Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not

[Mr.Nick]

Democracy is less freedom than Communism, arguably. Seems to be you are the useful idiot. Why do you believe the majority should have the authority to vote away the rights of the minority exactly? How is this freedom?

Until recently the Bill of Rights seemed like adequate protection for minority rights in the US.

I'm not sure what you meant by "Democracy is less freedom than Communism", but I'm completely clear on how much freedom corporations offer with their one dollar; one vote version.

What's your choice?

One person; One vote or One share; One vote?

You know, two sheep and one wolf voting on what's for dinner wouldn't change the outcome much.

A republic would be nice.

We live under a republic already....

 

[georgephillip]

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

Quit whining and hand over your Social Security!

I won't have to. You idiot leftists are doing your damnedest to see that it's gone before I'm old enough to collect.

Exactly, Moonbat.

I'm sure you'll be pleased to know I've already donated yours to the Bradley Manning defense fund.

Thanks for your service.

 

[Mr.Nick]

This system you want me to construct must not contain nonsense like living wages or unions?

This system should not concern itself with income inequality or wealth gaps because such musings are incompatible with liberty and freedom.

Whose liberty and freedom, the Koch brothers?

Those of us who were born in the USA are just as indoctrinated as those born in the USSR were.

Except the Soviets relied on the brute force of blatant propaganda to enforce the will of its elites, and here advertising and PR shape many of our political opinions before we acquire the ability to read or even speak.

I believe a just economic system would incorporate elements of capitalism and socialism the exact mix of which could only be found through trial and error. Monopolies would have to be dissolved to allow fresh blood into the game. US prisons would have to become the new Club Med for many of America's richest 1%.

I don't think Republicans OR Democrats could reasonably be expected to lead the way, so I would begin by urging all voters to FLUSH as many Rs and Ds from DC as possible beginning in 2012.

Here is an idea - learn economics then talk shit about "unions" and "living wages."

Economists use concepts like inflation, deflation, recession and depression etc for a reason, and that reason is that we're a competition based free market economy - which pretty much means every individuals wealth and production is related...

Do you not fucking realize that the less an employer pays you the less you can afford to consume? hence in theory hes taking the money out of his own pocket?

Don't you get it?? employer pays you - you pay employer???

Now when there are an abundance of peons and only x amount of jobs for peons, those jobs will PAY LESS because of supply and demand...

Unions on the other hand defy the law of supply and demand.. They just make demands, and guess what??? thats like breaking the laws of physics in economics - its not good - as a matter of fact it could shatter the universe.

I suppose my point is that ditch diggers will never get 250.00 an hour, why? because anyone can dig a ditch, meanwhile brain surgeons WILL get 250.00+ because not everyone can operate on a brain (including most liberals pun absolutely intended.).

Here's another idea - Social Credit

Classical economists claimed there were only three factors of production:
Land
Labor
Capital

CH Douglas, developer of Social Credit economic philosophy, agreed with those three factor but added one he considered even more primary, the cultural inheritance of society or "the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization."

Capitalist don't account for that last factor.

If they did billionaires would likely vanish and so would half the millionaires.
And every citizen would receive about $8 thousand per year as a birthright.
This would be in addition to any other income you earned.

Whether it came from digging ditches or brain surgery.

Are you fucking serious??

Yeah, that factor falls under LABOR and labor falls under supply and demand principals.

Its astounding how 90% of liberals don't know what the fuck rare and abundant mean.

 

[Mr.Nick]

America's "useful idiots" support a corporate tyranny whose only logical end is the destruction of the individual. Lenin and Hitler (and JP Morgan) would be impressed.

Democracy is less freedom than Communism, arguably. Seems to be you are the useful idiot. Why do you believe the majority should have the authority to vote away the rights of the minority exactly? How is this freedom?

Until recently the Bill of Rights seemed like adequate protection for minority rights in the US.

I'm not sure what you meant by "Democracy is less freedom than Communism", but I'm completely clear on how much freedom corporations offer with their one dollar; one vote version.

What's your choice?

One person; One vote or One share; One vote?

You know, two sheep and one wolf voting on what's for dinner wouldn't change the outcome much.

Democrats have always had a problem following the Bill of Rights.

It was only LBJ that said: "I'll have every ****** in the US voting democrat for the next century." Of course this was only after the democrats used the KKK like some kinda fucking ACORN in the south for a century.

 

[georgephillip]

Are you comfortable with the choice offered between the two major parties?

I think you know that I'm not. Out of curiosity, why do you ask?

If you're calling for more state and local limitations on what schemes can be imposed, that would certainly be an idea I would be willing to study. States Rights got a bad rep with my generation during the 60s; however, it's a strategy that could be useful today, particularly with regard to corporate charters.

I'm in favor of such limitations at all levels of government. Sadly, most state constitutions don't limit their governments to enumerated powers the way the federal constitution does. But I'd definitely like to see that changed.

I asked about your comfort zone with Rs and Ds because I don't see any solution to Endless War and Usury if the only "choice" allowed is between one of the two corporate parties.

As far as state constitutions are concerned, it's been my experience that most voters pay even less attention on a daily basis to state and local issues than they do to national ones. Personally, I see the corporation as the biggest threat to individual liberties, and I'm not sure states would have the will or the resources to control corporate excess.

Even if they wanted to.

 

[georgephillip]

Are you comfortable with the choice offered between the two major parties?

I think you know that I'm not. Out of curiosity, why do you ask?

If you're calling for more state and local limitations on what schemes can be imposed, that would certainly be an idea I would be willing to study. States Rights got a bad rep with my generation during the 60s; however, it's a strategy that could be useful today, particularly with regard to corporate charters.

I'm in favor of such limitations at all levels of government. Sadly, most state constitutions don't limit their governments to enumerated powers the way the federal constitution does. But I'd definitely like to see that changed.

I asked about your comfort zone with Rs and Ds because I don't see any solution to Endless War and Usury if the only "choice" allowed is between one of the two corporate parties.

As far as state constitutions are concerned, it's been my experience that most voters pay even less attention on a daily basis to state and local issues than they do to national ones. Personally, I see the corporation as the biggest threat to individual liberties, and I'm not sure states would have the will or the resources to control corporate excess.

Even if they wanted to.

 

[daveman]

Quit whining and hand over your Social Security!

I won't have to. You idiot leftists are doing your damnedest to see that it's gone before I'm old enough to collect.

Exactly, Moonbat.

I am not a leftist. That would be you, moonbat.

I'm sure you'll be pleased to know I've already donated yours to the Bradley Manning defense fund.

Figures that you'd support a traitor. If there's a wrong side to an issue, you jump on it with both feet.

Thanks for your service.

Your thanks are neither required nor accepted.

 

[driveby]

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

Typical moonbat idiot throwing terms like "slavery" around so loosely........

 

[thereisnospoon]

in fact OP? What part of the Constitution scares *YOU* the Most?

Care to man up or is it going to be more diatribe nonsense?

Geo will post some bullshit from a liberal blog and pass it along as fact.

If I've given you the impression that I believe everything I post is fact, I don't.

Many of the issues we discuss here have been batted around since before any of us were born.
There are many writers on the internet far more skilled and educated than I.
When I post one of their opinions I do it because they express my position more clearly than I can.
Not because I am sure their/my opinion qualifies as a fact.

There's no shortage of educated and skilled writers on the right.
After all, a political message board is for sharing opinions in order to discern the facts.

Problem is you post opinion pieces and do not acknowledge these are opinions.
The other issue is you never post your own words.

 

[dblack]

I asked about your comfort zone with Rs and Ds because I don't see any solution to Endless War and Usury if the only "choice" allowed is between one of the two corporate parties.

Couldn't agree more. I honestly think we need to change the voting system to something like approval voting, or anything that would undercut the 'lesser-of-two-evils' dysfunction of the current system.

As far as state constitutions are concerned, it's been my experience that most voters pay even less attention on a daily basis to state and local issues than they do to national ones. Personally, I see the corporation as the biggest threat to individual liberties, and I'm not sure states would have the will or the resources to control corporate excess.

Even if they wanted to.

I think I see what you're getting at. And there is one aspect where I am in full agreement that 'states rights' is killing us. The concept of equal protection, currently rather weakly represented in the federal constitution, should be amplified and extended to the states as well. Put in tangible terms, that means the common practice of offering special favors (tax incentives, tax abatements, or any other state policy that applies the law unequally to its citizens) to lure various money interests to the state should be banned outright. We really need to put a stop to the practice of corporations (and other organized interest groups) shopping around to states, looking for the one that will offer them the best 'deal'. The whole thing really screams for a constitutional amendment at the federal level.

The issue of corporations being too big and powerful needs to be addressed as well. First and foremost, we need to understand that a corporation that is too-big-to-fail is too big, and the sooner they do fail, the better. I also suspect a radical revamping of corporate law will ultimately be required.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I'll take states rights over the fed govt anyway. We can thank Hamilton for our disaster. Im sure he is looking up through the sulphur and smiling at our massive government.

 

[dblack]

I'll take states rights over the fed govt anyway. We can thank Hamilton for our disaster. Im sure he is looking up through the sulphur and smiling at our massive government.

In general I agree with you. But I do think state governments should be limited in similar ways to the federal government. The fourteenth amendment goes a long way toward this, but like so many of the other limitations on government, it is largely ignored - especially when it comes to tax policy. Reaffirming the concept of equal protection as a basic limitation on government would go along way toward ending the problem of states whoring themselves out to moneyed interests.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

That's bullshit.

You are comparing Capitalism vs Socialism

Capitalism IS democratic.

.

 

[dblack]

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.

I think what Mr. Thurow fails to recognize is that democracy and capitalism are concerned with entirely different kinds of power. Political power is not the same as economic power. It's our failure at keeping the two separate that has brought democracy and capitalism into conflict.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

I think what Mr. Thurow fails to recognize is that democracy and capitalism are concerned with entirely different kinds of power. Political power is not the same as economic power. It's our failure at keeping the two separate that has brought democracy and capitalism into conflict.

Well, the free market IS democratic.

In a capitalist system people get to vote using their currency.

.

 

[dblack]

In a capitalist system people get to vote using their currency.

But that's not democracy. In democracy, it's one vote per person. With capitalism, its one "vote" per dollar. That's a real difference between them. My point is that it doesn't need to be a conflict. But we need to understand that political power and economic power are distinct and very different. Conflating the two is the source of a great many of the problems we face.

We need to work hard to ensure that money can't buy political power. That we've failed miserably to do that is fairly obvious. What's less obvious, is the way we've also failed to keep politics out of the economy. And that failure has provided ever greater incentive for those with economic power to manipulate politics. The more government grants itself the power to decide the winners and losers in matters economic, the more incentive there is for those seeking financial gain to manipulate government.

This collusion between political power and economic power is the heart and soul of corporatism. And it's been driven as much by our leaders' desire to control business as by business's desire to control government. They offer us the sales pitch that they must have this control over business to thwart the excessive power of wealth. But that's inaccurate. It's a symbiotic relationship. The primary means wealth interests control us is through their intimate relationship with government. The problem isn't government controlling business, or business controlling government - it's both of them teaming to control US.

If we have any hope of getting our government back, it is in breaking this 'partnership' between business and government. As hard as it will be for many of us, we need to let go of the idea that the economy is the responsibility of government. We need to resist the urge to manipulate it with state policy and stay out of the 'business' of propping up failed corporations for political gain.

I'd actually like to see a constitutional amendment that promotes this concept of 'separation of economy and state' to the same level as the 'separation of church and state'.

 

[Lars]

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".

Since the days of the East India Company the most successful capitalists have crushed competitors in order to monopolize markets. Most of the successful corporations have bribed government for tax favors and laws that encourage monopolies and cartels coming into existence.

Capitalists need customers and clients far more than they need authentic competition, imho.

The problem there is the State. Without the State, corporations wouldn't be able to become monopolies/oligopolies by lobbying for tax loopholes and barriers to entry from the government.

 

[Lars]

You spew more obvious horseshit than any other libturd in this forum. I could spend all day ridiculing your absurd theories, but there really isn't a need for it. No one could possibly swallow such nonsense.

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[/url]

Democracy: One person; One vote.

Corporation: One dollar; One vote.

Which side are you on?

Definitely one dollar one vote. I can chose whether I buy a product or service. I am not free to chose the legal system I want to live in(look up voluntary polycentric legal systems), I am not free to refuse to pay taxes for a piece of legislation passed by a majority that I didn't vote for.

 

[dblack]

Democracy: One person; One vote.

Corporation: One dollar; One vote.

Which side are you on?

Definitely one dollar one vote. I can chose whether I buy a product or service. I am not free to chose the legal system I want to live in(look up voluntary polycentric legal systems), I am not free to refuse to pay taxes for a piece of legislation passed by a majority that I didn't vote for.

I still contend it's a false choice. One person; One vote is essentially to egalitarian government. And one dollar; one vote is essentially to a free market. As long as dollars aren't allowed to buy favors from government, and votes are allowed to grant wealth, there's no conflict between the two systems. It's when we try to combine them that we run into trouble.

 

[TheBrain]

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

I'm not reading this entire thread; but this article is stupid. You can't compare capitalism to democracy. One is an economic principle and one is a political ideology. Talk about apples and oranges.