Capitalist democracy?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Facial, Oct 2, 2005.

?

Is free-market capitalist democracy possible?

  1. Yes.

    12 vote(s)
    54.5%
  2. No.

    10 vote(s)
    45.5%
  1. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    but if there is nothing or no-one to lead..?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    That's when hallucinations can come in really handy.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Ophiolite:

    Sounds excellent.

    sniffy:

    "Exploitative" of what?

    Ophiolite:

    Good response.

    sniffy:

    There is always oneself to lead.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    PJ
    Exploitative of resources; natural, human or created.
    No such thing as a leader of one. Self determination maybe. In order to be a leader one has to have followers.
     
  8. KitNyx Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    Other than the social contract that says one form of money will be acceptable to all, I do not see where the government needs to have ANY say in the economy of the people it governs. AND, I do not see how money HAS to equate to power in a direct democracy. To believe that this MUST be the case because it is the case is a fallicy. The fact that the rich often also have the power and vice versa does not MEAN that one necessarily leads to the other or that they are interchangable. If we as the governed continue to vote rich persons into office then it is no one's fault but our own if it upsets us that the rich also have the power.

    - KitNyx
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    So if, say, MicroSoft and Wal-Mark got together and created to nation's greatest monopoly, you'd be okay with that? ...even if they controlled virtually everything that you needed to survive? You wouldn't think that someone/something should step in and fix it??

    Well, basically I agree with that statement. However, to say that rich people HAVE the power is erroneous .....the power is GIVEN to them by those around them. Having money does NOT equate to having power ...even if it might seem that way.

    Baron Max
     
  10. KitNyx Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    So, you believe it is your right, or the right of the many in the form of mob rule to regulate how my money is spent? If I created a monopoly it is your choice as it is everyones to cease purchaseing from me. If I use "undesireable" market tactics then in a FREE economy you have the right to go without the material or services I offer. This in turn offers up the opportunity to others who will not use such tactics. No matter what form of cohersion or sales tactics I use I can not PREVENT someone from selling similar services or goods...and if no one is buying from me, then there will obviously be a market. ALSO, if government does not interfer with economics then there is no Corp welfare...if you do not run your business proficiently then you collapse...oh, by the way, most big corporations that serve the customer directly collapse after they attain a certain size...Kmart as an example.

    As for ..."the power is given to thm by those around them"...tell me, who in this country truly has the power. In fact, any country? Governments exist only by the consent of the governed. They may use those "unfavorable" tactics such as fear or brutality (which maybe one and the same) to give the illusion of power, but this illusion exists only as long as the people remain silent and cowed. We the people of the United States once decided that we no longer decided to be governed by a government that used these tactics and we united in that decision. Our new "democratic" government is falling into a similar place...the people of the US feel alienated. We, the poor unmentioned people have the power, but it is easier to accept unwanted rule than to fight for what we want.

    Let me ask you this along similar lines. There are two types of liberty. One is positive liberty, it is what we have in America today. We have the right to read and watch what we please, we have the right to express ourselves, and we have the right to own land. Wait, let me rephrase that - we have the right to read and watch what we please as long as it has been deemed acceptable to broadcast or show by the US government (FCC, etc.), we have the right to express ourselves as long as we have applied for a permit (the need to apply means that it can be turned down), and we have the right to own land...as long as we pay our rent (property tax) to the government and as long as they do not need it. The second form of liberty is called negative liberty. It is what our founding fathers dreamt of, the liberty that exists by default in the absence of control or cohersion. Hence the 10th Amendment, all powers not mentioned in the Constitution shall lie in the provence of the States or THE PEOPLE. However, in the early 1900's the US Supreme Court decided that this Amendment added nothing to the Constitution. Question for you, did those who laid the foundation of the US just need filler so they could have an even 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights? Evidently...

    - KitNyx
     
  11. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    sniffy:

    Natural resources are meant to be taken. No human is "exploited" by capitalism, as capitalism isn't rooted in slavery. "Created" resources are exploited how?

    This argument isn't really worth continuing, as it is really a non-issue. A leader ceasing to be a leader of anyone but itself is immaterial here.
     
  12. Onefinity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    401
    I can imagine China becoming a nation where capitalism and the absence of democracy work hand in hand. It appears to be moving in that direction. I hope I'm wrong.
     
  13. KitNyx Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    Why do you hope not? Hong Kong is that way now. It has the freeest economy in hte world yet it is not a democracy in "our" sense of the world, yet the people feel free...I wonder why that is? Perhaps they are told outright how it is and not just shown smoke and mirrors. They are not made to feel they have to give up freedoms in the name of security by a government that idolized Hitler's fear regime...Can we all say hurray for the Ministry of Homeland Security? No democracy works if the people feel alienated from government.

    - KitNyx
     
  14. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    Let me just start by saying right off the bat that I know the federal government is not a Democracy, it is a Republic, but the ideal that was being strived for with the creation of this system as a whole is the Democratic ideal of giving the people the power to rule the Government and have a say in how it is run. Thus, I will be referring to it as a Democracy.

    Democracy in and of itself has nothing at all to do with how much money you have or make.
    That's the whole point of the ideal of Democracy, to give a voice and power to all people regardless of class, money or power.
    The reality of it in this country, however, is something entirely different, and I believe it is because the ideal of Democracy is not reconcilable with the ideal of Capitalism.

    Very well, said, Ophiolite.
    "Money is power", however, is not a rule, rather a result of trying to mix Democracy and Capitalism.



    Capitalism breeds, fosters and rewards selfish action and, as Ophiolite pointed out, predatory behavior.
    In a Capitalist system, success is directly measured by how much wealth you have, and weath is gained by beating your competition.
    It does not matter to a Capitalist system, what good you are doing for the rest of society.
    It does not matter who suffers as a result of your grab for wealth.
    It does not matter who is oppressed as a result of your weath.
    Success is money.

    In a Capitalist system, money ALSO, by definition, equal power.
    The CEO of a company will dump his money into the political party who best meets his needs of getting more money and more power.
    He will hire lobbyists.
    He wil have rich, powerful and influential friends.
    It is a upward spiral.

    This is just a small part of what I was saying about how you surround yourself with theory and philosophy, regardless fo facts, and could not believe that you claimed that Conservatives/Republicans operate from pragmatism and Liberals/Democrats operate from idealism.
    Whether or it fits into your theory, in a Capitalist/Democratic system, politicians and vites are for sale to the highest bidder.
    Yes, you can make rules abouit mow large gifts to politicans may be, but then you have Jack Abramoff. And before you go on about how he is being indicted, how long has he done what he has done? Jack is the rule, not the exception.
    In strict laissez-faire capitalism, you don't even NEED lobbyists, because the government does not intervene in the market, the industries regulate themselves.
    Think about this for a second...
    You want the people whose job it is to make more money to make their own rules up.
    Where is the people in this? They are left powerless, since there is no direct accountability of corporations to the people.
    Thus, you just unbdercut the whole ideal of Democracy.
    The two simply do not work together.


    Nice theory.
    And it could possibly work well (we will ignore sweat shops for the time being) if it weren't for the domination of the market by multi-national mega corporations with billions of dollars of buying power and countless retail outlets paying shit wages.
    Let me guess, "People don't have to work for them if they don't WANT to".
    You are right. They don't HAVE to, they can simply choose to not work at all and starve to death.
    In many places the ONLY jobs available pay slave wages, offer little to no health coverage and require you to work in harsh conditions.
    Of course, people don't have to shop at these stores, right?
    Well, with that buting power to undercut the competition and people as strapped for cash as they are, how much choice do they really have (if there is even anything BUT WalMart in your town)?

    The point is, regardless of who is elected, corporations have a great deal of power over the economy, the country, and the people in it.
    Again, making Democracy impotent.

    You have the richest minority running the country with little to no direct accountability to the people they oppress and walk over to make their fortunes.
    Thos who are completely driven by self-interest are controlling the masses. It all but guarantees oppression.
    That is hardly a Democracy.
    (except maybe in theory)
    In reality, slavery is a matter of degrees.

    If I haven't gone on enough, what about children?
    If a person inherits a billion dollars from Daddy, how does that say anything AT ALL about that person's merit?
    It doesn't.

    This relies on the fundamentally flawed assumption that people with less money are actually inferior to people with more money when, in actuality, it requires the most base selfish traits to succeed in a Capitalist society.

    A true Direct Democracy, I fully admit, is simply not feasible, even if it was, it would be entirely unstable swaying and snapping at the momentary whims of the masses.
    The Democratic ideal, however, does not serve the worst, it serves all equally according to merit.
    What you put into society, you get out of it.
    Don't confuse the Democratic ideal with far left Liberals. There IS a difference.
    An educated person would have nothing LESS than a Democracy.
    Otherwise you have people making decisions FOR you. People, who, in a Capitalist system especially, are driven solely by self-interest.

    Unless you are a billionaire CEO, you will get fucked too, Prince_James.
    That's something I have never quite understood either.
    What makes you think the CEO's in charge of the capitalist nation would give half a shit about you if you did away with that pesky one-man one-vote nonsense?
    You would simply be an expendible resource, as their workers are now.

    Tell me...
    What do you think the point of forming a society and community is other than to serve the rich?

    Again, back to pragmatism vs ideology...
    What happens to the poor, mistreated, uneducated that are left aside?
    What happens to those "inferior" to you who are not given a fair voice in society and government?
    They will take what they want because they can not honestly earn what they need.
    They are the ones that will steal from you.
    They are the ones that will mug, rob and murder you.
    You would be safe behind your wall of theory claiming that these people got what they deserved, "See? Th bastards are all scoff laws and hooligans. They don't deserve help from anyone."
    When, in rality, the shitty economic policy of Capitlaism is what caused them to steal because they could so very clearly see that they had no other choice, and were relegated to be lower class citizens without equal rights, equal opportunity or equal voice in the government.
    Oh, but wait, you said they AREN'T slaves, right?
    Right.

    Who starts revolutions? The poor, unrepresented, oppressed, masses.
    Why? They see they have nothing left to lose.
    Who do they taget? Those in their comfortable homes saying, "Let them eat cake."
    The beheaded deserve it.


    I think you have the weak and the strong confused.
    Of the banker, the farmer and the oxen pulling the polw, who is the strongest?
    The banker, my friend, is a parasite, and is a limited supply.

    The weak graps onto the strong because they need them to hold them upon their shoulders.
    Eventually, if he keeps kicking them, they will drop him.

    Wonderfully said!!


    Because if the economy is run by the self serving few who do you think the economy will serve?
    You are taking YOUR money and putting it in THEIR piggy bank to do with what they please.
    What they please is to polease themselves.

    People talk about the economy, the market and industry as if they are entities in a vaccuum with their own minds and intentions.
    Or, no intentions at all.
    It has the intentiosn of those who run it.
    They spend billions fo dollars each year in advertizing, lobbying, bribes and other means to make sure it runs to their advantage.
    By the way, advertizing dollars are tax deductible. Did you know that?
    Corporate executives are the Royal family of America.
    The greatest welfare recipients in history.
    They see society as a host.
    People often refer to poor people as social parasites.
    The vast majority of our tax dollars go to supporting corporations (who pay less than 1% tax, after deductions and exemptions, by the way) and their executives billion dollar incomes and lavish lifestyles.
    In exchange for what?
    Exploiting the masses?
    Sounds like a raw fucking deal to me.

    That is perhaps the most willfully ignorant thing I have ever read in my life.
     
  15. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    It seems you are arguing that Democracy is not the best system.
    Where do you stand on my argument, which speaks to the point of teh thread, that Capitalism and Democracy are not reconcilable?
    Do you think they are?
     
  16. malkavpunk Now with Child Protective Cap Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    41
    Of course i do. I think it's precisely this type of attitude that makes people act that way, they expect everyone else too, it creates a very selfish outlook on life and humanity. I'm very idealistic.
     
  17. Onefinity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    401
    Some points:

    1. Republic is a form of government, democracy is a way of life.

    2. We as a society are still only in the kindergarten of democracy as a way of life, because we haven't yet learned to produce a will in common at the levels of home, neighborhood, workplace, etc.

    3. Power is not the same as control, authority, or force. Power should be thought of as a creative force. A nation can be powerful (full of creative force) or not. The U.S. is a very forceful nation, but its "powerness" is limited because its people still lack social capacity to create. In this definition of power, its opposite is violence. The more truly powerful a people, the less violent it is. The more violence present in a society, the less power there is.

    4. Human groups can be thought of as crowds, herds, mobs, or authentic communities. The predominant mode of social organization in the U.S. is crowd and herd. This means that we have not yet learned how to create together, and we are easily subject to manipulation.

    5. So-called "direct democracy" can't work, at least not yet, because (as pointed out by One Raven) we still exist as a crowd, rather than as a people. Also, voting does not produce a will in common. It only registers an existing will held in the minds of separate individuals.

    6. Two more Greek words to add to complement the word "democracy" (power of the people): demosophia and syzitisis. Demosophia means "wisdom of the people." Syzitisis means "searching together." Unless people have the syzitisis, they cannot produce the demo'kratos or the demosophia. Unless people have the demosophia, they can't apply the available power well. Unless people have the demo'kratos, they won't have the opportunity to engage in the syzitisis. So we need to focus on all three "legs" of this triad.

    (Credit due to Alexander Christakis for the words demosophia and syzitisis; credit due to Mary Parker Follett for the herd/crowd/mob/etc. model, and for critique of the concept of direct democracy. Credit due to Hannah Arendt for the power/violence inverse relationship model. Credit given to me for the distinctions between power, control, authority, and force.)
     
  18. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Onefinity:

    What would be so horrible about that?

    One_Raven:

    And your point?

    Yes. And is this wrong?

    When I concurred with that statement, I was thinking of such things as affirmative action, welfare, et cetera. I do not see how my vi ews are "regardless of facts", though. But we'll get to that.

    Which I see nothing wrong with. The wealthy ought to have such influence in society.

    Ever hear of labour unions? People can join together in massive, national groups, and through sheer force of numbers and consumer power, influence the way big corporations treat them.

    Form labour unions, go out of the way to buy elsewhere...People are too lazy to do these things, so they just end up complaining.

    Again, labour unions.

    Save they cannot exist without the continued participation of the people.

    I've considered a Social Darwinistic response to this, rooting the notion of success and wealth as equivalent to good genes. Ontop of that, it is very unlikely that those who simply inherit wealth, but do not know how to handle it, shall keep it very long. Can one imagine a Paris Hilton not squandering the Hilton fortune within her lifetime if she is given it?

    I am not speaking of simply the wealth, but professors, scientists, lawyers, military men...

    In what way can it serve merit when it is a glorified popularity contest?

    Unless one envisions a meritocratic system aside from -just- the notion of wealth.

    Potentially, if I could not demonstrate my worth. You know, fell into the trap of lazyness and apathy that prevents labour unions from being effective.

    The regulation of revenge (criminal law), the protection of all (police/military), the facillitation of merit through a proper political system, and the enforcement of contract (civil law).

    Those without merit deserve nothing.

    They either become superior or remain mute.

    And the police will deal with them.

    I could potentially be the victim of violence, yes.

    There are alphas and then there are gammas. Such is the way of the world. If they cannot join together in labour unions, cannot use their wits, cannot strive hard, et cetera, then why do they deserve to be taken care of?

    ACtually, they usually require the guiding of the upper class to rebel, or at the very least, the upper middle-class. The American and French revolutions are a key example of this, as is the Russian.

    Yet he controls forces far beyond the scope of the farmer.

    The weak are never in a true position to drop the strong. Most do not even perceive such a thing as a possibility.

    They are reconciable, but this is not a positive thing.

    malkavpunk:

    Then you deny that bands, the basic human of human society, are some of the most monsterously violent people in the world? General "rape and plunder" is something often engaged in amongst bands, even to the point of cannibalism.

    Onefinity:

    How so?

    Because you are dealing with individuals.

    How is creation power? And would then an ultimately creative people be pacifistic?

    -Can- we create together?

    Do people have wisdom at all? Judging by the fact that the average IQ is only twenty points above retarded...
     
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    One Infinity: “ I can imagine China becoming a nation where capitalism and the absence of democracy work hand in hand. It appears to be moving in that direction. I hope I'm wrong. ”
    Prince James: "What would be so horrible about that?"
    Well, you could ask the relatives of the 7,000 coal miners who die each year in accidents what they thought. [And before someone with a sick sense of humour interjects a remark, it is a different seven thousand each year!]
     
  20. malkavpunk Now with Child Protective Cap Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    41
    Of course i don't deny that. What i say is that basic human instinct is to help, not hurt. Of course there are deviants, humanity is far too complex to not have deviation. When you see a person being beat by another person, you're first instinctive thought is probably "why is that man hurting that other man?". Then competitive, individualistic culture kicks in and says "well, that man must have done something wrong, and thus merrits this treatment". Even still, the instict is to compassion, not accusation or other hurtful sentiments.

    PS:I realize this arguement doesn't seem coherent, but i'm trying my best.
     
  21. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Capitalist democracy?
    Oxymoron
     
  22. KitNyx Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    The UNITED States?
    Oxymoron

    Anyways, I agree that democracy will always lead to a socialistic instead of a capitalistic system. Capitalism requires personal responsability. Socialism allows populations to do the very minimum necessary to have others care for them. So, if given a choice between working 12 hours a day to make enough money to buy the necessities and voting someone in office who believes caring for those who refuse to care for themselves...perhaps those who decide not to work have the right idea. Sit at home and collect a governement check. Go collect on your free socialized healthcare. Pop those government bought and recommended drugs. This is what happens in a socialism...this is an example of people working toward a "common goal". Of course, this can happen because the 5 percent of the population who believes in capitalism and actively takes responability for their own lives, pays 95% of the taxes that are used to keep the bafore mentioned people alive. So, what happens when everyone decides to suck on the government teet? Who will be left to pay the taxes necessary to pay our welfare checks? Who will pay to have our roads and government hospitals maintained? We would have no choice but to pay 90% of our government checks back to the governement. I have known many people who based thier success on how well they could "cheat" the system to collect the most "free" money. So, of course it is natural that we will vote for those who leave us the least personal responsability...it is breed into us. The whole savior complex, it is not your responsability to save yourself, someone else will do it if only you give them the power to. Wow, is that not the basis of almost all the worlds religions? That we are somehow born wrong or evil and those in power can offer a solution, if only we agree to give up our self-ownership. Not for me, I have no intention of treading upon the rights of others, so let not them trod upon mine. This applies especially to the fruits of my labors. If I work for my money then it is MY money. Try to take it from me at your own risk. Of course, you could always vote someone in office that will forcefully take it from me and give it to you...shall we call welfare what it really is? Government assisted theft.

    - KitNyx
     
  23. KitNyx Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    BTW - I see no difference between socialism and welfarism.

    - KitNyx
     

Share This Page