RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda.

RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

sleazy -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 8:11:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann I know that my vote is as good as the millionaires. I also know that if I don't like the candidates, I have the option to try to oppose them. That the American public has been lulled into a sense of apathy is not the result of millionaires buying sleeping pills for them. So, in the end, every person who votes in the US ends up casting three votes - his, and two more because two people aren't voting. Bush didn't win the votes of half the people - he was voted for about a quarter of the population. That the wealthiest would be most likely to take a personal interest in politics isn't a flaw of the system. If I have stock in Microsoft, I'll take more of an interest in what Microsoft does with my investment. I also know that the government doesn't care for either millionaires or grease monkeys, aside from the coverage both can give in the news and the amount of money they fork over in investments. Either way, I'd be curious to hear a better way to do business.... Your vote is as good as any mans, but the big fat check written to the campaign fund determines the policies you vote for. Given the choice of casting a vote, or actually definining the policies voted for I know which I would rather do to secure my own future well-being. The candidates are bought and paid for before the minimum wage grease monkey gets their say in which pre-purchased candidate they would like to run their country/state/county for the next n years. Cynical - thats me, Im a firm believer that a good politician is like a good cop, one that once bought stays bought :)

Stephann -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 8:37:15 AM)
I don't disagree that campaign finance is a major issue ignored by the status quo. Again, the fault doesn't lie either with the politicians who take said checks, nor the company or individual who writes said check. The fault lies in the tacit support of the (insert nationality here) population who permits individuals to do so, by continuing to vote for them, and not supporting the minority of politicians who seek to improve the system (they really do exist.) Requiring a candidate to achieve, say, a minimum percentage of total registered voters might be a step (ensuring that an election cannot be won without a candidate receiving 35% of registered voters) or implementing a mandatory voting law (as part of our civic duty) might be possible solutions. Why do you suppose Australia has the highest voter turnout in the world? Corruption is inevitable, but can be minimized and contained. A few steps could be to require anyone holding specific offices are required to list their personal assets publicly (or privately within a government commission) before elections, during, and after their office. We already require the IRS to maintain such records. Accountability isn't hard - we just have to have the political will, as voters, to demand it. Complaining that the lawn doesn't get mowed 'by somebody' is foolish, if you have a lawnmower in the garage and seven adults living in the house.

Sinergy -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 8:51:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne yeh but under the circumstances they really did pretty good all thi8ngs considered.. didnt they get like over 50% what they shot at or is my data wrong? It is one of those apples and orange things. I believe they used Patriot missiles to shoot down SCUDS, which are designed to shoot down missiles during their boost phase. These missiles were designed to do that for battlefield, tactical, non-ballistic missiles. The SCUD itself is a Soviet era, truck mounted missile which has a range of a couple of hundred miles (If I remember right). Saddam modified them to some degree to increase their range about 50%. This also dramatically decreased their accuracy. My point was that for all of the Reagan era military build-up of the missile defense system, when faced with an enemy that had missiles shooting, little of that technology was relevant to the problem at hand. Which is not to say we did not do a good job shooting them down, but the majority of people in the United States dont know the difference between a ballistic and non-ballistic missile, and could not really understand the concern people had that Isreal might get shot at. My comment on criticism was more about people's perceptions than the reality of the situation. Sinergy

meatcleaver -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 8:55:24 AM)
Basically the system is flawed. But what started this recent discussion was someone complaining about collectivism and saying it inherently leads to an oligarchy. Well, I don't see anything but oligarchies ruling in the west so one can assume that capitalism leads to oligarchies. If an electrate votes for a collective system or an electrate votes for a system based on the individual, it is still democracy. It's just a question of how much you are willing to compromise for the benefit of the whole or how much you want to keep for yourself and fuck the rest and take your chances. All I know is I'd rather fall sick or be down on my luck here, rather than in the USA and while my luck is in, I don't mind contributing for the benefit of those less fortunate.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 9:02:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So you are saying that it is right and proper for another country to try to overthrow the US government based on the perceived zeitgeist of the period. Which would mean that you approve of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the sept 11 attack on the WTC. This would appear to be at odds with your professed dedication of the rule of law. Is there some part of the constitution of the United States that might support this position? thompson, I guess you missed my post above to meatcleaver on this subject? This would appear to be at odds with your professed dedication of the rule of law. In what way? Is there some part of the constitution of the United States that might support this position? Sure: Article I. - The Legislative Branch Section 8 - Powers of Congress To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; ... Article II. - The Executive Branch Section 1 - The President The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, Pertinent additional information: Reprisal: An act taken by a nation, short of war, to gain redress for an action taken against that nation. Letter of Marque: A letter of marque was issued by a nation to a privateer or mercenary to act on the behalf of that nation for the purpose of retaliating against another nation for some wrong, such as a border incursion or seizure. Foreign Policy is vested in the President as part of his executive duties and responsiblities: Long, detailed link covering the legalities of this since the adoption of the Constitution. *** Discussion: Case 1: A declaration of war allows the President to execute the war up to the point of replacing the belligerent government. Case 2: The founders envisioned operations other than declared war with armed US soldiers and ships, and specifically mentioned some of them. The Executive powers of declaring war and issuing letters of marquee and reprisal are some of the few executive powers expressly reserved to the Congress. All others not enumerated for the Congress, including foreign policy are powers that the President has by the inherent right of the executive power vested in him. Replacing a hostile foreign government, or a government which damages US interest short of a declaration of war is part of foreign policy, is therefore within Presidential authorization. Questions? [sm=biggrin.gif] FirmKY

Sinergy -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 9:04:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY snip: Missile Warning System Upgrade stuff I could respond as to which project I was on, but as I was somewhat (unwillingly) a key component due to my expertise about the performance aspects of the systems we were building, I am unwilling to name the particular project as I do not wish to be outed. Then there is the whole security clearance, classification issue. And your comments about NORAD having the job to watch things in the sky are true, yet the public's perception of the problem was correct in that NORAD could not really track or shoot down a SCUD missile. Not saying this perception was wrong, just saying that that capability was not budgetted for. Sinergy

meatcleaver -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 9:12:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Case 2: The founders envisioned operations other than declared war with armed US soldiers and ships, and specifically mentioned some of them. The Executive powers of declaring war and issuing letters of marquee and reprisal are some of the few executive powers expressly reserved to the Congress. All others not enumerated for the Congress, including foreign policy are powers that the President has by the inherent right of the executive power vested in him. Replacing a hostile foreign government, or a government which damages US interest short of a declaration of war is part of foreign policy, is therefore within Presidential authorization. Americans saying they have the right to overthrow foreign governments and how the rest of the world perceives that so called right are two different things. In international affairs it is rather meaningless to claim the right to overthrow a sovereign state and expect the rest of the world to somehow accept it. Though any spirit of none intervention didn't last long. The 1812 war was contrived by the US government in hope of a land grab to the north and ended badly, although the US claims to have won, it did actually lose.

thompsonx -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 9:22:18 AM)
FirmhandKY: So you agree with bush & co.that international thugery is sanctioned by the constitution. Thank you for your candor. thompson

sleazy -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 9:29:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann I don't disagree that campaign finance is a major issue ignored by the status quo. Again, the fault doesn't lie either with the politicians who take said checks, nor the company or individual who writes said check. The fault lies in the tacit support of the (insert nationality here) population who permits individuals to do so, by continuing to vote for them, and not supporting the minority of politicians who seek to improve the system (they really do exist.) Requiring a candidate to achieve, say, a minimum percentage of total registered voters might be a step (ensuring that an election cannot be won without a candidate receiving 35% of registered voters) or implementing a mandatory voting law (as part of our civic duty) might be possible solutions. Why do you suppose Australia has the highest voter turnout in the world? Corruption is inevitable, but can be minimized and contained. A few steps could be to require anyone holding specific offices are required to list their personal assets publicly (or privately within a government commission) before elections, during, and after their office. We already require the IRS to maintain such records. Accountability isn't hard - we just have to have the political will, as voters, to demand it. Complaining that the lawn doesn't get mowed 'by somebody' is foolish, if you have a lawnmower in the garage and seven adults living in the house. Requiring a candidate to achieve a set vote level is something practiced in many elections here, but the number is artifically low. Get n votes or lose your election deposit, the deposit value and vote numbers are set low so as to encourage low budget independant/minor party candidates. A minimum vote count/voter turnout concept can only be achieved with mandatory voting, and I for one would not particularly like the idea unless there was a "none of the above" box, where if none got x% of the votes new candidates and/or policies must be entered for the next round. The downside is it could well take years to ever achieve a result. Australia has compulsory voting, but does have a none option (not sure what happens if none wins). I regard inherent in the right to vote, is the right to choose not to vote. An enforced choice is not a choice unless there is a get out option. Yes that is often taken as apathy by the politicians rather than a "think you are all no use" protest, but what should they care once they win the votes that do turn out. All British members of parliament are required to declare their interests (and family interests) in a publicly available register, those who dont and get caught out, well terribly sorry, minor oversight, wont happen again honest. Its not the accountability that is an issue, but the enforcement and punishment that is the problem. Similarly the political parties are supposed to have caps on campaign spending, caps on donations from single entities and transparent accounting. For all of this google cash for questions, tobacco sponsorship in f1, mp mortgages, peter mandleson loans, and of course the current loans for peerages farce. All this from supposedly transparent public records about candidates financial and other business interest. And folks wonder why I am cynical! There is however a problem there are 7 adults in the house, and our lawnmower has been sabotaged, unfortunately the only way to fix the sabotage is mow the lawn. Am I to blame for this? Quite possibly because as a general rule I tend to find my self unable to vote for a candidate or policy, and so usually end up voting against something I disagree with deeply. However voter apathy has been a problem since long before I reached the age of majority and so refuse to accept all the blame.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 9:54:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy My point was that for all of the Reagan era military build-up of the missile defense system, when faced with an enemy that had missiles shooting, little of that technology was relevant to the problem at hand. Which is not to say we did not do a good job shooting them down, but the majority of people in the United States dont know the difference between a ballistic and non-ballistic missile, and could not really understand the concern people had that Isreal might get shot at. My comment on criticism was more about people's perceptions than the reality of the situation. WHAT "Reagan era military build-up of the missile defense system"? And the Patriot was originally a point defense anti-aircraft system. It was originally conceived in 1964. The first functional missiles were delivered to the Army in December of 1981. Reagan was elected in November of 1981. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy but the majority of people in the United States dont know the difference between a ballistic and non-ballistic missile Yes, I mentioned that before. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Then there is the whole security clearance, classification issue. I'm very familiar with the "whole security clearance, classification issue". If you signed a Statement before leaving, then perhaps you are already in violation for mentioning what you have. You seem to be saying some very negative things about the capabilities of a major US military system, and doing so in an open forum, without pre-clearance. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy And your comments about NORAD having the job to watch things in the sky are true, yet the public's perception of the problem was correct in that NORAD could not really track or shoot down a SCUD missile. "NORAD" wasn't suppose to even be able to track or shoot down a SCUD. SCUD's were/are theater, not intercontinental ballistic missile systems. Before the Gulf War, I doubt one person in 100,000 knew what a "SCUD" was. Your point is getting fuzzier and fuzzier. What is your point, exactly? FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 10:01:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx FirmhandKY: So you agree with bush & co.that international thugery is sanctioned by the constitution. Thank you for your candor. thompson oh, come on now, thompson! [:D] I do all that work for ya, and you're just gonna bow out without a response? (well, other than that snide "thuggery" comment) Tell me this, then ... you asked for a cite from the Constitution - I gave it to you. How about you giving me some cite on that "thuggery" remark you made? Fairs fair, isn't it? FirmKY

NorthernGent -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 10:20:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You're missing my point. What on earth is going on in a place where one person can amass riches equivalent to 110 million people? This is a wealth gap out of hand. Don't get overly touchy. It's a discussion with people offering points of view. I don't see where I was touchy, just using your own "Unbelievable" statement at the end. The rest was pointing out that using a guy that is giving all his wealth he accumulated in one generation is probably not the best example to use when one is proposing forced wealth redistribution. Need, "forced wealth redistribution" sounds like I'm proposing some sort of gulag controlled dictatorship and this is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is the government, any government, has a responsibility to its citizens. This is why we elect them. Traditionally the government was seen to be responsible for defence and justice. This changed in the 19th century and gathered great pace in the 20th century. In 19th century Britain, the market served only to magnify the established class structure and failed to provide for many of its citizens what would be described today as basic necessities e.g. clean and sufficient running water, adequate housing and sanitation etc. In other words, left to its own devices the establishment and large business owners creamed off the wealth in what was then the richest nation on the planet while many lived in squalor. This is exactly why the idea of the responsibilities of government changed i.e. to provide a quality of life for all of its citizens the government needed to regulate the market because left to its own devices the market was simply producing a nation of haves and have nots. So, what I'm saying is today's governments are not doing their job. They are increasingly stepping back into the shadows and allowing the market to do its own thing. Hence, we have the likes of Murdoch owning far more of the media than should ever be allowed under the competitions commission and not paying his tax dues - if it's good enough for us peasants then why isn't it good enough for him. In terms of how this relates to Bill Gates etc, well, you have a real homeless problem over there. You have a problem with poverty and serious crime. The market will not provide the solutions. You will get what you have today which is an establishment who are creaming it while many Americans can't even afford basic necessities such as health care. I am a believer in personal responsiblity but we are shaped by many environmental factors which we need our governments to regulate in order to compliment personal responsibility. For example, your place of birth and parents will play a big part in shaping your life and you don't earn that - it is luck of the draw. I'm not talking about communism or even socialism but simply giving people a fair crack at life by stepping into regulate business rather than allow business to dictate society (with their duty to shareholders rather than wider society). If the day comes when you or we have anything like a healthy society (using the measures of crime, poverty, substance abuse etc) then I'll accept that the responsibilities of government should stop at defence and justice. Put simply, there's nothing wrong with enterprise and people making a success of their lives but can you honestly say with a straight face that one man having the combined wealth of 110 million people (many of whom can't afford a home or health care) is an acceptable state of affairs? On the respsonsibilities of government point, I can understand peoples' suspicion of government. The problem isn't the principles of government it is corrupt people who abuse their position.

NorthernGent -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 10:37:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Freedom is in the head and not in private or collective ownership. I couldn't agree more. If a person doesn't own his/her mind then forget it.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 11:01:12 AM)
I think the fact that one man can accumulate such wealth is a symptom of a problem, not the problem. And I don't agree with proposals that focus on taking wealth from one and giving it to another. Here's what I'd do to fix it? 1 Fund all elections with public funds. No contributions either individual or corporate. You get on the ballot by getting so many signatures, then are given x amount of dollars to run a campaign. So, you may start with 500 presidential contenders, then the signature run off continues to the next phase, and only those collecting the next amount would proceed, and you keep doing this until you are left with a few. Those would be presented with mandatory national air time on all stations to state their positions, and given an equal amount of air time, and funding. Of course it'd be sloppy and some fraud would occur in the signatures, that is why you'd have oversite that did a random sampling of those that signed support. And if fraud was found then they wouldn't qualify for the next round. This encourages more flesh to flesh contact with the politicians or their people. And eliminates those with nothing more than million dollar TV ad campaigns. 2. Flat Tax on corporate revenue as opposed to profit, by industry. This would make it nearly impossible to circumvent taxes without flat out just lying, which could be uncovered more easily. 3 No income taxes, Instead tax on purchased items. This would promote savings at the lower classes, and reduce the burden of accounting on individuals and corporations. And virtually eliminate the huge monolith known as the IRS. 4 Reduce military presence around the Globe. This alone would be enough money in infrastructure projects to give most willing to work a good job. 5. Eliminate property taxes on all property that is used directly by the owner. In other words a persons primary residence wouldn't be taxed, but a apartment complex would. This would make ownership much better than renting, and more affordable. Promoting wealth accumulation of the lower/middle class. 6. Legalization of Pot and other minimally harmful drugs. This would free up tons of prison space, collect some taxes. The savings could be put into treatment and enforcement activities for hard drugs. 7 Mandatory Teaching of Individual rights and freedoms starting at around 4th grade and mandatory testing each year after as a prerequisite for passing to the next grade. 8.No taxes at all applied to basic necessities such as raw food products, electricity usage on the first x number of kilowatts, This encourages energy savings, and all can benefit if they select to. 9.Automatic work availability for those that can work. Whether it be cleaning ditches, or answering phones... etc.... No one should starve or be without work if they want it, but no one except for the mentally disabled or completely physically disabled should get money for not working. A choice... not just distribution. If a person is able to work and declines the work provided then they get nothing. 10. Universal education availablity. Capped at level to be reveiwed annually. With the basis being a mid-tier state school. Both rich and poor would get this credit. Everything I listed applies equally to all people not based on their wealth but based on their classification as a citizen. The difference being between that and what is generally proposed. Is the equal distribution of tax benefits, as opposed to a straight foward taking and giving of money. It doesn't bother me if someone that selects not to work is poor, it does bother me that someone how would like to work can't find a job. It also bothers me that the system isn't set up to encourage wealth accumulation. Those things can be done without a straight money shuffle and without rewarding leeches. Those are off the top of my head I could list a hundred changes that I think are needed. I guess what I'm saying is I don't look at a Bill Gates and think he has to much money. I look and say why don't those people have more money. In my view there should be more Bill Gates than there are and more wealthy people than there are, and more middle class people than there are. I have little problem with Bill, I have a problem with the structure this country takes in it's view that you shuffle money from the top and give it to the poor. Instead I think it works much better when the poor can keep more money that they work for, and that would undoubtedly have a positive effect on the wealth level of the middle and lower classes. As stands we spend a crazy amount on administration compared to the benefit of those receiving. We also spend a stupid amount on the military. So, my conclusion is you reduce administration, and the military. We had a discussion about this months ago in that it costs five dollars to distribute every dollar in benefits. Reducing that step in my mind means five times as much money getting to the people instead of the government.

sleazy -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 11:16:08 AM)
Whilst not an american, I think a lot of what you suggest is a damn good idea if the kinks can be worked out I do however have one "clause" I would not hesitate to re-write were the new constitution of the UK in my hands quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou 7 Mandatory Teaching of Individual rights and freedoms starting at around 4th grade and mandatory testing each year after as a prerequisite for passing to the next grade. 7 Mandatory Teaching of Individual responsibilities to themselves, other persons and the state starting at around 4th grade and mandatory testing each year after as a prerequisite for passing to the next grade. Part of the problem here in the UK at least is everybody has a million and one rights, but can choose all too easily to not even be responsible for themself, let alone society as a whole. Starship Troopers and service to the state to earn a vote anyone? (not the anti-establishment movie version, but the orginal intent of the book)

NorthernGent -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 12:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure As I've said, there will always be inequities in life. We learn to accept and live with what we have, and not lament that others might be more fortunate. If we're smart, we learn to take what we have and make the most of it. What is life if you can't enjoy it? losttreasure, we were in danger of creating a world record of quotes on quotes so I've cut it down to where we have a difference of opinion. Accepting what you have is grand if you're in position to say "this is my lot and I'm more than happy with it". I would define British Conservatism as aiming to maintain the status quo and maintain a social structure of haves and have nots. Why should the have nots accept their lot when we have a monarchy who do nothing for their obscene wealth and luxury and we have prominent businessmen not paying their taxes. Ditto the US. Why should the 700,000 to 2 million homeless plus those who can't afford basic necessities such as health care have to accept it? Are you saying you believe this is the best the human race can do? If correct, I do not agree. In terms of your more fortunate comment, not paying your taxes is corruption and correct me if I'm wrong but the rich and powerful in the US have a long history of corruption. Was Kennedy in cahoots with the mafia? Didn't Hoover have a long file on Kennedy detailing all his dodgy dealings? What about the buying of politicians to ensure governments are pro-business and anti-public spending and rigged elections. People should not accept this as a natural state of affairs.

NorthernGent -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 12:38:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Did i get the quoting right LOL Yes i agree just look at the responses to the taxes thread... everyone offers a comment of defeat and their done with it. Nothing more than lip service. seems fitting to say we get what we deserve hey... Absolutely. We elect them and have the power to remove them but instead choose to ignore their excesses (even when they're killing people in our name).

meatcleaver -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 12:46:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Did i get the quoting right LOL Yes i agree just look at the responses to the taxes thread... everyone offers a comment of defeat and their done with it. Nothing more than lip service. seems fitting to say we get what we deserve hey... Absolutely. We elect them and have the power to remove them but instead choose to ignore their excesses (even when they're killing people in our name). You only have to satisfy enough people to keep you in power and at the moment in Britain that is around 1 in 4. However, you can vote the shit out of office only to get new shit, you can't vote in a new socio-economic system, for that you need a revolution. Only a fool believes a new socio-economic system can be voted in and even if one was, the troops would be on the street inside 24 hours protecting the vested interests.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 12:47:41 PM)
Eh, I'm not too impressed with the evidence for that, and Hoover was hardly a disinterested investigator. Now Silvio Berlusconi, on the other hand... quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Was Kennedy in cahoots with the mafia? Didn't Hoover have a long file on Kennedy detailing all his dodgy dealings?

meatcleaver -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/29/2006 12:50:29 PM)
Silvio is up to his armpits in shit. When he gave a speach to the European parliament the whole of Europe cringed. Hmm Except Sicily I guess.

Page: << < prev 26 27 [28] 29 30 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875