UESP Forums

Capitalism is getting [&@%!] without proper regulation, yes.

People do realize that Socialism has to deal with the workers owning the means of production, not the capitalists; right?

With that definition - America has never really been socialist. It was more oriented toward welfare and social services during the Cold War due to the Collectivist-Welfare State of the Communist Bloc. But when the Cold War ended, so did a majority of these dwindle. (Infact Reagen specifically reduced the Union power as a sign of the fall of the USSR and so forth)



..Except we can never get to that idealistic form of Capitalism due the market needs to expand. If it doesn't Capitalism falls off its ass. Capitalism has been, through out its history, [&@%!] people with the excuse that it is expanding markets. (see: the entire third world)

Capitalism will not stop its abuses for it thrives on them. I doubt, sincerely, that the state of the US or France or UK will halt the monoplies whom are having a joy from Super-profits and using Africa for their own means while they gain a partial profit from this as well.

That and it allows for the expansion of political interest.

No, you're talking about capitalism. Privatization doesn't necessarily lead to competition because subcontracts for government monopolies can go to private companies. Once again, private (or public) corporations don't ultimately care about following capitalism simply because it's capitalism. They will do what gets them the most money, even if it includes such socialistic policies like monopolization or market-dividing.

With capitalism it comes down to a central control. Same thing with schools. Easier to control a large set of people when everyone learns to think the same way.

I believe you're thinking of something else. Capitalism is an economic policy, not governmental.

Capitalism is the counterpart of communism, and that sure as hell doesn't happen without a government.

They are both economical ideas controlled by the government.

Something like that.

Well, let's see if we can raise a collective 'yay' for democracy!

Yay!

do we have to acknowledge the annoying parts of democracy too?

But it boils down to a central government that enforces an agenda on the public. Call it what you will, it's not working in America.

Acknowledge everything about the government form that has given you all your rights and everything you own? Nah, man, you don't need to do that. That's what democracy's all about.

Actually, the United States is a Representative Republic, not a true Democracy.

Close, Music. We're a mix of both. We leave most of the day-to-day affairs to the congressmen, but we have the power to vote on the important issues (and, theoretically, just about anything else we want to vote on) ourselves.




Absolutely wrong. Capitalism is an economic policy, while Communism is a form of government. Capitalism and Socialism are counterparts; both are economic policies. Theoretically, neither actually need a government to function.




I have more faith in your reasoning than this, Doros, but it's been bothering me, so I'll spell it out anyway: That computer you're sitting at; how did it get to you? And how did the parts to make it reach that factory? And what about your furniture? Or the construction materials in your house? Or that can of beer sitting next to you? How did any of that get there? REALLY? They all WALKED, you say?! That must've been difficult and slow! You have to wonder how an economy like ours survives when so many people refuse to use our infrastructure!



Because the alternative for a vastly expanding economy was much cheaper and more efficient, of course.



Because you're not just paying for yourself. You're paying to keep crime low by deterrence (at least, that's how it's supposed to work), which benefits you in the fact that everything around you isn't having to charge you through the nose to make up for crimes that you didn't commit.


Once again, Doros-- and I really do love this mindset that libertarians have going on wherein a society with gestalt doesn't exist-- you don't live in a vacuum. Whether you like it or not, you're stuck with people and all of our virtues and vices, and you live in a world that totally revolves around interaction between said people. Maybe your idea of "let everyone do whatever the [&@%!] they want" could exist if everyone in the world were smart and self-sufficient-- but oh, wait! They made a game around that concept. Everyone died.

We are more a Representative Republic than we are a Democracy. Our laws are not passed by a majority vote of the people, but by representatives chosen by the people. Even our President is not chosen by a direct vote of the people. This was clearly demonstrated in the 2000 election in which Al Gore won the majority vote but George W. Bush won more electoral college votes and thus the presidency. We have the option of taking things to a simple majority vote of the people, such as with Constitutional Amendments, but that very rarely happens, so to say we are a mix of both, to me, is misstating the truth. We could be a mix of both, but 99.9% of the time we are a Representative Republic.

It's Democracy within a Republic. The people elect a bunch of schmucks. Those schmucks then go about electing the head schmucks who lead the various apparata of government.

Except 99.9% is an overstatement. The options that are available to us do give us a mixed bag of tools when it comes to politics, so I was not mistating the truth when I said that we are a mix of both. Furthermore, these options are exercised quite a bit more than you seem to realize. Constitutional amendments are far from the only things that we're able to affect in politics, and simple voting majority is not the only way that we effect change. So yes. We are a mix of both.

Ed remembers watching a video in how you can gain presidency with only around 30% of the vote.

That in itself is stupid.

The electoral college is outdated and no longer needed. The official reason it's kept in place is so that we don't end up with no president-- as a candidate has to have (I think it's) 62% of the vote in order to actually become a president. In 2000, without the electoral college, and with the current election setup, we technically would not have elected a president.

When I say Democracy, I'm referring to a direct democracy, the original form of the system where everyone had an equal say in everything that was done. The United States is not a direct democracy.

We have the option to wrest any vote issue from our representatives and to vote on it ourselves (recall), and many of the larger decisions are referred to the people (referendum), especially in election years. We have key traits of a direct democracy, but we elect to leave most of the decisions to people we delegate. We are, therefore, a mix of both Democracy and Republic.

This is what I said several posts ago. We are in agreement except on terminology.

Representative Democracy. Better?

Well, considering you accused me of misstating the truth, I wouldn't think so.

But yes, better.

That's one of the biggest problems. We toot our own horn all the time about being "the best country in the world" and having freedom and all that jazz. Lots of nations have freedom. But that's another topic for another day. We need to understand that we don't make real choices anymore that affect anything important, we're given the illusion of freedom, through mundane decision we are given. (see: George Carlin)

Hence, the fact that we don't hold direct elections for Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, nor Treasurer of the United States. The people (indirectly) elect a President who appoints those leaders, and then a Senate (directly) elected by the people confirms the appointment.

Democracy within a Republic. It ain't perfect, but it still kicks some serious ass.

The people set up the voice with which to speak, but it is the voices which speak the word of law.