That Fruit is rotten and falls to the ground rotting the country that it dwells within.
This is why the new world order and Globalisation have been devised.
So a new class of poor can be created in larger numbers to increase the profiteering of the Corrupt canibalistic dysfunctional Capitalist system.

pure capitalist countrys are running out of poor people to profit from as they all eat ech other with multi national companies buying each other out.

SOo...
where to now to maintain their unrealistic predatory canabalistic Profit margins ?
the new world order or Globalisation,
with the rally cry "Free Trade" is designed to allow foriegn companies to force products on to starving and poor people to under cut localised markets and local producers.

Prior to these days of global market domination such levels of national poverty would spark revolutions and result in the normal Socialist back lash to re ballance the level of food and resources in the country.

now we have this "War on Terror" which is designed to label reds under the bed as the anti society model with a swing of religous fervor toward hate of left wing polatics (traditionaly held by christians) this seems like a race to the bitter end of the species.

Why push for a global revolution ?

That is my question.

"WHY" ?
where is the sense in it ?
because you wish to kull billions ?
for what purpose ?
we have the technology to feed everyone and house them and even incarcirate those who wish to propergate violence.

the Muslim faith seems to echo the new front of Socialism in some bizar act to re ballance terrorist acts against civilian targets, while Christians use it as an excuse to do the same in a pro-active sense.

Free trade spells the end to localised production and is geared to produce massive amounts of poverty.
UNLESS
the world establishes social welfare for all people of the "Globe" prior to free trade being mandated.

a vote for free trade is a vote to starve millions to death
genocide is alive and well in various countrys, has been for hundreds if not thousands of years.

why keep pretending ?

As Natural as a Caveman
or
As Nurtured as a Humanatarian


Your Thoughts ?

if you do have an opinion, then show the full formula or atleast in abreviated form as i have shown.

As far as I know, socialism has never worked in any nation in all of history, so proclaiming it as a "new order" is rather ...foolish, isn't it?

While, on the other hand, capitalism and free enterprise, and it's various forms, has been working quite well in numerous nations of the world.

Baron Max

As far as I know, socialism has never worked in any nation in all of history, so proclaiming it as a "new order" is rather ...foolish, isn't it?

While, on the other hand, capitalism and free enterprise, and it's various forms, has been working quite well in numerous nations of the world.

Baron Max

A large part of Europe is based on the social wellfare state principle. It's working fine.

A large part of Europe is based on the social wellfare state principle. It's working fine.

That's not what I call socialism, Spurious! Socialism is where the state owns and operates all of the businesses .....and Europe surely ain't like that!

What Europe has is a system of private enterprise and capitalism for production of goods, then the government uses a socialist method to distribute money and services to the people! It's a combination of both systems ...bastardizing both systems.

Baron Max

That's not what I call socialism, Spurious! Socialism is where the state owns and operates all of the businesses .....and Europe surely ain't like that!

It's market socialism.

It's market socialism.

No, Spurious!!! The damned European system uses capitalism to generate the fuckin' money so the government can give it away to people who don't fuckin' earn it!!!

Capitalism is how Europeans MAKE the money that government GIVES away!

Baron Max

Capitalism doesn't work. It is not about human rights. It is about might makes right. Now the question is what to do, and how to escape.
Globalization is tearing up everything. I get the sense that the entire earth is a prison cell with no escape. I can't think of anywhere to go where these assholes have not infiltrated. Freedom is something we will probably never posess. How about Korea? They seem to be going nuclear if that is really what is happening. I have yet seen any verification to these claims.

The earth is currently being run by might makes right. Human rights are not relevant.

Is there any escape?
The whole planet seems to be under the control of these parasites.
THE ENEMY: The rich, IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve, CIA, etc.

The entire planet is a prison cell. No matter where you go on the planet, this above axis of evil terror has their hands in your pockets. They get you one way or the other.

Is there any hope for freedom?
Or are we all trapped like rats in the prison of earth controlled by these might makes right parasites?
How can we escape their clutches? Or how can one escape their clutches?
What can we do to live a wealthy healthy life while at the same time keeping away from this axis of evil terror?

lix:
Nothing can be done until the working class as a whole rises up.

No, Spurious!!! The damned European system uses capitalism to generate the fuckin' money so the government can give it away to people who don't fuckin' earn it!!!

Capitalism is how Europeans MAKE the money that government GIVES away!

Baron Max

I think you should read up a bit on your history and discover why European governments were forced to create a social wellfare state.

I will quote here an old post of mine:

Actually WW2 was the start of the redistribution of the wealth. It started with the displacement of the jews. They were taken away to be exterminated or imprisoned and they left behind their stores, houses, banks, offices etc. These and the goods were re-populated and re-distributed. Wealth was redistrubuted.

This was however only the beginning since jews only held a small share of the wealth.

The german occupation showed the people that 'ownership' was relative. The germans came and confiscated. Ownership wasn't as fixed as people used to think. In fact it became meaningless.

After the war this idea was built upon in the rebuilding of Europe. Nobody wanted to go back to the past and something had to change. Going back to the past would have meant a continuing civil war or flaring up of another world war. The social wellfare state was invented. Although some social structures were in place before the war in many European countries these were of no comparison to the scale of them after the war. The huge inequality between the rich and the poor had led to fascism and communism and nobody in the west really wanted a repeat.

Actually just after the war many companies were nationalized based on these ideas. A redistribution of the wealth of major companies by nationalizing them. And the extensive social wellfare structures. A good example of this is the UK. A national healthcare was introduced as were extensive unemployment benefits, etc. The difference with the past was mainly that it had become a right for everyone! Not just a few, or under arbitrary conditions.

And so Europe entered a phase of massive redistribution of wealth. No communism was needed. In fact this was done to keep communism at bay. The communist movement was rather popular after WW2 because of the great desperation of the people and because usually the communist parties were one of the few actually resisting german occupation. For instance in France the communist party was a major organizer of the resistance there. The governments feared the communist movement and had to prevent them gaining ground. They were forced to do something about the inequality.

As for the jews the ones that survived came back to their homes and offices to either see them destroyed or occupied. When reminding the current occupants that these were their homes the residents simply replied: so what? It's ours now.

reference:
Post war; A history of Europe since 1945. Tony Judt. 2006 edition

In case it isn't clear to you yet why Europe chose the social wellfare state approach i will explain it to you in simple terms.

The great inequality between rich and poor directly led to the growth of both fascist and communist movement. Worldwar I was a result of this. Nothing much changed in the political and power system after WWI. By relying on the old the way was free for growth of facism and communism. WWII started. At this point there were really no options left. Facism had not disappeared. Communism was going strong. They both fed on the poverty and dispair. There was only one solution: the social wellfare state. The only thing that could prevent Europe from falling back into war was security. Social security.

Moreover if you would look at the history you would see that the European countries all had protectionist rules in place to limit trade and currency exchange. Capitalism was much different back then compared to now. Because Europe was on its ass the US could force a more open system of trade and currency exchange on Europe. This was not a unselfish act. The great depression in the USA in the 30s was a result of decreased trade.

Just after the war there were two options for Europe. Let is slide away or rebuild it in order to have a trade partner. The first 2 years after the war the USA was busy going towards option 1. Normal loans were given to insert hard dollar currency into Europe. With these necessary goods could be bought from the USA. Luckily Marshall saw the light. Europe would just rot away in these conditions. America would be vulnerable for economic collapse without this major trading partner. So the Marshall Plans came into effect boosting the economy of Europe. The US had learned from their mistake after WWI where no such help was given. Nothing changed then in Europe and the same patterns were maintained. And Europe went to war again.

Now there was even more at stake for the US. Not only was their the thread of civil war, the Soviet Union had upset the power balance. The soviets were waiting at the edge of middle Europe. A soviet Europe would not be in the interest of the USA.

The marshall plan helped rebuild Europe much faster as it could on its own and prevented the old pattern of re-emerging. European governments were now able (and forced) due to many circumstances to change the social conditions for the very first time of all. The true social welfare state was born and almost immediately recognized as being too expensive, after which it was toned down a bit.

In short, it is the social welfare state that brought Europe the social structure which enabled it to grow in prosperity.


Whatever your silly ideas are on socialism, the socialist principles of the social welfare state gave Europe peace at last. Unfortunately the cold war postponed the outcome of WWII and only now Europe can grow towards it's proper place in the world again. The center.

lix: Nothing can be done until the working class as a whole rises up.

Rises up to do what? And I'll remind you that the "working class" has rose up on numerous occasions in the past ....and what resulted is what we have now, right? So .....?

Baron Max

Baron:

Rises up to do what?

Rise up to the oppression and exploitation perpetrated by the bourgeois. To claim what is rightfully theirs: The world.

And I'll remind you that the "working class" has rose up on numerous occasions in the past ....and what resulted is what we have now, right? So .....?

There have been isolated pockets of workers resistance. However, there has never been a unified movement of workers, from all across the world. One day, perhaps, people will learn that class is the true divider, not race or ethnicity.

Whatever your silly ideas are on socialism, the socialist principles of the social welfare state gave Europe peace at last.

Peace at what cost? Ahh, I know ...taking from those who work hard and giving to those who don't or won't work hard! Yeah, good one, Spurious! In my opinion, that cost is much, much too high a price to pay for "peace".

I did like the following, however!

...European governments were forced to create a social wellfare state.

Forced? Does that sound anything like peace to you?

...the socialist principles of the social welfare state gave Europe peace at last.

Peace? You call what's going on in the world today ...peace? When does that peace begin, Spurious?

Spurious, your glorified system is nothing but taking from those who have worked hard in order to give to those who won't or don't work hard themselves. It's nothing more than that, and you can give me your glorified bullshit, like some propaganda machine of Soviet Russia, but it ain't nothing but stealing from those who've worked and giving to those who don't.

Baron Max

Baron: Rise up to the oppression and exploitation perpetrated by the bourgeois. To claim what is rightfully theirs: The world.

Rightfully theirs???? Who gave it all to them?? And who is going to see that they keep it ...when many willl be trying to take it away from them?

Hare, once again, you're living in a world of your idealistic dreams rather than the world of reality. You talk about oppression, but you ignore the many, many bullys of the world who are in the same boat as those other "poor and oppressed" people. How are you going to stop those bullies, Hare?

...there has never been a unified movement of workers, from all across the world.

And there never will be, Hare! When was the last time you saw even three people agree on any-fuckin'-thing?! At a party, ordering pizza is a major event in disorganized wants and desires ...no one ever agreeing on the toppings!! Yet, in your dream world, everyone agrees, huh?

Baron Max

Peace at what cost? Ahh, I know ...taking from those who work hard and giving to those who don't or won't work hard! Yeah, good one, Spurious! In my opinion, that cost is much, much too high a price to pay for "peace".

I did like the following, however!



Forced? Does that sound anything like peace to you?



Peace? You call what's going on in the world today ...peace? When does that peace begin, Spurious?

Spurious, your glorified system is nothing but taking from those who have worked hard in order to give to those who won't or don't work hard themselves. It's nothing more than that, and you can give me your glorified bullshit, like some propaganda machine of Soviet Russia, but it ain't nothing but stealing from those who've worked and giving to those who don't.

Baron Max

So basically your argument consists out of repeating your platitudes ad nauseum?

I gave a reference. It's a well known book by an American writer. I think I deserve now the courtesy of a proper response.

Baron:

Rightfully theirs???? Who gave it all to them

Nobody gave it to them. They have earnt it! If you cook a pie, you have the right to take a slice.


. You talk about oppression, but you ignore the many, many bullys of the world who are in the same boat as those other "poor and oppressed" people.

Really? The biggest, baddest bullies seem to be the ones on top, with the most wealth.


And there never will be, Hare!

Clairvoyant, are we?

I think you should read up a bit on your history and discover why European governments were forced to create a social wellfare state.

I will quote here an old post of mine:



In case it isn't clear to you yet why Europe chose the social wellfare state approach i will explain it to you in simple terms.

The great inequality between rich and poor directly led to the growth of both fascist and communist movement. Worldwar I was a result of this. Nothing much changed in the political and power system after WWI. By relying on the old the way was free for growth of facism and communism. WWII started. At this point there were really no options left. Facism had not disappeared. Communism was going strong. They both fed on the poverty and dispair. There was only one solution: the social wellfare state. The only thing that could prevent Europe from falling back into war was security. Social security.

Moreover if you would look at the history you would see that the European countries all had protectionist rules in place to limit trade and currency exchange. Capitalism was much different back then compared to now. Because Europe was on its ass the US could force a more open system of trade and currency exchange on Europe. This was not a unselfish act. The great depression in the USA in the 30s was a result of decreased trade.

Just after the war there were two options for Europe. Let is slide away or rebuild it in order to have a trade partner. The first 2 years after the war the USA was busy going towards option 1. Normal loans were given to insert hard dollar currency into Europe. With these necessary goods could be bought from the USA. Luckily Marshall saw the light. Europe would just rot away in these conditions. America would be vulnerable for economic collapse without this major trading partner. So the Marshall Plans came into effect boosting the economy of Europe. The US had learned from their mistake after WWI where no such help was given. Nothing changed then in Europe and the same patterns were maintained. And Europe went to war again.

Now there was even more at stake for the US. Not only was their the thread of civil war, the Soviet Union had upset the power balance. The soviets were waiting at the edge of middle Europe. A soviet Europe would not be in the interest of the USA.

The marshall plan helped rebuild Europe much faster as it could on its own and prevented the old pattern of re-emerging. European governments were now able (and forced) due to many circumstances to change the social conditions for the very first time of all. The true social welfare state was born and almost immediately recognized as being too expensive, after which it was toned down a bit.

In short, it is the social welfare state that brought Europe the social structure which enabled it to grow in prosperity.


Whatever your silly ideas are on socialism, the socialist principles of the social welfare state gave Europe peace at last. Unfortunately the cold war postponed the outcome of WWII and only now Europe can grow towards it's proper place in the world again. The center.

Interesting.
I've also been told that Europe simply had fewer resources, so people were forced to share. America has largely been frontier, and whenever there are too many poor, dispossessed and whatnot, there was emigration to the edges. That, and a ton of land and mineral wealth available for cheap.

When you compare pre-War wealth levels between Americans and Europeans, Americans always had far more stuff, ate meat, drove cars. Socialism never caught on in America simply because no one really needed it.

Nobody gave it to them. They have earnt it!

They did? How? And who did they "earn" it from?

If you cook a pie, you have the right to take a slice.

You might get a big argument from the milions of bakers who bake pies all day to be sold to people with money who want those pies!! Do you think anyone would buy a pie with a slice removed?

You still didn't answer my question/point about how all of those people are going to agree on anything? Are you going to force them all to agree ...thus going against the very thing that you claim you're fighting?

Baron Max

Capitalism doesn't work. It is not about human rights.

For capitalism to work (where 'working' can be defined as economic growth), there must be rights. Otherwise, no one is willing to make the investment in a business that the gov't or lawlessness would take away.

I gave a reference. It's a well known book by an American writer.

You gave an opinion by someone .....everyone has opinions, Spurious, but that don't mean shit, does it?

I think I deserve now the courtesy of a proper response.

See? Just like a fuckin' European thinkin' he "deserves" something just because he can breathe or walk or type!! You don't deserve anything, Spurious, you must earn it!

Baron Max

Rises up to do what? And I'll remind you that the "working class" has rose up on numerous occasions in the past ....and what resulted is what we have now, right? So .....?

Baron Max
Not necessarily rising up to fight it, but a solution of rhte individual.
Many people always purport that we should nto be lazy and apathetic. Where can the individual go, or what is the best method for an individual within this situation.

Can you give an example of how the working class is being "oppressed" or "exploited"? If you're referring to their not getting paid as much as those heading the businesses: a wage is NOTHING but a PRICE. It is the price of labor. Are you saying that you know how much their labor is worth to them better than they do? They would LIKE a better price for their labor, but if they have settled for a "low" regular wage, then it is still what they consider to be an exchange that benefits them more than it hurts them, or they wouldn't do it.

As far as the unfair profits of people heading companies, explaining this may take a while: When people buy a product, they are paying what they think is worth less than what they're getting, or they wouldn't bother to buy it. The price will be higher if the cost of production is higher (although that's not the only variable), and if it's too high, no one will buy it. There won't be any profit. So, no one will go into that business or expand their business in it. Profits are an amazing thing, used to guide entrepeneurs in producing what most efficiently satisfies the desires of consumers (which is everyone.) If people want something, but it costs more to make than it is worth to them, then it shouldn't be made. This is a bit more clear when you get rid of "money." If I work six dollars an hour (which I do) and I want a TV that costs 100 dollars, I would try to buy it. But if it's not valuable enough for me to work 1,000 minutes for it, then it shouldn't be made, because that means the arbitrary value of how much it's worth (determined by what people are willing to do to buy it) is not as much as the cost of production (determined by materials and arbitrary prices of labor.)

No one gets oppressed. It is all based on fair voluntary trade, and those who demand too much for their products don't get anything for them because no one will buy them. So they don't make profits and other entrepeneurs see that the business isn't profitable (another way of saying "efficient and desired by consumers"), and the product isn't made anymore. I think we should help those who can't offer anything to society, but we should make those who are capable earn their keep.

"The great depression in the USA in the 30s was a result of decreased trade. " http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=4013 There is a great article explaining why the decreased trade happened, among other things. The decreased trade happened because the government screwed with people's rights to decide what to do with their money, or another way of saying that, decide what to do with their labor (money is the mediator between labor and products. It is really an illusion, though a very useful one.)

"Screwing with people's rights to decide what to do with their money [by taking it away and giving it to others against one's will], or another way of saying that, decide what to do with their labor" is a VERY important concept in this discussion. Socialism is in effect nothing more than extremely plesant slavery: "The man who produces while another disposes of his product is a slave" -Ayn Rand

For capitalism to work (where 'working' can be defined as economic growth), there must be rights. Otherwise, no one is willing to make the investment in a business that the gov't or lawlessness would take away.
For capitalism to work, there must be rights.
No rights means capitalism doenst work.
We tried it for a few centuries. It turned out to be total crap.
Now the earth is imprisoned by plutocratic dictators, and their idiot slaves praise the economic system of their crappytalist masters like the gold. Docile?

No one gets oppressed.
Go back to your fairy tail land. I guess you don't know what guns are. What about economic processing zones? What are you smoking?

lixluke, more to the point, what are you smoking?

Go back to your fairy tail land.

Yeah, you do that.

The claim was that no one gets oppressed. What is up with that. Oppression is a serious problem. To say that no one gets oppressed is living in a dream world where everybody is happy and friendly. Majority of the planet is under oppressive dictatorship of capitalist business interests.

<edit>

Baron:

Rise up to the oppression and exploitation perpetrated by the bourgeois. To claim what is rightfully theirs: The world.


There have been isolated pockets of workers resistance. However, there has never been a unified movement of workers, from all across the world. One day, perhaps, people will learn that class is the true divider, not race or ethnicity.


indeed wise words.
and with globalisation(free trade by those who own and control the transport) forcing middle and low income workers in to inpoverished living cvonditions by destroying local markets and producers setting up the downward spiral towards a global revolution,
this Global revolution must be fashioned and led idiologicaly by someone and or something,
which is quite possibly the reason the usa wish to crush any country that oppose them idiologicaly as that opposition may become the leading ethos of the doctrine of thought toward the USA in general.
This who iraq issue has actualy set the usa backwards in many things,
and
the ones who notice it the most are several basic groups
the intelectuals
the socialist democrats who persue education and truthful information,
and those being invaded and killed and controlled.

the older system of slow growth and modest profit margins have been scorned by the average investor and left to governments who are left to pick up the peices of hundreds of thousands of civilians laid off work by un patriotic busines practices and striping assets and whole sale take over of localised production and controlling transport and ogistics.

from all of my knowledge i know one thing for certain.
it will not last
it must be changed
it will cause global war
the global war that most think where several countrys are against another group of several countrys is unlikely,
more so a civil war in every country setting the standard model of civilian Vs state as state operate as the enforcer for private enterprise.

Peace at what cost? Ahh, I know ...taking from those who work hard and giving to those who don't or won't work hard! Yeah, good one, Spurious! In my opinion, that cost is much, much too high a price to pay for "peace".

I did like the following, however!



Forced? Does that sound anything like peace to you?



Peace? You call what's going on in the world today ...peace? When does that peace begin, Spurious?

Spurious, your glorified system is nothing but taking from those who have worked hard in order to give to those who won't or don't work hard themselves. It's nothing more than that, and you can give me your glorified bullshit, like some propaganda machine of Soviet Russia, but it ain't nothing but stealing from those who've worked and giving to those who don't.

Baron Max



RULES and LAWS

Why should the poor starving people respect the laws of the rich ?
They are going to die!
It is life or death, if you want survival of the fittest then you embrace war in every form.

Just like pack animals in the wild humans come together to form a common task like hunting.
If the rich wish to position themselfs in the position of prey to the starving masses then why should the middle class care about them when they are mearly being subjected to their own level of morals and ethics ?

hypocrisy in a social model in operation would be to help the rich because they are the weaker ones being killed by the starving masses.

~~~~~~~~
Personaly i prefer peace, and i think murder is murder, by what ever means.
I beleive in
help thy neighbour
and do un to others
Social mental illnesses are not cured by going backwards in evolutional living.

IF you wish to live by caveman laws then throw away your technology and walk into a jungle and leave the rest of those who wish to embrace technology and peacefull sharing to the inventions they made to help the world at no personal profit.
(note for those who do not understand the signifigence of inventions, most great inventors receive little to no profit for inventing things that greatly advance the species, if you do not beleive it then study it).

RULES and LAWS

Why should the poor starving people respect the laws of the rich?

Laws of the rich??? How so? Those laws have been enacted in accordance with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ..how could they be "laws of the rich"? Please explain?

I'd also wish to ask you ....are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with a duly-enacted law simply take the law into his/her own hands?? Is that how you see great nations survive and thrive? Vigilante law?

Baron Max

When Capitalism BEARS fruit! Jeez the tighty righties have trouble spelling. Guess that's what happens when all one does is nod to AM radio.

Did you... did you even read the opening post?

When was the last time you saw even three people agree on any-fuckin'-thing?! At a party, ordering pizza is a major event in disorganized wants and desires ...no one ever agreeing on the toppings!! Yet, in your dream world, everyone agrees, huh?

Baron Max

:cool: Excellent Point you have there.

Yes there is much difference and deviation from what some may determine or define as "norms" when it comes to some things.
However.
what is the measuring stick ?
a mother compromising her likes for her kids likes ?
a father compromising his likes for his kids likes ?
a Friend compromising their likes for their friends likes ?

do you get the point ?

liars and cheats!
If you live amongst liars and cheats and they become your normal world, then your base of what is deemed moraly normal becomes that same system of lying and cheating.

Soo, when it comes to people;
Select your friends like you would a piece of fruit from a shop as if you were giving it to a dying relative.
Carefully, with thought, with concern for the future minding the present with knowledge of the past.

yes!
Some may say "hey they are dying what does it matter how good that which i give them ?"
would you like to live in a world of such like people ?
i certainly would not so i would not allow them to prosper.

You see that is the difference between real Socialism and the Socialism that many right wing people try and sell the average ignorent person.
Socialism is a fundermental aspect of human caring for others around you.
A core beleife system of care.
Many fascists have used the name of Socialism to try and take control of the state and put them selfs in a position of absolute power in the model of a pyramid like capitalist organisations (one of THE most cmmons methods of dictators gaining absolute power).
and
it does not work.
UNLESS...
You have a core system of Socialism within not only the managers and owners but the employees also.
The more technical term is called "Mixed market economy"
and is THE most succesful system there is
AND
has a BASE of Socialism.
Paying tax is socialist!
But greedy and mentaly unballanced people (and the brainwashed & misslead) try to use that for themselfs and their own agendas because they have been raised as selfish uncaring people by their parents and peers and society they grew uy in.

A pure Capitalist system should have NO TAX WHAT SO EVER.
But... who is it that is profiting from tax in a Capitalist system ?
The richest of the rich who control it from the top producing nothing(effectively).
ALL the while the lowest wage earners produce the most and get paid the least
[note: mexican slave labour market in the usa sanctioned by the government & many general public].

Obviousely any system and or country that operates like this will produce a large proportion of liars cheats and crminals in general.
A symptom of its own design while those same people at the top (the fascists) use that bergioning crime rate to increase tax on everyone to pay to themselfs in larger amounts.
A Police system that is only reactionary can never reduce crime.
All it does is protect corperations by assisting in fruad issues and such like, while promoting hatred of the stae by the average and poor people pushing the country closer and closer toward civil war and driving the community into reclusivenes; thus assisting crime growth even more.
Which as a result alows crime to get worse and thus require a never ending increase in budget disproportionate to the propper function of the best most productive system, attracting people who wish to take out their sadistic desires on the general public creating a self destroying system that slowly eats away at its self.
The core ellement of Police is Socialism.
They should be functioning AS SUCH, with education and reaching out to kids and youth pro actively seeking to interact with society rather than run around waving a big stick and threatening people with violence and murder.

Spare the rod soil the child!
This is the current mentality and/or subconcious thought program running in many where they think violence is the only answer to behavioural problems.
Never has worked, never will work Psychology is a science and you do not cure people by simply beating them to within an inch of their life, be those children or adults.

Socialism never caught on in America simply because no one really needed it.

Interesting take on it.
I suggest the USA is land of the Gun.
Where the gun has shaped the society to be what it is today.

the social model still holds the cowboy psychopath as the most favourable personality.

they are yet to publicly reconise and correct history books for the massive amount of genocide committed against the native american,
all the while they try and wash the spots off their hands by using the and manipulating the black african american while ignoring the now same situation with mexicans.

i suggest it is still run by the gun and the mentality has not changed.
thus you have a certain set of basic idiologies and systems of personality development.
obviousely there are always exceptions...
BUT
the USA hold themselfs up to be some award winning example fo how great capitalism is and how well it works, when infact the only thing stopping the total collapse of the country is socialism in small measures and pockets.

5% of te population own 95% of the wealth, resources minerals... etc...
thus 5% dictate the living standard of the other 95% yet claim it is not their fault and they should not be blamed.

the current age of the babyboomer is not taking accountability for their actions, it was a psychological evolutionary aspect in conjunction with world events and such like,
but simply allowing them to continue un-abated will not sove anything.
the entire "im all right so we should nto rock the boat" thing is theuir design as they pretend to pander to the idea of equal rights for females.

You have yet to give me an EXAMPLE of oppression. All you've done is say that people are being oppressed. Okay, some illegal immigrants are oppressed by employers who don't pay them because they don't have to, but within the actual legal system, there is no oppression. If people are working for a wage, they consider their pay more valuable than the work they're doing to get it, or they wouldn't make the trade. It's a matter of LETTING THEM CHOOSE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. I wholeheartedly support charity and helping out others in society. When I get enough money to do so, I'll donate to programs that help out those who are having trouble getting on their feet (remember, I said I work for 6 an hour, so don't say I could already and I'm just being greedy.)

Yes, you're right, ripleofdeath. The base of police is socialism. In order to have police, we have decided that we're going to have to forcefully take money from people, or they might not volunarily pay enough to them to sustain the police. But it's a matter of necessity; if we don't have police, we would probably get killed or abused in one way or another by people who infringe on our lives against our will. That doesn't mean it's ideal, though, but only that it's the best way to protect ourselves we've figured out.

The difference is that we're taking the lesser of two evils in supporting police: we forcefully take people's property in order to prevent other people from taking MORE of their property or their lives. It is not a good thing. It's just the best thing we can do. I don't think taking money from people to give it to other people who have not earned it is the best thing to do, because it is not absolutely necessary to keep people from having their rights violated. If you could explain how people are being oppressed under capitalism (honest capitalism, of course; when employers don't pay up, that's obviously wrong, but rarely happens), then I might consider Socialist taxation to be the lesser of two evils, but right now, it seems to be violating rights without restoring any.

You do not have a right to other people's money. You do not have a right to receive more for a given amount of work than you agreed to take.

You only have the right to take what someone agrees to give you, and the same is true for everyone else. An employer only has the right to take what you agree to give him. If you aren't getting as much as your labor is worth, you've made a bad decision.

Keep in mind, too, that there is no absolute value for labor. It's only determined by what people agree it is worth.

Please respond to my comments and answer my questions if you're going to respond to this at all, rather than attacking me or implying that my mind is inhibited.

Oppression is everywhere. I don't need to give any example. Just walk out the door. Do you not know what oppression is?

American's are not provided with equal protection of human rights. Americans are robbed of everything for the sake of the rich.

WITNESS THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE:
America is the Ameriterrorist of the planet earth. Earth is dominated by Ameriterrorism with an iron fist. America, Great Britain, IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve, and large corporations.

Terrorism as in forceful acts against human rights. We use our terrorism to take away their freedom of speech, freedom of anything. Killing. Mass media manipulation. Genocide. Economic processing zones. Killing. More killing. War. More killing. Coersion. Installing dictators friendly to western business interests. Illegalizing trade with companies that compete against the corporate giants that rule the earth.

A western company can go to foreign soil to manufacture products for free trade. Companies within the country either may not trade products that compete with corporate giants or incur heavily taxed trade so the west can get their money either way. Will these terrorists leave these countries alone, and allow them use their own resources for their own profit? Would you give up billions and billions of yearly revenue for the sake of measly human rights? Not on your life. Might makes right. Golden rule: He who owns the gold makes the rules. Screw human rights. I want my money.

The rich often say that poor people hate the rich because they are jealous, and deep inside, want what the rich have. This is false. Nobody with more than half a brain want any hand in such corrupt lifestyle, and total incompetence. What the rich have is total ignorance and evil. The rich are the biggest morons in the world. The rich claim that poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. This is also false.
All poverty on the planet as we know it points directly at its source. The rich parasites with their invisible hand of capitalism in everybody’s pockets. Human rights violators. Exploitation.

The root of all corruption is nothing more than a paradigm. As soon as you take on the paradigm, you have accepted the dark side. The paradigm of the dark side: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor.


This is not to say that in order to amass wealth you have to exploit people, and commit underhanded atrocities. It is completely possible to build wealth without doing so. Exploiters just happen to be the typical rich. It’s way easier, and more fun if you enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on others. What these exploiters do not know can and will hurt the earth. I know. Let’s give a baby a live hand grenade, and see what happens to the block.

Amassing money is a skill. So is dancing and playing foosball. Moreover, it is in many ways a precise science. One can be great at this science, and amass oodles and boodles of wealth. All great skills improve with the use of tools. One of the best tools is terrorism. A skilled scientist need not use any tools. But boy oh boy do better tools sure as hell make things much easier.

Many rich people turn the blind eye to their exploitation. Many of them honestly are completely unaware of it. Many are totally unaware of their own corruption.
Let’s take a look at the paradigm again: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor.

We know this paradigm is untrue, so what is it?
It is a rationalized justification for exploitative actions.
Huh?
This simply means that corruption is not about outright evil. It is many times not intentional. The brain has a great filtering mechanism. It tends to want thing or do things, and creates justifications for doing them meanwhile blocking anything out that could interfere with such processing.
Huh?
We do not really see ourselves as corrupt. We take on false belief to justify our actions. The thought never occurs to us that our actions are harmful. We are the good guys, we are doing nothing wrong, and we do not even think to question whether or not what we are doing is wrong.

You do not have to believe this paradigm in order to become rich.
This one: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor.
^
[]
Yes that one right there. That --[]
The false source of corruption that we previously discussed.
The one that allows us to grab somebody’s head, stuff their face into the mud, and say things like:
“Nobody is oppressing anybody. There is no oppression going on. What oppression? Nobody is inflicting pain and suffering on others. He put his own face in the mud. He is too lazy and apathetic to take is face out of the mud. Nope. No oppression here.”


PROPOSITION: Just because one is adept at the skill and science of amassing money, it does not mean they are adept at the science of human rights and the way the world really works. It does not mean they are aware of what exploitation really is, and how they are exploiting people. It doesn’t make them aware the fact that all the poverty in the world points directly at those scientists of amassing money that are utterly clueless of the implications of their wealth.

CAPITALISM IS GREAT
Most people religiously stand by capitalism. He who makes the rules of the game caters the game to his advantage. Those that created and implemented capitalism used the following justification:
Capitalism: Means of production in private hands. WRONG.
Capitalism: Means of production in our greedy hands. RIGHT.

There are a lot of people who disagree with the terrorism of Ameriterrorica. But they still stand by capitalism like it is a great economic system that = freedom for all. It is not. That is not to say that one cannot use capitalism to become one of them. As difficult as it sounds, there have been many under capitalism that have amassed great wealth. However, this is no different from amassing great wealth in a political/economic system of anarchism. It is not capitalism that allowed them to amass great wealth. It is their use of their skill at amassing wealth that allowed them to do so. Why is doing so easier in capitalist economies? This is true. It is easier. The fact that it is easier is what makes capitalism so bloody flawed. Capitalism simply makes things easier for few people to control more wealth than all the masses put together. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a capitalist system that does not end in a plutocracy. Prevent corruption or don’t prevent corruption. This is still the end result.

Therefore, people come up with other ideas such as communism. Not the greatest economic system out there, but a clear and present threat to the plutocracy. Solution? COMMUNISM = EVIL. Mass media manipulation.
The slaves: “Hmm. Yes indeed. I HATE communists. Where are those bastards so I can kill them.”
The capitalist plutocracy: “I love mass media manipulation that shape the brains of the public for our benefit.”

Sure enough, capitalism is the means of production in private hands. This creates a dependence on the private hands. The result is supposedly competition leading to lower prices. This is a farce. It leads to higher prices, and lower standard of living. This is what academics teaches.
Rich Dad (A totally corrupt mofo, but a financial genius with lots of wisdom to his credit) himself stated it clearly (paraphrase): ‘Academic institutions are training grounds for workers. They do not train people how to be rich. They train people how to work for the rich.”
His poor dad a PHD was broke and in debt. His rich dad, an 8th grade dropout grew wealthier and wealthier.

This simply means that the academic understanding of economics and capitalism are good, but not an understanding of wealth. The global economy is all the countries of the earth put together under one economy. The global economy is a capitalist economy. It is also an economy in which the plutocracy rules the earth with an iron fist inflicting destruction, terrorism, poverty, and the annihilation of human rights everywhere they tread. All for the sake of the endless growth of their affluent lifestyle which grows more and more affluent as the rest of the world grow more and more impoverished.

As the gap widens, standard of living grows worse and worse as more and more are taken away from the public. All public services being slowly taken away one after the other. Education is already being taken away in many countries.

-cs
(Please somebody rewrite this article for me in perfect grammar. Thanks.)
123

Laws of the rich??? How so? Those laws have been enacted in accordance with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ..how could they be "laws of the rich"? Please explain?
Get real. Nobody cares about the bill of rights. The rich step on them like putty. The only rights we have are the Bill of Might Makes Right.
Welcome to real life. Ameriterrorismica.

lixluke, if you want to get out of your hole, get off your ass, stop blaming someone else for your failure, start your own business, and pay what ever the hell you think is fair, as long as you keep believing the crap you do you will always be a chump for the Ruling class of the Classless Society, look at any classless society, there is a top, Rich People, and there is a Bottom everybody fucking else, communism has never worked, just look a N.Korea, it is a truly Classless society, except for Shorty and his pall's, every body else is for them to Fuck. Shorty Fuck's his Buddies, and his buddies fuck the common people, but Shorty get the Virgins first, every body else gets sloppy seconds.

Did you... did you even read the opening post?:rolleyes: HeHe....no. I reacted to the title and assumed...... sorry threadstarter. My Fault.:cool:

Oppression is everywhere. I don't need to give any example. Just walk out the door. Do you not know what oppression is?

American's are not provided with equal protection of human rights. Americans are robbed of everything for the sake of the rich.

I gave you an explanation of why free markets, in which you decide how much to trade your labor for with no coersion (unless you're an employer dealing with union picket lines or something), is not oppression. You do need to give an example if you want to be taken seriously. It would appear that you don't know what oppression is.

PS: I walk out my door several times per day.

It would appear that you don't know what oppression is.
Really? I don't know what oppression is?
Here's your example: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7932485454526581006&q=john+pilger&hl=en

lix:
Nothing can be done until the working class as a whole rises up.
Oh, yes. Working class, rise up! Throw off the chains of capitalist oppresion that supply you with plasma TV's, SUV's, cable TV, ipods, etc. Then you can live like kings the way those lucky communists do in Cuba and North Korea!!!!!!!!!!

You want a clear demonstration of the desirability of communism v/s capitalism to the average working man? America, a capitalist nation, needs to build a wall to keep people out. Communist East Germany had to build a wall to keep people in. Why the hell would workers rise up to impose such a horrible fate upon themselves?

Socialism is in effect nothing more than extremely plesant slavery: "The man who produces while another disposes of his product is a slave" -Ayn Rand

You have some very interesting points there.
I tend to agree with you in some things in relation to the exchange of events (money for labor) being determinent on the actual value of society.
How ever i also support the idea of the infamous gold toilet seat.
Assuming that the gold is not being taken away from some life saving function to be used in such a manner.
Surely it is just as valid that such an item be made for those who can afford it ?

hence we are pushed toward an agreement of determining factors of relative comparrison in terms of the definition of human existence in the economic model.

generaly the working class or white or blue colar workers have been used as this mean social generalisation.

What does come to mind while reading your post;
Possible micro management of the economic model in exclusion of the international impact of any one global organisation in its local effect in chain reactions.

IF a cobler making shoes by hand takes one day to make one pair of shoes then it would be relative value to pay a days wages for those shoes plus material costs plus busines running costs.

IF all busines was made up of this type of localy producing small companies then; YES your model of relative value would work.
BUT, it does not.
we have one company that owns the trucking and transport companies
while it also owns the outlet stores and super markets and chains.
WHILE, it has bought out all other competition so it is now the ONLY
company that is there to purchase off the primary producer.
Farmers are a classic example where the buyer dictates the price instead of the seller (although that falls inline with your model it does not translate as fairness when that same buyer sells the goods and dictates the price for the sale, as then it turns it completely on its head).

hence
globalisation through the idiology of free trade, is purely organisaed and produced for the sole benefit of monopoly organisations
AND
all the profit margin that would have previousely gone into localised support with trade to other merchants is now lost and sent over seas into a large pile where it festers and rots and polutes all those around it while attracting wild animals that seek to scavenge from it and prey uppon those who have grown fat and lazy.

what is also easily forgotten by many people is that there is a standard that people must attain to achieve gainful employment by these multi national monopoly companies.
they must have the shoes that sell at the price of a cobler when they will never last as long, they must have the clothing that is also made of the same low quality and inflated price enough to achieve the sale at reduced cost but not enough turned back to the local community to support the unemployment that has been created by under cutting all local producers.
All the while being raised in a community where there is no local businesses that can train young people, where manditory acceptance levels of education must be purchased when there is no way to make money to pay for it.
This is driving the lower and middle class people into poverty even more soo.

lixluke: I'm really glad you posted that link. I've only watched 22 minutes of it so far (I plan on finishing it later, but I have work to do. I might comment on the rest after I get around to it), but it reveals a VERY important misconception about capitalism. THAT does not show free trade, entirely. It shows a lot of coercion, which has no place in actual capitalism. The fact that the government prohibits unions alone shows this. The government intervention in this case is a huge part of the problem. Another problem is assassinating those who oppose the big businesses. Obviously, this is wrong, and they should be held accountable. This is not inherent to capitalism, but to GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND FAVORITISM, which, as it happens, is completely opposite of what real capitalism denotes. I hope this makes sense to you, and can change the way you look at free markets. Indonesia does not have a free market. If it did, it would be much better off.

As far as the horrendous working conditions, I have to point out: if they had better options available to them, they would take those instead of the current sweatshops. So obviously, the sweatshops offer BETTER conditions than ANYWHERE else they could get jobs. I know you'll argue it's because of monopolies, but again, this is a result of government intervention, which is the opposite of capitalism.

ripleofdeath: Thank you for restoring my faith in the non-free-marketist race. I sincerely appreciate the civility of your reply and the fact that you EXPLAINED your views with logic. However, I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure I understood all of it.

"How ever i also support the idea of the infamous gold toilet seat.
Assuming that the gold is not being taken away from some life saving function to be used in such a manner.
Surely it is just as valid that such an item be made for those who can afford it ?" If you mean that you think someone should be able to buy themselves a gold toilet seat with their money, I agree. If you mean that it should be able to be made with everyone else's money, then I have no idea what your justification is. If someone wants to use their own gold and money, they can do absolutely whatever they want with it (so long as that isn't bludgeoning someone else's head with the gold brick.)

"IF a cobler making shoes by hand takes one day to make one pair of shoes then it would be relative value to pay a days wages for those shoes plus material costs plus busines running costs." The actual relative value for the shoes would just be whatever they're worth to someone. The "day's wage" is only defined AFTER the cost of production has been subtracted from the value of the shoes. There isn't any real value for a day's wage. It just so happens that there will be a day's wage after production is subtracted because no one would go into the cobbling business otherwise.

"Farmers are a classic example where the buyer dictates the price instead of the seller (although that falls inline with your model it does not translate as fairness when that same buyer sells the goods and dictates the price for the sale, as then it turns it completely on its head)." The buyer ALWAYS dictates the price of a product, just as the seller ALWAYS dictates the price of compensation. It is an equal agreement, where each dictate what they are willing to give, and eventually agree. If by "the same buyer sells the good and dictates the price for sale" you are referring to speculators, then I have to ask, why can't farmers do this? Because it is risky, and they don't want to take the risk. Speculators lose more than they gain, on average. Some make good decisions, or get lucky, or however you want to look at it. But the farmers could do the same thing as speculators, but it's not worth it to them. If I misinterpreted that, please tell me.

"all the profit margin that would have previousely gone into localised support with trade to other merchants is now lost and sent over seas into a large pile where it festers and rots and polutes all those around it while attracting wild animals that seek to scavenge from it and prey uppon those who have grown fat and lazy." Very little money is just horded and wasted. Even those greedy capitalists who accrue enormous amounts of money and just put them in banks instead of contributing to people's welfare is really invested. Because the BANKS take that money and invest it to businesses who use it to expand and make their business more lucrative, productive, and efficient.

"they must have the shoes that sell at the price of a cobler when they will never last as long" Only if they want shoes at the price of a cobbler when they will never last as long. The people dictate what businesses survive by giving them money for their products. If the multinational companies have a less desirable product, they won't be purchased. Note "less desirable." I know this isn't the same as "lower quality," because sometimes people--in their great wisdom--PREFER lower quality products. I couldn't tell you why, but I don't think it's MY place to tell them that their preferences are wrong and they should be forced to purchase products they would rather not have. Local producers are only cut when they produce less desirable products, in which case, they shouldn't be kept in that industry anyway. Sometimes businesses have to die in order to allow the growth of more efficient or desirable industries.

If I didn't understand some of what you said correctly, please clarify it. And if you see anything fallacious in my argument, hit away--I'm pretty new to this stuff, and I know it all making sense in my head doesn't mean it makes real sense =P

yuri_sakazaki
<>In Answer to your Questions and querys, i will quote a few things that i find remind me of what i wonder to be the actual underlying thought i have in regard to what i deem may be that which you are unsure of.
__
This is not inherent to capitalism, but to GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND FAVORITISM, which, as it happens, is completely opposite of what real capitalism denotes.
__
If you mean that you think someone should be able to buy themselves a gold toilet seat with their money, I agree.
__
There isn't any real value for a day's wage. It just so happens that there will be a day's wage after production is subtracted because no one would go into the cobbling business otherwise.
__
__

i am left asking the question "who" plans for the future ?
there is 2 market models being suggested here and i suspect both tend to go against the others principals (nothing new in the real world obviousely as there is a vast array of different systems some produce some do not)

tendering for a single product
Speculation of a product taking it to mass production and distribution without any actual consumer sales being made.

on the one had we have a "do not produce until you have an order" as that will give you buyer choice thus buyer driven market.

the consumer is the one with the money, to circumvent this is to speculate.

Side note RE farmers; farmers have no one else to sell to once the wharehousing company has been bought out by the same company that own the shop, the trucking company, and the wharehousing company.
it is now common place for the one single company to own everything from the dirt something is grown in to the shop it is sold in, thus allowing setting up all types of massive tax rebate situations that translate directly as theft of tax money.

it is just such a massive topic with soo much involved i find it a little difficult at this moment o do it justice in proper explanation.
Soo i will leave ti there for now with a question at the end RE planning.




<>one question i have re absolutism in reality as question to large generalisation or market reality.
Your comment on speculators
__
""Speculators lose more than they gain, on average.""
__
<>if this were correct then surely speculators would no go into speculation OR
it would be a consistent loss of cash which would be identafied by market analysts ?
i am assuming that you mean a great deal may lose money but not th emajority otherwise speculation in this market would not continue to be a viable investment given historical documentation.



Who is it that pays for roads ?
electricity making factorys
hospitals
government buildings ?

where does this money come from ?
who is the person who decided to purchase it ?
who is the person who payed the money for it ?

where is the supply and demand curve graph that shows the government investment and propergation of tax and services to show it is actualy making money and something someoen is buying ?

people can not choose not to use a road to get somewhere.
they can not just decide to drive their car along the dirt to get to their job.

people are forced to use things which are owned by companies.
these companys never came to any agreement of sale or service with those using it.

how does Capitalism create a country ?

i suggest it does not and can not, and the only possible way a country and community can be created is threough socialism.

Keep in mind i am not talking about communism
and i support a mixed market economy where there is state controlled growth
and central taxation and free market expresion where anyone allowing they are not a criminal and with such liek criminal intent, may open a busines of any type.
with "REAL" free press that does not need to pander to its owners and is not driven by a economic model but by a scientific and informative model.

On the farmers: They are not REQUIRED to sell to the company that owns the trucks and wharehouses and everything. They could sell directly to the population, but it more efficient to divide and specialize the operations involved in growing and selling food, so it is less costly, so it is more beneficial to the farmer. If going through the middleman supercompany cost the farmer more than it saved them, they wouldn't do it. Of course, it is VERY difficult for a farmer to sell enough directly to the population, but it is always an option to them. The supercompany gains more leverage as they get control of more of the operations, but they are never in a position to force the farmer to use them.

"thus allowing setting up all types of massive tax rebate situations that translate directly as theft of tax money." This sounds like a fair complaint, but it seems like it's probably more the fault of loopholes in the government than a free market. But I don't know enough about it to definitively say, really.

On speculators: you ask why they do it. Why do gamblers gamble? On average, they lose. It is fixed this way so that the bookies make more money than they lose off of the gamblers. There isn't anyone making sure speculators don't profit, but it just so happens that they lose money on average. Either a speculator is unusually talented and doesn't lose money, or they do it because they want to get lucky. Unfortunately, under the free market, people are allowed to make bad decisions, but on the whole they end up (all consumers, not just speculators now) making better decisions than a group of beaurocrats have ever been able to.

I addressed, though maybe not clearly enough, your point about roads and military and police in another post. The government should violate our rights to property a little so that others are not as capable of violating all of our rights more. It is not ideal, but very very practical. I am not advocating anarcho-capitalism, only complete lack of government intervention in private enterprise (aside from enforcing contracts and such). The government has to tax us some in order to protect us more. But when they tax us to set up businesses that we don't want or need (if we wanted and needed them more than they cost to exist and run, entrepeneurs would go into the business for profits anyway, and then it would be supplied. If we only want or need them less than the value of its cost to exist, then we would be forced to trade things of higher value for lower value in order to attain it, and therefore, it wouldn't be worth it to anyone to keep it in existence), all they are doing is slowing production.

"people can not choose not to use a road to get somewhere.
they can not just decide to drive their car along the dirt to get to their job.
people are forced to use things which are owned by companies.
these companys never came to any agreement of sale or service with those using it." That's a very interesting point. Can you give me an example of this that where people are forced to do things with private businesses? They are forced to pay for roads and such because the government has afforded itself the right to take money by coersion. Private businesses are not legally allowed to do this, though, so I don't see where they can force anyone to do anything.

hmmm
i think i understand what you are outlining as an idealised form of capitalism, and i tend to agree with you that if in place of absolute no corruption,
and allowing that the majority of people had empathy,
then it would work, given that all companies oprerated like one or 2 i have seen documented on tv in the usa.
however, there are still yet a few situations which exclude this even in the most
law abviding and good intent ( a society where peopel would not avoid paying money for something just because it was not technicaly legal not to but they would pay it because they were driven by morals and ethics to make things fair and reasonbable).

mental health
health (main health care)
Dental health

these are things most can not aford th eprice of and tend to have a total over all negative gain IF peopel are delivered the highest quality of health care pssible that is technologicaly possible,
BUT the free market version of health care profits from reducing the quality of care as a burdon toward profitable existence, hence a neggative gain of sociatal health.

peopel who can not work due to mental health, are an interesting example, and their family members who spend all their time caring for them.

when it seems there is no provision for these peopel in a capitalist system.
what would you propose to be a vialble alternative to dealing with these hundreds of thousands of mentaly ill and dissabled people ?
how do they generate profit to validate their place in the capitalist model ?

madan:

Oh, yes. Working class, rise up! Throw off the chains of capitalist oppresion that supply you with plasma TV's, SUV's, cable TV, ipods, etc.

Funny. I haven't seen many of the working class with plasma TV's or SUV's. Especially not in 3rd world countries. Slav... errm, 'workers' in Asia, Africa and Arabia might be lucky if they manage to earn enough money to buy food for their family.


Then you can live like kings the way those lucky communists do in Cuba and North Korea!!!!!!!!!!

Or they can live like kings like those lucky capitalists do in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and numerous African countries!

And may I point out that Fidel improved Cuba is a number of ways. He was certainly an improvement to Batista.


You want a clear demonstration of the desirability of communism v/s capitalism to the average working man? America, a capitalist nation, needs to build a wall to keep people out. Communist East Germany had to build a wall to keep people in. Why the hell would workers rise up to impose such a horrible fate upon themselves?

The Soviets ceased to be Communists in 1924.
Try again.

You want a clear demonstration of the desirability of communism v/s capitalism to the average working man? America, a capitalist nation, needs to build a wall to keep people out. Communist East Germany had to build a wall to keep people in. Why the hell would workers rise up to impose such a horrible fate upon themselves?



Pure Quality
now lets say all those border jumping mexicans stop coming into the usa and working at slave labor rates with no health care or housing...

then what ?

first you lot commit genocide on the Native americans
then you import africans to use as slaves to build the country for you.
now you import slave labor from mexico to run your economy for you.

personaly i do not care much for your Capitalism thanks all the same
it tends to sound allot more like totalitarianism when one scratchs at the surface a little.

ripleofdeath, your own Bio has the answer to your complaint, "what is is not what was" the world has changed, and communism has shown that it is not a viable governing form, and for as bad as our form of Representative Republic/ Democracy, is everyone seems to want to live here, as shown by the use of their feet to vote, even the illegal have such a better life living in the shadows of our system that they risk death to get here, now how much better could their lives be if they did this legally, and it still comes down to the fact that the Communist forms of government had to build to build walls to keep their people under their thumb, and they died to get out, we may have to build walls to keep people out, and as I say it would be far better if they would do this legally, and enjoy the full fruits of Capitalism.

lixluke: I'm really glad you posted that link. I've only watched 22 minutes of it so far (I plan on finishing it later, but I have work to do. I might comment on the rest after I get around to it), but it reveals a VERY important misconception about capitalism. THAT does not show free trade, entirely. It shows a lot of coercion, which has no place in actual capitalism. The fact that the government prohibits unions alone shows this. The government intervention in this case is a huge part of the problem. Another problem is assassinating those who oppose the big businesses. Obviously, this is wrong, and they should be held accountable. This is not inherent to capitalism, but to GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND FAVORITISM, which, as it happens, is completely opposite of what real capitalism denotes. I hope this makes sense to you, and can change the way you look at free markets.
It makes total sense. It only changes the way I look at you as an asshole for stating that you hope this changes teh way I look at something. Stop trying to change the way people look at things, because it depicts you as a total insolent asshole. The OFFICIAL RULES OF DEBATE (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58531) are not about persuasion or changing anything. If that is your interest, I suggest you get lost and learn some logic, and stop trying to change people's views. It is a totally ignorant position.

As for your point, it does make sense. You are basically arguing that this behavior has no place in actual communism. This is not inherent to communism, but is completely the opposite of what real communism denotes. Yes we have heard these arguments many times. Ideally, it supposedly works, but in actual practice, it does not work. You're hypocrtical viewpoint is totally one sided, and therefore, has no basis in objective logic. Neither capitalism or communism work. They both have the exact same results as you so gleefully described.

I hope this makes sense to you, and "can change the way you look at free markets". Otherwise, discontinue asshole comments such as this, and follow the rules of debate properly for an orderly discussion.

Here is an example of the similarities between procapitalists and procommunists:
I might comment on the rest after I get around to it), but it reveals a VERY important misconception about ccommunism. THAT does not show free trade, entirely. It shows a lot of coercion, which has no place in actual communism. The fact that the government prohibits unions alone shows this. The government intervention in this case is a huge part of the problem. Another problem is assassinating those who oppose the big businesses. Obviously, this is wrong, and they should be held accountable. This is not inherent to communism, but to GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND FAVORITISM, which, as it happens, is completely opposite of what real communism denotes. I hope this makes sense to you, and can change the way you look at free markets.
What a coincidence. They use the exact same arguments in their attempts to prove that their system works.

FACT:
1. Communism does not work in the real world or an ideal world.
2. Capitalism does not work in the real world or an ideal world.
3. Real city design scientists do not question whether these work or not. They simply do not acknowledge them. Nobody cares about primitive nonsense methods of policy manipulation in disguise as real economic systems.

"these are things most can not aford th eprice of and tend to have a total over all negative gain IF peopel are delivered the highest quality of health care pssible that is technologicaly possible,
BUT the free market version of health care profits from reducing the quality of care as a burdon toward profitable existence, hence a neggative gain of sociatal health.

peopel who can not work due to mental health, are an interesting example, and their family members who spend all their time caring for them.

when it seems there is no provision for these peopel in a capitalist system.
what would you propose to be a vialble alternative to dealing with these hundreds of thousands of mentaly ill and dissabled people ?
how do they generate profit to validate their place in the capitalist model ?"

This is the toughest part about capitalism. The way these people are taken care of in capitalist societies is that people volunteer to take care of them. Before you say, "people are too greedy," look at it this way: All of the people who would VOTE for taxes to help these people in socialist communities should VOLUNTEER to give money toward the same purposes. I don't see why anyone would be willing to vote for mandatory fees toward it but not be willing to volunteer the fees. And, if these things were taken care of by private charities, they would be more efficient (the government is inefficient, no matter what economic stance you have. And this ought to be taken into account.) However, I have to admit that it does have its risks.

A central idea behind capitalism is not so much that you're entitled to keep what you earn, but that no one else has the right to take it from you forcibly. Disabled people don't have the inherent right to take it from you, even if it's necessary to their survival. It's certainly unfortunate that it works out that way, but I can't get around the fact that no one has the right to take anyone else's property. But, as you may have been able to tell, I'm somewhat on the fence about it. It is too emotionally and pragmatically complex for me to be certain, in any case.

"BUT the free market version of health care profits from reducing the quality of care as a burdon toward profitable existence, hence a neggative gain of sociatal health." This is just not true. Look at it this way: If you were a doctor who was capable of providing a better (and therefore more desired) service than your competitors for a higher price, you would, because there are always people who prefer the best and are willing to pay more for it. I know someone in The Netherlands whose mother had a relatively minor heart condition that became a permanent problem because the socialized health care was so backed up, and she couldn't receive the simple treatment necessary in time. In privatized health care, she could go to any doctor and get the treatment just by paying for it.

lixluke: I might not respond to you after this, because you aren't even listening to me anyway. Now if an objective third party wouldn't mind having a little exersize: Who has been more of an insolent asshole- me or lixluke? I think you've been much less cooperative and civil this whole time. Also, keep in mind, I never used "look at Russia, China, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, Cuba, etc" as an argument against capitalism. That came out of nowhere. You're lumping me in with other anti-communists without understanding my reasons. As for the ideal Marxist society: it has, as far as I know, no government and no coersion. And therefore, it's capitalist (a more ideal and preferable capitalist situation, in fact). Capitalism has room for charity, you know. If people want to voluntarily share their products, that is their right, and an ethical decision to exersize with their right. I am only opposed to FORCING people to share by means of taxes.

Just because there isn't an absolutely capitalist society on Earth doesn't mean that one wouldn't work. Just because there has never been an absolutely communist society on Earth doesn't mean it would work. The fact that the way people attempt to create communism is through forcible taxation is wrong, not communism itself. It is only a matter of voluntary decisions versus forced coersion.

ripleofdeath, your own Bio has the answer to your complaint, "what is is not what was" the world has changed, and communism has shown that it is not a viable governing form, and for as bad as our form of Representative Republic/ Democracy, is everyone seems to want to live here, as shown by the use of their feet to vote, even the illegal have such a better life living in the shadows of our system that they risk death to get here, now how much better could their lives be if they did this legally, and it still comes down to the fact that the Communist forms of government had to build to build walls to keep their people under their thumb, and they died to get out, we may have to build walls to keep people out, and as I say it would be far better if they would do this legally, and enjoy the full fruits of Capitalism.

True what is, is not wat was.
AND
you are either not reading my posts comprehesively OR you have missed a few posts i have made.
what i have mentioned is that i beleive in a government regulated free market policy of state controlled social security based on the principal of socilism.
Socialism has as much to do with communism as you might feel capitalism is similar to communism.
(you might want to read that bit a couple of times as my explanations can be a little difficult for many to follow).

Try and keep in mind a know a great deal more than what i post in these threads.
the petrol chemical companies in Mexico are not paying enough tax to support the natural resources that should be owned by all people who live in mexico.
and/or massive theft is going on to deny the people who supposedly own the country democracticaly what is rightfully theirs.
and
to suggest that there is no right to own resources, then who is it that is stealing money in tax and planning consents and licenses off those who get there first ?
AND
what is stopping anyone else from taking those resources by force to make it thiers as that would be the same logic as you are suggesting in regard to retrospective justice.

WAR
if i was to start a war and take military control of the USA then this would also align with the comment application (in your application of it NOT mine)
"what is, is not what was".
once i have taken military control of the USA then it will be my country.
and
thus no one else will have claim to it.
note the fundermental principal of retrospective justice.

once a crime has been committed then you can not prosecute the person for committing it because they are no longer committing any crime.

lixluke: I might not respond to you after this, because you aren't even listening to me anyway. Now if an objective third party wouldn't mind having a little exersize: Who has been more of an insolent asshole- me or lixluke? I think you've been much less cooperative and civil this whole time. Also, keep in mind, I never used "look at Russia, China, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, Cuba, etc" as an argument against capitalism. That came out of nowhere. You're lumping me in with other anti-communists without understanding my reasons. As for the ideal Marxist society: it has, as far as I know, no government and no coersion. And therefore, it's capitalist (a more ideal and preferable capitalist situation, in fact). Capitalism has room for charity, you know. If people want to voluntarily share their products, that is their right, and an ethical decision to exersize with their right. I am only opposed to FORCING people to share by means of taxes.

Just because there isn't an absolutely capitalist society on Earth doesn't mean that one wouldn't work. Just because there has never been an absolutely communist society on Earth doesn't mean it would work. The fact that the way people attempt to create communism is through forcible taxation is wrong, not communism itself. It is only a matter of voluntary decisions versus forced coersion.
It is you that clearly used arguments that violate the rules of debate.
Your reasoning is exactly the same as that of communism.

You have witness the results of Capitalism. You claim these are not the results of capitalism because these are due to external modules. That if such external modules did not have an effect, capitalism would work fine.
Unfortunately, this is the exact same argument as communism. Why? Because neither moronomic system works. Not in real life. Not in an idea situation. They are garbo. Capitalism is the favored system for oppressing earth in millions upon millions of situationals.

It is you that clearly used arguments that violate the rules of debate.
Your reasoning is exactly the same as that of communism.

You have witness the results of Capitalism. You claim these are not the results of capitalism because these are due to external modules. That if such external modules did not have an effect, capitalism would work fine.
Unfortunately, this is the exact same argument as communism. Why? Because neither moronomic system works. Not in real life. Not in an idea situation. They are garbo. Capitalism is the favored system for oppressing earth in millions upon millions of situationals.
What is your favoured system?

In privatized health care, she could go to any doctor and get the treatment just by paying for it.

how can she pay for it when she does not have the money ?


and ignoring a large contingent of society is not a comprehensive political alternative, nspite of that being the case in the usa and north korea where people are starved to death, and zimbabwi, and one or two other countrys.

to suggest that the system of social welfare is unworkable because of inneficiency is making a claim about the usa republican party, and that these supposed leaders of the free world busines multi national billion dollar companies are
in fact
incapable of runnign a company or organisation properly and efficiently.

"how can she pay for it when she does not have the money ?


and ignoring a large contingent of society is not a comprehensive political alternative, nspite of that being the case in the usa and north korea where people are starved to death, and zimbabwi, and one or two other countrys.

to suggest that the system of social welfare is unworkable because of inneficiency is making a claim about the usa republican party, and that these supposed leaders of the free world busines multi national billion dollar companies are
in fact
incapable of runnign a company or organisation properly and efficiently."

Like I said, capitalism doesn't take care of everyone, but it is the only system that doesn't violate people's rights. It is a violation of one's rights to be forced to pay for someone else's welfare. At this point, it's a matter of morality: if you think it's worth it to violate rights in order to provide a sub-par health care system for everyone (I don't mean that to sound negative, but that's the case), then you should support government control. If you think it's worth it to do absolutely whatever you want with your property so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else, you shouldn't support government control. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would personally rather preserve all of our rights (and therefore our welfare) than the physical welfare of some.

I have made no claim on the republican party. I said that governments (any governments) don't run industries as efficiently as private businesses because the people making decisions DON'T do it based on what's in demand and what people want. Also, they are dealing with EVERYONE ELSE'S money rather than their own, so they aren't as concerned with using it economically and productively.

Moreover, the people in the government are not the runners of multinational companies, necessarily. And even if they are, they won't run government programs the same way they run their companies.

Lixlike: From now on, I refuse to respond to you. Take that as victory, if you want.

Moreover, the people in the government are not the runners of multinational companies, necessarily. And even if they are, they won't run government programs the same way they run their companies.

Admittedly i am refering to ideals as it seems to me we need to focus on achieving ideals if we are to move forward past the level of kill or be killed type of society.

surely it is possible to perceive the country as a whole, as a busines ?
orther wise if one is not to conceive the country as a whole as a busines then what do the collection of businesses actualy define ?

Surely the over all effect must be profitable in genral ?
Otherwise it goes backwards and creates poverty ?

Now there is the model of where society is a feeding ground like a jungle where predators feed off the sick and dying and those who are the more superior in abillity may sit at the top feeding off the under class dying off.
This is representative of the simple model of paying someone less than it costs to sustain life in genral to the cost of that society.

This is the actual concept that i have been eluding to, and now i outline it for you in an attempt for you to gain some clarity on the precise model that i perceive Capitalism to be as a Governing political model.

and
once one sets a rule of "Law of the Jungle" uppon a society it effectively removes the requirement and abillity of those at the bottom to obey the larger more genral rules of "thou shalt not kill" and other cross cultural ideals in regard to most religions and social systems.


What are you thoughts SPECIFICALLY on this concept of trickle down moral rule of Survival of the fittest and the disparity in obeying laws that mearly protect some and not all given the obviouse kill or be killed reality that then operates at the bottom of the pile ?

This is where the right wing control and re-definition of Police comes into the equation.
Creating and or re designing and funding of police to be a private army that target the poor starving people to kil them off and keep them from stealing food and money for medical needs.

OR

Do you support the removal/sacking of the police and army as none of them are profit making organisations ?
How does a police force or army make a profit to be self sufficient to be inline with the Capitalist model ?

Do you support the removal/sacking of the police and army as none of them are profit making organisations ?
How does a police force or army make a profit to be self sufficient to be inline with the Capitalist model ?

Clearly the capitalists should pay for their own police. A rent-a-cop policeforce. The same for the army. A rent-a-rambo army.

Clearly the capitalists should pay for their own police. A rent-a-cop policeforce. The same for the army. A rent-a-rambo army.

Thus the poor and those who do not pay for them will not be responsible to them or their laws making them gun slingers just like the way the west was genocidaly won.
History repeats, must be the mexicans turn to be wiped out by the Capitalist model, but then once they are all dead and gone who will work for the slave wages then ?
China better stop killing off innocent people by the thousands as they will need them to follow this glorious model of how to be a canibal of the species.

Out-Sourcing jobs to pay a lower wage rate to sustain unrealistic growth so those with millions and billions may continue to make millions and billions so those feeding off them living with millions and hundreds of thousands...etc...
all feeding off the poor paying less than is required to sustain life for the community,
Thus a process of elimination unles prolific breeding is done and slums are maintained as breeding grounds for those who will be worked to death.

I must say i am truely astounded that no one has yet made a study and released it from one of (or several) universaties in the world as this system is doomed to fail and actualy designed to fail.

Maybe it is just that there are few left who can think for themselfs and also have the level of mental processing ability that i have.
i do not know the answer to that question obviousely but it is one i have been asking myself now for over 10 years.

Sustainability
is this a dirty word ?

And needless to say why should taxes be used to pay for education? The commerical sector will have to provide its own.

And needless to say why should taxes be used to pay for education? The commerical sector will have to provide its own.

My eyes!! Oh my eyes!!! my eyes just broke.:eek:

My eyes!! Oh my eyes!!! my eyes just broke.:eek:

ctrl+A the whole thing.

ctrl+A the whole thing.

My selection color is YELLOW!!!!

My selection color is YELLOW!!!!

oh my...

And needless to say why should taxes be used to pay for education? The commerical sector will have to provide its own.

indeed indeed... but lets face it.
none of the multi national companies are going to pay for the education required to train the sheep into monkey-sheeple capable of pulling the levers and pushing the buttons and turning the knobs.

SOo...
yet again that is another fundermental principal of why Capitalism is a failed model that relys on Socialism to prop it up (effectively stealing off the poor people selling them socialism while making them subject to the Capitalist benefits (which is poverty and starvation and no health care).

Bring on the Revolution and lets start killing.
China are now a totalatarian dictatorship the same as North Korea
The mighty Free USA is just the same.
Maybe Europe need to start borrowing Israels wall building crew for a mega wall on steriods to keep out all those totalatarian capitalist predators wanting to lie cheat and steal from Socialist people while trying to pretend theyare their friend.

mmmm
i like that word "Monkey-Sheeple"
they flock they F_ck they Flockin F_ck it all up
feed em to the cannons
in cinimas soon near you
"Attack of the Capitalist-Commi Monkey-Sheeple"
Episode one
"Lubricate my war thing, while i terrorise your bending over to pick through rubbish bins"

Whore the Pimp and Terrorise the War

And needless to say why should taxes be used to pay for education? The commerical sector will have to provide its own.

SIDE NOTE:
How many of you have seen oprahs Documentry on High Schools ?

From the window of the school you can see the white house, but your best to take your own portable toilet and wear a hard hat becuase they are faling down around the ears of the children.

i gues thats where the money comes from to pay for the reclamation of all that oil that was stolen off the usa and hidden under the middle eastern deserts.

http://search.oprah.com

realy ...
think about it.
there is more people being murderred in the usa each year than soldiers dying in iraq.
there are more people starving to death and dying from malnourishment in the usa each day than soldiers dying in iraq.

China is executing thousands of innocent people and selling their body parts to foriegners.
North Korea is starving millions to death (has already starved a million or 2 to death)
Zimbabwi is currently in the process of starving a couple of million to death.
Genocide is going on un-abated in several other African Countrys.
Boat loads of children are being traded and sold for slaves in between countrys.

Given all this death and Violence the usa and its little issues realy does not add up to much, they just have the media so can shout the loudest on what ever they want to blame things on or use for properganda.

People like Bin Laden only need to support Capitalism if they wish to see the distruction of the Capitalist regimes.

Have a think about China
when the Olympics will be going on while they are rounding up and executing innocent people to sell off their body parts, while the world sit around playing sports.

Crazzy fucking species, im getting sick of it.
I was dearly hoping the Bird Flu would take out a couple of billion but only issue is it would not kill those at the top who maintain the death and distruction.

SIDE NOTE:
How many of you have seen oprahs Documentry on High Schools ?


Found it

http://www.oprah.com/about/press/releases/200604/press_releases_20060407.jhtml

What is your favoured system?
None of the above. They are all totally flawed.

I have designs based on real science.
Understanding of human development.
Understanding of ethics and what freedom means.
Understanding how to measure a nation's ability to function.

We cannot view the country as a business because it is really a collection of businesses, all with completely different purposes. In capitalism, the success of one business tends to lead to the success of all businesses (unless all of the profits are simply hoarded, but this almost never happens. Even if they're put in the bank, this is putting it back into the economy because the banks make loans to people with it). But their end goal isn't to serve the country, only themselves. It just so happens that serving themselves usually serves the country also, because the best way to serve themselves is to make their methods of production more efficient, so they get more money out of the price charged. And the more efficient our production is, the better off we are.

"This is representative of the simple model of paying someone less than it costs to sustain life in genral to the cost of that society." I look at it in a different way: if a person can't offer society enough for anyone in society to be willing to keep them alive (because their wages for amount of work they can do are less than the cost of living), then they are consuming more than they are producing, and making everyone poorer. This isn't to say we should let them die; we need to be empathetic. But it isn't anyone else's obligation to keep them alive at this point. I view these things as what people have a right to. No one has a right to be kept alive (except children by their parents), but only to not be killed. So: ECONOMICALLY, it is better to let them die. ETHICALLY, it is not. I think it should be up to the people to decide what ethics they want to live by, as long as it doesn't INFRINGE on other people's rights. Not providing for someone isn't a violation unless you have agreed to provide for them. And in socialism, some people agree to provide for someone with everyone else's money. It should be an individual choice, and we should praise those who are ethical.

"What are you thoughts SPECIFICALLY on this concept of trickle down moral rule of Survival of the fittest and the disparity in obeying laws that mearly protect some and not all given the obviouse kill or be killed reality that then operates at the bottom of the pile ?" This is an EXCELLENT point, which is actually why I took so long to respond (I had to think it over). I think for the most part this only results in theft, so I'll address it that way: a homeless person might steal 80 loaves of bread in a year to survive from 80 different random people. This is a problem, granted. But under socialism, the GOVERNMENT might steal a tenth of a loaf of bread from 1,000 people, resulting in 100 loaves of bread to give to the homeless person. This is, overall, a greater violation.

Also, the government isn't very capable of determining who really needs the service and who is just lazy. Yesterday, for example, I found out that one of my friends is "apparently crazy enough for free money from the government," as he said it. If he gets his own apartment, they pay for it. If he starts going to college, pay for it. If he gets a job, he gets less money OVERALL, not just from the government. And he gets enough from the government to live with all of the luxuries he wants (he's not very demanding, but he does do leisurely things--and now ALL of his time is free time because he doesn't need a job.) He's perfectly capable of working, and he's very intelligent. It's a loophole, but the government does stuff like this maybe more often than you'd think, and at least more often than it should. (This is in the USA, in case you didn't know where I was)

"Do you support the removal/sacking of the police and army as none of them are profit making organisations ?
How does a police force or army make a profit to be self sufficient to be inline with the Capitalist model ?" I don't support removal of the police and army because they protect our rights more than they violate them. Look at it this way (which it seems like you already do): they steal a couple of thousand dollars a year from us so that others will not steal everything or kill us. It's unfortunate that it has to be done by stealing, but overall, it works out to everyone's advantage.

I think if the government didn't take care of police, it could be privatized, but it would be very complicated and confusing, and not really necessary anyway. Although police do not make a "profit," they do produce more for the community than they consume (by preventing things from being destroyed), thus making them an essentially profitable entity. The same goes for the army.

"Out-Sourcing jobs to pay a lower wage rate to sustain unrealistic growth so those with millions and billions may continue to make millions and billions so those feeding off them living with millions and hundreds of thousands...etc...
all feeding off the poor paying less than is required to sustain life for the community,
Thus a process of elimination unles prolific breeding is done and slums are maintained as breeding grounds for those who will be worked to death." A coulpe of things should be pointed out for this: when those with millions continue to make millions, they USE the millions. Sometimes for less important uses than others (such as building mansions), but generally, they INVEST the majority of their money. This means that other businesses get to use it temporarily and expand their capital, thus making their businesses more efficient and produce more. And the other point is that if the people in slums could provide work equal in value to the cost of keeping them alive, the capitalists would do it, because it would be more efficient. There isn't enough unemployment that they can just let their workers die and replace them with new starving ones, like there was in the 1800's some places.

"And needless to say why should taxes be used to pay for education? The commerical sector will have to provide its own." Well, I'm not sure the government should pay for education, only because if it was privatized, competition would make the standards higher. The government should probably provide vouchers (and wean us off of them eventually, IF PRACTICAL--so not necessarily) but currently the legislation on vouchers is pretty messed up. I'm not too sure either way about this, but there is an interesting case to be made against government schools. http://www.schoolandstate.org/case.htm

"when the Olympics will be going on while they are rounding up and executing innocent people to sell off their body parts, while the world sit around playing sports." This isn't capitalism. This is a crazy government controlling everything, like I said with Indonesia. It's a very important distinction, just like it's important to distinguish between the Soviet Union and communism.

I'm sorry for making such a huge post. Being as lazy as I am, I hate it when people make single posts this big, but for whoever reads it all, props and thanks.

We cannot view the country as a business because it is really a collection of businesses, all with completely different purposes. In capitalism, the success of one business tends to lead to the success of all businesses (unless all of the profits are simply hoarded, but this almost never happens. Even if they're put in the bank, this is putting it back into the economy because the banks make loans to people with it). But their end goal isn't to serve the country, only themselves. It just so happens that serving themselves usually serves the country also, because the best way to serve themselves is to make their methods of production more efficient, so they get more money out of the price charged. And the more efficient our production is, the better off we are.

"This is representative of the simple model of paying someone less than it costs to sustain life in genral to the cost of that society." I look at it in a different way: if a person can't offer society enough for anyone in society to be willing to keep them alive (because their wages for amount of work they can do are less than the cost of living), then they are consuming more than they are producing, and making everyone poorer. This isn't to say we should let them die; we need to be empathetic. But it isn't anyone else's obligation to keep them alive at this point. I view these things as what people have a right to. No one has a right to be kept alive (except children by their parents), but only to not be killed. So: ECONOMICALLY, it is better to let them die. ETHICALLY, it is not. I think it should be up to the people to decide what ethics they want to live by, as long as it doesn't INFRINGE on other people's rights. Not providing for someone isn't a violation unless you have agreed to provide for them. And in socialism, some people agree to provide for someone with everyone else's money. It should be an individual choice, and we should praise those who are ethical.

"What are you thoughts SPECIFICALLY on this concept of trickle down moral rule of Survival of the fittest and the disparity in obeying laws that mearly protect some and not all given the obviouse kill or be killed reality that then operates at the bottom of the pile ?" This is an EXCELLENT point, which is actually why I took so long to respond (I had to think it over). I think for the most part this only results in theft, so I'll address it that way: a homeless person might steal 80 loaves of bread in a year to survive from 80 different random people. This is a problem, granted. But under socialism, the GOVERNMENT might steal a tenth of a loaf of bread from 1,000 people, resulting in 100 loaves of bread to give to the homeless person. This is, overall, a greater violation.

Also, the government isn't very capable of determining who really needs the service and who is just lazy. Yesterday, for example, I found out that one of my friends is "apparently crazy enough for free money from the government," as he said it. If he gets his own apartment, they pay for it. If he starts going to college, pay for it. If he gets a job, he gets less money OVERALL, not just from the government. And he gets enough from the government to live with all of the luxuries he wants (he's not very demanding, but he does do leisurely things--and now ALL of his time is free time because he doesn't need a job.) He's perfectly capable of working, and he's very intelligent. It's a loophole, but the government does stuff like this maybe more often than you'd think, and at least more often than it should. (This is in the USA, in case you didn't know where I was)

"Do you support the removal/sacking of the police and army as none of them are profit making organisations ?
How does a police force or army make a profit to be self sufficient to be inline with the Capitalist model ?" I don't support removal of the police and army because they protect our rights more than they violate them. Look at it this way (which it seems like you already do): they steal a couple of thousand dollars a year from us so that others will not steal everything or kill us. It's unfortunate that it has to be done by stealing, but overall, it works out to everyone's advantage.

I think if the government didn't take care of police, it could be privatized, but it would be very complicated and confusing, and not really necessary anyway. Although police do not make a "profit," they do produce more for the community than they consume (by preventing things from being destroyed), thus making them an essentially profitable entity. The same goes for the army.

"Out-Sourcing jobs to pay a lower wage rate to sustain unrealistic growth so those with millions and billions may continue to make millions and billions so those feeding off them living with millions and hundreds of thousands...etc...
all feeding off the poor paying less than is required to sustain life for the community,
Thus a process of elimination unles prolific breeding is done and slums are maintained as breeding grounds for those who will be worked to death." A coulpe of things should be pointed out for this: when those with millions continue to make millions, they USE the millions. Sometimes for less important uses than others (such as building mansions), but generally, they INVEST the majority of their money. This means that other businesses get to use it temporarily and expand their capital, thus making their businesses more efficient and produce more. And the other point is that if the people in slums could provide work equal in value to the cost of keeping them alive, the capitalists would do it, because it would be more efficient. There isn't enough unemployment that they can just let their workers die and replace them with new starving ones, like there was in the 1800's some places.

"And needless to say why should taxes be used to pay for education? The commerical sector will have to provide its own." Well, I'm not sure the government should pay for education, only because if it was privatized, competition would make the standards higher. The government should probably provide vouchers (and wean us off of them eventually, IF PRACTICAL--so not necessarily) but currently the legislation on vouchers is pretty messed up. I'm not too sure either way about this, but there is an interesting case to be made against government schools. http://www.schoolandstate.org/case.htm

"when the Olympics will be going on while they are rounding up and executing innocent people to sell off their body parts, while the world sit around playing sports." This isn't capitalism. This is a crazy government controlling everything, like I said with Indonesia. It's a very important distinction, just like it's important to distinguish between the Soviet Union and communism.

I'm sorry for making such a huge post. Being as lazy as I am, I hate it when people make single posts this big, but for whoever reads it all, props and t