For all the Bush Admin Bashers...

scrat - wtf? <smiles> I was TOTALLY reading. assumptions are rude.

I asked the question because I used to know what was wrong with Socialism. As an American, I mean - *every* American knows that socialism is evil.

but then I moved to europe. and since I've been here, I've slowly forgotten all that stuff I used to take for "truth".

thank you for your thoughtful answer.

anastasia

0 Replies

Quote:

Socialism tells the hungry man that his hunger should trouble him less than his neighbor's. Capitalism tells the hungry man that if he finds a way to feed himself, he may also be able to feed his neighbor.

um ... no - socialism tells the hungry man that he should work with his neighbor to get some food together. that's all.

in my opinion.

I liked what you said about an ideal world. I mean, even stalin said the world wasn't ready for socialism. (ok - I'm not *sure* it was him, I'm making a point.) I think we could evolve into a socialist world. maybe. but probably we won't - we'll probably just all keep experimenting with people's incomes and futures in some relentless pursuit of the perfect government. that's where *I* think the world'll go, anyway.

0 Replies

It was either late in the 17th century, or early in the 18th century, that a young French Canadian went on a journey of exploration for the Hudson's Bay Company. They almost never hired a French-speaker, and i suspect they sent him out to rid themselves of an embarrassment. At that time, at York Factory, on the western shore of the Bay, an Indian could bring in 22 made-beaver pelts and get a Hudson's Bay musket, a cleaning kit, a bullet-mold, five pounds of lead and a keg of five pounds of fine-grain black powder. (A made-beaver pelt is one which has been used as a blanket or cape or carpet for a couple of years, which effectively removes the stiff "guard hairs," leaving the downy undercoat, which was part of the beaver pelt for which it was prized, and which made HBC very, very wealthy and powerful, indeed.)

This young coureur du bois eventually reached the Bitterroot in what is now the State of Idaho. There, that same Hudson's Bay musket, minus the cleaning kit, minus the bullet-mold, minus the lead and powder, sold for 200 made-beaver pelts. The lesson i draw from this is that capitalism comes naturally to humans. The other lesson i draw from this is capitalists ought not be allowed to practice their evil predilections among civilized folks without close supervision. We live in a society which does not provide close supervision. In fact, we live in a society in which the supervisors need close supervision.

0 Replies

1) I'm a Libertarian. Frank, in case you're still following this thread, I'd be curious which items in the Libertarian Party's program you are objecting to. Would you mind explaining?

2) I don't believe it! I agree with Scrat and disagree with Tartarin! Smile

Tartarin, just in case this post of yours was serious, here's my rebuttal:

Tartarin wrote:

1) The capitalist capitalizes on others' efforts.

If this is so easy, why isn't everybody a capitalist? After all, nothing about capitalism makes this impossible. In my opinion, a better approximation to reality is that the capitalist gets whatever the marginal product of his capital is. This is also known as the market interest rate, currently about 4% per year. Are you saying that's too much?

Tartarin wrote:

2) and then minimizes the reward for the hardest workers while taking the cream off the top.

In practice, this is constained by hard working workers' habit of changing employers if they can get better pay elsewhere.

Tartarin wrote:

3) He believes self-interest is a virtue.

True. Anything wrong with that?

Tartarin wrote:

4) The capitalist seizes the fruits of labor with little regard for the laborer's needs.

That's not capitalism, that's human nature. Laborers don't care much about capitalists' needs either.

Tartarin wrote:

5) The capitalist believes others' desires are simply a handy indicator for new marketing tools.

Possibly true, but what's the problem?

Tartarin wrote:

6) The capitalist assumes that he knows what's best for me.

So does the socialist planner. Difference is, if the capitalist turns out to be wrong, he goes bankrupt. The socialist planner does not. In my opinion, that's one of the main advantages of capitalism.

Tartarin wrote:

7) The capitalist would like you to believe that, in spite of his riches coming from a stable society, a public education system, the rule of law, publicly funded highways for shipping his goods -- all paid for by the taxes of others -- that he has done it all by himself.

I have never heard a capitalist saying this. Capitalists complain about high taxes just like everybody else. But overall, they tend to invest their capital in countries with rather high taxes exactly because they are stable and are governed by the rule of law.

Tartarin wrote:

8) Capitalism assumes that when it takes the fruits of others' labors and keeps them for its own benefit, the result should be accepted gratefully by society.

Wrong premise. On average, 95% of a company's turnover pays the workers' wages, only 5% are kept for the capitalists' benefit. That's not taking the fruits of others' labor by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks for reading up to this point Smile

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Thomas, you are the reason I always try to vote Libertarian when the big two offer me no real choice. Smile

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

1) I'm a Libertarian. Frank, in case you're still following this thread, I'd be curious which items in the Libertarian Party's program you are objecting to. Would you mind explaining?

-- Thomas

Thomas

You wrote:

Quote:

I'm a Libertarian. Frank, in case you're still following this thread, I'd be curious which items in the Libertarian Party's program you are objecting to. Would you mind explaining.

Well, I don't know that I indicated objections to anything in the Libertarian Party's program. In fact, I was invited by the local Libertarian Party to run for the Township Council on their ticket because of several op ed pieces I had written which coincide with Libertarian Party perspectives. After some consideration and discussion, we mutually agreed that the idea probably would not work.

I consider myself an iconoclast -- with strong small "l" libertarian tendencies.

I was turned off by some of the people I met at the meetings I attended. Together with that and the several other Libertarians I have met, I've come to the conclusion that Libertarians probably draw their membership from a subset of people who would vote "conservative" if the Libertarian line were not available. So when I made my remarks earlier, I had that in mind.

I agree quite emphatically with several libertarian positions -- although some (Foreign Aid; schools; some areas of their free market perspecitve) I hold in suspicion.

Since I consider American conservatism to be a menace to America -- I am happy the Libertarians are doing well. I wish them continuted success.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I was turned off by some of the people I met at the meetings I attended. are doing well. I wish them continuted success.

I think I know what you mean. Now that Libertarianism is becoming more and more fashionable, there's a certain Rush-Limbaugh-ness about some of the new converts. Being turned off by these is a matter of good taste more than one of issues. That's what you were referring to, right?

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Quote:

Being turned off by these is a matter of good taste more than one of issues. That's what you were referring to, right?

-- Thomas

Absolutely!

There certainly are many Libertarian initiatives that people of diverse philosophic persuasions can embrace.

But the "we gotta do away with stop signs and traffic lights" types can be a huge turnoff.

I'm sure you know what I mean!

0 Replies

You and I have -- evidently-- very different experiences, Thomas, and therefore very different points of view. But I agree with Frank that there is much to be said for particulars of the Libertarian philosophy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Tartarin wrote: 7) The capitalist would like you to believe that, in spite of his riches coming from a stable society, a public education system, the rule of law, publicly funded highways for shipping his goods -- all paid for by the taxes of others -- that he has done it all by himself.

Thomas wrote: I have never heard a capitalist saying this. Capitalists complain about high taxes just like everybody else. But overall, they tend to invest their capital in countries with rather high taxes exactly because they are stable and are governed by the rule of law.

People make stable investments because they want to get a good return on them. The theory - and this is all just my opinion - the theory goes something like, "Well, I'll make this investment based on financial considerations so that I can become wealthy and contribute to my society by trickle-down economy and those higher taxes I'll be forced to pay"

Trickle-down economic theory is great - IN THEORY - it doesn't work in practice. The rich get richer and the poor get discouraged. That's how it works.

Just my opinion, again. <smiles>

I'm getting to like this airing my opinion business ... I used to like it alot. Sign I'm getting back to myself. <smiles>

stasia

0 Replies

For all the Bush Admin Bashers...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know