Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (37 users)
Active: 6237 users | |
|
| ImAbstracT August 16 2012 06:42. Posts 518 | Profile Blog # |
Version 2.0. This time with less fail and suck on my part
America and the rest of the world are at unprecedented times. Global economic distress and turmoil are the fore front of the discussions of every day people. The economic growth much of the world took for granted for so long seemingly vanished overnight.
It is at times like these where real debate and discussion can take place. In fact, without such discussions, we will be destined to repeat these same events decade after decade. Here in the US we have had two major depressions within the last 80 years, and roughly 11 downturns between them. This has lead some, mostly the young and working classes, to really examine what the causes were as they are the most effected. It seems that some are losing faith in what we are told made America and the rest of the world great and prosperous, Capitalism.
In a recent survey conducted a few years ago young people were asked what their economic beliefs where. The options were simple: capitalism, socialism, or undecided. All three were virtually tied after the survey was complete. This revealed that young people seem more willing to ask an important question which was at a virtual taboo status for decades: Is capitalism really the best economic system?
If it is not then what are the choices? While there are literally hundreds these are the top ones:
Neoliberal capitalism: The American system. Free Market, Free Trade, and deregulation of industry. What is good for the corporations is good for us. Competition is key.
State Capitalism: USSR and China. Companies are nationalized. Government takes the roll of CEO/Board of Directors. The market is replaced with state planning.
Capitalism-Welfare State: What a majority of Europe has become. High taxes on the rich to provide social services for the rest of the country. High minimum wages to try to increase the standard of living and wealth inequality.
Socialism (going to include communism in this, as socialism is a step towards it):
Private Property (means of production) should be held publicly by the workers. A reorganization of the order of production. Businesses should be ran democratically, with the workers deciding all business related decisions.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his work(eventually need).
Mutualism (copying from wikipedia):Mutualism is an economic theory and anarchist school of thought that advocates a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market. Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration.Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value that holds that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility".Mutualism originated from the writings of philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
Each could be broken down even further (like all the various kinds of socialism's), but at some point you are just splitting economic hairs.
This is what I would like you to do. Simply think of the world around you. The way your individual country operates. Ask yourself this question, do I like the system in which I live?
If yes, why?
If no, what would you change?
Do you subscribe to some of the views above, or do you think in another way?
This is a topic of extreme importance. Our generation is going to inherent a system which seems like it is perpetually on the brink of collapse. What is the best way to bring it back?
Poll: Your Economic ViewsCapitalistic -Welfare (196) 46% Neoliberal Capitalism (107) 25% Socialism/Communism (61) 14% Other (23) 5% State Capitalism (13) 3% Mutualism (12) 3% Undecided/Uninformed (12) 3% 424 total votes Your vote: Your Economic Views (Vote): Neoliberal Capitalism
(Vote): State Capitalism
(Vote): Capitalistic -Welfare
(Vote): Socialism/Communism
(Vote): Mutualism
(Vote): Other
(Vote): Undecided/Uninformed
|
| | "I want you to take a moment, and reflect, on how much of a failure you are" - IdrA |
|
|
| BrTarolg United Kingdom. August 16 2012 06:58. Posts 2498 | Profile Blog # |
What would you call the singaporean economic system then
(which is arguably, probably currently the role model for economic development worldwide right now)
Essentially it's a benevolent dictatorship with an emphasis on a small state and free market
One might argue a big difference between this and the Americans is that america is run by lawyers (for lack of a better way of putting it) which produce huge amount of regulation/red tape which capitalism seeks to cut out |
|
|
| ImAbstracT August 16 2012 07:04. Posts 518 | Profile Blog # |
On August 16 2012 06:58 BrTarolg wrote:
What would you call the singaporean economic system then
(which is arguably, probably currently the role model for economic development worldwide right now)
Essentially it's a benevolent dictatorship with an emphasis on a small state and free market
One might argue a big difference between this and the Americans is that america is run by lawyers (for lack of a better way of putting it) which produce huge amount of regulation/red tape which capitalism seeks to cut out
Do they embrace free trade? |
| | "I want you to take a moment, and reflect, on how much of a failure you are" - IdrA |
|
|
| WTFZerg United States. August 16 2012 07:06. Posts 654 | Profile # |
| Free market with effective and unflinching government regulation. The American system would work infinitely better if it were not for the monetization of politics. |
| |
|
| Gaga Germany. August 16 2012 07:23. Posts 420 | Profile # |
You forget that america as it is today, is far from a true free market. The critical part is the monopoly on money.
There is a whole movement called Libertarians.
Listen to Ron Paul, hes the guy who supports that system but is seen from many as too extreme in the US.
And you miss that very critical point in your assement as well.
I think the function of a system depends on the biggest part on its participants ... so im all for a true free market where the people choose induvidually how to live with one another. Some occupy guy defined it as a systeme where no mayority should enforce anything with arms against a resisting minority.
Last edit: 2012-08-16 07:27:51 |
|
|
| ImAbstracT August 16 2012 07:41. Posts 518 | Profile Blog # |
On August 16 2012 07:23 Gaga wrote:
You forget that america as it is today, is far from a true free market. The critical part is the monopoly on money.
There is a whole movement called Libertarians.
Listen to Ron Paul, hes the guy who supports that system but is seen from many as too extreme in the US.
And you miss that very critical point in your assement as well.
I think the function of a system depends on the biggest part on its participants ... so im all for a true free market where the people choose induvidually how to live with one another. Some occupy guy defined it as a systeme where no mayority should enforce anything with arms against a resisting minority.
I used to be a big Paul supporter. Worked for his campaign, PAC, etc. I then realized his policies rightly showed the threat that government can pose to liberty, but then shifts all the power right to the private sector. Tyranny that the private sector wields is just as bad, if not worse, than the government.
I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist; the Chomsky type.
|
| | "I want you to take a moment, and reflect, on how much of a failure you are" - IdrA |
|
|
| WTFZerg United States. August 16 2012 07:53. Posts 654 | Profile # |
On August 16 2012 07:41 ImAbstracT wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 07:23 Gaga wrote:
You forget that america as it is today, is far from a true free market. The critical part is the monopoly on money.
There is a whole movement called Libertarians.
Listen to Ron Paul, hes the guy who supports that system but is seen from many as too extreme in the US.
And you miss that very critical point in your assement as well.
I think the function of a system depends on the biggest part on its participants ... so im all for a true free market where the people choose induvidually how to live with one another. Some occupy guy defined it as a systeme where no mayority should enforce anything with arms against a resisting minority.
I used to be a big Paul supporter. Worked for his campaign, PAC, etc. I then realized his policies rightly showed the threat that government can pose to liberty, but then shifts all the power right to the private sector. Tyranny that the private sector wields is just as bad, if not worse, than the government. I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist; the Chomsky type.
A friend of mine once said "If it sounds insane but possibly workable, it's probably a Ron Paul idea." |
| |
|
| Zahir United States. August 16 2012 08:00. Posts 920 | Profile # |
Different stripes for different types. The best economic policy has little to do with principle and everything to do with circumstance.
State planning is probably the best for developing, not fully industrialized nations because it can speed their development and eliminate the potential for foreign exploitation. You don't want richer nations buying up your county and turning your society into a giant resource extractor.
At the other end of the spectrum, neo liberalism is good for developed, militarily powerful companies because of its heavy focus on investor and corporate rights, which, when combined with a large military and loopholetastic tax policy, makes your country attractive to multinationals and super rich folk, who will ultimately increase your power.
Welfare capitalism is best for developed, but not militarily dominant powers with stable, educated populations. Such populations are more politically influential than those in the developing world, and tend to be less ambitious and more egalitarian than in America. As a result, their economies have bent slightly towards keeping them happy.Last edit: 2012-08-16 08:01:27 |
| | What is best? To crush the Zerg, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the Protoss. |
|
|
| Nevermind86 Somalia. August 16 2012 08:19. Posts 416 | Profile # |
Only a system that promotes widely R & D in science will improve the current world. Capitalism does this at the expense of some people getting very rich at the top and a huge part of the population living in poverty, this could have been good in the XX century but it's slowly becomming less and less accepted, people of the first world don't realize that a lot of the wealth they have comes because their governments have created the conditions to adquire these resources for close to nothing from the third world: See invasion of Irak the taxes that the government of Irak set in for oil minning companies is - if I remenber correctly - 1.5$ per barril and at the same time that government sold all the oil camps they had a long long time ago to private companies from all over the world, this is an example of wealth at the expense of poverty in the third world, how can they develop when they have their hands tied, and of course the first world countries continue to aim their weapons at them to make sure them remenber what is their role in today's world.
I'm from Venezuela, an oil exporting country, all the presidents of my country in the XX century that tried to increase taxes in oil companies were coup d'etat'd , even the current one was in 2002, he was the only one to maintain in power. Venezuela used to export 4 million barrels of oil in the 1930's and at the end of the 90's the country had 70% poverty, the government did all the FMI and the neoliberal technocrats said must be done and the poverty just kept increasing, the solution was the 1989's massacre of 3.000 protesting people in the capital, that seems to be done a lot in these third world countries, when poverty becomes critical, just use the army.
But the world is changing, after reading Isaac Asimov's foundation I understand the world better. The third world is growing a lot in population and economy, this means also in political power. Not long ago Argentina nationalized the oil industry because the government has the money and the allies (Venezuela, Brasil) to run the oil industry on their own and gain all the profits, that can only be good for them, the west can keep talking all they want about nationalization being communism or how the government is inefficient and that private companies do it better, but in reality nationalizing the oil industry will only be good for argentina. Same thing with Venezuela, the days of exporting all the oil at a cheap price to the US is long gone, it was imposed through force in the XX century, US was the country who bought all the venezuelan oil, it was so much they just resold it to latin american countries for a profit, who were neighbours to Venezuela, now the government has done their job selling oil to them directly and that will continue to increase in the future.
Capitalism reminds me today of what monarchies where after the french revolution. They were good for a time, they created the cities of europe, they unified europe and built many good things but at some point the division between royalty having all the money and power and the common citizen not able to govern itself brough the system down and republics flourished, capitalism sure was better than monarchies but when you see all these Wall Street banks getting huge bail outs so they can survive the free market system they preach and are not called inefficient but the government is, and you see guys like Assange close to being thrown in jail for spreading information but the CEO of Citibank getting millions for doing a terrible job you know something has to change. In the future humanity will demand more equality, an elite of corporations millionaires owning countries while a lot of people in those same first world countries cannot even have access to health and education, with all the resources out there to provide to anyone, that's a system that can't exist for too long.Last edit: 2012-08-16 08:29:01 |
| | Interviewer: Many people hate you and would like to see you dead. How does that make you feel? Trevor Goodchild: Those people should get to know me a little better. Then they'd know I don't indulge in feelings. |
|
|
| envyYaegz United States. August 16 2012 08:27. Posts 64 | Profile # |
China is more capitalistic than the US is. I wouldn't put them under the same category as USSR. Also, I don't think our current economic crisis ever reached the level of depression. Thus, the US has only been through one depression. (I could be wrong)
I believe our current economic system is very successful (mostly capitalistic with some socialist aspects) Both extremes of economic systems do not function well. (Pure capitalism leads to the abuse of natural resources and ignores the welfare of the group because it focuses on the welfare of individuals) Yet a pure socialist society doesn't do well because there is no incentive to work, and technological advancement comes to a halt. This is what happened to the USSR. Initially, the US was worried because the USSR was growing faster than the US, however all the USSR was doing was adding capital (machines) to their workers which increased productivity. However, the production increase levels off after a while until technological advancement expands production possibilities. And socialism does not foster technological advancement because there is no incentive to invent new technologies.
I think our economic system has been slowed by beuracratic nonsense, and presidents who just do things to get elected or reelected, without thinking of the long term consequences of policies because they will be out of office by the time shit hits the fan. Yet, I still believe that our current economic system is the best overall economic system, it just needs to be run more efficiently. |
| |
|
| LittleRedBoy August 16 2012 08:27. Posts 36 | Profile # |
Capitalistic - Welfare, as nice as it may sound, simply is not as good as neoliberal capitalism. Individuals can either spend their money or save their money. The problem with taxing the rich to pay for services for the rest of the country is that less money is saved because of the fact that wealthy individuals save a greater portion of their income than the rest of the population. Savings, and not consumption, is what builds a productive economy.
When individuals save their money and consume less, it provides the opportunity for businesses to focus on acquiring capital goods which will give workers the ability to increase the production of goods in the future. Saving money allows an economy to grow more quickly and allows individuals to have a higher living standard further down the road. If anyone has any doubts about this they may take a look at China as an example. The Chinese save over 30% of their income and they are currently having one of the greatest increases in material prosperity in the history of the world.
Finally, if my previous argument doesn't convince anyone consider this: welfare may have a positive short term effect for those receiving the funds; however, welfare tends to erode the moral character of society. Receiving something for nothing encourages laziness and dependence, while discouraging a good work ethic and frugality. Instead of taxing wealthy individuals, we should all help out those who are in trouble ourselves. A sense of responsibility for other human beings is what really creates strong bonds between people locally, nationally, and internationally.Last edit: 2012-08-16 08:28:33 |
|
|
| Nevermind86 Somalia. August 16 2012 08:33. Posts 416 | Profile # |
You guys should realize a little bit more that saying capitalism, communism and neoliberalism is just throwing words because each of those systems has never been implemented in perfection. The US is not a capitalist country, they do many things that are not capitalist, same with the former USSR they did a lot of things that were capitalism or state capitalism if you prefer the term, the important thing is what goes under the table, the use of force to gain resources from colonies just like monarchies used to do is what keeps the first world with so many cheap resources and the third world with so many coup d'etats and wars. What do you think the USSR used to do?, they had their colonies too, that's why they were a super power back in the 60's, imagine they weren't hurt so bad by WW2 or had a little bit more luck, they could still be a super power without such things as neoliberalism. Use of force lies behind policies.
See what happened to the Panama canal, back in the 80's when it was supposed to be improved the government negotiated with a japanese company to do it, because free market makes sense and they offered a better outcome for less money, what happened (for many reasons but this was one too), Panama's president is assassinated, his airplain shut down with a bomb planted inside by it's said, the CIA, and an american company gets the incredibly huge contract. Neoliberalism in latin america has benefited the US a lot, because a lot of US companies have gotten contracts to do many things, when they weren't necessarily the best suited, but were imposed through politics and briberies. Not so easy to do today because as the third world grows in power it's not so easy to force them to do anything. Those companies have to go home, lay off a lot of personnel, a lot of americans working in foreign countries lose their jobs and have to go back to do something else, but never as profitable.Last edit: 2012-08-16 08:38:26 |
| | Interviewer: Many people hate you and would like to see you dead. How does that make you feel? Trevor Goodchild: Those people should get to know me a little better. Then they'd know I don't indulge in feelings. |
|
|
| caradoc Canada. August 16 2012 08:40. Posts 2915 | Profile Blog # |
On August 16 2012 06:58 BrTarolg wrote:
What would you call the singaporean economic system then
(which is arguably, probably currently the role model for economic development worldwide right now)
Essentially it's a benevolent dictatorship with an emphasis on a small state and free market
One might argue a big difference between this and the Americans is that america is run by lawyers (for lack of a better way of putting it) which produce huge amount of regulation/red tape which capitalism seeks to cut out
State Capitalism / Neoliberal basically. It only works because taxes are so low, and the governmnet is fairly efficient compared to the rest of the region so they were able to attract a lot of financial companies to create regional hubs. That and they're a major port in a major shipping lane. If neighbouring countries stymied corruption and lowered taxes as well, Singapore's economy would crash without fundamental changes, i.e. their model is not one the rest of the world should aspire to. |
| | Galneryus - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZizcOVNQFIo |
|
|
| caradoc Canada. August 16 2012 08:42. Posts 2915 | Profile Blog # |
On August 16 2012 07:41 ImAbstracT wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 07:23 Gaga wrote:
You forget that america as it is today, is far from a true free market. The critical part is the monopoly on money.
There is a whole movement called Libertarians.
Listen to Ron Paul, hes the guy who supports that system but is seen from many as too extreme in the US.
And you miss that very critical point in your assement as well.
I think the function of a system depends on the biggest part on its participants ... so im all for a true free market where the people choose induvidually how to live with one another. Some occupy guy defined it as a systeme where no mayority should enforce anything with arms against a resisting minority.
I used to be a big Paul supporter. Worked for his campaign, PAC, etc. I then realized his policies rightly showed the threat that government can pose to liberty, but then shifts all the power right to the private sector. Tyranny that the private sector wields is just as bad, if not worse, than the government.
worse by far. Government at least needs to pretend to be accountable to the people, whereas corporations are more or less mandated to put profits above the health of society, whatever form it takes.
|
| | Galneryus - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZizcOVNQFIo |
|
|
 jdseemoreglass United States. August 16 2012 08:45. Posts 3773 | Profile Blog # |
"Neoliberal"... one of the dumber words I've heard thrown around more and more. Classical liberalism is now "new" liberalism? That doesn't even make sense.
Your claim that the US isn't also a part of the capitalistic-welfare state confuses me... We have welfare, we have minimum wage, we have a progressive income tax, the only difference with Europe is the matter of degree. You claim that "neoliberalism" is the "American system." You really think the US has free unregulated markets? Sorry but that's way off.
State capitalism is likewise a misnomer. If state planning replaces the market, then it's not capitalism by any stretch. Put it, and mutualism, under the wide ranging terms Socialism/Communism.
I believe in Capitalistic Welfare, but I cast my vote for Neoliberalism because in your skewed spectrum that's probably where you would put me.
On August 16 2012 08:42 caradoc wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 07:41 ImAbstracT wrote:
On August 16 2012 07:23 Gaga wrote:
You forget that america as it is today, is far from a true free market. The critical part is the monopoly on money.
There is a whole movement called Libertarians.
Listen to Ron Paul, hes the guy who supports that system but is seen from many as too extreme in the US.
And you miss that very critical point in your assement as well.
I think the function of a system depends on the biggest part on its participants ... so im all for a true free market where the people choose induvidually how to live with one another. Some occupy guy defined it as a systeme where no mayority should enforce anything with arms against a resisting minority.
I used to be a big Paul supporter. Worked for his campaign, PAC, etc. I then realized his policies rightly showed the threat that government can pose to liberty, but then shifts all the power right to the private sector. Tyranny that the private sector wields is just as bad, if not worse, than the government.
worse by far. Government at least needs to pretend to be accountable to the people, whereas corporations are more or less mandated to put profits above the health of society, whatever form it takes.
Worse by far? That's a joke. Walmart cannot force me to give them money under threat of violence, like government taxation. Walmart cannot force me to work for them, like government conscription. Walmart and every other private company cannot engage in violence against anyone unless they do so with the strong arm of government. Government is coercion and violence, those are it's tools, while companies are forced to rely on voluntary exchange.
We've restricted the power of the government by breaking it into 3 competing branches. And we likewise restrict the economic power of the market by breaking it into tens of thousands of competing businesses.Last edit: 2012-08-16 08:50:10 |
| | "If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006 |
|
|
| Sub40APM August 16 2012 08:46. Posts 2289 | Profile # |
On August 16 2012 06:58 BrTarolg wrote:
What would you call the singaporean economic system then
(which is arguably, probably currently the role model for economic development worldwide right now)
Essentially it's a benevolent dictatorship with an emphasis on a small state and free market
One might argue a big difference between this and the Americans is that america is run by lawyers (for lack of a better way of putting it) which produce huge amount of regulation/red tape which capitalism seeks to cut out
Not sure if a model for a city state located in a key strategic position is applicable to the world economy. Especially when the city state's economy depends so much on money laundering for the surrounding ASEAN states. But even if you are a okay with the money laundering thing, I am not really sure I'd describe it a 'free market' when the dictator's wife runs a massive state owned conglomeration/hedge fund/holding company like Temasek. |
|
|
| LittleRedBoy August 16 2012 08:46. Posts 36 | Profile # |
On August 16 2012 08:40 caradoc wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 06:58 BrTarolg wrote:
What would you call the singaporean economic system then
(which is arguably, probably currently the role model for economic development worldwide right now)
Essentially it's a benevolent dictatorship with an emphasis on a small state and free market
One might argue a big difference between this and the Americans is that america is run by lawyers (for lack of a better way of putting it) which produce huge amount of regulation/red tape which capitalism seeks to cut out
State Capitalism / Neoliberal basically. It only works because taxes are so low, and the governmnet is fairly efficient compared to the rest of the region so they were able to attract a lot of financial companies to create regional hubs. That and they're a major port in a major shipping lane. If neighbouring countries stymied corruption and lowered taxes as well, Singapore's economy would crash without fundamental changes, i.e. their model is not one the rest of the world should aspire to.
The economy of Singapore would hardly crash. If other countries become more free and efficient then that benefits everyone. For example, Country A has a 15% tax rate. Country B lowers their tax rate from 20% to 10%. In order to stay competitive, Country A lowers their tax rate to 8%. Both countries produce more goods and services because of the increased incentive to produce due to lower taxes. This is when supply and demand takes over. More supply generally means lower prices and lower provide a higher standard of living for consumers. I don't see the downside here. |
|
|
| Equity213 Canada. August 16 2012 08:47. Posts 871 | Profile # |
On August 16 2012 07:41 ImAbstracT wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 07:23 Gaga wrote:
You forget that america as it is today, is far from a true free market. The critical part is the monopoly on money.
There is a whole movement called Libertarians.
Listen to Ron Paul, hes the guy who supports that system but is seen from many as too extreme in the US.
And you miss that very critical point in your assement as well.
I think the function of a system depends on the biggest part on its participants ... so im all for a true free market where the people choose induvidually how to live with one another. Some occupy guy defined it as a systeme where no mayority should enforce anything with arms against a resisting minority.
I used to be a big Paul supporter. Worked for his campaign, PAC, etc. I then realized his policies rightly showed the threat that government can pose to liberty, but then shifts all the power right to the private sector. Tyranny that the private sector wields is just as bad, if not worse, than the government.
But private entities cannot kidnap you, they cannot steal from you, they cannot murder you. How is being in an economically hard time worse than that. I would rather be unemployed than dead. |
|
|
| Nevermind86 Somalia. August 16 2012 08:54. Posts 416 | Profile # |
On August 16 2012 08:47 Equity213 wrote:
But private entities cannot kidnap you, they cannot steal from you, they cannot murder you. How is being in an economically hard time worse than that. I would rather be unemployed than dead.
What stops them exactly? In a violent country like México or Colombia a lot of union leaders get killed by orders of these same companies you preach won't do that, read about union leaders in Colombia, the government blames it on terrorism of course. In a peaceful country it is pretty weird that the government will be kidnapping and murdering people, when it happends then it's because the whole country is swallowed by violence and a lot of those private companies and individuals will take matters in their own hands too. Just look at the megaupload guy sent to jail with FBI agents working with the ones in New Zealand, or the Pirate Bay guys thrown in jail after a corrupt judge sent them, a guy in the pay of Warner Bros, what do you think? |
| | Interviewer: Many people hate you and would like to see you dead. How does that make you feel? Trevor Goodchild: Those people should get to know me a little better. Then they'd know I don't indulge in feelings. |
|
|
| LittleRedBoy August 16 2012 08:54. Posts 36 | Profile # |
On August 16 2012 07:41 ImAbstracT wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 07:23 Gaga wrote:
You forget that america as it is today, is far from a true free market. The critical part is the monopoly on money.
There is a whole movement called Libertarians.
Listen to Ron Paul, hes the guy who supports that system but is seen from many as too extreme in the US.
And you miss that very critical point in your assement as well.
I think the function of a system depends on the biggest part on its participants ... so im all for a true free market where the people choose induvidually how to live with one another. Some occupy guy defined it as a systeme where no mayority should enforce anything with arms against a resisting minority.
I used to be a big Paul supporter. Worked for his campaign, PAC, etc. I then realized his policies rightly showed the threat that government can pose to liberty, but then shifts all the power right to the private sector. Tyranny that the private sector wields is just as bad, if not worse, than the government. I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist; the Chomsky type.
"Tyranny that the private sector weilds"? You mean choices and decisions made by FREE people? There is no tyranny under by the private sector under capitalism. Consumers are free to choose what products to buy and who to buy from. If anything, the tyranny rests with people like you and me by deciding which companies stay in business and which ones go bankrupt. Also, libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms. Socialism, by definition, requires a rather large degree of force to work, a.k.a government fiat. Libertarianism, on the other hand involves freedom to work, a.k.a the lack of government fiat. |
|
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next All |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
WCS
