Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not

[Mr.Nick]

True libertarians and progressives will never find common ground. They are the antithesis of each other.

Not at all. Libertarians are the antithesis of authoritarians. They have a fair amount in common with progressives. Given that both the Democrats and Republicans are dominated by authoritarians, I believe it's imperative that progressives and libertarians work together to provide some counter-balance.

The thing is, we don't have to agree on social welfare - we can simply leave that one alone until we've solved the problems we do agree on. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are among the grown number who are beginning to see the pressing need for this kind of alliance. Instead of nullifying our efforts by focusing on our differences, we should combine forces to make real progress on civil liberties, ending the drug war, the war on terror, corporate welfare (bailouts and corrupt tax policy), the increased surveillance state, our insane military budget - the list is longer than you'd think.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc]YouTube - ‪Ralph Nader & Ron Paul Interviewed Together!‬‏[/ame]

Libertarians have absolutely nothing in common with progressives...

Progressives are authoritarian..

 

[LordBrownTrout]

True libertarians and progressives will never find common ground. They are the antithesis of each other.

Not at all. Libertarians are the antithesis of authoritarians. They have a fair amount in common with progressives. Given that both the Democrats and Republicans are dominated by authoritarians, I believe it's imperative that progressives and libertarians work together to provide some counter-balance.

The thing is, we don't have to agree on social welfare - we can simply leave that one alone until we've solved the problems we do agree on. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are among the grown number who are beginning to see the pressing need for this kind of alliance. Instead of nullifying our efforts by focusing on our differences, we should combine forces to make real progress on civil liberties, ending the drug war, the war on terror, corporate welfare (bailouts and corrupt tax policy), the increased surveillance state, our insane military budget - the list is longer than you'd think.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc]YouTube - ‪Ralph Nader & Ron Paul Interviewed Together!‬‏[/ame]

I don't believe that you can put social welfare/engineering aside since those are the main propositions of dems. They encompass most of the dem platform and are antithetical to what true libertarians are about, mainly individual liberties.

 

[Mr.Nick]

True libertarians and progressives will never find common ground. They are the antithesis of each other.

Not at all. Libertarians are the antithesis of authoritarians. They have a fair amount in common with progressives. Given that both the Democrats and Republicans are dominated by authoritarians, I believe it's imperative that progressives and libertarians work together to provide some counter-balance.

The thing is, we don't have to agree on social welfare - we can simply leave that one alone until we've solved the problems we do agree on. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are among the grown number who are beginning to see the pressing need for this kind of alliance. Instead of nullifying our efforts by focusing on our differences, we should combine forces to make real progress on civil liberties, ending the drug war, the war on terror, corporate welfare (bailouts and corrupt tax policy), the increased surveillance state, our insane military budget - the list is longer than you'd think.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc]YouTube - ‪Ralph Nader & Ron Paul Interviewed Together!‬‏[/ame]

I don't believe that you can put social welfare/engineering aside since those are the main propositions of dems. They encompass most of the dem platform and are antithetical to what true libertarians are about, mainly individual liberties.

Don't forget the bans and the notion that progressives hate the Bill of Rights with a passion.

Libertarians find progressives repugnant....

 

[Steelplate]

True libertarians and progressives will never find common ground. They are the antithesis of each other.

Not at all. Libertarians are the antithesis of authoritarians. They have a fair amount in common with progressives. Given that both the Democrats and Republicans are dominated by authoritarians, I believe it's imperative that progressives and libertarians work together to provide some counter-balance.

The thing is, we don't have to agree on social welfare - we can simply leave that one alone until we've solved the problems we do agree on. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are among the grown number who are beginning to see the pressing need for this kind of alliance. Instead of nullifying our efforts by focusing on our differences, we should combine forces to make real progress on civil liberties, ending the drug war, the war on terror, corporate welfare (bailouts and corrupt tax policy), the increased surveillance state, our insane military budget - the list is longer than you'd think.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc]YouTube - ‪Ralph Nader & Ron Paul Interviewed Together!‬‏[/ame]

I don't believe that you can put social welfare/engineering aside since those are the main propositions of dems. They encompass most of the dem platform and are antithetical to what true libertarians are about, mainly individual liberties.

That's how little you know about progressives. We encompass fair play and limiting both government AND Corporatism. Without government Regulation, there is no limitation on Corporatism. Without Democratic elections and the Constitutional process, there is no limitation on government.

You "Conservatives" want one side(government) to be extremely limited, and the other side.. Corporatism... to be without restriction.

In short... you are as bad as Communists... except on the other side of the spectrum.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Lets see what progressives believe in..

Gun Bans
Speech Bans
Religion Bans
Individual liberty bans (happy meal toys for example, choice of food).
Smoking Bans
Business Bans
State Rights bans

They're pro federal government and anti-state rights..

Yeah, I would call that quite authoritarian and even more tyrannical.

Oh and they want the federal government to enforce all their loopy tyrannical bullshit authoritarian ideas.

Progressives are MY antithesis as a true libertarian or classical liberal (whichever you prefer)....

 

[Steelplate]

Lets see what progressives believe in..

Gun Bans
Speech Bans
Religion Bans
Individual liberty bans (happy meal toys for example, choice of food).
Smoking Bans
Business Bans
State Rights bans

They're pro federal government and anti-state rights..

Yeah, I would call that quite authoritarian and even more tyrannical.

Oh and they want the federal government to enforce all their loopy tyrannical bullshit authoritarian ideas.

Progressives are MY antithesis as a true libertarian or classical liberal (whichever you prefer)....

1. Gun bans... Wrong... I am a liberal, and I am a hunter and an avid shooter.

2. Speech bans.. Wrong. I don't give a shit what you say, as long as others get to voice their opinions too

3. Religion Bans? Gimme a fucking break.... Who wants to outlaw Islam, or any other religion other than christianity?... Oh yeah.... that would be YOU!!!

4. Individual Liberty? Once again... gimme a break. You want to make this out to be about Happy Meals and Incandescent light bulbs? How about Gay rights, the Freedom of Choice, and a host of other topics that you don't even want to BEGIN to address. You are the antithesis of Individual liberty.

5. Smoking Bans? Welcome to the nextgen of Reagan's "war on drugs".

6. There is no "Business bans" there is antitrust and anti-monopoly bans... but you're too dumb to know the difference.

7. States rights? Well... I'll tell you what. Why don't all you Tea Partiers and NEOCONS move to Texas. All of you... then I am sure that we'll be glad to let you secede.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Lets see what progressives believe in..

Gun Bans
Speech Bans
Religion Bans
Individual liberty bans (happy meal toys for example, choice of food).
Smoking Bans
Business Bans
State Rights bans

They're pro federal government and anti-state rights..

Yeah, I would call that quite authoritarian and even more tyrannical.

Oh and they want the federal government to enforce all their loopy tyrannical bullshit authoritarian ideas.

Progressives are MY antithesis as a true libertarian or classical liberal (whichever you prefer)....

1. Gun bans... Wrong... I am a liberal, and I am a hunter and an avid shooter.

2. Speech bans.. Wrong. I don't give a shit what you say, as long as others get to voice their opinions too

3. Religion Bans? Gimme a fucking break.... Who wants to outlaw Islam, or any other religion other than christianity?... Oh yeah.... that would be YOU!!!

4. Individual Liberty? Once again... gimme a break. You want to make this out to be about Happy Meals and Incandescent light bulbs? How about Gay rights, the Freedom of Choice, and a host of other topics that you don't even want to BEGIN to address. You are the antithesis of Individual liberty.

5. Smoking Bans? Welcome to the nextgen of Reagan's "war on drugs".

6. There is no "Business bans" there is antitrust and anti-monopoly bans... but you're too dumb to know the difference.

7. States rights? Well... I'll tell you what. Why don't all you Tea Partiers and NEOCONS move to Texas. All of you... then I am sure that we'll be glad to let you secede.

Really??

Since when do you speak for the progressive liberal majority???

1. Are most progressives NOT opposed to gun bans?

2. ARE most progressive liberals NOT opposed to speech censorship?

3. Do most progressive liberals NOT cite the fallacy of "separation of church and state" when Christianity is in play???

4. I don't give a fuck about gays, let your state decide that much like they did with happy meals and banning of certain foods and overall attacking anyone that doesn't think or agree with them.

Gay MARRIAGE/UNIONS is a Tenth Amendment issue - not a federal government issue.

5. You're trying to blame Reagan because progressives are authoritarian dickheads that attack anything they dont deem to be "healthy."

6. O'really?????? Just the other day I was reading in the paper about a dude that wanted to open a tobacco shop and GUESS WHO CAME OUT THE WOODWORK????

Oh and then we have Walmart here in Chicago pretty much being blacklisted for the last 20 years because they weren't unionized and guess who runs Chicago??? yeah, progressive liberals..

7. Yea STATE RIGHTS !!!! Learn your Bill of Rights.... Its called the Tenth Amendment and its there for a reason - just like the other Nine in the Bill of Rights.

You're quite clearly a selective tyrant or a "typical" progressive. You certainly showed that with your ignorance on the Tenth Amendment.

 

[daveman]

I guess you have nothing real to add to the conversation huh Dave?

I haven't read the thread, but ...

Confirmed

it pretty much proves you have nothing to offer this conversation

So I nailed it, huh? Yeah. Thought so.

 

[Toro]

Confused about the fundamental conflicts regarding proper distribution of power?

"Listen, for example, to liberal economist Lester Thurow who writes that 'democracy and capitalism have very different beliefs about the proper distribution of power.

"'One believes in a completely equal distribution of political power, "one man [sic] one vote," while the other believes that it is the duty of the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction. "Survival of the fittest" and inequalities in purchasing power are what capitalist efficiency is all about.

"'Individual profit comes first and firms become efficient to be rich. To put it in its starkest form, capitalism is perfectly compatible with slavery. Democracy is not.'"

Capitalism and Democracy Don't Mix Very Well ::: International Endowment for Democracy

This is very silly.

As Milton Friedman noted, countries where capitalism is the primary driver of wealth creation are either democracies or tending towards becoming democracies.

 

[dblack]

I don't believe that you can put social welfare/engineering aside since those are the main propositions of dems.

I'm talking about progressives. These are people who have been sold down the river by Democrats just as surely as libertarians have been sold out by Republicans. We need to get a clue and quit falling for the puppet theater that stands in for legitimate politics in this country. It's a distraction and stands in the way of any positive change.

 

[Liberty]

See sig. I don't know how you can call that freedom.

 

[bripat9643]

That's how little you know about progressives. We encompass fair play and limiting both government AND Corporatism.

Liberals believe in limiting government?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

what the hell is "corporatism?" In reality, liberals are the biggest advocates of what they call "corporatism." What could be a better example of corporatism than the GM bailout? Ethanol subsidies? "Green Energy?" The list is endless.

Without government Regulation, there is no limitation on Corporatism.

Here's the big "BUT" "We believe in limiting government, BUT." With liberals, the "BUT" is always the primary objective.

Without Democratic elections and the Constitutional process, there is no limitation on government.

You "Conservatives" want one side(government) to be extremely limited, and the other side.. Corporatism... to be without restriction.

"Corporatism" is a bogus leftwing concept, not an actual thing.

In short... you are as bad as Communists... except on the other side of the spectrum.

In typical lib fashion you accuse your critics of all your crimes.

 

[dblack]

"Corporatism" is a bogus leftwing concept, not an actual thing.

No, it's an actual 'thing'. Here, do some reading:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9853

Obama the Corporatist

You might learn a thing or two about a thing or two.

 

[MarcATL]

Who's calling for "no capitalism at all"? None of us. That's the bullshit propaganda that the right wingers are spreading. Things are out of hand and the concept of "trickle down" is actually trickling UP. The working and the Middle class are slowly being eroded, and you are trying to help it move along quicker.

What we want is fairness, and fairness requires the breaking up of these virtual monopolies that dictate just about everything through legislation and outsourcing.

Who actually has control here? The politicians, citizens, or the corporations?

Who do you think? Seriously. Corporations control politicians via financing their campaigns. It doesn't matter who wins... by the time they get to office, they own them all.

I know you've been told that Unions are pure evil... and in some instances, I agree. But they are the ONLY organized force that is trying to stand toe to toe with the Big Corporations. They have LIMITED resources(provided by their members... everyday people with everyday jobs) and can't afford to buy off BOTH parties like big money can. So they concentrate on the ONE party that is at least sympathetic to workers... the Democrats... but they themselves are beholden to Big money... so they give a token gesture to everyday people..but by and large serve the same people that the GOP are fully in bed with.

Post of the thread!

 

[georgephillip]

I love it when retards imply capitalism is slavery.

As opposed to what? the freedom of dictated economies? In planned socioeconomic environments where an individuals destiny has already been chiseled in stone the second they were born? Where the government assigns you a job or a career based on need of government and NOT the individuals want or drive to succeed in a career of their choosing??

God forbid capitalism creates an equal economic environment for all..

A person can be a ditch digger or a brain surgeon - its their choice.... But at least they have a choice and that chose only exists for them because of that "slavery" known as capitalism.

Capitalism is not only an economic model but a socioeconomic model. Capitalism is based on competition and that competition translates over into our social environment, and that environment rewards the best of the best.

A thesis could be written on the relationship between capitalism and social environment (and I'm sure many have) many books have been..

As opposed to a workplace where workers have direct input into decisions that directly affect their economic well being.

You're the only one talking about chiseling an individual's destiny in stone at the moment of birth.

Probably because you can't explain the moral dichotomy of democracy's priorities of equality before the law and the right of each citizen to govern the decisions that regulate their lives based on fairness and equity versus the capitalists' priorities of inequality of return and profit for the suppliers of capital above all else, including equality, fairness and equity for those who supply the labor.

Which, btw, is prior to and independent of capital and deserves far higher consideration.

Except for corporate tools and contards.

Capitalism and Democracy Don't Mix Very Well ::: International Endowment for Democracy

 

[Douger]

Taxation without representation is the purest form of slavery.
Bailout much ?

 

[georgephillip]

Confused about the fundamental conflicts regarding proper distribution of power?

"Listen, for example, to liberal economist Lester Thurow who writes that 'democracy and capitalism have very different beliefs about the proper distribution of power.

"'One believes in a completely equal distribution of political power, "one man [sic] one vote," while the other believes that it is the duty of the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction. "Survival of the fittest" and inequalities in purchasing power are what capitalist efficiency is all about.

"'Individual profit comes first and firms become efficient to be rich. To put it in its starkest form, capitalism is perfectly compatible with slavery. Democracy is not.'"

Capitalism and Democracy Don't Mix Very Well ::: International Endowment for Democracy

Well it's a damn good thing then that America is not a Democracy but a Republic.

Under the very difinitions of the words a republic is a Democracy.

when will you people stop trying to change the facts?

Some argue Democracy and Republic are antithetical:

"It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government.

"Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic.

"This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

"These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see..."

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

 

[georgephillip]

Without competition, capitalism would not flourish.
It serves little to no purpose for "the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction".

Yet, you see it everywhere. Where shops and small business once flourished... The conglomerate has all but taken over... and they want MORE power(lower taxes, less regulation) to finish the job... and you want to let them.

Capitalists, especially the biggest, much prefer monopoly to competition.

Smaller competitors are bought out or their prices are undercut even if that means the larger capitalist temporarily forsakes maximum profit until his/her competition vanishes.

The Fall of 2008 offered a good example of how much Wall Street values competition. The big banks tore into each other in the same way they usually devour smaller competitors.

Next time promises to be worse.
For the taxpayers, of course, not for the bankers.

 

[georgephillip]

Just curious, for the sake of argument, what would the US look like if there were no capitalism at all?

Who's calling for "no capitalism at all"? None of us. That's the bullshit propaganda that the right wingers are spreading. Things are out of hand and the concept of "trickle down" is actually trickling UP. The working and the Middle class are slowly being eroded, and you are trying to help it move along quicker.

What we want is fairness, and fairness requires the breaking up of these virtual monopolies that dictate just about everything through legislation and outsourcing.

Who actually has control here? The politicians, citizens, or the corporations?

I'm guessing the richest 1% of citizens, individuals and corporations.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Confused about the fundamental conflicts regarding proper distribution of power?

"Listen, for example, to liberal economist Lester Thurow who writes that 'democracy and capitalism have very different beliefs about the proper distribution of power.

"'One believes in a completely equal distribution of political power, "one man [sic] one vote," while the other believes that it is the duty of the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction. "Survival of the fittest" and inequalities in purchasing power are what capitalist efficiency is all about.

"'Individual profit comes first and firms become efficient to be rich. To put it in its starkest form, capitalism is perfectly compatible with slavery. Democracy is not.'"

Capitalism and Democracy Don't Mix Very Well ::: International Endowment for Democracy

You post these musings about income inequality, wealth gaps, pro socialism and other things incompatible with liberty and freedom yet you have nothing of your own thoughts to offer. You post the opinions of other people and try to pass these opinions off as news or fact.
For a moment lets get past that. Now, in YOUR OWN WORDS state what type of system under which you wish to live.
DO not post replies containing any one else's words. No blogs, no op ed pieces.
Oh, you can stow the nonsense about living wage, unions and other nonsense. Those are not "systems" in the manner of capitalism or socialism.