Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right. Ok. I'm not saying libertarians believe in no government though. What I'm saying is an entirely unregulated economy doesn't necessarily promote freedom. And you're not wrong in saying that government creates monopolies. Often they do. Powerful individuals in society fund the politicians though. It's a circular problem and it doesn't always start with the government. It can, but not always.
Progressivism also isn't necessarily as you describe. Good example is Teddy Roosevelt. He was a progressive and as such, he broke up monopolies as people who oppose authoritarianism usually oppose it in all it's forms, not just in the state. That used to be the case anyway. But this is why Hillary Clinton isn't going to go on breaking up monopolies. It's profitable for the right people.
Could a free market exist that doesn't create massive inequality (like ours is doing)? Probably. But let's be clear about one thing: a completely free market, free of any government regulation, has never and probably will never exist. Similar to how Marx's ideal communist society hasn't and probably won't exist, there will never be some perfect capitalist utopia. And even if it does exist, it won't last long. And be sure, it's never existed in America. The founding fathers placed significant restrictions on corporations, limiting how long they can exist and limiting them to one industry. There was a requirement that they'd act to serve the public and they would take away a corporations legal status if they violated this. That's a regulation on the free market but it's a position that stems from a fear of authority. Fear of authority exists within both the left and the right. Their are capitalists who hate the idea of authority just as their are collectivists who oppose it. Both sides have had those who wish to impose authority as well.
Now I really don't fully understand the whole concept of Communism so to those that do I have a question.
As far as I know, with Communism no matter whether you work a lot, or a little you should be earning the same amount. So does that not mean someone in the highest levels of the Politburo should not be being paid any more than your typical peasant farmer guy? And one complaint about capitalism was that there were people at the top making a lot more than those at the bottom, but when the USSR existed for example, didn't those at the top make a ton more than those at the bottom? In their minds how did they justify it? Didn't those at the high levels making and acquiring more than those at the bottom go inherently AGAINST their ideology?
for communism to work, there must be strict enforcement by the government to force the benefits of that ideology on the unwilling people.
the benefits of communism are imposed, not embraced and accepted by those who are saddled with it and less equal than the elites. Everything is done by the bureacracy because the people do not know what is good for them and any dissention must be met with an ironhand or else the system will fall apart.
State governments with unions and teacher unions are a good example of an element of communism where time on the job is rewarded and effort discounted.
Read 'gulag archipelgo' and 'The deliverance of Sister cecelia', for first hand view of communism. Many east germans lost their lives escaping from that ideal society.
The Berlin wall is the symbol of communism.
Don't fall into the trap where some elitist academic plays around with defintition of socialism, communism etc to discount any argument that doesn't precisely adhere to all tennants of the ideology. You don't need to know the label as much as you do the methodology.
for communism to work, there must be strict enforcement by the government to force the benefits of that ideology on the unwilling people.
the benefits of communism are imposed, not embraced and accepted by those who are saddled with it and less equal than the elites. Everything is done by the bureacracy because the people do not know what is good for them and any dissention must be met with an ironhand or else the system will fall apart.
State governments with unions and teacher unions are a good example of an element of communism where time on the job is rewarded and effort discounted.
Read 'gulag archipelgo' and 'The deliverance of Sister cecelia', for first hand view of communism. Many east germans lost their lives escaping from that ideal society.
The Berlin wall is the symbol of communism.
Don't fall into the trap where some elitist academic plays around with defintition of socialism, communism etc to discount any argument that doesn't precisely adhere to all tennants of the ideology. You don't need to know the label as much as you do the methodology.
The methodology being one thing but the actual goal being quite another. No one has yet instituted communism or socialism in it's entirety. They may have called it either of those as people on here commonly refer to any country with a welfare system being socialist.
And .....communism as Lenin called it, WAS embraced when enacted. At least for a time, until people found out it was not communism, but thinly disguised fascism they'd invited into their house.
Very few of the major tenets of either have ever actually been enacted or followed.
Don't make the mistake in assuming government control happens first. Rich people can get rich first, then make government more authoritarian than it otherwise would be.
Maybe I should say...if there is a government, the rich will find a way to influence the people in power for their own causes (as has always happened throughout history). So I guess I'm agreeing with you, except my original point is that the rich have no power over you without government.
That's why it's odd to me that people think more government control, taxes, regulations, laws, etc. will benefit the average person. The richest people with political connections essentially write those laws themselves.
Of course, there's no "equal" salary for all even in the most restrictive communist countries but that's just semantics. The point is about "government determines people's pay." That's the key.
Why shouldn't the executives be paid high? How is that in anyway your business?
We pay their salaries as customers and consumers, and I am also (a small) investor in several corporations.
I don't think its in the company interest to pay astronomical salaries and bonuses to executives. Nobody is worth $41M a year, like the Wells Fargo CEO.
But these executives (though not all), are members in an exclusive club, playing musical chairs and supporting each other's demands. One hand washes the other. If its not in the company's benefit to pay $15 an hour to employees, it's absolutely not in their benefit to pay tens of millions. I bet you can get (good) executives for far less. In the past, that used to be the norm. The current state causes social unrest when the average salary isn't a living wage, while the other folks live in a parallel universe
Quote:
The mere talk about how the executives being paid is where things start.
In the communist country I came from, they started talking about "why the rich deserve the pay when they don't do anything," "Why workers work all day while getting pennies," or "Why businesses don't pay taxes while the workers have to?"
Well, you see that these extreme differences lead to dire results in many societies. Isn't that a good enough reason to avoid this path?
We pay their salaries as customers and consumers, and I am also (a small) investor in several corporations.
I don't think its in the company interest to pay astronomical salaries and bonuses to executives. Nobody is worth $41M a year, like the Wells Fargo CEO.
But these executives (though not all), are members in an exclusive club, playing musical chairs and supporting each other's demands. One hand washes the other. If its not in the company's benefit to pay $15 an hour to employees, it's absolutely not in their benefit to pay tens of millions. I bet you can get (good) executives for far less. In the past, that used to be the norm. The current state causes social unrest when the average salary isn't a living wage, while the other folks live in a parallel universe
Well, you see that these extreme differences lead to dire results in many societies. Isn't that a good enough reason to avoid this path?
Stop! Let me tell you what is in your best interests!
Maybe I should say...if there is a government, the rich will find a way to influence the people in power for their own causes (as has always happened throughout history). So I guess I'm agreeing with you, except my original point is that the rich have no power over you without government.
That's why it's odd to me that people think more government control, taxes, regulations, laws, etc. will benefit the average person. The richest people with political connections essentially write those laws themselves.
It seems we are mostly in agreement. I certainly don't think giving Obama, or whomever his successor will be, more regulatory power will make things better. I believe in local, public oversight, not oversight by government, particularly federal government as even an ethical federal government would have a great deal of difficulty understanding the needs of so many people in some many areas.
Right. Ok. I'm not saying libertarians believe in no government though. What I'm saying is an entirely unregulated economy doesn't necessarily promote freedom. And you're not wrong in saying that government creates monopolies. Often they do. Powerful individuals in society fund the politicians though. It's a circular problem and it doesn't always start with the government. It can, but not always.
It depends on how people define freedom. I find that often there is a confusion in this issue, the same people who claim the have certain rights which are really just a dictation to another to provide for them. Regulation, like my law example should never treat a business like a criminal or pro actively punish. It should be reactive (arbitrate liberty violations only) and place the responsibility in the peoples hands to seek a certain level of expected behavior. If a business does not comply, then I can as a free individual choose not to do business with them and tell others of my experience with a given issue. Again, the point is minimal government to arbitrate a violation, not attempt to regulate to avoid any possibility of occurrence. Remember, heavy regulation is how big business colludes with government to shut down competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
Progressivism also isn't necessarily as you describe. Good example is Teddy Roosevelt. He was a progressive and as such, he broke up monopolies as people who oppose authoritarianism usually oppose it in all it's forms, not just in the state. That used to be the case anyway. But this is why Hillary Clinton isn't going to go on breaking up monopolies. It's profitable for the right people.
He was at the forefront of regulation to greatly increase government control over the people. He is one of the main people responsible for handing government power and starting us on a path to socialism.
He started the conservation movement which was nothing more than a federal land grab to which the federal government has no legal authority to own. That is, he disregarded the constitution and stole land for the federal government.
He also strengthened the governments authority with the ICC giving the government the power to set rates.
What you would call good, I would call a disregard for the limits of the federal government and that of the liberty of the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
Could a free market exist that doesn't create massive inequality (like ours is doing)? Probably.
We don't have a free market though. What we have had for most of our history is heavy government regulation, basically socialism. We haven't known a free market most of this countries history. Government has always been in th driving seat dictating to the market the winners and losers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
But let's be clear about one thing: a completely free market, free of any government regulation, has never and probably will never exist.
Completely free, sure, but a liberty based government is not without regulation. Some exists, but it is reactive mostly and it makes no steps to dictate to the market or shape it for any purpose. The federal governments sole purpose is to defend the states from invasion and handle disputes between the states in the basic spirit of the declaration of independence and constrained to the specific limitations that the federal constitution provides.
A liberty based government is only concerned about infringement of liberties, not if someone is getting their "fair" share. The problem is that people keep wanting to fix the system to solve equality issues regardless if there is a liberty violation. That is progressive policy, that is communist thinking and it is not compatible with a liberty based government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
Similar to how Marx's ideal communist society hasn't and probably won't exist, there will never be some perfect capitalist utopia. And even if it does exist, it won't last long. And be sure, it's never existed in America. The founding fathers placed significant restrictions on corporations, limiting how long they can exist and limiting them to one industry. There was a requirement that they'd act to serve the public and they would take away a corporations legal status if they violated this. That's a regulation on the free market but it's a position that stems from a fear of authority. Fear of authority exists within both the left and the right. Their are capitalists who hate the idea of authority just as their are collectivists who oppose it. Both sides have had those who wish to impose authority as well.
The problems you see in the US is not free markets, or liberty based government, no... the problems that exist are from progressive additions to the government. Make no mistake, the US is not a liberty based government anymore and if it ever truly was one, it was only so for a very short time. Lincoln violated the basic principals of this country by violating the liberty of the states and the people there in when the objected to the collusion between the north and the federal government. There have been numerous attacks on the liberty based features of our system over our course of history, with the late 1800's to present being the most offensive to our sovereignty.
So if anything, the US shows how controlling governments are the problem and this is consistent with their crimes against the people of the world throughout history. Each violation on liberty begins in the hands of the state.
Some greatly fear a free and liberty based government and system because these people fear self responsibility, but without such you can not have a free system. Anytime you pick winners and losers with safety nets and class division schemes, you infringe on the liberty of the individual.
My issue is with those who try to claim they stand for both all the while hiding behind fascism to force conformity.
Either we believe in liberty or we do not. We can't have it both ways.
The thing about oppression is that many don't recognize it if they aren't and haven't been oppressed.
I reject this as it is the very excuse statists give to ignore the individuals liberty. They claim people don't understand, they are stupid, they just don't know, but government knows and government can fix it. This is at the core of these collectivist systems, they just do not respect the individual, they are considered lesser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
Bare in mind, Marx was writing his works in a very different time. The workers of his days were objectively mistreated. It's not some issue of opinion on that. Being sent into dangerous working conditions, with starvation wages, for long hours is immoral and oppressive. The liberals of today are just bitching mindlessly. They don't even get it. But the conservatives who project the ideals of poor people today and say they aren't oppressed enough to justify a revolution then apply that to Marx aren't be honest about the conditions of the working class in the 1870s.
In a liberty based society, there is no blame for continued poor treatment to the individual. Each individual is responsible to themselves and they can choose to be oppressed or not. They can choose their working conditions or not. They can weight what they will accept for the benefit that it will gain them. There are no victims when you choose to accept your oppressor. Again, this concept is the failing of collectivist. Marx does not respect the individual, he considers them lesser, unable to think and act in their own best interests. He points to a person who chooses mistreatment and claims they are without choice, yet there is no slavery in this discussion as the individual is free to choose their own path. Not everyone worked in such conditions, not everyone was subject to employers of such bad treatment. Not everyone lived under such, yet Marx disregards the individuals choice and lumps all into a collectivist means to generalize them to his favor.
This is how collectivists end up killing millions of people. They care not of the individual, only of their generalized assumptions of the whole. One size fits all, all must conform... Freedom is slavery... etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
"The only thing that would be shared in terms of justified violence as it concerns communist is the killing of them in defense of their tyranny of free people."
That is your exact quote. Call it what you will: you said people who don't agree should die. I didn't.
You are entitled to you own opinoins, but not your own facts. You are word smithing if you are reading that as my claim to an active attack on communists.
More specifically... :is the killing of them in defense of their tyranny of free people."
in the defense of their tyranny of the free people.
Do you know what that means? It means the communists will demand compliance, we will not comply.
They will come to enforce, we will resist..
They will escalate in violence to kill to force compliance or as Marx said, eliminate those who would impede a communistic goal, we will return in kind.
Make no mistake, they will be the aggressor, they will show up under the threat of violence. They will be the murderers, we will kill in self defense.
There is no defense of the aggression to which such collectivist principals will surely come to bare on the free thinking individual.
Then I am confused. Capitalism as I know it is simply the fact that the countries trade and industry is privately controlled.
What other system can you have in a free economy and a form of government that focuses on the liberty of the individual?
The moment you start adding state control, you have violated the other.
So let us unpack what capitalism is, and what capitalism isn't. To do that, you first need to ask the question, "Why does capitalism exist?", or, "When was capitalism invented?"
Some try to say that capitalism is basically the natural order of the world. That capitalism merely means private-ownership and trade. And while that is partially true, when we refer to capitalism, we are really talking about political and social institutions.
Those institutions were slowly developed mostly as a byproduct of merchants in the late middle-ages, which ultimately led to the English "enclosure acts", as well as reforms in the Netherlands. Early capitalism was "mercantilism"(as relating to merchant trade), and the purpose of mercantilism, from the perspective of governments, was to enrich "the state".
Mercantile-capitalism is the primary economic theory which led to European colonialism. Its basic goals were...
"Forbidding colonies to trade with other nations; Monopolizing markets with staple ports; Banning the export of gold and silver, even for payments; Forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships; Subsidies on exports; Promoting manufacturing through research or direct subsidies; Limiting wages; Maximizing the use of domestic resources; Restricting domestic consumption through non-tariff barriers to trade."
So, why did these European powers develop these "capitalist" institutions? One word, power.
As most know, in this world, money is power. Mercantilism was about bringing in, and keeping money(IE gold and silver), by depressing wages, maximizing production, and manipulating trade through export subsidies, giving "the state" a competitive-advantage in world markets.
The European power with the most money, and the most resources/production, would become the most-powerful.
Mercantile capitalism continued until the rise of industrial capitalism. When things like an "economy of scale", as well as an increased need for raw materials(such as iron and coal, and then later, oil), forced the European powers into greater international trade, not only for commodities, but for markets for manufactured goods.
These industries required stable access to raw materials, shipped from all over the world, and at stable prices. This forced the European powers to shift from the age of colonialism, to the age of imperialism, where the European powers had to secure access to these raw materials, by force.
This competition between the great imperial powers, and their desire to protect their industry through economic manipulation, led to the creation of "fiat currencies", which made this manipulation even more effective.
It would be impossible for America to maintain hundreds of foreign military bases, and a $550 billion trade deficit, without the machinations of the Federal Reserve. Nor could America even protect our industry from foreign predations without our ability to manipulate our currency. And let us not even get started on Keynesian or Neo-Keynesian economic theories of economic stimulation through the multiplier effect, and later, top-down/supply-side economics.
My point of all of this, is that capitalism does not exist for the benefit of the people. It doesn't exist so that people can be free. Capitalism exists, because it produces the most power. And it will cease to exist the moment that a system that produces greater power comes along.
Power rules. It always has, it always will.
Let me add, since you are a fan of capitalism, I can safely assume you are familiar with Milton Friedman.
My favorite quote from Milton Friedman is this.
Quote:
"People go around complaining about waste in government.... Well I say, 'Thank God for government waste.' If government is doing bad things, it's only the waste that prevents the harm from being greater... If government were now spending the amount it spends, which is 40% of our income -- governments federal, state and local in the United States have total spending which equals 40% of total national income -- if they were spending that efficiently, we'd be slaves now."
In short, we are only as free, as our freedom enables the government to become more powerful. Our government is powerful, because we have been so productive, which has enabled our government to use our productivity to build a massive military, and to develop technology, and to exploit foreign markets through currency manipulation, and to arm and finance factions within countries(IE through our CIA), who further our own geopolitical interests.
You have a naive and idealist view of the world.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-03-2016 at 02:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
