal offenses."
2)The Cato Institute report 2009 is probably the one you read, but it seems very biased because: "sometimes focusing on prevalence rate changes as small as 0.8 percent", "decline in drug-related deaths that began prior to decriminalization", "the increase in drug-related deaths in Portugal between 2004 and 2006 – is sometimes ignored", "trumpets a decline in the rate of illicit drug usage among 15- to 19year-olds from 2001 to 2007, while ignoring increased rates in the 15-24 age group and an even greater increase in the 20-24 population over the same period"(more examples of this see link), "Cato’s analysis relies heavily on lifetime prevalence data, which can be problematic when analyzing the impact of policy changes over time periods as short as the 5-6 years"
3) Other studies contradict Cato report: "(EMCDDA) indicate that between 2001 and 2007, lifetime prevalence rates for cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy, and LSD have risen for the Portuguese general population (ages 15-64) and for the 15-34 age group", "Past-month prevalence figures show increases from 2001 to 2007 in cocaine and LSD use in the Portuguese general population as well as increases in cannabis, cocaine, and amphetamine use in the 15-34 age group."
The EMCDDA report for Portugal (and others to compare) can be seen here:
4) I suggest that each country has different cultural capital, and so even IF decriminalization DID work in Portugal that is no where near proof that it would work in any other country!
I admit that these studies could be biased in the opposite direction to the Cato study, and my research was (as yours or anyone else's would be) subjective. At least I did research. You say: "As for this idea of the legalization of drugs leading to more people doing them... that has never happened" I throw Portugal right back at you, and suggest you take "never" out as an invalid argument.
Should I look up statistics for the Netherlands/Holland as I am sure there are higher rates of crime and drug use there.. But I could be wrong? Where else are there decriminalization of drugs, any or "all"?
My arguments in no way disprove your view on the problem of the US war on drugs and negative effects on the economy and human liberties, But I suggest that doing what Portugal has done is not the solution. The US culture, geography and social structure is completely different, and you cannot say objectively that something that worked in one society (it didn't) will work in another society!
I agree with you that liberties should be upheld. I disagree, again, that capitalism can do this all on its own. As stated in that "sustainable capitalism" link I gave you way back at the beginning of this essay, "We must understand that capitalism completely unchecked (meaning without proper incentives and effective guidelines providing disincentives to cheating) will always lead to corruption, and eventually to revolt. This has occurred all throughout human history and will continue to occur because it is part of human nature."
HM. I failed on the "succinct" idea didn't I?
Oh and when I look back I see you do say that this debate is illogical (or something like that) as capitalism and democracy can work together..
I support this statement of yours. I don't think that it is the "best" solution, but I'm not sure if you think it is so I cannot really debate.
Well, I never used Cato, I used reports coming in from Portugal, but w/e. It's true, people who support decriminalization will find a way to show that it works as for people who don't want it will find ways to show that it doesn't work.
So instead of all the speculation, it's more important to focus on civil liberties and the fact that the war on drugs has done far more harm than drugs themselves.
As for Capitalism, I have no problem with saying "breaking contract should be illegal" because Capitalism does not have to equate anarchy. Cheating and lying would breach contract for the most part, as for false advertising and unsafe products with no warnings, it should also be illegal. But that's based more on common sense regulation than just any old regulation. If one man sells an unsafe product to someone else without warning, he is also liable (not just businesses). But competition and self-interest is what gets us the best of the best and what gets the consumer the best product. If we all of a sudden turn business into a government approved system, we could say goodbye to Microsoft, Apple, and Starbucks. Let's face it, no one truly needs what they're providing, so why let greedy business compete to take over their markets?
I was not sure whether to click "dispute" or "support" here.
I do not have the knowledge to seriously debate a War on drugs Vs Decriminalization. From personal experience I have seen more bad than good in the drug world.
Should people just be chucked in jail if they are found with a nug of weed? Probably not. Should they be simply given the option to take a drug course? Good start, but I suggest that is simply not enough. What IS enough may never be decided. Why it may never be decided? Most/all opinions in the drug debate are clouded by experience and this "self-interest".
Everyone projects their own experience as the objective truth.
I would place myself between the apathetic and recreational group. I'm a fence sitter. I don't have the answers.
AS FOR CAPITALISM... I agree: cheating is bad, lying is bad, false advertising, unsafe products, bad bad bad. Common sense regulation is still regulation. Common sense comes from a majority of people thinking something is sensible. So common sense regulation could be seen as Democratic regulation. I agree with you completely, re:democracy should regulate capitalism.
As for competition and self-interest getting the consumer the best product. I agree in part. The consumer gets a good product yes. Whether it is the "best" is debatable, but I'll leave that for now.
The Businessman succeeds and the consumer gets an increasingly better product.
But what about the by-products of this alarmingly fast developing dynamic? Like the dramatically increasing unequally distributed wealth? The poverty? The limited resources we have on this planet, and the rate we are consuming them?
Response: oh sure, but poverty has always been around! If capitalism is such a good thing, why hasn't it beaten out the badness of starvation, poverty, war... I suggest that is because of something that has always been around: competition and self-interest. Or could we call that selfishness and ethnocentrism (Mandeville's central human traits). You correctly state that these(self-interest, competition) are central to capitalism. Is that what the world needs? You are so empathetic to the losers in the drugs war, but what about the losers in the capital war? I have been to/lived in central Asia and seen starvation first hand. It makes my opinion somewhat subjective.
Response: the resources were always going to run out! Should we be developing in a way that makes them run out faster? Maybe the future is in space travel to other resource-rich planets, that we can rape? If so, who do we leave behind? I'm sure there wont be a spaceship leaving, like a modern day "Noah's arc", or "wall-e", with a capacity of 7-9 billion.
While capitalism is not the worst, it is definitely not the best. We should be finding a better solution rather than blindly glorifying the one that is NOT working to the advantage of the human race as a whole.
I fully agree with your last statement: "...Microsoft, Apple and Starbucks. Let's face it, no one truly needs what they're providing, so why let greedy business compete to take over their markets?"
If there was an option of "Keep Microsoft, Apple and Starbucks(and to be realistic include a ton of other big money sucking competitive self-interested businesses)" vs "Government approved system that meant wealth is distributed equitably (I do not mean equally, equitably)" and this was put to a global democratic vote, I wonder who would come out on top?
At least Bill Gates gives back enormous sums on a global scale with his charity. Now he does not feature so high on the worlds wealthy list. Thats not Competitive OR self-interested!
Your experience of more bad than good in the drug world come from a world where drugs are illegal. I'm assuming, at least. If you live in a place where drugs are destroying people's lives AND they're legal, please correct me.
And I don't believe that I have all the answers when it comes to drugs, but I also believe that law makers don't either. I wish to do drugs on occasion and I believe that it should be my choice, not the government's. My opinion is on freedom of choice, not based on some kind of personal experience.
With capitalism, I referred to regulation that made deception a crime because it is a breach of verbal contract. If you promise one thing but have no intention in fulfilling that promise, you are breaching a verbal contract (which has to do with advertisement and misinformation on unsafe products). These things should be illegal based on contract, not standard regulation that we see with legislation that goes directly after business.
As for poverty, you're right, it has been around forever. And guess what, it was around when government was powerful and in complete control of the economy, and it was around when government wasn't that involved... I see that you haven't blamed Capitalism for poverty, and that's a good start. But demanding that Capitalism either cure poverty or be stopped is kind of overboard. I guess since AIDS hasn't been cured yet, it's another example of why Capitalism has failed. We also haven't cured death or have created a phone cord that doesn't tangle up, so I guess Capitalism must be strictly regulated?
No, instead we see that human society will always have its weaknesses and dead weights. Instead of using that as justification for creating a more powerful government (which has done nothing in the past), we should take advantage of it. Self-Interest, in a way, is bad, but it is inevitable (even when you give to charity, you do it because it makes you feel good... not because of some altruistic spiritual guidance). We should take-advantage of self-interest, and that's what Capitalism is best at. We have laws to prevent murder and breach of contract, now let the business men compete to gain the consumers for themselves.
You argue your opinion on the drugs debate is "not based on some kind of personal experience". I argue that you cannot have a strong opinion (like yours is) without the personal experience it is based on.
Whether drugs are illegal or not they would still, in some cases, destroy peoples lives! If the war on drugs was replaced by a treatment program, I think the treatment program should still be getting people to quit drugs and aim for eradication, not suggesting correct use...
Each individual decides how they live their life but they structure their decisions on the society they live in. The individual has an effect on the society they live in, and the society they live in has an effect on them.
If we give everyone complete freedom of choice each and every person will structure that choice on these new surroundings.
Dear dear. You reduce my argument to extremes "but demanding that capitalism ether cure poverty or be stopped is kind of overboard". When did I do that? this whole discussion between us I have been open to the benefits of capitalism, but maintain that there should be a middle ground that involves regulation and democracy. Or a future where we figure out something that works better.
In regards to your putting words into my mouth:
Aids, there is now a 'Cure', it was in stem cell transplanting. You are wrong there. There is a phone cord that does not tangle up, its called a wireless phone. You are wrong there. And the problem of death is constantly being worked on, with life expectancy going up as a result. So maybe capitalism should NOT be regulated? This is why, last comment I questioned your use of the word "better" for new technology. Sure other words like faster, easier, user-friendly and so on can be used, but better?
If it were not for regulation we would see clones of human beings around everywhere. Stem cell research would already be commonplace. Things like these need regulation to make sure they really are "better" before they are chucked out on the capitalist market. wireless technology is only a relatively new technological advance that solves the phone chord tangle. Is is a "better" advance? Do we know if it has no effects on us? I'm not saying it will, but what happens if in twenty years or so there is a crazy increase of cancer from it? Oh hopefully we will have cured cancer by then. With stem cell stuff. We will have cured death by then. But what about the effects of these? We already have a massive population in this world.
Capitalism VS democracy. This is the debate. Above all the fuss and bother, I think that democracy is the winner.
In a perfect world there would be equal opportunity for everyone and freedom of choice, and capitalism would mean that hard work meant reward. In our flawed world there is inequality, and no matter how free we allow choice to be, there will be most who simply have no opportunity to choose some options. Capitalism unfettered, I suggest, just increases inequality over time, as the ones with capital continue to capitalize on their position. The boom/bust way that capitalism works leaves a lot of rubbish in its wake
Democracy in a perfect world would be everyone with an equal say on the decisions that effect their lives. In our flawed world we only really get to decide on the people that make the decisions that effect our lives, and there are influences that marginalize the equality of even this decision. The result is government making regulations that a majority of people don't want.
I'm critical of both, but I think that in the real world, they need to work together to create a place for us to live where wealth is distributed a little more evenly. And if we had a choice of one or the other, I would choose Democracy.
We have moved, as a human race, away from total reciprocity, through redistribution, and are currently at market exchange.
What is wrong with reciprocity? We still use this in the informal economy. I think it is great. What is wrong with redistribution? Thats what our taxes go towards, and democracy should be making the redistribution of our taxes efficient and equitable. I think that is great. What is wrong with market exchange? This is the level that capitalism works on, and it means that resources are allocated to where they are used best. I think that is great too! They should all work together. What I don't think is great is when we think that we should kill off the others, well mostly just kill off redistribution, and rely simply on market exchange.
REALLY what is going on here, Is you have your opinion and I have mine.
While you do have some good arguments, you are coming from the (in my opinion rather selfish, egocentric, greedy, self-serving, head up butt) view that capitalism and freedom of choice should reign, because , I suggest, you can only see a positive future for yourself coming from these things. While I am white, male, from a upper middle class family, and can only see a positive future from these same things, I am critical of the lifespan of that future, with potential economic and ecologic disasters impending, and I wish to have kids.
I hope that they can live in a world that they can be comfortable living with the empathetic ethical morals I will promote in them, and I hope that the world, through democracy and education, can come to their senses and realize how we are fucking each other around with our egocentric self-interest and competition, when we can be self-interested in our collective future, and competitive towards a sustainable future for the planet.
So since wireless, or shit like that, COULD cause cancer in the future (without any evidence), this is why Capitalism should be regulated? I can see why you are so iffy about legalizing drugs. But with drugs, we at least know the dangers of them. Drug use is about personal choice. Drugs can do good and they can do bad, but in the end it comes down to what the person wants, not what the moral majority wants. If we were truly concerned about harmful drugs, alcohol and tobacco would be made illegal. But that is not the case. Instead, we say that they can't be sold to minors, and that is a good idea. Not regulating the market, just regulating developing humans. Kids have been proven to not have fully developed brains, and since you are a legal adult at 18, it makes sense that merchants can not sell to 18 year olds. HOWEVER!, the possession of cigarettes or alcohol should not be illegal for minors in the sense that they should face criminal prosecution. Instead, just take it away from them. If we are concerned for their health and well-being, charging them as criminals is not the way to go.
But for legal adults, in general, it should be up to them on what they want to do to their minds and bodies. This idea that we need government to tell us what is and isn't good for us goes against the very principles of liberty. We are free human beings and do not need government to say "you can't smoke that weed or eat those mushrooms". It is up to the individual to decide. My concern is for freedom of choice, not for personal gain. I do not wish to ever do DMT or Salvia Divinorum, but I believe that they should be legalized. I do not wish to have sex with a prostitute, but I believe that that should be legalized. I do not like to gamble (i don't even play the lottery) and my views are the same on that. So it's about individualism and keeping the government from becoming our kindergarten teachers.
As for wireless phones, that is not a "cord"... that is an energy wave. And stem cells are far more complex than "cure for AIDS", however, it is the closest we've gotten.
And it's kind of weird that you assume that without regulation there would be an epidemic of cloning... and stem cell should be a common thing.
And bringing up over-population in your rant against the demons of capitalism isn't really helping you. I could see where you were going before in your earlier arguments, but this all just sounds like someone who wants the natural order (as of now) to continue instead of letting science make us as immortal as possible. Not everyone believes in Heaven (and most Scientists don't, as well).
And Democracy does not give everyone equal opportunity or even equality. All it gives them is a chance to try and change something, but it will always come down to majority rule. This is what stops the gays from receiving their rights and this is what stops individuals from choosing what to do with their private lives.
And you conclude your argument with saying that business owners will destroy the environment and enslave society if government didn't have so much power these days... that just seems, to me, to be a prediction made from paranoia and nothing more.
But yes, you are a white, male and from the upper-middle class. I, however, am a minority balancing between lower-middle and middle class. Does it make a difference in economics? Not really. Most economic Liberals tend to either be in poverty or white, upper-middle class types. But my concern comes from your problem with freedom of choice, as if choice is overrated. At least you are willing to admit it, though.
Ok.. What? LOL I love it how you "invalidate" my points by rephrasing them into illogical statements. I'm guilty of this too, but I do try not to, honest. No. Without evidence (I find it funny that you accuse ME of no evidence) the possibility of wireless or "shit like that" causing cancer in the future is not the concrete case against neoliberal capitalism.
There's an interesting video that talks a little bit about one section of scientific research that seems a bit worrying. I'm just skeptical and wish for some regulations about things because as a free choosing being I can choose not to buy a GM product, but it is becoming harder and harder. I like living in New Zealand where we question these and other things on a political level.
Tobacco, alcohol, prostitution?
Here in New Zealand we have a strong anti-smoking thing going on at the moment and it is working to some degree. I have smoked for a period in my life, and I've "quit", but I regress occasionally. This is because I do feel addicted, and its hard to say no when they are on offer. Is it free choice when addicted?
However, we (New Zealand) are not so good on the Alcohol debate... We (myself included) drink like fish and suffer as a result...
Again I think you are reducing my argument to a HARD LINE against drugs. I believe that some regulations are too much and others are good, some not enough. And decisions on these should have public debate.
Salvia Divinorum is legal in New Zealand. Each drug should be seen on its merits and detrimental effects. So I agree with you re: weed, salvia.
Notice I am (trying my hardest) not saying exact laws that should be in place, nor laws that should not be in place. I don't know enough to say yay or nay. I don't believe your "freedom of choice" is enough evidence to say yay.
Prostitution is legal in New Zealand, and from what I read the number of street workers has quadrupled since its legalization (a few years ago) as a result. Violence, rape, discrimination and the other nasty things picked to decrease are still accepted by most prostitutes in NZ as "part of the sex industry". So now 400% more people are involved in this. Great job legalization.
I wont dissect the "kindergarten teacher" remark because, ok I did go a bit to far with the cloning/stem cell idea.
But you still reduce my debate. I did not say "natural order instead of science" I said current regulations to enforce testing before they are chucked into the market is great.
Yes, democracy gives people a chance to try and change something (because of equal voice). Social movements are all about this. Go the gays. If you want rights, campaign for them. They are and it's working. Are gays vilified now? Yes, by some, but not by a majority and so it is not illegal to be gay. (I am in NO way using these as an analogy of the gay struggle for acceptance, but an analogy of a social movement:) Same with campaigns for Christianity, abortion, capital punishment, drugs, immigration, gun laws, the right to go naked in public... Common sense should prevail over these things, and common sense does by democracy. And common sense changes over time.
BUT you are right with your point about equal opportunity or equality not working, yet I (like I stated last comment) suggest it is not a problem with democracy but the realities of the world.
Is not the environment being destroyed? Deforestation. Deep sea trawling. Melting ice caps. CO2 levels. Ozone depletion (no wait, government policy helped reduce that problem)...
I'm not paranoid, I'm concerned and instead of just staying concerned, I'm (rightly or wrongly) trying to discuss a solution. It's better than inaction, or ignoring the issue.
It all sounds so bogus as we have such a choice of what to believe these days. There is a supermarket of ideas on the Internet, and this does little to provide any truth to any matter. We live in a simulated society.
I think the best argument for democracy and a collective agreement on things is your and my opinions. I don't want to live in your 'perfect' world, and you don't want to live in mine, thats why everyone should have a say, and democratically continually adapt society to work for the majority, instead of imposing all the differing crazy opinions (mine included) upon everyone!
I will conclude with this: LOL we have now delved into class. Social stratification means both you and I are a minority! Some see class as something created by the dynamic logic of capitalism which helps institutionalize any economic based social movement. Yes liberals or any other social group HAVE to recruit across the analytical barriers of class because if they didn't they would have a very small group indeed.
I've smoked a bit and quit after a profound experience on shrooms. they actually made me dislike cigs. Point? That each individual is different, and YOUR addiction shouldn't effect MY decision on whether I want to smoke or do shrooms or w/e.
And the American auto industry (including GM) would not have such a stranglehold on its consumers were it not for tariffs (which are provided by the American government and the foreign governments). I understand that you're in New Zealand, so I don't know how tariffs work for you guys, but here it creates a competitive edge for the American car companies (which include GM).
But the problem with letting the public decide is that they do not consider civil rights/liberties. They consider what their morals tell them. If they voted based on common sense, all drugs would be legalized at this point (because an overwhelming amount of evidence shows that combating the drug industry is harmful towards society and our economy). As well, gay rights would not be an issue... in the States that actually legalize gay marriage it had to be done by the Supreme Court (which is not a Democratic process). If we left it up to the citizens, gays would still not be able to get married in any of the states they live in (I think maybe one or two, not sure). As well, gay adoption is still an issue in many states.
Back to drugs, if we treated each drug on its detrimental effects, alcohol would be one of the most illegal, along with heroin and tobacco. However, that is not the case, because people and legislators do not make decisions based on common sense. Depending on common sense is wishful thinking. But even so, alcohol and the such shouldn't be illegal because, once again, it is up the individual. But I know, you don't care about "freedom of choice".
And then we come to an entire debate on CO2 levels and ozone depletion, even though 97% of CO2 levels come from natural means and the ozone depletion was in areas were civilization hardly existed in the first place. These things are up for debate, of course, but this idea that us humans are even powerful enough to destroy the environment is kind of overplayed at this point. Simply put, I'm not that afraid that we're all going to die from speculative science.
And the difference between my perfect world and yours is that in mine, you are free to live your own, individual life without a moral, corporate government telling you what to do, and in yours, I'm a slave to what the moral majority thinks (and its corporate government).
headse generally, you see yourself as a Randian hero.
Fantastic for you, not so fantastic for people around you. Unfortunately, your idea that Freedom of Choice is the answer to our problems has problems of its own. Well, that is unless this freedom is curtailed (yes, I said it, restricted!) in SOME way:
1) If I have freedom of choice, what happens if that choice affects others. Eg:second hand smoke, drink driving, murder..
2) If the country gives freedom of choice to its citizens(?) this must be backed up by a global movement that matches it, as authoritarian capitalism is proving to be more economically productive(powerful in the capitalist world) than neoliberal capitalism of the west and I(et al) fear this authoritarian capitalism could take over.
3) Freedom of choice is something that we do have to some extent. The world we live in today is one of a supermarket of choice. We have restrictions, but compared to 10 years ago? 100 years ago? Yet the (you argue not free enough) freedoms we do have are arguably "precarious freedoms". (Beck 1996) We have a TON of choice, but we also get lumped with a ton of responsibility. This freedom is a life-world "fragmented into options, everything must be decided... certainties have fragmented into questions which are now spinning around in people’s heads," "Individual subjects are themselves called upon to exercise authority in the face of disorder and contingency which is thereby generated." "A state of permanent endangerment."
I suggest Beck, not as entirely MY personal opinion, but one to take into account.
You continually reduce my argument to one that is against freedom of choice! Freedom of choice is good, but it has to have bounds. I feel you have this same thought, because IF you think 'freedom of choice' should be Fundamentally-freedom of ALL choice, I ask this question:
Where(in what realm of choices) does/should freedom of choice end?
LOL. I don't believe speculative science can kill anyone (I could be wrong?) but that idea does nothing to disprove climate change.
It is not "speculative science" you may die from, it would be the earth's ecosystem being destroyed.
Ozone depletion was, and the holes still exist, in areas "where civilization hardly existed in the first place" because of MANY reasons. Diffusion of gasses in the atmosphere, the earths spinning on its axis, the light and climate conditions in Antarctica.. That was such a unintelligent throw away statement.
Yes, CO2 levels that come from natural means by far outweigh human CO2 levels. I'm not sure where you got your information from, but I'm guessing you did not read all of the information, or it was a biased/incomplete analysis. Natural resources that emit these CO2 levels also soak up more CO2 than they emit. Humans don't soak up more than they emit. And the (you say 3%) emissions that we do produce are outweighing the soaking up capacity of our natural resources have over and above their own emissions that they soak up, so CO2 levels are rising and accumulating.
It is not overplayed. While I admit the "Global warming" idea has become a bit of a political agenda and misused, this does not mean that it does not exist.
Please, for your own sake, realize you are living in a simulated world. (Baudrillard, giving credit where credit is due)
Lol you used wikipedia. Despite this, I appreciate your research.
But anyway, if you wish to break down freedom of choice laws, let's go:
1. Second Hand Smoke - Still no evidence to suggest that it causes cancer or major illnesses. The studies done that try to suggest that it does will merely say "wait a minute, he lived with a smoker? Second hand smoke, then".
2. Drinking and Driving - Another skewed study that goes after blood alcohol levels instead of actual impairment. The average blood alcohol level for alcohol related deaths is .15%, but that information was obtained by, once again, finding that a car accident victim had alcohol and adding it to the statistic. Had nothing to do with seeing if it was because of intoxication in the first place. Passengers included.
3. Murder is directly effecting another. If you come and kill me, you have made the conscience decision to take my life (or maybe you were crazy, but that comes back to the speculation. The evidence is apparent, you deprived me of my life). The consequences for something like this? We deprive you of your freedom/life. The punishment fitting the crime. We can not say the same for the prior two, since they are based on faulty science.
I'm glad you brought it up. More people need to be aware of how idiotic it is to put people in jail for nothing more than traditional speculation (and that is exactly what it is). Conservatives and Liberals to blame.
And no, I am not Randian. I do agree with the ideas of Objectivism, but I would save a baby that's dying... my personal choice to save the baby, which Randians would most likely be against.
And what Authoritarian Capitalism do you speak of? Oh, you mean government supported monopolies, government approved business deals, and government bailouts for major corporations? That is not what true Capitalists want. That is Corporatism.
And what disorder are you referring to caused by freedom of choice? If drugs are legalized, are you suggesting we will have disorder? No evidence. If prostitution is legalized, are you suggesting we will have disorder? I've shown the faultiness of your evidence. Gambling, pornography, censorship. All issues solved with personal choice, and you speak of some disorder without presenting any hard evidence that it would even exist. All I can assume is that you can predict the future and have seen some horrible consequences for letting people decide for themselves. But if you have this amazing power, surely you can show us how we can prevent the people from going down the wrong path... oh wait, government control. Okay, you were right.
As for Global Warming, you've shown yourself that there's plenty to debate about. Now, if you full on accept that global warming is man-made and a serious issue, okay. But I do not. And truly, there has been nothing to convince me that if we don't do something about global warming, it will be the extinction of the human race. Man has survived extreme climate change from thousands of years before, I'm sure we can do it again. In fact, we have the ability to do it these days more than anything.
But in the end, I get it. You're afraid of the consequences of just letting people live their personal lives however they want. Conservatives are afraid of people questioning traditional methods, and Liberals are afraid of people not caring about any issue that they bring up (political correctness, environmentalism, animal rights). When it comes right down to it, suppressing freedom of choice is purely a control move. Not a safety move, not an "ends justifies the means" move, but a control move to keep us in check with their ideologies. So I get it.
Oh. Wikipedia goes very well with your ideals doesn't it? Individuals with freedom to chose changes. Pitty wikipedia is becoming more of a controlled website with flags or locking down pages because of the disorder and chaos that allowing freedom for everyone created.
1) Second hand smoke. I never suggested this causes major illness. Regardless, it affects other people's freedom to choose fresh air.
2) Drink driving. You cannot possibly be suggesting that driving drunk does NOT affect the safety of a person's driving?! Lies and statistics is it? So we can all choose to drive drunk because the hazards are simply the rhetoric of skewed studies?
3) So murder has consequences? That is where the line is drawn. Or not drawn. Someone can choose to murder, just there are consequences.
What about those wrongly convicted? There are many cases of this, and even ONE person wrongly convicted and put to death as a result is unjust. The legal system is flawed, but despite this you say "freedom of choice!" hand in hand with "capital punishment". "Faulty science" when it works in your favor, or "punishment fitting the crime".
Ridiculous.
LOL What are the conditions in which you save the baby? For example, option 1) save your own baby 10 babies die, option 2) save 10 babies, your own baby dies. You can pick option 1, save a baby, and still be randian. You can still be randian, walking down the road, spot a baby falling into a deadly hole, and pluck him away from the danger. No sacrifice there.
China is a prime example of Authoritarian Capitalism. Call it "not what true capitalists want" call it "corporatism", but you miss my point: My point was that this authoritarian capitalism is more powerful (it profits better, gains capital better, and in doing, holds more power) than neoliberal capitalism. If your version of capitalism and freedom of choice is put in place in USA now, the country may be quickly taken over by more powerful countries. Am I wrong? I'm sure you have something to say about that.
Ok. Freedom of choice creates Disorder? No evidence?
Anarchy, civil war, economic crisis as a result of neoliberal capitalism.
(Ok the last one you will reject...)
These are examples of freedom of choice descending into disorder.
There are some good results from the first two, I will freely admit that. But you must, in turn, freely admit that there are bad results also.
I am not saying legalization of drugs alone, or prostitution alone, bla bla bla. Again you reduce my argument to single components. I'm saying freedom of choice of >everything< will create chaos.
But that's not what you want. Give freedom of choice, you say, to everyone! But if they step over the line, you say, fucking kill them!
There is plenty to debate about regarding global warming, I suggest this debate is only around because of the simulation of society. You probably didn't read that so I will give you a summary:
Hyper-reality creates models of a 'real' without origin or reality. The implications of this is a liquidation of all referentials, a loss of distinction between the real and the imaginary and society substituting signs of the real for the real itself. This creates a simulated generation of difference between the ‘real’ and the imaginary.
One could place my climate change argument inside this description. Correct. Because of our hyper-real simulated society, it is just as valid to suggest something backed by facts, to one that is backed by no facts.
I'm not saying global warming will make the whole human race extinct! Yes, we now more than ever, have ways to survive but many marginalized poor would die. That you are content with this result shows me that you are randian.
Yep, I'm a liberal.
What then are you? If you decry both conservative and liberal.
I've taken the test a few times before. I like some of it, but it asks questions about art and such, which have more to do with culture. Plus, I could have sworn there was a culture and foreign policy scale along with it, but that may have been another test from another site. I do not find art more or less important than business, for it is all relative. To some, business is more important, to others, art is. The test if flawed, but it puts me in the correct general area. I am not far-right because I do not believe that a thriving corporation always means the best for the people. That is impossible to tell. Such a statement of affirmation is intellectually dishonest. That goes for other questions regarding "what's good for business is good for society". No, what's good for business depends on the business, that is merely it. It just usually means that society will thrive, but once again, my philosophy is on relativism and objectivism... not the worship of business.
Wikipedia is neutral on all subjects. And the website is controlled by the moderators... the people who run it in the first place. The moderators are given power by the creator of the site, and it is, ultimately, up to him on what is controlled on that site or not. It goes very well with my ideals because there is no legislation over it, sure.
1. Second hand smoke - By this logic, me existing effects your freedom to choose to not have to read someone else's argument. You still don't. Just because my arguments are around does not mean that you have lost your liberty. But even if you live with someone who smokes, it is up to you to leave that conveyance. If a child lives with someone who smokes, they could bring it up in a civil case if it truly bothered them. This would entitle the child to either find new custody or be legally emancipated, depending on the circumstances.
2. Drunk Driving - I never said that, but even so, the police should be looking for impairment, not intoxication.
3. And absolutely. Murder is proven to be depriving of someone's life. In general, I do not agree with Capital Punishment. In order for Capital Punishment to be utilized, there would have to be undeniable evidence proving that the person did it (like footage ALONG side DNA, witnesses, etc.). In my world, Capital Punishment would be used, possibly, once a decade. But, as well, even a person's freedom should not be deprived unless the prosecution can provide more than just circumstantial evidence (which is not always the case these days). But go ahead, call me ridiculous.
And I see your point on Randianism... I didn't know that you were such a defender of it, though. I do not know much of Rand's work, so I avoid associating my beliefs with hers. I've heard from an objectivst video blog site about "extreme Randians saying don't save a baby because of natural order" or what not, but I suppose that is why it's extreme... But even so, I agree with Objectivism, and that's the only thing I agree with Rand on. I believed in Objectivism even before I ever heard of Ayn Rand. But that is out of Philosophy rather than lifestyle (if I added the lifestyle, I would be a Nihilist... which I do not find myself to truly be).
And China is more about Fascism than Corporatism. Now, in these days, Corporatism and Socialism tend to get mixed up because of Fascist "Third Way" components, so I can see how Authoritarian Capitalism can refer to China's system... I thought you were referring to Corporatism itself (and how it is utilized in the States, but I see).
The Civil War was not an example of the problem with Freedom of Choice. The Union chose to force the South to preserve the Union, which resulted in the War. And the secession of the South was a result of the North not complying with their part of the Compromise. Freedom of Choice, in the end, was not an issue. If you wish to bring up slavery, slavery is a clear example of the Opposite of Freedom of Choice. Free individuals being forced into labor without any say. If they did object, they were beaten, sometimes to death. As well, they were taken from their homes. But even so, the secession wasn't only about slavery. Slavery was merely an issue in the Compromise.
Economic crisis - blame the fed, if you want to know what actually causes any major recession. I am not saying to end the fed (which may be the best thing to do, but that is a different debate) mainly because I have not studied enough about economics in order to make such an affirmative statement. My problem is when people treat it like it's absurd, even if they know just as much or even less about economics than I do. I accept that I am not an economist, so I will not put all my money into ending the Fed. But at the same time, I will not accept the statement of others that the Fed is good.
Anarchy. Anarchy implies allowing people to rape and murder without any police force. Sure, that would be ultimate freedom and liberty, but you seem to be getting something wrong. Why is it that people who have no intention on murdering and raping (which are the mass majority of people) will all of a sudden go on a crime spree if government just disappeared? It's funny, because the only example I see of anarchy is tribalism, and those are uncivilized people who have no knowledge, science or business. Yet, they live in a mainly peaceful manner. In today's world, if government disappeared, we would have crime, sure. But would good people just let that happen? Or will they form militias (as they did during the Revolution)? I do not believe in taking away the military and police force because not everyone can defend themselves, and we shouldn't expect them to. Being a trained marksmen takes time and practice, and many can't even get to that level no matter how much they train. This idea that social libertarians (and even economic libertarians) want Anarchy when they refer to Freedom of Choice and Civil Liberties is kind of just a cop-out when it comes to debate. Of course I don't mean to let people just murder others. As stated, earlier in the post, murder is proven to be a direct reason for the depriving of someone's life. Rape is proven to be directly involved with forcing someone into sex. Doing drugs is not. Paying for sex is not. These are things that most people refer to when it comes to Civil Liberties or Freedom of choice. The ability to choose what we wish to do with our own lives and bodies. If you want, I can say "Freedom of Personal choice" so that you don't have to read anything else I say to know what I'm talking about.
Yes, you say freedom of personal choice. Again what I suggest is a complex wrinkle in that idea, is when personal choice affects others. Like you correctly point out even one person existing affects another persons liberty, when you look at it realistically.
What I find hard to understand is that you are so vocal behind freedom of choice, yet you push it on all the fronts that are the most controversial and which have very fuzzy edges. The ideals of prostitution are great when you think about it, but I've known two people over the course of my life that were involved in the industry. If, as you do, you look at prostitution from the perspective of the person paying for the sex, it seems sound. What about the sex worker? From their perspective, they didn't really want to have sex with the people they did, but because they were being paid money which they needed to survive, they consented. One ended up with herpes. I've heard horror stories about old men and bum sex.
I KNOW this is not a description the entire industry, but when you reduce prostitution to "paying for sex" you ignore most of what it really entails.
Is it freedom of choice? Or someone caught up in a bad situation and exploited by capitalism?
You love your civil liberties and freedom of choice, but you ignore the dirty underside of these topics. No, you don't ignore them, but you feel they are only a result of the lack of freedom of choice. Or possibly you feel that there are better ways to deal with these things and freedom of choice on the matter is the best beginning. "The ability to chose what we wish to do with our own lives and bodies"?
Marx said some very true words in regards to this "Men make their own history but not in circumstances of their own choosing." How can we take these circumstances away? Because with them, this freedom of choice thing only favors a select few.
WOW I am flabbergasted at what you have said: "If a child lives with someone who smokes, they could bring it up in a civil case if it truly bothered them. This would entitle the child to either find new custody or be legally emancipated, depending on the circumstances."
Do you really think this is a viable option?
Who would fund this legal debate?
When would a child be old enough to decide this?
... I'm almost struck dumb by that suggestion...
re:drunk driving. I'm pretty good at driving drunk. Have done it on many occasions in my youth. I have had a lot of practice. FORTUNATELY I was never caught. I have also done a lot of research and written a few articles about intoxication levels in regards to impairment. Currently the law is (depending on where you are) If you are over said limit (usually a few drinks, in NZ we have a high limit, I've passed a breath test after 6-7 drinks) you are charged. The reason drunk people go out and drive is normally "I'm FINE to drive! It will be all good!" their friends can hold them back because the law does not go on impairment. And a drunk persons opinion of their impairment is arguably impaired. If the law was based only on impairment, most wouldn't care how much they had drunk in the night, just whether they would pass the impairment test. And how do you get a test that is not flawed? Breath tests are flawed, I know that, but would an 'impairment' test be better, and more importantly, what kind of message would an 'impairment' test give to the drinking society?
LOL! When I said civil war I thought I made it quite clear that I was referring to civil war in general, not just your one particular example of America. Civil war and anarchy are freedom of choice gone wrong, and possibly even subverted by other influences. I admit that. But it is still on some level a freedom of choice thing. The only reason I brought this up is because you said that there is not one example where freedom of choice led to disorder. I gave you a plethora of history and current affairs in Sudan, north Africa, middle east to look at, and all you did was think about your own US civil war... In society you cannot simply have one part (eg:freedom of choice) without all the other ugly parts of society. You must think from an embedded perspective, instead of skimming only what is relevant to your own debate. It is fine to suggest Freedom of choice, but in practice, it hardly ever comes about without disorder, and it hardly ever is maintained without continual disorder.
Anarchy.
Let us look at the description:
1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
What can you base your idea that the mass majority of people, who have no intention on murdering and raping, will all of a sudden go on a crime spree if government just disappeared? What facts do you have?
Other than what you THINK human nature means in your regulated society. Look at what Sigmund Freud says about human nature. I'd believe him before I believed your "truth claims". And I don't agree with a lot of what Freud says, but he makes some good points. Pedophillic nature of modern society. Wanting to sex our parents... This man studied humans. What experience can you draw upon to say that humans are mostly good people?
Civil war is something that is ever present these days. If you think anarchy is tribalism you are wrong. Tribes have chiefs, leaders, patriarchy... Maybe what you mean is hunter gatherers? But again kin based groups still are lead by elders, fathers, warriors... And if you want to argue that either of these are mainly peaceful, talk to Napoleon Chagnon who devoted much of his life studying tribal culture and warfare.
I was not defending Ayn Rand, or randian thought, for my own benefit. I think it is a disasterous way to think about life. I was mearly setting you straight because some of the things you stated were incorrect.
Your ideals of Freedom of choice, I suggest, are simply that. Ideals. And I would hazard to go further and suggest they are not well thought out ideals. Democracy. I'd prefer a slow developing, equitably distributed socialist community-minded democracy any day, DESPITE its many flaws, than the self-destructive neoliberal "freedom of choice for the individual" capitalist society.
You speak ill of Prostitution, but you seem to act like these sex workers are only sex workers because it's legal... well, no. Here in America, the illegal sex trade is far worse than the legal sex trade. As for YOUR example of prostitution in New Zealand that you posted a few posts back, I was able to show you how your stats were flawed.
Freedom of personal choice is important, but we see that prostitution, legalized, is safer than prostitution made illegal. It takes power away from the pimps and gangs and to the businessman. A healthy prostitute is better for a legal business than a beat up, unhealthy prostitute. But I guess you'll just use your old/10 stats again. Your anecdotal horror stories aren't helping your argument, they're actually making it worse (referring the prostitution argument, of course).
So it's really "exploited by pimps and gangs", which is how it is in this country. In Nevada, however, the prostitutes (whether doing it just because they need money or not) are clean and kept safe. Everywhere else, prostitutes are dirty, bruised, and addicted to something.
And freedom of personal choice favors everyone... because we are not limited by the moral majority. If I want to drink beer, snort coke and then bang a hooker, I will not be limited because I have civil liberties. If you would like to, you can do it as well. When you take these liberties away, everyone is limited. We all still do it, but if we're caught, we're punished (even our politicians and celebrities).
As for children, emancipation and custody switching happens all the time for various reasons. Smoking usually isn't an issue because most smoker-parents smoke outside (if a child is there). As well, almost every house has a fire-alarm. But I don't see the purpose of your argument. Are you saying that because YOU don't know how children ask for legal emancipation, that's why smoking should be regulated (even within the household?) You should clear that one up...
And that's another interesting one:
You said that more people will drive drunk if cops look for impairment instead of intoxication. Evidence?
The problem with looking for intoxication, once again, is that when you put a "limit" to blood alcohol, you are putting the claim that under that limit, people are okay to drive... evidence?
Impairment is proven through roadside sobriety tests. In fact, most drunk driving cases use ONLY the sobriety tests. Not everyone is forced to use a breathalyzer or blood test mainly because it involves more procedure. The problem comes in when someone who has "one for the road" (which is meant for people who drink a quick one, get behind the wheel, and doesn't get effected by the alcohol until they are home or almost home) usually get fucked the most by breathalyzer/blood tests since most cops don't have the equipment with them. Meanwhile, people who were actually driving over the limit will have time to lose some of their toxicity by the time the equipment is used on them.
And I don't see how Civil War is CAUSED by freedom of choice... are you saying that both people who are fighting just wanted the ability to choose, so they fought? Or is it that one party wishes to live their personal lives without intrusion and the government is overbearing? Once again, I don't see how this helps your argument... it kind of helps mine, though. So thanks :)
And interesting about your Anarchy theory, I still have not seen any evidence to claim that people will just go around raping people. You ask me to for proof that they won't, but that's like asking for proof that God DOESN'T exist, or that nuclear missiles WEREN'T in Iraq. You can't prove a negative, so the burden of proof ends up being on the one who claims that it does exist. You claim that Anarchy will result in constant murder and rape (or some shit like that), so I ask for the evidence.
And it's interesting that you brought Freud into this (a hero of mine). Are you saying that through Anarchy kids will fuck their parents? Evidence, please. Freud's Oedipus Complex does not mean that children automatically wish to fuck their parents. It was all behind his theories that sex has to do with everything, and that the son loving the mother and hating the father is a result of sexual impulse. This does NOT prove, however, that children will start fucking their parents if government left.
I am not defending Anarchy, because I do believe that it's important to have Law and Order (in order to make sure that those who harm others are punished for it), but your attacks on personal liberties and Anarchy are all purely based on your stigma towards people and the lifestyles they wish to have.
As well, minus the tribes, Anarchy is virtually impossible. To this day, I have yet to see a truly anarchic society. Even Anarchists are organized and based on common ideals.
My example of prostitution involved two people I know. They were prostitutes over a period of time that involved before and after the legalization. I not once said "only sex workers because it's legal." They were sex workers because of the money.
The reason why I brought up these two "anecdotal horror stories" is to point out that your view is from the outside, the paying customer who should have free rights to "bang a hooker". You do not take into account the exploitation. They let you bang them, mostly, because you give them money. And yes, this argument can be extrapolated to the office worker, bla bla bla. Capitalism, while it seems to favor freedom of choice (it does if you are rich or privileged) restricts most of the choice of the marginalized.
I'm going to stop using stats, because we both know how biased some are. In our postmodern society there is very little to help decide on whats the truth or not.
Nevada? You think that Nevada's heavily regulated prostitution example backs you up?
Businessmen=pimps and gangs who use MYOB to find out what they are doing wrong?
And the government is taking their cut too. So lets share the blame.
PLEASE stop using absolutes because they hurt your rhetoric:
"In Nevada, however, the prostitutes are clean and kept safe."
"Everywhere else, prostitutes are dirty, bruised, and addicted to something."
"As for children, emancipation and custody switching happens all the time for various reasons."
"We all still do it, but if we're caught, we're punished."
These are simply not absolutely true.
I understand fully emancipation of children (In your logic it happens all the time for children. I was a child! SO MUCH EMANCIPATION! I hardly had time to go potty). I was just slightly shocked that your solution for a child who wishes to not be affected by second hand smoke should have nothing to do with parents choice to stop smoking, or restrictions on their freedom of choice. No, the child should just get emancipated. "Emancipate" is such a great word! It gives a feeling of freedom and good results! Fantastic.
HMM.
You act like I argue in the same way that you do.
I never said "EVERYONE under the blood alcohol limit are ok to drive". The burden of evidence is not on me, I understand fully that there are MANY other factors that make people unfit to drive. By saying this you are calling for evidence that shows exactly what makes people unsafe to drive and placing restrictions on all of these things.
No, you are not(well I don't think you are), I know that. And don't think I am saying this either. Just using absolutes and putting words into your mouth much like you do mine, to give you an example of what I mean.
Don't school me on police procedure. I fail to see your problem with drink driving if (in USA) "most drunk driving cases use ONLY the sobriety tests." Your problem is already solved and the cops test just on impairment. In New Zealand it is different. All traffic cops have Breathalyzers.
1)A person who has "one for the road" will never be over the limit, even over time, unless they have had drinks before this "one."
2)A person driving over the "limit" will have to be held up rather a long time for them to lose toxicity, as it generally takes an hour for the body to process a single standard drink.
I will admit that there are hold ups in the system, on the road and where ever. But this means that a person having "one for the road" is driving irresponsibly as they could be held up by traffic or whatever and then suddenly become over the limit!
Where do you draw the line with impairment? Where do you draw the line with a limit? For a policing system to work, lines have to be drawn, and let the court decide if the margin of error is to small to charge.
Why are we arguing this margin of error, when (if you go to court and watch you will see) most drink drivers caught are NOWHERE near this margin of error.
But I am arguing from a New Zealand perspective, you are arguing from a USA perspective. In NZ the blood alcohol/breath alcohol limit is 80mg to 100ml/400mgc per 1liter. This is less if you are under 20. LOL, funny, I got a txt this morning from a friend, he has had his second or third drink driving conviction today. Twice the legal limit. This time he is facing possible jail time or mandatory alcohol counseling. Before it was just a fine and loss of license.
In EVERY CIVIL WAR freedom of choice is a massive factor. I never used the word "caused". I said "led to" in reference to disorder, but I freely admitted that it was not the ONLY factor.
THIS WHOLE section of the argument stems from you saying that freedom of choice has never led to disorder. I showed you an example, and you tried to destroy it by saying that it was really the Other factors. But I maintain that freedom of choice is the base of civil war(but not the only factor). You back me up here "one party wishes to live their personal lives without intrusion and the government is overbearing?" Live life without intrusion=freedom of civil liberties anyone?
Anarchy is a hard one to pin down, because TOTAL anarchy is virtually impossible like you say.(Why do you still think tribes are an example of anarchy?)
But there are anarchists who are idealistic and ones who fight the government. I am not referring to the middle class anarchists, I am referring to warfare, gangs, ACTUAL disorder. You ask for proof? I thought I had already given you "proof"?
But what is proof? We both agree that biased statistics and subjectivity is overbearing. IF no one can give proof, and no one can prove a negative, then what is the point of arguing, because we are both right and both wrong? It just depends on your perspective.
Despite me constantly asking for you not to make illogical conclusions about what I am saying, you consistently do.
"I don't agree with a lot of what Freud says"(me)
"Are you saying that through Anarchy kids will fuck their parents? Evidence, please."(you)
Please stop asking for evidence if you never give conclusive evidence yourself. What is the point of me providing evidence if no evidence (in this postmodern world) is conclusive.
To me, you are wrong and I am correct. In your mind, you are right and I am wrong.
It's funny, because instead of providing any evidence to prove any of your claims, like anarchy being bad causing people to do bad things (you provided Sudan, which has government... but did you know that every country that has government also has rape and murder?... weird). Or that kids will fuck their parents because of anarchy (now you say that you don't believe that... even though YOU were the one who showed concerns), or prostitution being legal causing problems (you say you have two friends... but you now blame Capitalism? your argument is confusing. would legal prostitution be okay under Socialism? please, clear up your actual beliefs instead of all this Danson).
You see, all I ask is for you to show me evidence... otherwise, don't take away my rights. It's really quite simple. You believe I am full of shit... for what? Requiring you to back up your claims? I have not said that anarchy is good or bad... I simply do not know. But for you to act like freedom of choice isn't that great because of anarchy (a bad statement already), I would need for you to prove this. It seems that you are suggesting that it's okay to regulate people's personal choices because... well, you haven't even said why. You just say that it's okay. And this is why it's okay for Democracy to lead to removal of civil liberties... or are you trying to get at something else? Please, be clear.
Lol. My "full of shit" statement got you angry didn't it? It was said to get you to react and I enjoyed the reaction immensely.
Forgive my slow response. Lots of assignments to do meant I neglected createdebate since my last post.
OK. Evidence?
First up, I have mentioned problems with 'evidence' already. So you can hear Roy Bhaskar's take.
"Society, as an object of inquiry, is necessarily 'theoretical' in the sense that... it is necessarily unperceivable; so that it cannot be empirically identified independently of its effects... only be known not shown, to exist"
"Practically all the theories of orthodox philosophy of science... presuppose closed systems. Because of this, they are totally inapplicable to the social sciences."
"The social sciences are denied, in principle, decisive test situations for their theories."
So there lies problems with any 'evidence' that anyone can provide about society.
What I am trying to say (as distinct from what you say I am trying to say) is that democracy is better than capitalism because democracy is regulated and restricted by society and capitalism is regulated and restricted by itself. Both have faults and benefits, but if I were to pick one, it would Definitely be Democracy.
What the argument has become is thus: Freedom of civil liberties vs Nanny state government (or corporate democracy or something?)
As you ask for evidence I will simply comment on those fronts.
Anarchy: Fundamental Anarchy may not be possible, because human beings are followers or leaders. Re:Sudan, Any event that could possibly be anarchy I'm sure is possible to argue that it is not. Whether a country has a government or not there will be rape, murder. This is not weird, because some people do these things regardless of consequences, but is it not better to discourage? Why is it when there are large natural disasters (Haiti, Christchurch, Japan, San Francisco) do people loot stores while authorities are otherwise engaged? Once 'every man for himself' happens, the bastards appear. While there are cases that this doesn't happen there are predominantly cases it where it does. Given the opportunity to do something 'bad', some people will. Not everyone, but some, and it ruins it for everyone. Its my perspective.
Kids fucking parents: I showed concerns? I brought up Freud and sarcastically overstated things because we were talking about human nature. The point was to suggest that human nature is not all hugs and peace. But no, you missed the point and decided to accuse me of whatever served your argument best.
Prostitution: I don't agree with prostitution. I have seen people fucked over by the industry, and so I struggle to believe, legal or illegal, the good outweighs the bad regardless of whether its capitalism's fault or whatever. I see it from my friends perspectives, and maybe that clouds my vision. Prostitution cannot be justified by the freedom of civil liberties of the customer. It's my perspective.
Personal choice being regulated: It is okay to regulate people's personal choices because with no regulation it is simply up to each persons perspective of social norms to dictate what they do. Society is diverse, and these norms are diverse. When angry, I could justify bashing the car of a man who is sleeping with my lover. Does it make it ok? The answer is problematic.
Regardless, You yourself think there should be regulations on personal choice. If I personally chose to murder someone, in your ideal world, I am murdered by the state. That is a regulation.
The jump from 'personal choice' to 'civil liberties' is a big one. Having civil liberties in place relies on regulations. You simply cannot have one without the other.
Now democracy leading to removal of civil liberties. Freedom of speech is a civil liberty. If I stand up and make use of this, and I talk on a street corner about my views on something, this is fine. If lots of people agree with me they are practicing their freedom of assembly and association. We continue practicing this, and we make a government, and are voted into leadership and we now get to put into practice the ideas that I spoke of to begin with that got me here.
But civil liberties often rub each other the wrong way. The right to security, the right to be able to defend oneself and the right to privacy, could see someone using their right to bear arms shooting at a press reporter who is using his freedom of press and freedom of speech to knock on the door and ask questions and shoot film. That was simply an illustration, not evidence. So Civil liberties must necessarily be regulated where they conflict, and what better way than by the government that is there in the first place as a result of our civil liberties?
I am not calling for removal of ALL civil liberties, but I think that democracy is the way to regulate civil liberties and if needs be, remove problematic ones. There should, of course, be checks and balances on this government. This is my perspective. Don't you have a constitution in America?
Ah, so you refuse to provide any evidence and instead say things that aren't true, like "in your ideal world, i am murdered by the state". for most cases, I am against the death penalty. I was simply pointing out the legal consequences that can match the illegal action. Be it removal of life or freedom. Someone who has sex for money can not be punished by an outside source for they are not hurting an outside source. The same is not said for murder or rape. I've already explained this... but if I must again, so be it.
And what proof that I got angry? If you wish to troll, do so on fagchan.
"In my world, Capital Punishment would be used"-ThePyg
How does that not apply directly to my statement that you just quoted?
You don't seem to wish to address any of the things I brought up:
-Evidence is impossible in social science.
You fell back on "you refuse to provide any evidence" as if this is damning proof that I have no basis to my thoughts without hard evidence. Where is your evidence that what you are arguing is so golden? I don't wish you to provide me with any, just an acknowledgment that this is all speculation, A DEBATE so to speak.
-Crime and deviance is something that some people do (for a number of reasons, theoretical or real) and there must be regulations to define it. These regulations necessarily overlap when it comes to "civil liberties" making them problematic.
Maybe I missed it, but what is your working model of "freedom of civil liberties"? How is it supposed to work in society? How is it not as problematic as any (or all) 'solutions' due to the fact that it involves society and human beings?
At least tell me how society would run along fine and dandy with NO regulations, not because you ever said it would but because you were so opposed to my suggesting that having no regulations would lead to disorder. OR If you are suggesting that disorder is around regardless of regulations (quite true IMO) explain how the current society could not be worse (or would be better) without regulations.
But I believe you are simply wanting some regulations gone, not all. And the regulations you wish to go/change are to do with civil liberties. So again, what is your working model?
Or are you willing to admit that you are, as I am, in many ways an idealist, with ideals based on not much more than a strong conviction that there has got to be a better way. How we proceed from there is where our similarities end.
You call me a troll, but I remember YOU saying at the very beginning "your debate is stupid and doesn't work." Who is really the troll? That statement, along with the fact that you side with capitalism(!?) brought me into this argument in the first place.
In my world, capital punishment WOULD be used, but in my world, it would be used when the evidence is practically irrefutable. In the real world, I believe that Capital Punishment is used too frequently and unfairly in order to still be legal. Yes, it should KIND OF be legal, but with surveillance, witnesses, DNA, and motive. Almost NO person who has been executed has been executed with this evidence...
And my rejection of your comments on disorder and anarchy is that you seem to equate my beliefs as similar to Anarchy, but are unable to describe how Anarchy is bad. You point to countries with corrupt governments... that is not anarchy. The term may be used to describe the gang and pirate problems, but there is still a government with a police force... they just support the gangs.
YOU brought up Anarchy, and if you are to do so, I would hope that you would have a basis for attacking it after implying that my beliefs are that of an Anarchist.
But in the end, I wish for you to provide me reason for why civil liberties should be regulated (drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography, art, speech, etc.) when enough people say they should? I've brought up gay marriage, and you were a bit iffy on it. I ask again, do you support gays being denied marriage just because most people in the United States are against it? Do you support women being denied the right to get an Abortion just because most people were against it (the Supreme Court turned Roe v. Wade into a Federal Law, forcing States to allow abortions... it was not "Democratic")?
It seems that your love for Democracy over Civil Liberties is far more harmful than my love for Civil Liberties over Democracy. True, I do not care about the personal lives of others as you possibly do, so I guess it would come to this disagreement. I believe that personal lives should not be infringed, no matter how much it may disgust the general population. Too many people have suffered enough because of this. It was once considered disgusting for a black to be considered a human being.
So yes, we've both been trying to say the same thing. YOU believe that Democracy trumps civil liberties, I believe the exact opposite. I am for personal freedom of choice, you are for the majority deciding what lifestyles we can live.
Yes, I know.
As well, I can see that you're not a troll. I had my suspicions from some of your rhetorical devices... but you're serious 8l
If capital is merely the use of capital in order to extend business then was the economic situation during feudal times capitalism? How about hunter gathers, they used tools(capital) to create things, which they they traded for other things(business). Was Stalin's 5 year plans capitalism, he used capital to expand types of businesses(rapid industrialization)? Your definition of capitalism is very general, to the point it can be applied to every time period, making it useless for differentiating among the various economic systems which have existed throughout time.
If so, will what deregulation will result in also be capitalism? Since a completely free market destroys itself.
Stalin could of got his resources from one place, or another; if it was with in his country he probably could just take it but if its outside he'll have to trade or go to war. Its not much different of a situation then when the south had slaves, the plantation owner traded freely but the slaves didn't. Was the economic situation in the south of America before the civil war capitalism?
A completely free market doesn't destroy itself. People might destroy each other, but that's under any system of economics or politics. A free market will continue to be free so long as there's no government interference.
Stalin's 5 year plan was part of the Socialist, Centralized Government... that's not the Free Market. That's government controlled market. Practically the exact opposite.
Slavery is hard to go by. This is where the issue of Capitalism as an Economic system becomes tied in with the Social and Political nature. Can slavery exist in a Capitalist society? Most Capitalists would say no. The reason:
Capitalism is a system where men are free to trade and work for their own needs. It's a system based on the Free Market/Trade system and extended through the building or gaining of Capital. Slavery is a system where men are forced against their own will to work for other men. Because men do not have a choice in their employment, slavery is not Capitalism.
Now, if slave owners tried to make the argument that blacks weren't human beings, it would then become a debate on whether it truly is Capitalism or not. But, since science would support that blacks are, in fact, human beings, slave owners do not have an argument and the issue on slavery being okay in a truly Capitalist society remains the same: no, it's not.
Has America ever been truly Capitalist? 100%, most likely not. But I will say that once slavery ended, America was at a very high state of Capitalism. Plus, the North had been much more Capitalist than the South before hand. Lincoln did a lot of good for Capitalism. He took no stand on Unions vs. Big Business, showing that it was up to the people to settle worker's rights disputes. He freed enslaved men, showing that people had the right to choose how employment should benefit them. The only problem, maybe, is that he supported tariffs. That is against Capitalism, as well.
The Constitution was meant to allow 100% Capitalism, but they crossed out the part that banned slavery. Now a days, we are far from it. We're much closer than most of the world, but still far from it.
It is in the interest of companies to not have competition, thus they will eliminate the competition when given the chance. The free market would allow companies to make themselves monopolies, meaning there wouldn't be competition and the monopolies would control the market.
:) If someone has no capital, they are forced (against their will) to work for another man; likely under situations where they are unlikely to gain capital. most men under capitalism are free to trade their labor, or die. All slaves are free to labor, or die. A difference between unregulated capitalism, and slavery is that under one system the great majority of people are owned by a class and under the other who you belong to is more explicit.
Monopolies are possible through Capitalism. They even occurred at times, sure. But that is still a free market as long as there is no government interference. Now, there is no perfect Monopoly, just how there is no perfect Competition. I think that too many people confuse those terms, though. Also, under government we still have monopolies, only government supported monopolies instead of natural monopolies.
If you are referring to the homeless, they do not have jobs either. They are still alive, though. Your example is a really bad one since it's an extreme circumstance. Ideally, sure, technically you can make the argument that a man under Capitalism would have to work or die. But realistically, that is not TRULY the case. Yes, many men have to swallow their pride and do jobs that they do not want to do in order to provide for themselves or their family, but that is not nearly the same as slavery, where people are beaten into labor. Very different from a guy saying "shit, i really need money so I'll just work for this douchebag for the rest of my life".
So trying to somehow say that slavery works with Capitalism under that analogy still doesn't work.
So monopolies can't interfere with the market in similar ways to how a government may?
jobless Homeless are alive by charity, welfare or theft. Being forced to work a job you don't want to Is more then swallowing your pride, its a forced way of life and submitting to the will of another man/men. Refusing to submit will leave you with no one pitying you enough to give you charity, government determining it needs not give you welfare, and theft giving you prison or death. You have no independence in capitalism, unless your rich and in which case you have those who work for you.
you're saying this as if currently, all employed people people are working for that certain business because they have no choice.
Here is the reality. Most do have choices in which job they take. They pick the one that suits them. If you're referring to the fact that they HAVE to work... sure, everyone has to work. It's part of life... even in a socialist society, you have to work (except government tells you what you must do). In a Capitalist society, we have unions which also benefit the workers. The Unions compromise with the managers, trying to make a better work environment for the employees. Does it always work? Well... currently, the employer gets the shorter end of the stick since government favors unions, but in general, the more rational party will receive the best benefit from compromise. But to suggest that just because some people decide that in order to survive they must stick with a shitty job that they don't want is somehow the same as slavery is actually very disrespectful towards the descendants of slaves, and I demand that you apologize towards every African American.
It's funny how you say Pyg has facts wrong, when you yourself have them, too. 10% of Americans have 90% of the wealth. 1% of Americans doesn't have "all" of it.
Capitalism is the hoarding of power in the hands of 1% of America's population v.s democracy which is the distribution of power into 100% of America's population
Capitalism works through exchanging goods and money, not hoarding it. In a capitalist country, I sell you a ham, you pay me 5 bucks or so for that ham. I buy something else with that 5 bucks, that keeps the economy flowing.
Capitalism and Democracy are unequivocally the best separate forms of economic and political systems.
Therefore, capitalism is truly unattainable without democracy because ultimately capitalism without democracy eventaully turns toward fascism and corporatism.
Whereas, democracy is also truly unattainable without capitalism because ultimately democracy without capitalism eventually turns toward socialism or communism.
However, for the sake of the debate, between the two, capitalism is still better standing on its own.
Therefore, capitalism is truly unattainable without democracy because ultimately capitalism without democracy eventaully turns toward fascism and corporatism.
Whereas, democracy is also truly unattainable without capitalism because ultimately democracy without capitalism eventually turns toward socialism or communism.
So you're saying if they're balanced right (like ying and yang - democracy good capitalism evil) it makes a great system?
Apparently, the relation between economic and political freedom is too much to handle.
Economic freedom is an end in itself and is indispensable towards political freedom.
The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power by dispersal and distribution of power as a system of checks and balances.
By removing economic activity from the control of politics, the market eliminates this source of power.
Economic power can be dispersed while political power is much more difficult to decentralize. If economic freedom is absent, concentration of power is inevitable.
Therefore, in a democracy, the majority will always gain the concentration of power, but economic power fights back.
So, America is a democracy and capitalist, and without capitalism, the wealthy would absolutely have no power because of democracy's power is vested in the majority, and they would take that power away, thus, capitalism does keep it on a even level. Yet, it doesn't appear level because political power is not as materialist as economic power. In other words, there is more money vested in economic power.
Economic freedom is an end in itself and is indispensable towards political freedom.
The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power by dispersal and distribution of power as a system of checks and balances.
By removing economic activity from the control of politics, the market eliminates this source of power.
lol WTF??
So, America is a democracy and capitalist, and without capitalism, the wealthy would absolutely have no power because of democracy's power is vested in the majority, and they would take that power away, thus, capitalism does keep it on a even level. Yet, it doesn't appear level because political power is not as materialist as economic power. In other words, there is more money vested in economic power.
I can agree with that. But what's wrong with giving the wealthy no power?
As noted before, democracy without capitalism leads to socialism or communism, and then instead of power in economic individual hands, it would be the hands of government. For me, I don't view that as appetizing.
Well, in capitalist world, the wealthy are the people who create jobs. Government can create jobs but with more taxation but government don't create wealth for the economy.
Everybody want no power for the wealthy just until if they become wealthy.
Democracy does act as a check against capitalism, somewhat at least. Communism and socialism are broad categories which have multiple definitions, There is anarcho-communism and forms of socialism where government has little involvement in running businesses but rather co-ops are the norm.
The wealthy don't create jobs, there is a demand for a product or a service, and there is a demand for money. The wealthy have money, and the capital, to pay someone to preform the service or produce the product. with out that demand, there would be no jobs. The market creates jobs, and the wealthy are not a necessary factor in creating jobs. If some one is skilled enough, they can become self-employed and not be wealthy. If a community has a need, they can pool their resources together to satisfy that need(co-ops). The wealthy are middle men, is it wrong to want to cut out the middle man?
Of course, there are multiple definitions of communism and socialism as while as for capitalism. Anarcho-communism criticism is that productivity and technological progress would stagnate as individuals would not have the incentive to work that monetary reward provides. This has really been used in hunter-gather tribes.
Life is about incentives and neither all forms of socialism or communism provide that need.
Yeah, the market only creates jobs through the demand of a product or service, and without a demand, there is no supply, yet since the wealthy have the capital, there is perception that the wealthy create jobs, just as government creates jobs.
I don't think money is an incentive, its a middle man to. People have a demand/desire for something which is most easily gotten by money. People don't desire money in and of itself, its only value is what it can be traded for. with out money people would still desire things, and thus still have an incentive to do stuff. It'll just be more direct, you won't have to first get money then get the thing or get something which someone else wants so you can trade for what you want. Right now our options are either money or bargaining, due to economies of scale and our level of technology our production methods are tied up in our social networks. If we can find ways to separate those two things or at least make them more harmonious it'll likly turn out better for people. Fast food stores would disappear cause no one really wants to work there, but scientists would still experiment, engineers would still engineer, programmers would still program, its what they do because they desire to do it; the money is nice but it usually isn't the reason they do it.
Money and having the wealthy as middle men has their advantages, but if we can create a better system without them I'm all for it. (it just has to actually be better)
If life isn't about monetary incentives, what is it about? Charity? How does one trade or live? Are we supposed to go back of an agrarian economy?
Right now our options are either money or bargaining, due to economies of scale and our level of technology our production methods are tied up in our social networks. If we can find ways to separate those two things or at least make them more harmonious it'll likly turn out better for people.
Seriously, don't know what this means. What does economies of scale
Fast food stores would disappear cause no one really wants to work there
Do you know that for a fact because according to this survey, none of those are in the top 10. Work
We already have the best system. Capitalism provides incentives because those on the bottom, they have a incentive to do better and those on the top, to continue to do better.
Imagine you can't trade money for anything. You'll still desire, your desires are your natural incentives. Money is the tool others use to get you to do what they desire, then once you have it you use it the same(because you have to). Doing something for yourself, especially if your a programmer, scientist, engineer, etc., can easily also be doing something for another; those professions have self-interest in harmony with social-interest. Money can get in the way by lack of funding more then by providing a boast by incentives in such fields. Right now we must have others do things for us to survive, the farmer makes us food, the group at the electrical plant gives us electricity, etc. Money is a subtle coercion, without the use of which we would starve. Now imagine a greater independence, an automated greenhouse for food attached to your house, renewable energy for electricity, money would be less of a need.
Economies of scale are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as scale is increased. Its currently cheaper and more efficient to produce energy in a plant then by decentralized and small renewable means, thats changing though.
Most people on bottom knows they will stay there, and the ones on top has enough money piled away for multiple extravagant life times.
America will collapse. USSR collapsed due to millions of reasons. Some of it is due to the government. America is on the verge of collapsing. A lot of it due to capitalism.
Because they used other means of motivating people to work...ever heard of the Gulags? But hey if you want to live in a society that throws you into concentration camps for fucking up, be my guest.
In addition, the USSR wasn't able to financially sustain itself and that's why they lost the cold war. The economic strain of keeping up with the U.S.'s military was too much for them, and they eventually went under.
A guy I knew who had gone over the the USSR during the cold war told me a funny story about their military actually. The USSR couldn't afford to produce different sized shoes, so everyone was forced to wear the exact same size boots. Now I don't know about you, but this sounds pretty damn uncomfortable.
So let me ask you this: during the cold war would you have rather lived in the U.S. and enjoyed the fruits of capitalism, or the USSR with their oppressive version of communism?
So let me ask you this: during the cold war would you have rather lived in the U.S. and enjoyed the fruits of capitalism, or the USSR with their oppressive version of communism?
Who said I'm all for the USSR? lol. You guys have an amazing inability to read - or is it just picking and choosing what and when you feel like it?
You seem to be arguing against capitalism, and advocate for a centrally controlled economy, so I ask you: of all the centrally controlled economies in history which would you prefer to live in rather than the U.S.?
You used the USSR as an example of where communism "worked" and yet you also claim you would refer to live here. A little contradictory, don't you think?
Why do you keep claiming that Capitalism is somehow evil? Capitalism is just trade. You have something I want, and I have something you want so let's trade. I'm not sure what's evil about this, since both sides are benefitting, but I'm sure you'll give me some hilarious reasons.
If capitalism is merely trade then was the economic situation during feudal times capitalism? How about hunter gathers?. Was Stalin's 5 year plans capitalism, he had to trade to get his resources for industrialization. Your definition of capitalism is very general, to the point it can be applied to every time period, making it useless for differentiating among the various economic systems which have existed throughout time.
Feudalism was initially not free trade because the peasants has to give virtually everything they made to the lord. The ability to keep some of what you make for spending is necessary for capitalism to work. In other words people need capital for capitalism to function. Later, when the peasants were given more economic freedom, they did begin to trade, and some made a lot of money. This is what led to some serious economic growth in Europe.
Hunter gatherers didn't really trade, they just found what they needed to survive.
On a large scale Stalin was using capitalism (however ironic that may be), but within the country itself everyone essentially worked for the government, and that which was made was not given to the individuals who made it but to a central authority who then decided who got what.
The term capitalism could be applied to various times in history, and often those civilizations which allowed free trade to exist grew more than those which did not.
As I said before, capitalism is a very basic concept, and I'm not sure why people would consider it evil. It's neither evil nor benevolent, just a system of trade that promotes economic growth.
on a large scale kings and lords traded. Economic systems are layered, and intermingled.
"People need capital in order for capitalism to function" -Would it be accurate to say that most people do not own capital?
hunter gathers probably traded some of what they found and made with other tribes, and I imagine if someone found something valuable he could trade it with in his own group.
yea, free trade is good; to a point.
people don't like capitalism because of the power relations its made up of and leads to. A limited capitalism can promote economic growth, but if left completely free to do as it pleases large powerful institutions develop, cartels happen, price fixing,bad working/living conditions happen etc which harms overall economic growth.
We're not disagreeing here on most of what you're saying.
Yes kings and lords traded, and in this sense what happened could be considered capitalistic, however on the scale of people within the kingdoms it was anything but. When you said Feudalism you were obviously referring to people within a kingdom and therefore what I said was valid.
Where do most people not own capital? If we are talking about countries, at least most countries in the West have people that own capital. I'm not sure who you're referring to that doesn't.
You seem to be mistaking capitalism for anarchy. The problems you mention are issues that get in the way of free trade, and so you need government to stop them from occurring. These aren't issues with capitalism these are people trading unfairly.
Except for the fact that capitalism is just trade. I work to make or earn something, and then I trade it for something else. In our current society we use money to make these trades easier, but in the end it's all just trade.
You still haven't explained your metaphor: piss is more than water because there are other parts to it...what else is involved in capitalism other than trade?
I understand capitalism just fine thank you, but I'm pretty sure your knowledge of economics is zero. In a communist system a farmer would not sell his eggs. Instead everything he makes would essentially be taxed by the government and distributed as they saw fit.
The reason you are arguing with me is because you can't see that I am right, and the reason you are mad is because you can't think of a reason why I'm wrong.
So allow me to ask you again: what else is there other than trade?
Instead everything he makes would essentially be taxed by the government and distributed as they saw fit.
Difference capitalism and communism is that in capitalism you decide how you trade goods whereas in communism the government decides how to trade goods. It's still trade.
So in communism what else is there other than trade?
Trade is the basis of all economies - not something copyrighted by capitalism. lmao.
You used the USSR as an example of where communism "worked" and yet you also claim you would refer to live here. A little contradictory, don't you think?
Lol R U DIZZY BLUD??!?!
Firstly I never claimed where I prefered to live. Secondly there would be 100000000 reasons why I would or wouldn't live in the USSR - not just because their communism works. Thirdly I don't live in America I live in UK. Fourthly you need to give me some of that shit your smoking. You've 'un-read' something TWICE IN A ROW. Let's see if you do it a third time.
You should really just get out of all debates involving economics.
What you described with communism is not trade. For trade to exist people have to be able to own private property. In other words, to trade you have to have something to trade. Now you can try and warp the definition of trade to fit into communism but then it loses its meaning. Communism essentially has the government redistribute the wealth to everyone. In other words, whether you produce one million dollars worth of goods and services in a year, or you produce 20 dollars worth, you end up with the same thing. The result of this is that people stop working as hard, since they receive the same goods regardless of their effort. This causes to GDP of a country to fall farther and farther unless the government can find another way to motivate people. In the USSR, this was by sending people who didn't work off to concentration camps. The practical problem with this, other than the fact that it is an awful thing to do to people, is that this will only motivate people to work hard enough to not get in trouble. Once again, this means the economy underperforms its maximum output.
In communism, what you make...what you earn, isn't yours. Other people get to decide what to do with it. This type of system is hilariously inefficient. The Soviets tried using a computer to determine what people needed and how much of it they needed, but this failed miserably and is the reason why they now use capitalism in Russia. You are in complete denial of reality here. Any centrally controlled economy is destined to fail.
You still have yet to describe what there is to capitalism other than trade. As I have stated before, that is because you have no idea. So please stop arguing economics... you are just embarrassing yourself.
Also, England's economy is based on capitalism as well, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. My point still stands, is there another country which you would rather live in that doesn't use capitalism as the basis of its economy? The USSR's communism failed, so it isn't around anymore, so it's not like you could live there. Maybe you should live in North Korea? They have a centrally planned economy. Or perhaps Cuba? Seriously, I'm actually curious where other than the west you would want to live.
Finally, please for you many god's sake, learn something about economics. It's not even fun arguing with you just annoying. You know so little, yet presume to know so much. You claim capitalism to be evil and yet fail to explain why. You also argue that there is more to capitalism than free trade, and yet you can't tell me any of its other attributes. Just stop it already.
Owwwwhhhh you didn't even counter-argue. You just bullshited.
You also argue that there is more to capitalism than free trade
Liar.
The result of this is that people stop working as hard, since they receive the same goods regardless of their effort. This causes to GDP of a country to fall farther and farther unless the government can find another way to motivate people.
is that this will only motivate people to work hard enough to not get in trouble. Once again, this means the economy underperforms its maximum output.
So far all I hear is capitalist propoganda. Wait there's more
is the reason why they now use capitalism in Russia.
Liar
capitalism other than trade.
In the word of capitalists - 'free enteprise'
England's economy is based on capitalism as well
England is technically socialist.
My point still stands, is there another country which you would rather live in that doesn't use capitalism as the basis of its economy?
Shiiiittt in terms of economic planning? I don't think I'd mind N. Korea or Cuba. It's all the other things that I have an issue with i.e. fascism. Your question is flawed.
Economy is basically trade. Differences in economies is how the trades take place.
Well I take it back. You need to learn both history and economics.
The USSR's version of communism failed and they currently have a system based on capitalism. If you think I'm lying prove it and don't just state "Liar".
You call what I said "capitalist propaganda" but don't actually say why it's false. Once again I would advice you to take some classes about economics. To put it another way: it's capitalism with a socialist safety net.
England is socialist? When you go to work (if you work) do you earn money? Do you take that money and buy goods and services from stores owned and operated by private citizens? If you chose to start your own business, could you do so and expect to keep a part of your earnings to do with as you wish (within the law of course)? I do understand that there are social programs in place in England to help those who do not have jobs, and also guaranteed medical services, however this is hardly socialism. The overall system, and what pays for these social programs is capitalism.
Economy is basically trade. Differences in economies is how the trades take place.
You are clearly using a different and more vague use of the term trade then I intended. This is known as the fallacy of equivocation. I clearly explained what I meant by trade and yet you continually act as though I meant something completely different. Your own definition of trade is ridiculous as the actions of a mugger could be considered trade under it. Let me spell it out for you one last time:
Capitalism = voluntary trade = I own/made something, and trade it for something that someone else owns/made.
You still haven't explained why capitalism is evil though. I understand why however; I wouldn't try and answer a question I didn't have an answer to either.
I don't think I'd mind N. Korea or Cuba. It's all the other things that I have an issue with i.e. fascism. Your question is flawed.
Don't you see how this contradicts your whole premise? You claim that democracy will "defeat" capitalism (whatever that means) and yet the only nations with these centrally planned economies are authoritarian in nature and the farthest thing from capitalism.
Also, if you want to be poor, I guess communism is for you, since that's about all it brings: poverty.
i cant explain how capitalism is evil but it seems that alot of corporations are very vicious is busting up unions, but they also are very nasty when it comes to competition. alot of corporations such as dole go into latin american countries to destroy their competition so they can take over the industry. goldman sachs for example forced the government to bail it out. slave trade was also capitalism. do you see the evil in that? how about opium. that is essentially how britain got rich, by poisoning other people. how bout selling crap to people that they dont need? what about ponzi schemes? bernie madoff ring a bell? capitalist america bombed out iraq, korea, afganistan, and viet nam, but i didnt see a communist country bomb out the u.s.. if i plant some apples and sell them. that isnt evil, but if i go into your orchards to poison your crops, so that i can sell more apples, then that is evil. unfortunately, capitalists dont know where to draw the line and often resort to these kinds of tactics. check out the plaza accord. it is something the americans forced the japanese to sign. the americans though the japanese were profiting too much because they thought that only americans should prosper in this world. it crashed the japanese economy.
In a democracy, once the non-producers out-number the producers the non-producers will vote themselves profits. Profits should go to the producers of a society through hard work, not voting one selves what has to be taken from a producer.
In a democracy, once the non-producers out-number the producers the non-producers will vote themselves profits. Profits should go to the producers of a society through hard work, not voting one selves what has to be taken from a producer.
This statement forgets the fact that producers "work" through their base of employees (or non-producers).
Business owners never worked? The greatness of capitalism allows those who work and work hard to one day own a business and provide jobs to others (make non-producers producers) and you look at that as a bad thing. You must have a problem once they get to that point where they hire others and make them work?Take away these people and you have a third world country and I don't see many people immigrating there.
Unions are rewarded for organizing workers and I would agree they are a problem.
If it was as easy as organizing labor to become a corporation,community organizers would be rich. Running a company, which most start out as a one man show and grow has nothing to do with organing labor.
Name one company that started just by organing labor. Name one CEO that wasn't a non-producer until he/she was hired as a worker then moved up to management.
Unions are rewarded for organizing workers and I would agree they are a problem.
You dodged the issue. In your reasoning the producers are the business owners, the management. How does a successful company run? By organising labour, workers, employees.
The unions aren't really pertinent to this discussion because they don't exist on their own.
If it was as easy as organizing labor to become a corporation,community organizers would be rich. Running a company, which most start out as a one man show and grow has nothing to do with organing labor.
Name one company that started just by organing labor. Name one CEO that wasn't a non-producer until he/she was hired as a worker then moved up to management.
Unimportant to the discussion because the transitory period between the business owner being the worker, and becoming the management is overshadowed by the fact that once the business has a staff, it becomes that way for its life and this is the predominant setup of companies.
To use an analogy you're focusing on the seedling instead of the plant it becomes.
If you mean organing labor as in creating jobs, is that not producing. If a business produces jobs this increases tax revenue and spending thus creating more jobs and so on.Wealth for workers is produced and spread to other producers.
If you mean organing labor as in creating jobs, is that not producing. If a business produces jobs this increases tax revenue and spending thus creating more jobs and so on.Wealth for workers is produced and spread to other producers.
I thought you were talking about producers of product.
Producers of wealth are the most important.
If you expand the definition as you did, then the workers are collectively better producers than the management, yet aren't compensated for it proportionately. Further, it would be the case that the majority of the population are producers.