"Hey shingen, do you care if i paste this stuff to word? Its great."
Cyrezar, not at all, go ahead.
"Apparently, you failed too...
Most Americans just can't admit they are wrong / ignorant / etc. You just believe (not even think) you are right because you've been taught so by a stupid system (potitics, school, justice, etc.) so you just take this illusion of knowledge and voice it as if it was the truth (as stupid religion freaks do)... Go get a clue."
No, I have not failed at all, quite the opposite; if such were actually the case, you would be able to make a rational argument against what I have actually posted. You are demonstrating that you are unable to refute my arguments, and have moved on to unbacked, irrational statements, including ad hominem attack.
"Shingen, I can't believe just how blinkered you are. You are certainly eloquent; let me respond to a few of your points (if I respond to all I'll be here all night...)
1. Stop using the term "statism". It's a made-up word. There is nobody out there saying "yep, I'm a statist"."
Statism covers such political systems (for example) as socialism, communism, fascism, and nazism; they all rely on the same philosophic principles - they do vary in degree of brutality and violation of individual rights.
Statism can also be called collectivism; it's the political expression of altruism. All statist political systems hold that an individual's life belongs to the state, society, group, gang, people, race, nation, [insert other term here], and that said collective may do with an individual's life as it pleases, based on whatever reason is declared, to achieve whatever goal is determined by the gang in power.
Under statism, the government becomes a legalized criminal entity. It is the concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual rights.
A 'statist' is someone that believes some individuals have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder other individuals.
"What?? Look at Europe, please. We actually are moving towards living in harmony with our neighbours, knocking down borders, cooperating with one another. That is more than the USA can say about itself. And you dare call us "stangant"?!
Its's probably statements like this that make foreigners call Americans "arrogant" and "uneducated"."
In the section you quote, I didn't say anything about "harmony," "knocking down borders," or "cooperating with one another." And that isn't more than the USA can say about itself, the U.S. and Canada maintain the world's longest unguarded border. Mexico has been ruled by the same party politically for most of the previous seven decades, i.e. it has been a party-dicatorship (with the power being in the party, not solely in one person); so that combined with the issues of rampant immigration from Mexico, does require border protection.
A statist country, to the degree that it is statist, must put up walls to hold people in. The Berlin Wall, for example. It is never necessary for a capitalistic country to build walls to keep people in.
Yes, I dare call *most* of Europe stagnant, it mostly is and has been (from nearly every standpoint, in terms of producing new technology, in terms of expanding economically, etc.). Many countries in Europe have gotten better in the last decade, about removing government protected monopolies, lowering (or at least not raising) taxes, etc.
You say "Its's probably statements like this," is it or isn't it?
"Ah, the old myth of the "American dream". I see where you're coming from, but you completely fail to acknowledge the fact that some people are born into less privileged circumstances that others. Someone who grows up in a poor family, in some bad inner city neighbourhood, might work and work all his life and still never manage to escape his low-down life."
There is no myth about the "American dream." Thousands of people flee countries like China and India every year and come to the U.S. because they are free to achieve and prosper here, to start their own businesses, etc.; check out Silicon Valley sometime (or Boston, or Northern Virginia, etc.).
I don't "fail to acknowledge the fact that some people are born into less privileged circumstances," I've stated that one person's need is not a claim on another person's ability, life, or success; if you fail, you have no right to pull me down with you (I do have a right to help you out however, if I choose to, and if you accept such help). If you think you need a yacht, you have no right to get the government to satisfy your 'need' at my expense. There is no such thing as a "privileged circumstance" under capitalism; there are only circumstances where individuals have *earned* values. Statism makes it fully possible to buy political favors (that becomes the method of operation), to protect from competition; capitalism does not. It is this aspect, that has caused Europe to remain so stagnant - look at all the government sanctioned sector monopolies that make up so many of Europe's largest companies (some of which are slowly being turned over to the private sector).
A privilege is granted (and depending on how you define it, works to the detriment of others); economic power under capitalism is not granted (it is earned), just as individual rights are impossible to 'grant.'
You mention the scenario of someone working all their life, and never making it out of poverty; how do you think Henry Ford made his money? Or Andrew Carnegie (who was most certainly not a rich man, he created his wealth). Bill Gates did not get 50 million in funding for Microsoft, he started it on shoe strings. The Intel founders chipped in some small amount like $500. Etc.
It is only statism that can *prevent* someone from working their way out of poverty; to the degree that a country is statist, it prevents such. See: USSR, India, China, etc. and how they make it almost impossible to actually create wealth.
Europe doesn't have many billionaires or millionaires because it has attempted to make every one equal in wealth and earning potential; regardless of ability. This is another example of economic stagnation (as is the extreme debt to GDP ratios that many European countries possess).
All individuals are not inherently equal in ability and effort; they should not be rewarded as though they were.
"And don't tell me this is going to happen through voluntary donations. I think it's very noble if Gordon Moore gives millions to charity, but if you want to ensure a steady flow of money you will need to do more than just rely on the occasional goodwill of some millionaire."
"Where in your system are the provisions for charity? For helping the less fortunate?"
Provision for charity? Capitalism has proven to be the system that creates a vastly greater amount of charity than any other; as I've stated previously, America's wealthy do not spend a significant portion of their wealth on personal consumption (this is a fact, and it isn't difficult to track such). Americans give more money to charities every year than the rest of the world combined, several times over; take a look at the top 50 charities that operate in this country some time.
Capitalism doesn't prevent someone from giving to charity; if you want to give your money away to charity, you are very much free to do so. It *does* happen voluntarily. Check out how much is given to education each year by the wealthy, who donate to universities, to medical facilities, etc. The sum is likely greater than the GDP of some of the smaller nations in Europe. I can get you specific figures if you would like.
You're thinking in terms of "where is your provision for robbing people?". That is, "where is your provision for forcing people to give their money away?".
I'd like to point out also, that under capitalism, the 40% income tax (or whatever a country sets it at) on corporate profits would be removed, so unemployment would cease to be an issue any longer; charity would cease to be a significant issue (there would no longer be any significant number of homeless or very poor, because that 40% that normally would have gone to taxes, would be put toward expansion, i.e. job creation). However, as statist controls are introduced into a system, the statism becomes a rolling snowball; eg- see France, who often has 12% + unemployment, which is caused by the socialism. The statist controls cause the unemployment problems, and then more controls are passed to try and force unemployment to go away (eg- making it nearly impossible to fire people), which ends up creating even more unemployment (a business that cannot adjust to economic climate, or business failure, by firing people, will necessarily destroy itself). This scene has played out many, many times over the last several decades in Europe (in just about every country).
"Anyway Shingen, a few posts back I asked you to outline how the US (or any other country) would look under your proposed "pure capitalism" - you haven't responded yet... Please? I would be interested to hear of a system as unregulated as the one you're proposing being made to work in a country containing well over 200 million people."
I have outlined such, throughout this thread. I should be able to just say "capitalism"; but you don't understand what that is. The number of people are irrelevant to whether capitalism works; whether it is 20 million, or 285 million.
You seem to have a serious issue with regulations, thinking that it is necessary to force people to act in a certain way. The initiation of force, and regulations that require such, are anti-individual rights. It isn't necessary to create a thousand regulations protecting freedom of speech; it is only necessary to protect an individual from having his/her right to speech removed by the initiation of force (if force isn't used to do such, then freedom of speech exists). This same concept applies to every other individual right.
Regulations that require the initiation of force are not necessary (and are in fact extremely detrimental); all that is necessary, to protect individual rights, is to banish the initiation of force (and to defend against an individual or group that does initiate force). The only proper functions of government are the court system, the military, and the police. A government is an entity that holds a legalized monopoly on the use of force, the three mentioned proper functions of government all relate to such monopoly on force (military is used to protect against foreign invaders by way of defense, etc.; police act to protect against the violation of individual rights domestically, and to uphold justice, etc.; the court system punishes those that do violate individual rights, and it acts to settle domestic disputes, etc.).
If you have a specific question about some aspect of capitalism, and how it functions, feel free to ask.
This comment was edited on Sep 13, 01:00.