quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There are too many people that rely on government. That stuff costs money. What happens when those that are paying the majority of taxes leave? Where is funding going to come from? Where is the money for the Entitlement Nation going to come from? It's not that people can't do for themselves. Too many have chosen not to.

quote:


Politicians are going to tell you what's good for their re-election.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Regarding businesses, it really depends on what the product is and how much we need it or how badly we want it. We need some things to survive, such as food and housing, at minimum. There are many other things that people want and even need to buy, so they have no other choice but to deal with private businesses to obtain the necessities of life. Food, gas, electricity, medicine, etc. It's not that easy to simply "not buy the product" and keep them out of our lives. We might have some limited choices of going to one business or another - although that's a bit difficult when it comes to the local electric company. Still, I think the idea of "voting with our dollars" is not so cut-and-dried as it sounds.

Sure it is. Those things that are "needed" have greater value than those things not "needed," unless they aren't scarce. If no one wanted it or needed it, no one would buy it, and it would leave the market.

What about things that are needed?

If they are needed, you'll have to buy them. If they are needed, and you have to buy them, there will be someone willing to sell them to you. If there is too much profit, others will bring their investment dollars to compete for those profits. You'll likely pay a higher price for the value than if it was just a want, but it will still end up closing in on low profits for the sellers.

quote:

quote:

quote:

If government decides we should have something we don't want, or don't want as badly as government wants us to have it, where is the choice? We'll end up having it, and paying for it, through threat of government force.

The voters have the power to exert force upon the government.

Unless the voters aren't educated enough about what's going on, and vote shit for themselves.

quote:

You realize the Market works best when those coming to the Market are there for their own interests, right?

quote:


So, it's not really about the poor then?

quote:

For the vast majority of the poor in America, it's their own choices.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I wasn't sure exactly which part of the previously quoted section you were addressing, so I thought it was the very last sentence. Still, how do you think an "omnipotent government" (which were the words used in the article) would come to power in the first place? In our history, we have had labor riots, some minor insurrections, and even a Civil War, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. But my point was that people would have to be pretty desperate to choose an "omnipotent government," which implies an extremist tyrannical regime. A lot of shit would have to come about before it even got to that point, so it was already implied in the article.

It's going to come slowly; bit by bit. You won't see an extremist, tyrannical regime overnight. But, until we stop government encroachment on our daily lives, we'll wake up one day (or our later generations) with an extremist tyrannical regime in power.

I see what you're saying, although if history is anything to go by, such changes are usually highly noticeable. Even Rip Van Winkle would have noticed something was afoot.
I agree that we should stop government encroachment on our daily lives, depending on what the government does, although I think there's a difference between bureaucratic intransigence/incompetence and actual tyranny.

There certainly is a difference. But, tyranny can sprout from bureaucratic incompetence that is being led by people who are not only more competent, but also focused on setting the snare. Alex Jones makes a killing on twisting every little thing into a conspiracy. Why? Because there are grains of truth everywhere, and people don't trust government. If you're organized enough, you can put a lot of seemingly unconnected stuff together to set the trap, and few will notice. It can happen. I don't think it is, but it's not out of the realm of the possible.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

My only real point in this part was to say that I think that we all have a stake in trying to avoid something like that happening in this country. Even the business community should see the merit in that. I think we have the choice now to exercise the prerogatives of responsible government to take whatever initiatives are necessary to get us back on our feet - even if it means the capitalists have to grin and bear it for a while. It would be nice if they would actually pitch in and help the country for a change, cooperating with the people for a better future for all. But as you pointed out above, they just want to make money for themselves. How can anyone trust them when they're only out for themselves and don't care about the country as a whole?
You say that I trust the government too much, but the government is nothing more than a collection of different voices and factions in society trying to sort things out and achieve some sort of balance and fairness through the processes available in a democratic-republic. But if those processes are not allowed to work or are thrown into haywire without adequate resolution, then it's only a matter of time before the government's ability to do its job will be diminished - which is what we're already seeing anyway.
You've said that you want limited government that stays out of your life, but the way things are going, you may very well get your wish someday. However, as they say, be careful what you wish for.

Yes, we all do have a stake in our government and our country.
How do you see that we might have a limited government because of "the way things are going?"

Well, with budget cuts and other strains on government, it seems that there may not be enough money to pay for everything that the government currently pays for. If we lower taxes and cut spending, then there will be even less revenue for the government, and some programs will eventually have to be cut or curtailed significantly. That's less money to fix roads, for one thing. (Locally, our pothole problem is turning out to be an embarrassment to local government, although they blame it on the State government, and the State government blames everything on the Feds.)

You are working under the assumption that our current level of spending is acceptable.

quote:

quote:

More people will fall through the safety net and on the actual "floor," which will likely mean more homeless people out on the streets, more crime, and an increase in other social ills. What conservatives and capitalists argue for when they want limited government will result in problems like these being magnified and increased.

I agree it's likely for that to happen. But, that's only because government will choose for that to happen. Government will cut the important stuff and keep the less important stuff to convince us of our need for more government. That's the way they work.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

We should compare them, apples to apples, though.

Yes, but when capitalists talk about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty, what exactly do they mean? If it's just complaining about higher taxes, that's hardly anything compared to many other things the government has done - which the capitalists haven't exactly been at the forefront in challenging or calling to the public's attention. When capitalists say they support freedom and liberty yet support business-friendly military dictatorships in other countries (where the poor have it much worse, as you noted earlier), then I have to question whether their protests about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty are truly genuine and sincere.
As you also noted, capitalists are only interested in making money. They don't need freedom and liberty for that.

Yes, they do need freedom and liberty for that.

You think so? The capitalists and business community of Saudi Arabia might disagree with you.

Yes, I think so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There are too many people that rely on government. That stuff costs money. What happens when those that are paying the majority of taxes leave? Where is funding going to come from? Where is the money for the Entitlement Nation going to come from? It's not that people can't do for themselves. Too many have chosen not to.

If those people leave, then government’s expenses would also be reduced. These same people who threaten to leave are the same people who gouge the public with high prices, so once their greed is taken out of the equation, all the “stuff” that costs money would be significantly reduced in price. Price controls would also make it so that all the “stuff” that costs money wouldn’t cost so much.

quote:

The country still has plenty of resources, plenty of arable land, a withering but revivable industrial base and infrastructure. Plus, if all those cranky capitalists leave, there would be no one to push for war-mongering or military adventurism overseas, so government expenses will drop even further. If you consider the hidden and indirect costs from capitalist oligarchy, this country would be far better off without them.
And I think that you’re overstating the matter when you paint a picture that makes it look like the country is nothing but wealthy capitalists and poor people on welfare. What about all the people in between, the ones who actually work? They’re not going to disappear (and they’ll keep coming from other countries anyway).

quote:

quote:

Politicians are going to tell you what's good for their re-election.

Of course, but in terms of actual money or power, they’re not really benefiting all that much, not near as much as capitalists benefit.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Regarding businesses, it really depends on what the product is and how much we need it or how badly we want it. We need some things to survive, such as food and housing, at minimum. There are many other things that people want and even need to buy, so they have no other choice but to deal with private businesses to obtain the necessities of life. Food, gas, electricity, medicine, etc. It's not that easy to simply "not buy the product" and keep them out of our lives. We might have some limited choices of going to one business or another - although that's a bit difficult when it comes to the local electric company. Still, I think the idea of "voting with our dollars" is not so cut-and-dried as it sounds.

Sure it is. Those things that are "needed" have greater value than those things not "needed," unless they aren't scarce. If no one wanted it or needed it, no one would buy it, and it would leave the market.

What about things that are needed?

If they are needed, you'll have to buy them. If they are needed, and you have to buy them, there will be someone willing to sell them to you. If there is too much profit, others will bring their investment dollars to compete for those profits. You'll likely pay a higher price for the value than if it was just a want, but it will still end up closing in on low profits for the sellers.

You say that I trust government too much, but by the same token, I think that you trust the assumptions and processes of the free market far too much – even when historical experience has demonstrated otherwise. The process you’re describing can work on a very small scale, such as with a small, pre-industrial farming village (which is what most of our society actually was at the time of the Founding Fathers), but nothing too much bigger than that. Society has gotten too big, too complex, and too interdependent for these oversimplified economic models to work.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

If government decides we should have something we don't want, or don't want as badly as government wants us to have it, where is the choice? We'll end up having it, and paying for it, through threat of government force.

The voters have the power to exert force upon the government.

Unless the voters aren't educated enough about what's going on, and vote shit for themselves.

Yes, that is a problem. But as capitalists always say, if a person doesn’t work hard or is unskilled/uneducated, then they deserve their lot in life, due to their own choices. The same could be said for voters and democratically elected governments. One might even observe similarities with undemocratic empires of the past which have since fallen into dust. The people are responsible for their own choices.

quote:

quote:

You realize the Market works best when those coming to the Market are there for their own interests, right?

It depends on what you mean by “works best.” Those who are there for their own interests might try to steal as much as they can get away with. The market works best when there’s no thievery, no dishonesty, no bribery, no coercion, no armed robbery, no murder, no mobsterism, no gangsterism, no corruption, no exploitation, no outside invasions or wars. That’s why the market needs the police, the court system, the military, and a system of organization to go with it.

quote:

The problem with the “free market” viewpoint you’re espousing is that the market has no mechanism for dealing with any of these things that could cause things to fall out of kilter. I think that to selectively criticize big government as being the “villain” in all of this is barking up the wrong tree, since the restrictions on the market were put in place precisely because the market was ill-equipped to deal with its own bad apples.
Even now, capitalist ideologues seem to fall all over themselves to avoid even mentioning any of the bad apples or other negative aspects of their ideology. They think that, if people “loathe” capitalism, it’s because they’re either socialist dupes or jealous or lazy or hopelessly dependent on the welfare state. It couldn’t have anything to do with any faults within capitalism itself.

quote:

quote:

So, it's not really about the poor then?

It’s about those who are “not rich.” We’re talking about the so-called “little people,” as capitalists might view them. Recall Leona Helmsley’s famous quote “Only the little people pay taxes” (which puts all these complaints about taxes into proper perspective).

quote:

quote:

For the vast majority of the poor in America, it's their own choices.

That may be true for some, although I think you’d be hard pressed to adequately demonstrate that it’s the “vast majority.” Up above, you were saying that the voters were making bad choices and ending up with shit. If this same phenomenon is observable in people’s bad economic choices and ending up with shit, then this isn’t something that can be so cavalierly dismissed, ignored, or treated with an “oh well.” I’m not even convinced that it is their own choices, but even if it’s true, if more and more people are making bad choices and facing economic consequences as a result, then this will have a bad effect even on those who work hard and make good choices.

quote:

If people are making bad choices, we still have to ask why. Capitalists seem to believe that society shouldn’t ask why or shouldn’t even interfere at all.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I wasn't sure exactly which part of the previously quoted section you were addressing, so I thought it was the very last sentence. Still, how do you think an "omnipotent government" (which were the words used in the article) would come to power in the first place? In our history, we have had labor riots, some minor insurrections, and even a Civil War, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. But my point was that people would have to be pretty desperate to choose an "omnipotent government," which implies an extremist tyrannical regime. A lot of shit would have to come about before it even got to that point, so it was already implied in the article.

It's going to come slowly; bit by bit. You won't see an extremist, tyrannical regime overnight. But, until we stop government encroachment on our daily lives, we'll wake up one day (or our later generations) with an extremist tyrannical regime in power.

I see what you're saying, although if history is anything to go by, such changes are usually highly noticeable. Even Rip Van Winkle would have noticed something was afoot.
I agree that we should stop government encroachment on our daily lives, depending on what the government does, although I think there's a difference between bureaucratic intransigence/incompetence and actual tyranny.

There certainly is a difference. But, tyranny can sprout from bureaucratic incompetence that is being led by people who are not only more competent, but also focused on setting the snare. Alex Jones makes a killing on twisting every little thing into a conspiracy. Why? Because there are grains of truth everywhere, and people don't trust government. If you're organized enough, you can put a lot of seemingly unconnected stuff together to set the trap, and few will notice. It can happen. I don't think it is, but it's not out of the realm of the possible.

I don’t know just how influential Jones and other such conspiracy buffs truly are. Even though there are many who don’t trust government, that doesn’t automatically mean they’ll trust the likes of Alex Jones or any of his ilk. I think the real problem is a lack of transparency in government, indicated by a culture (influenced by the Cold War) which routinely withholds information from the public as a matter of course – unless someone invokes the Freedom of Information Act, but even then, it’s not that simple.

quote:

I don’t think the government needs to set up any “trap” for anyone. If we’re not trapped already, then I don’t think the government really wants to trap anyone now. Why would they? I can’t imagine anyone who is currently safe and secure in their government post is going to want to rock the boat – especially if they’re nearing retirement. The politicians seem happy enough getting their perks, prestige, and pork – from which many capitalists benefit as well. The public seems adequately distracted and pacified enough – and the only real challenge the politicians and capitalists face is ensuring that the gravy train keeps rolling so that the public remains pacified. And that may pose a greater problem.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

My only real point in this part was to say that I think that we all have a stake in trying to avoid something like that happening in this country. Even the business community should see the merit in that. I think we have the choice now to exercise the prerogatives of responsible government to take whatever initiatives are necessary to get us back on our feet - even if it means the capitalists have to grin and bear it for a while. It would be nice if they would actually pitch in and help the country for a change, cooperating with the people for a better future for all. But as you pointed out above, they just want to make money for themselves. How can anyone trust them when they're only out for themselves and don't care about the country as a whole?
You say that I trust the government too much, but the government is nothing more than a collection of different voices and factions in society trying to sort things out and achieve some sort of balance and fairness through the processes available in a democratic-republic. But if those processes are not allowed to work or are thrown into haywire without adequate resolution, then it's only a matter of time before the government's ability to do its job will be diminished - which is what we're already seeing anyway.
You've said that you want limited government that stays out of your life, but the way things are going, you may very well get your wish someday. However, as they say, be careful what you wish for.

Yes, we all do have a stake in our government and our country.
How do you see that we might have a limited government because of "the way things are going?"

Well, with budget cuts and other strains on government, it seems that there may not be enough money to pay for everything that the government currently pays for. If we lower taxes and cut spending, then there will be even less revenue for the government, and some programs will eventually have to be cut or curtailed significantly. That's less money to fix roads, for one thing. (Locally, our pothole problem is turning out to be an embarrassment to local government, although they blame it on the State government, and the State government blames everything on the Feds.)

You are working under the assumption that our current level of spending is acceptable.

Well, no, actually I don’t believe that our current level of spending is acceptable. I think that there’s a great deal of waste and inefficiency in government which has to be dealt with. That shouldn’t even be a political issue anyway. But realistically, I don’t expect the issue to be dealt with in any meaningful way, which will only exacerbate our present dilemmas regarding the way government acquires revenue, how they spend it, and how much debt they’re building up.

quote:

quote:

quote:

More people will fall through the safety net and on the actual "floor," which will likely mean more homeless people out on the streets, more crime, and an increase in other social ills. What conservatives and capitalists argue for when they want limited government will result in problems like these being magnified and increased.

I agree it's likely for that to happen. But, that's only because government will choose for that to happen. Government will cut the important stuff and keep the less important stuff to convince us of our need for more government. That's the way they work.

In such a scenario, however, “government” may not act like a singular entity, but as multiple competing and potentially conflicting entities, which could also involve state and local governments as well. But if all it ends up with is gridlock and paralysis, then government will have a harder time convincing the people of anything, and their choices will be fewer.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

We should compare them, apples to apples, though.

Yes, but when capitalists talk about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty, what exactly do they mean? If it's just complaining about higher taxes, that's hardly anything compared to many other things the government has done - which the capitalists haven't exactly been at the forefront in challenging or calling to the public's attention. When capitalists say they support freedom and liberty yet support business-friendly military dictatorships in other countries (where the poor have it much worse, as you noted earlier), then I have to question whether their protests about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty are truly genuine and sincere.
As you also noted, capitalists are only interested in making money. They don't need freedom and liberty for that.

Yes, they do need freedom and liberty for that.

You think so? The capitalists and business community of Saudi Arabia might disagree with you.

Yes, I think so.

I disagree. As we both agreed, capitalists are only interested in making money. If making money is the only goal, then that can be accomplished under any number of political systems, regardless of whether there’s freedom or liberty. As I mentioned in an earlier posts, capitalists are just like politicians, but that doesn’t make them statesmen. If they’re more interested in money than in freedom, then they’re more likely to sell out. And that makes them untrustworthy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
No. Like I just showed, if the higher profits simply goes into the pockets of the wealthy that does not drive demand and without demand the economy stagnates. What we need is lots of people spending money on stuff, preferably without it being borrowed money.
You need to stop thinking that supply side economic theory is right. Look around you. how many decades of economic calamity does it take to prove it?

You're correct. If higher profits simply go into the pockets of the wealthy, there won't be any increase in demand. Not surprisingly, this isn't going to harm the workers at all. They will continue on in the same condition they were in before. The economy doesn't stagnate because there is still the same amount of money chasing goods.
Do you agree that lowering the cost of production generally results in a lowering in the consumer price for that produced good?

No. We've seen what happens look around does siphoning money out of the economy and putting it into the hands of the wealthy improve the economy?

The economy seems to be humming along, innit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There are too many people that rely on government. That stuff costs money. What happens when those that are paying the majority of taxes leave? Where is funding going to come from? Where is the money for the Entitlement Nation going to come from? It's not that people can't do for themselves. Too many have chosen not to.

If those people leave, then government’s expenses would also be reduced. These same people who threaten to leave are the same people who gouge the public with high prices, so once their greed is taken out of the equation, all the “stuff” that costs money would be significantly reduced in price. Price controls would also make it so that all the “stuff” that costs money wouldn’t cost so much.

If they leave, so does all that "stuff." Who is going to sell it? Government's expenses aren't going to be reduced if the wealthy flee.

quote:

The country still has plenty of resources, plenty of arable land, a withering but revivable industrial base and infrastructure. Plus, if all those cranky capitalists leave, there would be no one to push for war-mongering or military adventurism overseas, so government expenses will drop even further. If you consider the hidden and indirect costs from capitalist oligarchy, this country would be far better off without them.
And I think that you’re overstating the matter when you paint a picture that makes it look like the country is nothing but wealthy capitalists and poor people on welfare. What about all the people in between, the ones who actually work? They’re not going to disappear (and they’ll keep coming from other countries anyway).

Who are they going to work for? The "revivable" industrial base won't be revived without capitalists.

quote:

quote:

Politicians are going to tell you what's good for their re-election.

Of course, but in terms of actual money or power, they’re not really benefiting all that much, not near as much as capitalists benefit.

That's true. I mean, Bill and Hillary, are broke, afterall. [8|]

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Regarding businesses, it really depends on what the product is and how much we need it or how badly we want it. We need some things to survive, such as food and housing, at minimum. There are many other things that people want and even need to buy, so they have no other choice but to deal with private businesses to obtain the necessities of life. Food, gas, electricity, medicine, etc. It's not that easy to simply "not buy the product" and keep them out of our lives. We might have some limited choices of going to one business or another - although that's a bit difficult when it comes to the local electric company. Still, I think the idea of "voting with our dollars" is not so cut-and-dried as it sounds.

Sure it is. Those things that are "needed" have greater value than those things not "needed," unless they aren't scarce. If no one wanted it or needed it, no one would buy it, and it would leave the market.

What about things that are needed?

If they are needed, you'll have to buy them. If they are needed, and you have to buy them, there will be someone willing to sell them to you. If there is too much profit, others will bring their investment dollars to compete for those profits. You'll likely pay a higher price for the value than if it was just a want, but it will still end up closing in on low profits for the sellers.

You say that I trust government too much, but by the same token, I think that you trust the assumptions and processes of the free market far too much – even when historical experience has demonstrated otherwise. The process you’re describing can work on a very small scale, such as with a small, pre-industrial farming village (which is what most of our society actually was at the time of the Founding Fathers), but nothing too much bigger than that. Society has gotten too big, too complex, and too interdependent for these oversimplified economic models to work.

I disagree. A free market is the best way to guide the economy, especially because society has gotten so big, complex, and interdependent. Unless you think several hundred people in DC know better than everyone else what everyone else wants, there's no way anything compares to a free market.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

If government decides we should have something we don't want, or don't want as badly as government wants us to have it, where is the choice? We'll end up having it, and paying for it, through threat of government force.

The voters have the power to exert force upon the government.

Unless the voters aren't educated enough about what's going on, and vote shit for themselves.

Yes, that is a problem. But as capitalists always say, if a person doesn’t work hard or is unskilled/uneducated, then they deserve their lot in life, due to their own choices. The same could be said for voters and democratically elected governments. One might even observe similarities with undemocratic empires of the past which have since fallen into dust. The people are responsible for their own choices.

Yep. And, that's part of the reason we aren't a straight up democracy, too. That's part of the reason the Senate is equally apportioned. That's part of the reason we have a Constitution, that was supposed to shackle government to keep it limited.

quote:

quote:

You realize the Market works best when those coming to the Market are there for their own interests, right?

It depends on what you mean by “works best.” Those who are there for their own interests might try to steal as much as they can get away with. The market works best when there’s no thievery, no dishonesty, no bribery, no coercion, no armed robbery, no murder, no mobsterism, no gangsterism, no corruption, no exploitation, no outside invasions or wars. That’s why the market needs the police, the court system, the military, and a system of organization to go with it.

That's not a market.

quote:

The problem with the “free market” viewpoint you’re espousing is that the market has no mechanism for dealing with any of these things that could cause things to fall out of kilter. I think that to selectively criticize big government as being the “villain” in all of this is barking up the wrong tree, since the restrictions on the market were put in place precisely because the market was ill-equipped to deal with its own bad apples.
Even now, capitalist ideologues seem to fall all over themselves to avoid even mentioning any of the bad apples or other negative aspects of their ideology. They think that, if people “loathe” capitalism, it’s because they’re either socialist dupes or jealous or lazy or hopelessly dependent on the welfare state. It couldn’t have anything to do with any faults within capitalism itself.

What are the faults of Capitalism?

quote:

quote:

So, it's not really about the poor then?

It’s about those who are “not rich.” We’re talking about the so-called “little people,” as capitalists might view them. Recall Leona Helmsley’s famous quote “Only the little people pay taxes” (which puts all these complaints about taxes into proper perspective).

IOW, it's not about the poor.

quote:

quote:

For the vast majority of the poor in America, it's their own choices.

That may be true for some, although I think you’d be hard pressed to adequately demonstrate that it’s the “vast majority.” Up above, you were saying that the voters were making bad choices and ending up with shit. If this same phenomenon is observable in people’s bad economic choices and ending up with shit, then this isn’t something that can be so cavalierly dismissed, ignored, or treated with an “oh well.” I’m not even convinced that it is their own choices, but even if it’s true, if more and more people are making bad choices and facing economic consequences as a result, then this will have a bad effect even on those who work hard and make good choices.

Are we forcing people to make choices against there will somewhere? Is no one actually responsible for their actions anymore?!? WTF?!?!?

quote:

If people are making bad choices, we still have to ask why. Capitalists seem to believe that society shouldn’t ask why or shouldn’t even interfere at all.

Bullshit.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I wasn't sure exactly which part of the previously quoted section you were addressing, so I thought it was the very last sentence. Still, how do you think an "omnipotent government" (which were the words used in the article) would come to power in the first place? In our history, we have had labor riots, some minor insurrections, and even a Civil War, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. But my point was that people would have to be pretty desperate to choose an "omnipotent government," which implies an extremist tyrannical regime. A lot of shit would have to come about before it even got to that point, so it was already implied in the article.

It's going to come slowly; bit by bit. You won't see an extremist, tyrannical regime overnight. But, until we stop government encroachment on our daily lives, we'll wake up one day (or our later generations) with an extremist tyrannical regime in power.

I see what you're saying, although if history is anything to go by, such changes are usually highly noticeable. Even Rip Van Winkle would have noticed something was afoot.
I agree that we should stop government encroachment on our daily lives, depending on what the government does, although I think there's a difference between bureaucratic intransigence/incompetence and actual tyranny.

There certainly is a difference. But, tyranny can sprout from bureaucratic incompetence that is being led by people who are not only more competent, but also focused on setting the snare. Alex Jones makes a killing on twisting every little thing into a conspiracy. Why? Because there are grains of truth everywhere, and people don't trust government. If you're organized enough, you can put a lot of seemingly unconnected stuff together to set the trap, and few will notice. It can happen. I don't think it is, but it's not out of the realm of the possible.

I don’t know just how influential Jones and other such conspiracy buffs truly are. Even though there are many who don’t trust government, that doesn’t automatically mean they’ll trust the likes of Alex Jones or any of his ilk. I think the real problem is a lack of transparency in government, indicated by a culture (influenced by the Cold War) which routinely withholds information from the public as a matter of course – unless someone invokes the Freedom of Information Act, but even then, it’s not that simple.

I'm truly afraid he's more influential than either one of us would hope.

quote:

I don’t think the government needs to set up any “trap” for anyone. If we’re not trapped already, then I don’t think the government really wants to trap anyone now. Why would they? I can’t imagine anyone who is currently safe and secure in their government post is going to want to rock the boat – especially if they’re nearing retirement. The politicians seem happy enough getting their perks, prestige, and pork – from which many capitalists benefit as well. The public seems adequately distracted and pacified enough – and the only real challenge the politicians and capitalists face is ensuring that the gravy train keeps rolling so that the public remains pacified. And that may pose a greater problem.

They don't want you to think they're setting a trap, either. Works better that way. Like we've agreed, though, they can't just be all open about it an stuff.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

My only real point in this part was to say that I think that we all have a stake in trying to avoid something like that happening in this country. Even the business community should see the merit in that. I think we have the choice now to exercise the prerogatives of responsible government to take whatever initiatives are necessary to get us back on our feet - even if it means the capitalists have to grin and bear it for a while. It would be nice if they would actually pitch in and help the country for a change, cooperating with the people for a better future for all. But as you pointed out above, they just want to make money for themselves. How can anyone trust them when they're only out for themselves and don't care about the country as a whole?
You say that I trust the government too much, but the government is nothing more than a collection of different voices and factions in society trying to sort things out and achieve some sort of balance and fairness through the processes available in a democratic-republic. But if those processes are not allowed to work or are thrown into haywire without adequate resolution, then it's only a matter of time before the government's ability to do its job will be diminished - which is what we're already seeing anyway.
You've said that you want limited government that stays out of your life, but the way things are going, you may very well get your wish someday. However, as they say, be careful what you wish for.

Yes, we all do have a stake in our government and our country.
How do you see that we might have a limited government because of "the way things are going?"

Well, with budget cuts and other strains on government, it seems that there may not be enough money to pay for everything that the government currently pays for. If we lower taxes and cut spending, then there will be even less revenue for the government, and some programs will eventually have to be cut or curtailed significantly. That's less money to fix roads, for one thing. (Locally, our pothole problem is turning out to be an embarrassment to local government, although they blame it on the State government, and the State government blames everything on the Feds.)

You are working under the assumption that our current level of spending is acceptable.

Well, no, actually I don’t believe that our current level of spending is acceptable. I think that there’s a great deal of waste and inefficiency in government which has to be dealt with. That shouldn’t even be a political issue anyway. But realistically, I don’t expect the issue to be dealt with in any meaningful way, which will only exacerbate our present dilemmas regarding the way government acquires revenue, how they spend it, and how much debt they’re building up.

So, it's okay, because you don't expect them to deal with it. That's "acceptance."

quote:

quote:

quote:

More people will fall through the safety net and on the actual "floor," which will likely mean more homeless people out on the streets, more crime, and an increase in other social ills. What conservatives and capitalists argue for when they want limited government will result in problems like these being magnified and increased.

I agree it's likely for that to happen. But, that's only because government will choose for that to happen. Government will cut the important stuff and keep the less important stuff to convince us of our need for more government. That's the way they work.

In such a scenario, however, “government” may not act like a singular entity, but as multiple competing and potentially conflicting entities, which could also involve state and local governments as well. But if all it ends up with is gridlock and paralysis, then government will have a harder time convincing the people of anything, and their choices will be fewer.

The Federal government will throw it's weight around and claim the superiority over the states' laws and interests. States will fall into line and local governments will follow suit.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

We should compare them, apples to apples, though.

Yes, but when capitalists talk about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty, what exactly do they mean? If it's just complaining about higher taxes, that's hardly anything compared to many other things the government has done - which the capitalists haven't exactly been at the forefront in challenging or calling to the public's attention. When capitalists say they support freedom and liberty yet support business-friendly military dictatorships in other countries (where the poor have it much worse, as you noted earlier), then I have to question whether their protests about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty are truly genuine and sincere.
As you also noted, capitalists are only interested in making money. They don't need freedom and liberty for that.

Yes, they do need freedom and liberty for that.

You think so? The capitalists and business community of Saudi Arabia might disagree with you.

Yes, I think so.

I disagree. As we both agreed, capitalists are only interested in making money. If making money is the only goal, then that can be accomplished under any number of political systems, regardless of whether there’s freedom or liberty. As I mentioned in an earlier posts, capitalists are just like politicians, but that doesn’t make them statesmen. If they’re more interested in money than in freedom, then they’re more likely to sell out. And that makes them untrustworthy.

If Capitalists aren't free to create the Market, who then? Didn't we also agree Government isn't really trustworthy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
The problem is that capitalists don't want a free market, capitalists most love monopolies and oligopolies, because those are the most profitable forms of businesses. When Apple owned the smartphone business and the ipod was king with music, they made tremendous profits, and they tried to do everything they could to maintain that status, they sued Samsung over the look and feel of their smartphone, they tried suing other makers of music players, they used their legal teams to stop someone from making applications that could read Itunes and put the music on android phones (apple isn't all that bright, they made a version of itunes for the pc a long time ago, realizing that if they wanted to have a music business, that selling only on the mac was stupid, android today has an installed base that is much larger than the Iphone, and no one is buying an iphone because of its access to itunes). Capitalism is often its own worse enemy, and greed is one of the predominant problems it faces, because greed often ends up destroying whole industries.

quote:

Government acts as a check to that, they exist in tension with industry to try and keep industry from its own worst excesses.

quote:

Despite the current GOP claims that the 19th century economy is the way to go, with no regulation,

quote:

I don't trust the government to do the right thing, the whole my country right or wrong, I have to believe the government, is stupid, but so is the now almost religious dogma of the right wing that businessmen are Gods and Geniuses, that the 'private sector', the 'markets', all are so much better at doing things than the government, when we have proof many times over of how stupid businesses are. What really cracks me up is when I hear the free market types, who after the financial and banking industries pulled one of the biggest fucking blunders in economics history, turned around and blamed the government, when those same square heads for years campaigned that the government was in the way, that regulations were hurting companies, that Glass Steagal maimed the financial industry and banks, so people like Phil Gramm and the like got rid of those laws, and then Dubya and his administration totally told them "have at it,boys".....and they crashed the economy, then suddenly it was the governments fault for not reguating them? Really? At least have the balls to admit they were wrong, but the Paul Ryan/Ayn Rand worshipping GOP is still claiming private business wasn't at fault, that the government "forced" them to make bad loans, etc, which speaking as someone who works in the derivatives area, who has worked in the financial markets for 30 years, can tell you is a load of bullshit, that lending to poor people was a drop in the bucket compared to what AIG, Goldman and the rest of them pulled, that was a minor sideshow to the real fuck ups.....
What I do say is that pure capitalism doesn't work, because of human frailty and ignorance and greed, any more than pure socialism or communism does. The ideal state is a capitalist system where the government uses regulation and carrot and sticks, to temper the worst of capitalism (since pure capitalism, among other things, tends to create a goldmine for the few with crumbs for the rest, I again recommend reading a book about the 19th century economy, where 3 or 4 men controlled something like 40% of the wealth in this country and most workers had literally almost nothing)...they exist both in tension and collaboration, and it is not a static model, sometimes more regulation is needed, sometimes less. I remember when the banking industry was bleating about how regulation hurt them, how the FDIC was requiring them, especially after the S and L fiasco (thank you, St. Reagan, nice piece of work, another proof that getting rid of regulation often leads to disaster) to be more cautious..and a friend of mine who worked for the FDIC as an examiner, said "yeah, but those bloated suits complaining and whining forget one thing..if it wasn't for FDIC, no one would put their money in their bank, no one trusts them, not after the 1930's made people realize how scummy and careless banks were if not reigned in).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There are too many people that rely on government. That stuff costs money. What happens when those that are paying the majority of taxes leave? Where is funding going to come from? Where is the money for the Entitlement Nation going to come from? It's not that people can't do for themselves. Too many have chosen not to.

If those people leave, then government’s expenses would also be reduced. These same people who threaten to leave are the same people who gouge the public with high prices, so once their greed is taken out of the equation, all the “stuff” that costs money would be significantly reduced in price. Price controls would also make it so that all the “stuff” that costs money wouldn’t cost so much.

If they leave, so does all that "stuff." Who is going to sell it? Government's expenses aren't going to be reduced if the wealthy flee.

quote:

quote:

The country still has plenty of resources, plenty of arable land, a withering but revivable industrial base and infrastructure. Plus, if all those cranky capitalists leave, there would be no one to push for war-mongering or military adventurism overseas, so government expenses will drop even further. If you consider the hidden and indirect costs from capitalist oligarchy, this country would be far better off without them.
And I think that you’re overstating the matter when you paint a picture that makes it look like the country is nothing but wealthy capitalists and poor people on welfare. What about all the people in between, the ones who actually work? They’re not going to disappear (and they’ll keep coming from other countries anyway).

Who are they going to work for? The "revivable" industrial base won't be revived without capitalists.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Politicians are going to tell you what's good for their re-election.

Of course, but in terms of actual money or power, they’re not really benefiting all that much, not near as much as capitalists benefit.

That's true. I mean, Bill and Hillary, are broke, afterall. [8|]

quote:

I disagree. A free market is the best way to guide the economy, especially because society has gotten so big, complex, and interdependent. Unless you think several hundred people in DC know better than everyone else what everyone else wants, there's no way anything compares to a free market.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

If government decides we should have something we don't want, or don't want as badly as government wants us to have it, where is the choice? We'll end up having it, and paying for it, through threat of government force.

The voters have the power to exert force upon the government.

Unless the voters aren't educated enough about what's going on, and vote shit for themselves.

Yes, that is a problem. But as capitalists always say, if a person doesn’t work hard or is unskilled/uneducated, then they deserve their lot in life, due to their own choices. The same could be said for voters and democratically elected governments. One might even observe similarities with undemocratic empires of the past which have since fallen into dust. The people are responsible for their own choices.

Yep. And, that's part of the reason we aren't a straight up democracy, too. That's part of the reason the Senate is equally apportioned. That's part of the reason we have a Constitution, that was supposed to shackle government to keep it limited.

quote:

quote:

quote:

You realize the Market works best when those coming to the Market are there for their own interests, right?

It depends on what you mean by “works best.” Those who are there for their own interests might try to steal as much as they can get away with. The market works best when there’s no thievery, no dishonesty, no bribery, no coercion, no armed robbery, no murder, no mobsterism, no gangsterism, no corruption, no exploitation, no outside invasions or wars. That’s why the market needs the police, the court system, the military, and a system of organization to go with it.

That's not a market.

quote:

quote:

The problem with the “free market” viewpoint you’re espousing is that the market has no mechanism for dealing with any of these things that could cause things to fall out of kilter. I think that to selectively criticize big government as being the “villain” in all of this is barking up the wrong tree, since the restrictions on the market were put in place precisely because the market was ill-equipped to deal with its own bad apples.
Even now, capitalist ideologues seem to fall all over themselves to avoid even mentioning any of the bad apples or other negative aspects of their ideology. They think that, if people “loathe” capitalism, it’s because they’re either socialist dupes or jealous or lazy or hopelessly dependent on the welfare state. It couldn’t have anything to do with any faults within capitalism itself.

What are the faults of Capitalism?

quote:

quote:

quote:

So, it's not really about the poor then?

It’s about those who are “not rich.” We’re talking about the so-called “little people,” as capitalists might view them. Recall Leona Helmsley’s famous quote “Only the little people pay taxes” (which puts all these complaints about taxes into proper perspective).

IOW, it's not about the poor.

quote:

quote:

quote:

For the vast majority of the poor in America, it's their own choices.

That may be true for some, although I think you’d be hard pressed to adequately demonstrate that it’s the “vast majority.” Up above, you were saying that the voters were making bad choices and ending up with shit. If this same phenomenon is observable in people’s bad economic choices and ending up with shit, then this isn’t something that can be so cavalierly dismissed, ignored, or treated with an “oh well.” I’m not even convinced that it is their own choices, but even if it’s true, if more and more people are making bad choices and facing economic consequences as a result, then this will have a bad effect even on those who work hard and make good choices.

Are we forcing people to make choices against there will somewhere? Is no one actually responsible for their actions anymore?!? WTF?!?!?

quote:

quote:

If people are making bad choices, we still have to ask why. Capitalists seem to believe that society shouldn’t ask why or shouldn’t even interfere at all.

Bullshit.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I wasn't sure exactly which part of the previously quoted section you were addressing, so I thought it was the very last sentence. Still, how do you think an "omnipotent government" (which were the words used in the article) would come to power in the first place? In our history, we have had labor riots, some minor insurrections, and even a Civil War, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. But my point was that people would have to be pretty desperate to choose an "omnipotent government," which implies an extremist tyrannical regime. A lot of shit would have to come about before it even got to that point, so it was already implied in the article.

It's going to come slowly; bit by bit. You won't see an extremist, tyrannical regime overnight. But, until we stop government encroachment on our daily lives, we'll wake up one day (or our later generations) with an extremist tyrannical regime in power.

I see what you're saying, although if history is anything to go by, such changes are usually highly noticeable. Even Rip Van Winkle would have noticed something was afoot.
I agree that we should stop government encroachment on our daily lives, depending on what the government does, although I think there's a difference between bureaucratic intransigence/incompetence and actual tyranny.

There certainly is a difference. But, tyranny can sprout from bureaucratic incompetence that is being led by people who are not only more competent, but also focused on setting the snare. Alex Jones makes a killing on twisting every little thing into a conspiracy. Why? Because there are grains of truth everywhere, and people don't trust government. If you're organized enough, you can put a lot of seemingly unconnected stuff together to set the trap, and few will notice. It can happen. I don't think it is, but it's not out of the realm of the possible.

I don’t know just how influential Jones and other such conspiracy buffs truly are. Even though there are many who don’t trust government, that doesn’t automatically mean they’ll trust the likes of Alex Jones or any of his ilk. I think the real problem is a lack of transparency in government, indicated by a culture (influenced by the Cold War) which routinely withholds information from the public as a matter of course – unless someone invokes the Freedom of Information Act, but even then, it’s not that simple.

I'm truly afraid he's more influential than either one of us would hope.

quote:

quote:

I don’t think the government needs to set up any “trap” for anyone. If we’re not trapped already, then I don’t think the government really wants to trap anyone now. Why would they? I can’t imagine anyone who is currently safe and secure in their government post is going to want to rock the boat – especially if they’re nearing retirement. The politicians seem happy enough getting their perks, prestige, and pork – from which many capitalists benefit as well. The public seems adequately distracted and pacified enough – and the only real challenge the politicians and capitalists face is ensuring that the gravy train keeps rolling so that the public remains pacified. And that may pose a greater problem.

They don't want you to think they're setting a trap, either. Works better that way. Like we've agreed, though, they can't just be all open about it an stuff.

quote:


So, it's okay, because you don't expect them to deal with it. That's "acceptance."

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

More people will fall through the safety net and on the actual "floor," which will likely mean more homeless people out on the streets, more crime, and an increase in other social ills. What conservatives and capitalists argue for when they want limited government will result in problems like these being magnified and increased.

I agree it's likely for that to happen. But, that's only because government will choose for that to happen. Government will cut the important stuff and keep the less important stuff to convince us of our need for more government. That's the way they work.

In such a scenario, however, “government” may not act like a singular entity, but as multiple competing and potentially conflicting entities, which could also involve state and local governments as well. But if all it ends up with is gridlock and paralysis, then government will have a harder time convincing the people of anything, and their choices will be fewer.

The Federal government will throw it's weight around and claim the superiority over the states' laws and interests. States will fall into line and local governments will follow suit.

quote:


If Capitalists aren't free to create the Market, who then? Didn't we also agree Government isn't really trustworthy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If they leave, so does all that "stuff." Who is going to sell it? Government's expenses aren't going to be reduced if the wealthy flee.

What “stuff” will leave? All the buildings will remain. All the farms. All the mines, oil wells, and other resources. They’re not going anywhere. The rich might take their fur coats, priceless art, jewelry, and other stuff, but we don’t really need that kind of stuff to survive, so the rest of us will get by just nicely.
The wealthy are the primary beneficiaries of government spending, so without their greed in the picture, government expenses would be reduced drastically. No more $15,000 toilet seats at the Pentagon. Capitalists are the country’s major war mongers, so the Defense budget will also be drastically reduced. Also, prices will be reduced since the numerous money-grubbing “middlemen” will be removed from the equation.

quote:

quote:

Who are they going to work for? The "revivable" industrial base won't be revived without capitalists.

That’s simply not true. Again, you’re making the mistake of assuming that capitalists created the land under our feet and the air we breathe. They’re not as indispensible as you think.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Politicians are going to tell you what's good for their re-election.

Of course, but in terms of actual money or power, they’re not really benefiting all that much, not near as much as capitalists benefit.

That's true. I mean, Bill and Hillary, are broke, afterall. [8|]

Well, it is true, when compared to Bill Gates, Buffett, or some of the other uber-rich multi-billionaires out there. Bill and Hillary are rich more due to their celebrity status, with Bill being a former President. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter went out and built houses after he left office.

quote:

quote:

I disagree. A free market is the best way to guide the economy, especially because society has gotten so big, complex, and interdependent. Unless you think several hundred people in DC know better than everyone else what everyone else wants, there's no way anything compares to a free market.

But in reality, it’s just a few hundred people on Wall Street. It’s not “everyone else.”

quote:

quote:

Yep. And, that's part of the reason we aren't a straight up democracy, too. That's part of the reason the Senate is equally apportioned. That's part of the reason we have a Constitution, that was supposed to shackle government to keep it limited.

Probably more to shackle the people than the government, since it was designed to limit and mitigate the potential for “mob rule” and other damage that could result from possibly bad choices by the people. But if that’s the case, then the same principle should apply to State governments and to the free market.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

You realize the Market works best when those coming to the Market are there for their own interests, right?

It depends on what you mean by “works best.” Those who are there for their own interests might try to steal as much as they can get away with. The market works best when there’s no thievery, no dishonesty, no bribery, no coercion, no armed robbery, no murder, no mobsterism, no gangsterism, no corruption, no exploitation, no outside invasions or wars. That’s why the market needs the police, the court system, the military, and a system of organization to go with it.

That's not a market.

Perhaps not, but it’s the real world, a place where your idea of a “market” can not possibly exist. It’s never existed before, and according to your own assertions that we have corporatism and not capitalism, it doesn’t even exist now.

quote:

quote:

quote:

The problem with the “free market” viewpoint you’re espousing is that the market has no mechanism for dealing with any of these things that could cause things to fall out of kilter. I think that to selectively criticize big government as being the “villain” in all of this is barking up the wrong tree, since the restrictions on the market were put in place precisely because the market was ill-equipped to deal with its own bad apples.
Even now, capitalist ideologues seem to fall all over themselves to avoid even mentioning any of the bad apples or other negative aspects of their ideology. They think that, if people “loathe” capitalism, it’s because they’re either socialist dupes or jealous or lazy or hopelessly dependent on the welfare state. It couldn’t have anything to do with any faults within capitalism itself.

What are the faults of Capitalism?

Well, isn’t that what we’ve been discussing throughout this thread? The author of the article you linked stated that people loathed capitalism and tried to extrapolate possible reasons for this.
Capitalism has some virtues and some faults, but its primary fault is a lack of any internal enforcement mechanism to weed out the bad apples and prevent abuses. Frankly, that’s the reason why organized crime and capitalist private armies became so powerful.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

So, it's not really about the poor then?

It’s about those who are “not rich.” We’re talking about the so-called “little people,” as capitalists might view them. Recall Leona Helmsley’s famous quote “Only the little people pay taxes” (which puts all these complaints about taxes into proper perspective).

IOW, it's not about the poor.

Yes, I just said that. Did you want it to be about the poor?
I thought this topic was about those who loathe capitalism, which would include more than just the poor. Historically, there have been those even from wealthy backgrounds who developed a loathing for capitalism.

quote:

I think it would probably depend more on just income or net worth, but also on general quality of life, access to education, access to healthcare, availability/affordability of food and other necessities of life, percentage of housing with electricity/fixed plumbing, literacy rate, life expectancy, crime, access to emergency services, roads, infrastructure. There are a lot of factors to consider, not so much in defining who is "poor" but more along the lines of "how well do the people as a whole actually live."

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

For the vast majority of the poor in America, it's their own choices.

That may be true for some, although I think you’d be hard pressed to adequately demonstrate that it’s the “vast majority.” Up above, you were saying that the voters were making bad choices and ending up with shit. If this same phenomenon is observable in people’s bad economic choices and ending up with shit, then this isn’t something that can be so cavalierly dismissed, ignored, or treated with an “oh well.” I’m not even convinced that it is their own choices, but even if it’s true, if more and more people are making bad choices and facing economic consequences as a result, then this will have a bad effect even on those who work hard and make good choices.

Are we forcing people to make choices against there will somewhere? Is no one actually responsible for their actions anymore?!? WTF?!?!?

Your reaction puzzles me. I think the problem here is that you’re trying to oversimplify the matter of choice and what leads people to make them. You seem to believe that choices and individuals are isolated and disconnected from cause and effect.
“We” are not necessarily forcing people to make choices against their will (except for those under 21 and anyone deemed mentally incompetent), although it depends on the situation. If someone makes the choice to get drunk and then go out and drive – and he hits you and you end up in the hospital, are you responsible for that choice? You made a choice to go somewhere and fell victim to the consequences of choices made by someone else. It wasn’t your choice, yet you’re still stuck with the situation.
Also, you seem to put an inordinate emphasis on “force,” but there are other ways that someone can be made to make the wrong choice without the use of force. Verbal persuasion, trickery, deception, advertising, and peer pressure are also ways of influencing people’s choices. That doesn’t mean that people aren’t responsible for their own choices, although if they make a choice influenced by others, then others share partial responsibility for that choice.

quote:

For example, if I’m walking down the street and come across some guy running a game of Three Card Monte, and I get suckered into playing and lose my money as a result, then I would be responsible for the choice of getting suckered, but they would be responsible for running a dishonest game. Under the rules of the free market, there’d be no way of addressing that, since it’s “let the buyer beware.”

quote:

quote:

quote:

If people are making bad choices, we still have to ask why. Capitalists seem to believe that society shouldn’t ask why or shouldn’t even interfere at all.

Bullshit.

Can you be a bit more specific?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I wasn't sure exactly which part of the previously quoted section you were addressing, so I thought it was the very last sentence. Still, how do you think an "omnipotent government" (which were the words used in the article) would come to power in the first place? In our history, we have had labor riots, some minor insurrections, and even a Civil War, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. But my point was that people would have to be pretty desperate to choose an "omnipotent government," which implies an extremist tyrannical regime. A lot of shit would have to come about before it even got to that point, so it was already implied in the article.

It's going to come slowly; bit by bit. You won't see an extremist, tyrannical regime overnight. But, until we stop government encroachment on our daily lives, we'll wake up one day (or our later generations) with an extremist tyrannical regime in power.

I see what you're saying, although if history is anything to go by, such changes are usually highly noticeable. Even Rip Van Winkle would have noticed something was afoot.
I agree that we should stop government encroachment on our daily lives, depending on what the government does, although I think there's a difference between bureaucratic intransigence/incompetence and actual tyranny.

There certainly is a difference. But, tyranny can sprout from bureaucratic incompetence that is being led by people who are not only more competent, but also focused on setting the snare. Alex Jones makes a killing on twisting every little thing into a conspiracy. Why? Because there are grains of truth everywhere, and people don't trust government. If you're organized enough, you can put a lot of seemingly unconnected stuff together to set the trap, and few will notice. It can happen. I don't think it is, but it's not out of the realm of the possible.

I don’t know just how influential Jones and other such conspiracy buffs truly are. Even though there are many who don’t trust government, that doesn’t automatically mean they’ll trust the likes of Alex Jones or any of his ilk. I think the real problem is a lack of transparency in government, indicated by a culture (influenced by the Cold War) which routinely withholds information from the public as a matter of course – unless someone invokes the Freedom of Information Act, but even then, it’s not that simple.

I'm truly afraid he's more influential than either one of us would hope.

If he really was that influential, we’d see more overt public activism and more of a concerted effort to address it. The only time crackpots and other fringe types become dangerous and something to fear is when the overall situation in a country becomes desperate. I’m truly afraid that we’re heading in that direction right now, at which point it would be too late to worry about the likes of Alex Jones.

quote:

quote:

quote:

I don’t think the government needs to set up any “trap” for anyone. If we’re not trapped already, then I don’t think the government really wants to trap anyone now. Why would they? I can’t imagine anyone who is currently safe and secure in their government post is going to want to rock the boat – especially if they’re nearing retirement. The politicians seem happy enough getting their perks, prestige, and pork – from which many capitalists benefit as well. The public seems adequately distracted and pacified enough – and the only real challenge the politicians and capitalists face is ensuring that the gravy train keeps rolling so that the public remains pacified. And that may pose a greater problem.

They don't want you to think they're setting a trap, either. Works better that way. Like we've agreed, though, they can't just be all open about it an stuff.

I think they just want to steal as much as they can while having a plan of escape if the shit ever hits the fan. A tyrant who tries to set a trap for the people also sets a trap for himself, since his very life depends on staying in power permanently (which, for a capitalist, would be the ultimate all-or-nothing gambit). In contrast, a thief in the night tries to remain untrapped and therefore is hampered from trapping others.

quote:

quote:

So, it's okay, because you don't expect them to deal with it. That's "acceptance."

Do you expect them to deal with it? Do you seriously expect the current crop of politicians to do anything about waste, inefficiency, wild government spending and the huge debts which come with it? Do you believe that the mid-term elections will bring anything different? If so, then you have more faith and trust in government than I do.
As far as my own “acceptance” is concerned, I recognize the reality that there is very little I can personally do to deal with the situation at hand. On the matter of “choice,” it seems that much of the voting public is choosing to be a bunch of passive and gullible sheep – which affects not only you and me, but the people in other countries and even people who haven’t been born yet. I’ll admit that the situation does bother me, and “acceptance” is not my first choice.
However, I must confess that I’m running out of answers. If most of the voters are idiots and the government is made up of crooks, where does that leave us? We The People have already spoken, and We The People are fools. We The People made our choices. Under the rules and principles of the Constitution, I have to accept that.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

More people will fall through the safety net and on the actual "floor," which will likely mean more homeless people out on the streets, more crime, and an increase in other social ills. What conservatives and capitalists argue for when they want limited government will result in problems like these being magnified and increased.

I agree it's likely for that to happen. But, that's only because government will choose for that to happen. Government will cut the important stuff and keep the less important stuff to convince us of our need for more government. That's the way they work.

In such a scenario, however, “government” may not act like a singular entity, but as multiple competing and potentially conflicting entities, which could also involve state and local governments as well. But if all it ends up with is gridlock and paralysis, then government will have a harder time convincing the people of anything, and their choices will be fewer.

The Federal government will throw it's weight around and claim the superiority over the states' laws and interests. States will fall into line and local governments will follow suit.

Some States may fall into line. Other States may be a bit more feisty. (You should see some of our ads for Governor here in AZ. Hell, even someone running for Arizona Corporation Commission has “Fight Obama” on their campaign signs. I’m still trying to figure that one out. What can the Corporation Commission do about Obama?)
But even the Federal government may not be able to manage itself well enough since its too large and unwieldy, like a monster with many heads controlling different parts of its body. Its weight will be thrown in different directions.
At the very least, this will lead to confusion at the State and local level, even including Federal officials in the field who have direct control over the “weight” of the Federal government in their own region. Even if they’re working for the Feds, they still live in the States they operate and have a personal stake in the well-being of their State of residence (which might also be their State of birth).

quote:

quote:

If Capitalists aren't free to create the Market, who then? Didn't we also agree Government isn't really trustworthy?

But capitalists don’t actually “create” the market. When reduced down to its core process, the market is a political process, if one defines “politics” as the human art of negotiation, compromise, and making contracts for mutual benefit. We have language, the ability to speak, think, and reason – and this is how human beings accomplish what they do. Capitalists didn’t create these abilities; these were things that humans developed over eons of evolution and progress towards civilization. Similarly, our creative genius, as demonstrated with art, architecture, engineering, science, is a product of our human mind which is part of our nature, not something created by capitalists.
At best, the capitalists’ role is similar to that of a political organizer, which is a role not unlike that of the politicians in the government. The main contribution of capitalism is in the ability for multiple investors to organize their capital through a corporation which was at a better advantage at building heavy industries and other large enterprises that a single individual or family-run business would not be able to do as easily or as rapidly. Back in the 19th century, our politicians and government very much wanted heavy industry and an extensive transportation and communication infrastructure, just as other industrial powers wanted, such as England and Germany. Many governments didn’t want their countries to be left behind or considered “backward,” so governments were a primary instigator and motivator for these capitalist ventures.
Whether we’re talking about politicians, capitalists, lawyers, used car salesmen, or priests, we’re talking about human beings – nothing more, nothing less. All other things being equal, some will be trustworthy, some not. “Government,” for all intents and purposes, is nothing more than a machine, or an inanimate object. How trustworthy it is depends on who’s operating that machine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Your second sentence explains what's wrong with your first sentence's claim.

The rest of your rant is an Ode to Puritan Ethics.

OK, but Puritan Ethics doesn't equal self-evident reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Yes, which is what's wrong with what you posted.

An economy is moving those resources. Demand w/o supply isn't moving resources, and so isn't an economy. It wouldn't even be a market.

You also clearly don't understand the reference to Puritan Ethics, leaving it behind to rant about ethics generically instead.

The rest of your post is bizarre speculation. And needlessly so. There certainly, since Reagan, are two economies in the US today, separated by income class. Rant about that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Who is going to fund production? Where is all that money going to come from?

quote:


You think they'll just "disappear?" You don't think they'll close shop before they leave?

quote:


DoD budget should be slashed. Period. But, we need to stop the warmongering.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Who are they going to work for? The "revivable" industrial base won't be revived without capitalists.

That’s simply not true. Again, you’re making the mistake of assuming that capitalists created the land under our feet and the air we breathe. They’re not as indispensible as you think.

No answer, then. It's not going to be like the Rapture, and the people will just disappear. So, who is going to fund things?

quote:


Perhaps the Clinton's are "satisfied" with the rate at which they are accumulating wealth. Are you limited in the amount of wealthy you can accumulate because someone else is accumulating more wealth, and doing so faster?

quote:

quote:

quote:

I disagree. A free market is the best way to guide the economy, especially because society has gotten so big, complex, and interdependent. Unless you think several hundred people in DC know better than everyone else what everyone else wants, there's no way anything compares to a free market.

But in reality, it’s just a few hundred people on Wall Street. It’s not “everyone else.”

That isn't reality by any stretch. You think those on Wall Street decide what's going to be sold at every place in the US?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Yep. And, that's part of the reason we aren't a straight up democracy, too. That's part of the reason the Senate is equally apportioned. That's part of the reason we have a Constitution, that was supposed to shackle government to keep it limited.

Probably more to shackle the people than the government, since it was designed to limit and mitigate the potential for “mob rule” and other damage that could result from possibly bad choices by the people. But if that’s the case, then the same principle should apply to State governments and to the free market.

The Constitution was written to limit the powers and authorities of the US Government. The Federalists weren't against the Bill of Rights because of any of the Amendments. They were only opposed to them because they thought they were unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists disagreed that the way the US Constitution was written provided enough protections, which is why they were explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. All the authorities not spelled out in the US Constitution were left to the States and the People.

What did you mean by your last sentence, regarding the State governments and free market? What were you referring to with the phrase, "if that's the case?"

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

You realize the Market works best when those coming to the Market are there for their own interests, right?

It depends on what you mean by “works best.” Those who are there for their own interests might try to steal as much as they can get away with. The market works best when there’s no thievery, no dishonesty, no bribery, no coercion, no armed robbery, no murder, no mobsterism, no gangsterism, no corruption, no exploitation, no outside invasions or wars. That’s why the market needs the police, the court system, the military, and a system of organization to go with it.

That's not a market.

Perhaps not, but it’s the real world, a place where your idea of a “market” can not possibly exist. It’s never existed before, and according to your own assertions that we have corporatism and not capitalism, it doesn’t even exist now.

I should have been more specific. Bribery, coercion, robbery, murder, etc. aren't free markets. And, yes, we absolutely do need laws, and a way to uphold those laws. Property rights are extremely important. Without them, we have, basically, nothing to call our own. That's one of the things government should exist to protect.

quote:


Competition is an internal enforcement mechanism. Government restrictions and regulations can hamper the rise and opportunity for competition. That should not happen, but it does.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

So, it's not really about the poor then?

It’s about those who are “not rich.” We’re talking about the so-called “little people,” as capitalists might view them. Recall Leona Helmsley’s famous quote “Only the little people pay taxes” (which puts all these complaints about taxes into proper perspective).

IOW, it's not about the poor.

Yes, I just said that. Did you want it to be about the poor?
I thought this topic was about those who loathe capitalism, which would include more than just the poor. Historically, there have been those even from wealthy backgrounds who developed a loathing for capitalism.

We were talking about the poor. Then, you moved the goalposts, here:

quote:

I think it would probably depend more on just income or net worth, but also on general quality of life, access to education, access to healthcare, availability/affordability of food and other necessities of life, percentage of housing with electricity/fixed plumbing, literacy rate, life expectancy, crime, access to emergency services, roads, infrastructure. There are a lot of factors to consider, not so much in defining who is "poor" but more along the lines of "how well do the people as a whole actually live."

If you compare our poor with the poor in other nations, it should be quite clear that our poor have more things than the poor in other countries. They liver better off. That, generally, sticks with each socioeconomic breakdown, too. "As a whole," US Citizens have it much better than others.

quote:


Even with all the persuasive elements we're surrounded with, we still have the ultimate say in our choices.

quote:

quote:

For example, if I’m walking down the street and come across some guy running a game of Three Card Monte, and I get suckered into playing and lose my money as a result, then I would be responsible for the choice of getting suckered, but they would be responsible for running a dishonest game. Under the rules of the free market, there’d be no way of addressing that, since it’s “let the buyer beware.”

Actually, under a free market, the information surrounding a voluntary exchange is shared and close to equal.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

If people are making bad choices, we still have to ask why. Capitalists seem to believe that society shouldn’t ask why or shouldn’t even interfere at all.

Bullshit.

Can you be a bit more specific?

See the bolded part.

quote:


I don't know that you got my point. I don't think either one of us hopes Alex Jones is influential at all. I contend he is more influential than we'd hope. I'll rewrite my previous comment thusly, "I'm truly afraid he's more influential than I hope he is."

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I don’t think the government needs to set up any “trap” for anyone. If we’re not trapped already, then I don’t think the government really wants to trap anyone now. Why would they? I can’t imagine anyone who is currently safe and secure in their government post is going to want to rock the boat – especially if they’re nearing retirement. The politicians seem happy enough getting their perks, prestige, and pork – from which many capitalists benefit as well. The public seems adequately distracted and pacified enough – and the only real challenge the politicians and capitalists face is ensuring that the gravy train keeps rolling so that the public remains pacified. And that may pose a greater problem.

They don't want you to think they're setting a trap, either. Works better that way. Like we've agreed, though, they can't just be all open about it an stuff.

I think they just want to steal as much as they can while having a plan of escape if the shit ever hits the fan. A tyrant who tries to set a trap for the people also sets a trap for himself, since his very life depends on staying in power permanently (which, for a capitalist, would be the ultimate all-or-nothing gambit). In contrast, a thief in the night tries to remain untrapped and therefore is hampered from trapping others.

So, putting seemingly innocuous regulations and programs in place to provide a "safety net" isn't setting a trap, when the final straw is to crash the dollar, forcing almost everyone into those programs?

quote:

quote:

quote:

So, it's okay, because you don't expect them to deal with it. That's "acceptance."

Do you expect them to deal with it? Do you seriously expect the current crop of politicians to do anything about waste, inefficiency, wild government spending and the huge debts which come with it? Do you believe that the mid-term elections will bring anything different? If so, then you have more faith and trust in government than I do.
As far as my own “acceptance” is concerned, I recognize the reality that there is very little I can personally do to deal with the situation at hand. On the matter of “choice,” it seems that much of the voting public is choosing to be a bunch of passive and gullible sheep – which affects not only you and me, but the people in other countries and even people who haven’t been born yet. I’ll admit that the situation does bother me, and “acceptance” is not my first choice.
However, I must confess that I’m running out of answers. If most of the voters are idiots and the government is made up of crooks, where does that leave us? We The People have already spoken, and We The People are fools. We The People made our choices. Under the rules and principles of the Constitution, I have to accept that.

We can accept that is the way it currently is, but we don't have to accept that is the way it's always going to be.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

More people will fall through the safety net and on the actual "floor," which will likely mean more homeless people out on the streets, more crime, and an increase in other social ills. What conservatives and capitalists argue for when they want limited government will result in problems like these being magnified and increased.

I agree it's likely for that to happen. But, that's only because government will choose for that to happen. Government will cut the important stuff and keep the less important stuff to convince us of our need for more government. That's the way they work.

In such a scenario, however, “government” may not act like a singular entity, but as multiple competing and potentially conflicting entities, which could also involve state and local governments as well. But if all it ends up with is gridlock and paralysis, then government will have a harder time convincing the people of anything, and their choices will be fewer.

The Federal government will throw it's weight around and claim the superiority over the states' laws and interests. States will fall into line and local governments will follow suit.

Some States may fall into line. Other States may be a bit more feisty. (You should see some of our ads for Governor here in AZ. Hell, even someone running for Arizona Corporation Commission has “Fight Obama” on their campaign signs. I’m still trying to figure that one out. What can the Corporation Commission do about Obama?)
But even the Federal government may not be able to manage itself well enough since its too large and unwieldy, like a monster with many heads controlling different parts of its body. Its weight will be thrown in different directions.
At the very least, this will lead to confusion at the State and local level, even including Federal officials in the field who have direct control over the “weight” of the Federal government in their own region. Even if they’re working for the Feds, they still live in the States they operate and have a personal stake in the well-being of their State of residence (which might also be their State of birth).

Everyone will be equal. Some will just be "more equal."

quote:


Without capitalists, we'd not be able to efficiently get the stuff we want. It would be more expensive, and harder to come by. Henry Ford didn't develop the assembly line method of manufacturing vehicles because of government. He did it to produce cars for a lower cost, and to make more money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Who is going to fund production? Where is all that money going to come from?

Money is issued by the government. Capitalists can’t print their own money.

quote:

quote:

You think they'll just "disappear?" You don't think they'll close shop before they leave?

Sure, and they’ll leave empty buildings and anything else they can’t take with them.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Who are they going to work for? The "revivable" industrial base won't be revived without capitalists.

That’s simply not true. Again, you’re making the mistake of assuming that capitalists created the land under our feet and the air we breathe. They’re not as indispensible as you think.

No answer, then. It's not going to be like the Rapture, and the people will just disappear. So, who is going to fund things?

What do you mean “no answer”? You’re not giving me anything to answer, other than your insinuations that capitalists are indispensable and that NOTHING can be produced without them. I’ve already said that’s simply not true, so what other answer can there possibly be?

quote:

To revive the industrial base requires workers, equipment, and raw materials – none of which are built or produced by capitalists. Their role in the actual process of production is minimal and non-essential. They don’t produce a single cog, nor do they mine one ounce of ore. “Funding” is just a unit of exchange. Individually, they don’t even have the money to fund anything; their only “skill” is in organizing other people’s money, which ultimately comes from the “little people” anyway (the same people who actually build and create the stuff which capitalists take credit for).

quote:

quote:

Perhaps the Clinton's are "satisfied" with the rate at which they are accumulating wealth. Are you limited in the amount of wealthy you can accumulate because someone else is accumulating more wealth, and doing so faster?

That’s beside the point. Your contention is that politicians are wanting to set a trap for the people and create a dictatorial government, yet you’re suggesting that they would do so solely for the money? They’re already making money under the current system, so why would they have any incentive to change that situation? How much money are they going to make if they alienate their primary benefactors?
As for the Clintons, their net worth of $80 million would make them nothing more than “small timers” compared to the enormous whales of capitalism. Individually, they’re not that powerful, which would refute the earlier notion about the alleged goal of “suzerainty of omnipotent government.”

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I disagree. A free market is the best way to guide the economy, especially because society has gotten so big, complex, and interdependent. Unless you think several hundred people in DC know better than everyone else what everyone else wants, there's no way anything compares to a free market.

But in reality, it’s just a few hundred people on Wall Street. It’s not “everyone else.”

That isn't reality by any stretch. You think those on Wall Street decide what's going to be sold at every place in the US?

My experience is that most corporate entities have rigid centralization and micromanagement at all levels, with regimes often stricter than that of the U.S. government. Those of us who live out in the provinces know this quite well, especially when dealing with local managers who have to toe the line set by “corporate,” and if they want to do anything at all, they have to “get approval from corporate” (meaning the corporate headquarters and the centralized management of the company). Sometimes, it’s not even the corporation itself, but bankers and insurance companies calling the shots, since they have ways of exerting their own influence and control. A phrase often heard in the corporate world is “my hands are tied,” which gives us a clue as to how much “freedom” capitalists actually practice (as opposed to what their propaganda says).

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Yep. And, that's part of the reason we aren't a straight up democracy, too. That's part of the reason the Senate is equally apportioned. That's part of the reason we have a Constitution, that was supposed to shackle government to keep it limited.

Probably more to shackle the people than the government, since it was designed to limit and mitigate the potential for “mob rule” and other damage that could result from possibly bad choices by the people. But if that’s the case, then the same principle should apply to State governments and to the free market.

The Constitution was written to limit the powers and authorities of the US Government. The Federalists weren't against the Bill of Rights because of any of the Amendments. They were only opposed to them because they thought they were unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists disagreed that the way the US Constitution was written provided enough protections, which is why they were explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. All the authorities not spelled out in the US Constitution were left to the States and the People.
What did you mean by your last sentence, regarding the State governments and free market? What were you referring to with the phrase, "if that's the case?"

I stated earlier that the people are responsible for their own choices, which prompted the response from you that “that’s part of the reason we aren’t a straight up democracy,” etc. The Founders didn’t actually trust pure democracy, and for good reason, since mob rule could lead to abuses of power. This would mean that the ideal political system would be one in which abuses of power can be minimized, with individual human rights being its most cherished principle.  That’s what I was referring to when I said “if that’s the case.”
But if the overall goal is the guarantee of individual human rights, then doesn’t it stand to reason that this should entail limiting any and all potential exertions of power over an individual, whether done by the Feds, a State/local government, or a private/business entity?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

You realize the Market works best when those coming to the Market are there for their own interests, right?

It depends on what you mean by “works best.” Those who are there for their own interests might try to steal as much as they can get away with. The market works best when there’s no thievery, no dishonesty, no bribery, no coercion, no armed robbery, no murder, no mobsterism, no gangsterism, no corruption, no exploitation, no outside invasions or wars. That’s why the market needs the police, the court system, the military, and a system of organization to go with it.

That's not a market.

Perhaps not, but it’s the real world, a place where your idea of a “market” can not possibly exist. It’s never existed before, and according to your own assertions that we have corporatism and not capitalism, it doesn’t even exist now.

I should have been more specific. Bribery, coercion, robbery, murder, etc. aren't free markets. And, yes, we absolutely do need laws, and a way to uphold those laws. Property rights are extremely important. Without them, we have, basically, nothing to call our own. That's one of the things government should exist to protect.

There are numerous rights government exists to protect, not just property rights. But I agree that we need laws and a way to uphold those laws. That’s where the lawyers and judges come into the picture, and most large companies devote a portion of their revenues to legal fees to keep “the best lawyers money can buy” on retainer. Many of these lawyers are quite expensive, yet companies will still pay and consider it a necessary cost of doing business.

quote:

It does seem somewhat absurd in a way, that we agree that government should exist to protect rights, yet only seem to do so if/when a million-dollar Ivy League lawyer reminds them of this. If it’s a cheaper lawyer from Podunk University, then somehow, their arguments don’t carry the same amount of weight. You’d think that the government would just decide that rights are rights, the law is the law, and everyone is equal before the law. But it seems that some lawyers are more equal than others. This is when the rubber meets the road and all our notions about protecting individual rights are supposedly put into practice.
Bribery is something very difficult to detect and even harder to prove.

quote:

quote:

Competition is an internal enforcement mechanism. Government restrictions and regulations can hamper the rise and opportunity for competition. That should not happen, but it does.

But it’s not just government restrictions. The reason government restrictions and regulations had to be imposed in the first place was to correct abuses in the system due to a lack of any internal enforcement mechanism. They didn’t just do it for the hell of it, they were called upon to do so for a specific cause or reason.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

So, it's not really about the poor then?

It’s about those who are “not rich.” We’re talking about the so-called “little people,” as capitalists might view them. Recall Leona Helmsley’s famous quote “Only the little people pay taxes” (which puts all these complaints about taxes into proper perspective).

IOW, it's not about the poor.

Yes, I just said that. Did you want it to be about the poor?
I thought this topic was about those who loathe capitalism, which would include more than just the poor. Historically, there have been those even from wealthy backgrounds who developed a loathing for capitalism.

We were talking about the poor. Then, you moved the goalposts, here:

quote:

I think it would probably depend more on just income or net worth, but also on general quality of life, access to education, access to healthcare, availability/affordability of food and other necessities of life, percentage of housing with electricity/fixed plumbing, literacy rate, life expectancy, crime, access to emergency services, roads, infrastructure. There are a lot of factors to consider, not so much in defining who is "poor" but more along the lines of "how well do the people as a whole actually live."

If you compare our poor with the poor in other nations, it should be quite clear that our poor have more things than the poor in other countries. They liver better off. That, generally, sticks with each socioeconomic breakdown, too. "As a whole," US Citizens have it much better than others.

It was not my intention to move the goalposts; I was trying to stay within the general topic which was brought up in your OP about the article you linked, which led to various other points being brought up, such as this subsidiary point about the “poor,” however we want to define it.
I think I also mentioned that it’s not strictly true that the poor in this country have it better than other nations, depending on which nations you’re comparing us to. In all candor, I think it’s incongruous to attempt to compare the standard of living in the United States to that of Burma or Ethiopia, when we should be comparing ourselves with other nations in the industrialized world. Whether it’s about the poor or the working class should make no difference here, since it’s the comparison itself which is the “goalpost” in this part of our discussion.

quote:

quote:

Even with all the persuasive elements we're surrounded with, we still have the ultimate say in our choices.

Yes, that would make sense from abstract theoretical point of view, but just like the religious argument about “free will,” it’s not that cut-and-dried. If people’s choices are influenced by blatant misrepresentation, false advertising, or other forms of trickery, then they have recourse (which is where all those high-priced corporate lawyers come into the picture). Perhaps there might be ways of educating the public better, so that they’ll be more street-wise and wary of scams and gimmicks, as well as give them the confidence and backbone they need to fend off high-pressure salesmen and other types who would aggressively put undue influence on an individual to make a choice in haste or without adequate knowledge.

quote:

quote:

quote:

For example, if I’m walking down the street and come across some guy running a game of Three Card Monte, and I get suckered into playing and lose my money as a result, then I would be responsible for the choice of getting suckered, but they would be responsible for running a dishonest game. Under the rules of the free market, there’d be no way of addressing that, since it’s “let the buyer beware.”

Actually, under a free market, the information surrounding a voluntary exchange is shared and close to equal.

That’s not true at all, and in fact, it’s the “information” itself which becomes suspect and a matter of issue.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

If people are making bad choices, we still have to ask why. Capitalists seem to believe that society shouldn’t ask why or shouldn’t even interfere at all.

Bullshit.

Can you be a bit more specific?

See the bolded part.

As far as what is bolded, that sentiment is revealed in such capitalist sayings as “let the buyer beware” and “there’s a sucker born every minute.” To a capitalist, a gullible public inclined to make bad choices is a gold mine, so of course, they’re not going to want anyone to ask why or interfere with that. If there are “suckers” out there, that’s okay, let them go around and be victims, while we conveniently argue that “they’re making their own choices and should be held responsible for them.” Isn’t that the argument being made here?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

I don’t think the government needs to set up any “trap” for anyone. If we’re not trapped already, then I don’t think the government really wants to trap anyone now. Why would they? I can’t imagine anyone who is currently safe and secure in their government post is going to want to rock the boat – especially if they’re nearing retirement. The politicians seem happy enough getting their perks, prestige, and pork – from which many capitalists benefit as well. The public seems adequately distracted and pacified enough – and the only real challenge the politicians and capitalists face is ensuring that the gravy train keeps rolling so that the public remains pacified. And that may pose a greater problem.

They don't want you to think they're setting a trap, either. Works better that way. Like we've agreed, though, they can't just be all open about it an stuff.

I think they just want to steal as much as they can while having a plan of escape if the shit ever hits the fan. A tyrant who tries to set a trap for the people also sets a trap for himself, since his very life depends on staying in power permanently (which, for a capitalist, would be the ultimate all-or-nothing gambit). In contrast, a thief in the night tries to remain untrapped and therefore is hampered from trapping others.

So, putting seemingly innocuous regulations and programs in place to provide a "safety net" isn't setting a trap, when the final straw is to crash the dollar, forcing almost everyone into those programs?

Are you suggesting that the government would intentionally try to crash the dollar?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

More people will fall through the safety net and on the actual "floor," which will likely mean more homeless people out on the streets, more crime, and an increase in other social ills. What conservatives and capitalists argue for when they want limited government will result in problems like these being magnified and increased.

I agree it's likely for that to happen. But, that's only because government will choose for that to happen. Government will cut the important stuff and keep the less important stuff to convince us of our need for more government. That's the way they work.

In such a scenario, however, “government” may not act like a singular entity, but as multiple competing and potentially conflicting entities, which could also involve state and local governments as well. But if all it ends up with is gridlock and paralysis, then government will have a harder time convincing the people of anything, and their choices will be fewer.

The Federal government will throw it's weight around and claim the superiority over the states' laws and interests. States will fall into line and local governments will follow suit.

Some States may fall into line. Other States may be a bit more feisty. (You should see some of our ads for Governor here in AZ. Hell, even someone running for Arizona Corporation Commission has “Fight Obama” on their campaign signs. I’m still trying to figure that one out. What can the Corporation Commission do about Obama?)
But even the Federal government may not be able to manage itself well enough since its too large and unwieldy, like a monster with many heads controlling different parts of its body. Its weight will be thrown in different directions.
At the very least, this will lead to confusion at the State and local level, even including Federal officials in the field who have direct control over the “weight” of the Federal government in their own region. Even if they’re working for the Feds, they still live in the States they operate and have a personal stake in the well-being of their State of residence (which might also be their State of birth).

Everyone will be equal. Some will just be "more equal."

And therein lies the real trap – the idea of those being “more equal” than others.

quote:

quote:

Without capitalists, we'd not be able to efficiently get the stuff we want. It would be more expensive, and harder to come by. Henry Ford didn't develop the assembly line method of manufacturing vehicles because of government. He did it to produce cars for a lower cost, and to make more money.

Whenever human beings invent, design, and implement a better and/or more efficient way of doing something, the benefit in doing so is self-evident. It doesn’t take a “capitalist” to do this or recognize the value in doing so. Henry Ford was an engineer, and it was his skills, expertise, and talent in that field which led to developing the assembly line method of manufacturing vehicles. Of course, there was a good deal of technology and knowledge that already existed when he was born, and he learned from that and built upon that knowledge, just as many others learned from his knowledge and built upon it.
I would take issue with your statement that “without capitalists, we’d not be able to efficiently get the stuff we want.” I think that’s more of an opinion or a value judgment than anything else. That’s one reason why I question economic ideologues, since they often express opinions as if they carry the weight of scientific laws. In the end, when we talk of capitalism, we’re talking about a political ideology, not so much a system of science, technology, engineering, medicine, manufacturing, mining, or other products of human labor and ingenuity. But the idea of humans building civilizations and bettering themselves and their way of life – this is not something that capitalists invented. It’s more a matter of historical development and evolution, in my opinion.
To be sure, capitalism has been a part of that historical development and the processes which led us up to today, but that doesn’t make it indispensable, nor does it mean that we always have to have it in the future. Human civilization may someday evolve beyond the need for “capitalism” in the way it is presently understood. The only thing capitalists actually “do” – in any practical sense – is act as organizers and managers of various industries and enterprises. Those are actual functional jobs which are needed in any organization, but being a “capitalist,” in and of itself, is not a job title. It's a political title.