What Is Capitalism?

People are greedy which is why we need some social care by government. If social stuff shouldnt be dealt with by government, then why do Capitalist governments insist on being big brother and telling people what drugs they can and cant take ect, by law?
 
No--the government needs to make it advantageous for people to be altruistic--and excellent way to do that are the charitable foundations like Bill Gates runs--there's a reason he does that and its not entirely atruistic. The problem is liberals call this 'tax breaks for the rich. Those are successful. Goverment run programs are a complete failure and cost much more.

History proves otherwise



.[/quote] Missing the point on that.[/quote]

How so?
 
I think Pete meant if social issues shouldn't be dealt with by the gov't, then why do capitalist gov'ts tell people what type of drugs they can and can't take.

So why does the gov't ban the use of marijuana for example, but say we can take cholesterol medication?

Is that what ur meant Pete? Hope I helped more than confused.
 
Well I don't see how that's got anything to do with capitalism--the FDA is a branch of the federal government--it regulates what drugs you can and cannot take, not capitalists.

Oh, so Capitalist government dosent have control over that in its own country? I find that extremely hard to believe!

I think Pete meant if social issues shouldn't be dealt with by the gov't, then why do capitalist gov'ts tell people what type of drugs they can and can't take.

So why does the gov't ban the use of marijuana for example, but say we can take cholesterol medication?

Is that what ur meant Pete? Hope I helped more than confused.

Yup. Exactly what I mean.
 
Okay--the problem is your are mixing concepts and you need to keep those straight in your mind. A Government and an economic system should be entirely separate. Think of the economic system as players in a football game and the government as referees. The job of government is to provide an economic system of equal opporunity, not run the economic system. This is where liberals run into problems--they want to the government to take over the game. How well would government employees play football? Not very well--and they don't run an economy very well either--everything the government runs is inefficient with the exception of the military, which is really separate and distinct from government.

Keyword: should.
 
Capitalism is not a political ideal--its an economic system and proven conclusively to be the only successful one.

No--I never used the phrase "Capitalist Government" -- that's your phrase. To give you an example, in the Soviet Union, the Government and the Economic system were one in the same. That's not true in the US--or in England--yet, although its been getting closer and closer as the generations go by.

Sorry if I misread that, it was very misleading though.
 
Agreed--should be kept separate--unfortunately the government gets too involved in various aspects of the economic system. The worst example of that is in Canada where the government runs the healthcare system--absolute disaster. But when you give someone something for free--they overutilize it. I have no problem with healthcare reform--but government run healthcare is not reform, that's far worse.

So do you believe in the Austrian School of thought that markets work, gov'ts don't. That the government should stay out of the market.
 
I just wrote this, and I though people could use a good explanation of what Capitalism REALLY is.


Capitalism is the free exchange between individuals, with the elimination of force. We do not earn profits by having a military. We do not thieve - we trade. Value for Value, no force involved. We do so for our rational self-interest. There is no rationality in forcing another to give you something. We do not profit when a building is bombed, we do not thieve if we cannot have something. We only use a military when we have been attacked, and we do not thieve - EVER. It is the greatest moral sin in Capitalism, to take instead of trade.

Socialism, however, is the opposite. It is forced altruism. Unless you give the government the money so that it can give it to the poor man who doesn't want to work, you are arrested. There is no value involved, no voluntary exchange. A military forces you to trade for x amount, instead of trading freely with another. You are told how much to trade for, rather then using your independent reason to make the judgment of how much it should be traded for. If you defy, you are arrested. The government points a gun at both of the traders heads and tells them how to trade. That is the evil of socialism - force. Coercion. The invalidation of individual reason. Hate. Malice. Altruism.

You must make the choice between the Gun and the Dollar. There is no other. Be quick - Time is running out.


what about the rich corporation who keeps the poor man poor by paying him minimum wage......who makes it so even if he wants to work he still struggles to put food in his childrens mouths and keep a roof over they're heads

what about the rich corporation who'll sack 50 low paid workers so that the directors can have a huge annual pay rise

what about the rich corporation who opens factories in poverty stricken countries so that they can pay the workforce a poverty wage and enhance they're own profits

thats true capitalism
 
That has nothing to do with capitalism, it has to do with difference in individual's abilities, work ethics, and a number of other circumstances. Inequality is genetic--it is not caused by capitalism. It also cannot be remedied by socialism/communism, which simply makes everyone equally miserable.


This is sooooooooo wrong! I hope no one here believes this stuff.
 
I just wrote this, and I though people could use a good explanation of what Capitalism REALLY is.


Capitalism is the free exchange between individuals, with the elimination of force. We do not earn profits by having a military. We do not thieve - we trade. Value for Value, no force involved. We do so for our rational self-interest. There is no rationality in forcing another to give you something. We do not profit when a building is bombed, we do not thieve if we cannot have something. We only use a military when we have been attacked, and we do not thieve - EVER. It is the greatest moral sin in Capitalism, to take instead of trade.

Socialism, however, is the opposite. It is forced altruism. Unless you give the government the money so that it can give it to the poor man who doesn't want to work, you are arrested. There is no value involved, no voluntary exchange. A military forces you to trade for x amount, instead of trading freely with another. You are told how much to trade for, rather then using your independent reason to make the judgment of how much it should be traded for. If you defy, you are arrested. The government points a gun at both of the traders heads and tells them how to trade. That is the evil of socialism - force. Coercion. The invalidation of individual reason. Hate. Malice. Altruism.

You must make the choice between the Gun and the Dollar. There is no other. Be quick - Time is running out.

You need to take of the rose tinted specs... I actually feel a little embarrassed reading it.
 
Socialism, however, is the opposite. It is forced altruism

I disagree with the minarchical overtones of your post, since it predicates upon imaginary collective 'we'. But I agree generally with your view of capitalism. On the other hand, socialism is NOT 'forced altruism'. That is a common justification of socialism (and there are others). In reality, it's a way for the government mafia to make it easier to get the sheep's wool and, to mix metaphors, lead the lambs to the slaughter.
Never make the mistake of thinking that politicians and bureacrats are misled or ignorant. They're the most vile human beings of the planet. Give me Charles Manson any day to these scum.
 
Back
Top