One Step Closer

[Ashenfury]

ignore a constant historical fight

You lost me right here.

[Greebo]

Yeah, look again there Ash.

[Cristok]

ignore a constant historical fight

You lost me right here.

Weekends, child labor laws, antitrust laws, 8 hour work days, saftey standards, food saftey, environmental standards, banking regulations...I mean thats just off the top of my liberal head.

Edit: Social security, voters rights, civil rights, medicare, Obama Care, popular vote for senators!

The more history I learn about America the more I realize that we have constantly been fighting the wealthy with the weapon of democracy. I agree that capitalism works really well to distribute wealth but it does need govt/the people to temper it.

[Greebo]

I agree that capitalism works really well to distribute wealth.

Well no, no it doesn't. What it does do is provide an efficient method for using capital. The profits tend to accrue to the capitalist as you might expect.

[Cristok]

I agree that capitalism works really well to distribute wealth.

Well no, no it doesn't. What it does do is provide an efficient method for using capital. The profits tend to accrue to the capitalist as you might expect.

Right...perhaps I mean the Keysian (sic)/capitalism shit we do in the U.S.

[Ashenfury]

Yeah, look again there Ash.

If you start a retort with 'ignore history' then I tend to disregard.

[Cristok]

Yeah, look again there Ash.

If you start a retort with 'ignore history' then I tend to disregard.

Your loss then...

[Greebo]

Yeah, look again there Ash.

If you start a retort with 'ignore history' then I tend to disregard.

Yeah, and his point was that the Gordon Rand/Ayn Gekko quote only makes sense if you ignore history. Thus ... look again.

[Therean]

Greed is the single most benevolent human emotion. It has put an end to wide spread war, floated an unprecedented economy with ever soaring prosperity that has seen more so than any other period in time ordinary common people enjoying fantasctic living standards and freedoms, it has pushed a technological boom that dwarfs the entirety of human history in less than a century.

Greed saved us.

One must ignore a constant historical fight to balance capitalism with social goals in our current system to believe that the economic system by itself is the cause for all this freedom and innovation. We've never ever had a lazie faire system in the U.S. , nor should we. Indeed Ash (despite somehow being a republican) is overly concerned with the pervasiveness of capitalism and Im trying to point out that at no point has the U.S ever had utter capitalism and at no point in the future will we, so chill. Its not who we are or who we should be. We are a balance...the balance my friend *smokes of the herb and rpees*

I'd preface my response firstly with the note that I am not American, or as intimately familiar with your culture as you yourself would be.

Without a doubt within the frame of your current system, there has been a shifting balance between economic and social concerns. Such it is with the responsibilities of sensible governance. However all of this takes place entirely encapsulated within the rise and prominence of capitalism. A broader look a developmental human history shows incontrovertibly the profound impact that the inception of capitalism had upon the world.

For thousands of years, with several isolated and notable exceptions, socio-economics was structured around land; Feudalism, or some variant thereof. In such a system subjects had no material wealth without the title to land. By modern conceptions this is essentially slavery, but conferring that title obfuscates the matter with accessories to that idea which do not apply. Everyone was a slave. Just as you might buy a house today, and have furniture come wih that sale- peasants were simply extensions of the land they worked.

The rise of capitalism itself is a long and interesting story, but I must not tempt myself to ramble. The point is that through a number of parallel and converging developments, the common populace of the west through the rise of early capitalism were granted private wealth. Liquid capital. Though few guessed it at the time, as conditions were still very poor, what had happened is that the reins of society were being taken away from the elite, the landowners, and put into the hands of the masses. With money-power, the voice of the people suddenly became relevant- subjects became citizens, shareholders in a growing economy. Collectively, their wealth would come to eclipse that of Kings.

It was only after capitalism that communism, socialism, and other such systematic approaches to social justice and reform were ever possible. Before Capitalism there were peasant uprisings, pathetic things which were almost all uniformly put down. After capitalism there were revolutions, and the rise of nationalism. The difference? In the former case, common people were akin to farm animals, disenfranchised and irrelevant. In the latter case, common people held liquid wealth; a share of the abstract prosperity of the entire nation.

To come back to the point at hand, social goals have indeed been a consistent part of the USA since it's inception. All countries, in fact. For social goals matter to people, people have a political voice because they are empowered with money-power, thanks to the economy. Property rights form the basis of all rights. If the people have the right to own, firstly self-ownership and then property, only then can they contest how they are ruled with any hope; political rights. Once the political rights are secured, they can be turned to the acquisition on civil rights. However, at any point if the foundational economic rights are suspended or removed, then all the rights built on top of them collapse. Case in point, Zimbabwe.

The greatest lever for change in your society, and in all societies around the world has been and continues to be the private capitalist market. Every day it achieves more than every government initiative in history combined has ever achieved. As tribes were eclipsed by feudal warlords, who were in turn eclipsed by monarchies, then colonial empires; so too will the nationstate of today be eclipsed by something else. From my vantage, we are living in the final decades of the nationstate. A larger, more potent beast roams the land now; it is called the corporation. The weight in gold of corporations far outweighs that of the elderly nationstates. Though it can be a cruel beast, in comparison to the nationstate it is far kinder. It does not long for war, merely trade- trade which is done by matching the demands of the peoples of the world with supply.

So I did get sidetracked and ramble, it seems. In a nutshell- the market, not the government, is the vehicle for social change. Already it is the market that supplies drugs to meet the demands of the population of the US and the world. That the government has outlawed it has stopped nothing, merely raised the costs of production and distribution. Should the government legalise it, it would be the market still that brings it to the people. Even in the USSR, one of the most state-heavy societies in history, had a pervasive blackmarket. The market is the soul of seven billion buzzing ants. No imaginary boxes placed around them can contain it.

[Therean]

I agree that capitalism works really well to distribute wealth.

Well no, no it doesn't. What it does do is provide an efficient method for using capital. The profits tend to accrue to the capitalist as you might expect.

I'd agree with both of you. Capitalism does work spectacularly to spread wealth- more so than any other system, even communism. In heavy socialistic systems wealth is spread but at the same time destroyed. Right now we live in the century of the common man. At no point in history has it ever been better to be an ordinary joe, and it is getting better every day.

Greebo makes a point that the system favours holders of capital. I would add two clauses to that statement; it does so proportionately (i.e. the more capital you have, the increasingly more wealth you can gain. Secondly, we are all capitalists (functionally, that is). Capital is the means to production, like a tractor, or warehouse, or a business. However, the human body and mind is itself capital. Unless you are a child, elderly, or some combination of crippled, sick, insane and/or retarded, you have capital embedded within you. It is for this reason that the freelancer can turn a profit, that the common people benefited so much from the rise of capitalism( not as much as companies and landowners did, but still plenty- and collectively more so). It is also for this reason that the underage, the elderly, and invalid are the most economically vulnerable groups in society- the most dependent on others for quality of life.

Without government these people would be at the mercy of private charity. However, this is hardly a song of praise to the government. For though I see this as a central worthwhile purpose of government- in actuality it ranks dismally low on their priorities. The government has degenerated to form something of a market cheating cartel- that subsidises huge industries so they needn't engage in regular competition in service of public demand to turn a profit.

[Therean]

Weekends, child labor laws, antitrust laws, 8 hour work days, saftey standards, food saftey, environmental standards, banking regulations...I mean thats just off the top of my liberal head.

Edit: Social security, voters rights, civil rights, medicare, Obama Care, popular vote for senators!

The more history I learn about America the more I realize that we have constantly been fighting the wealthy with the weapon of democracy. I agree that capitalism works really well to distribute wealth but it does need govt/the people to temper it.

A lot of the above was the work of unions, not the government. Unions are private associations of employed individuals that enter into an agreement to collectively bargain for better contractual terms for what they do. It is a natural market process, and counts to me as the market improving society.

[Abric]

Keep it to pot folks - or I'm burning this crop down.

[Ashenfury]

Yeah, look again there Ash.

If you start a retort with 'ignore history' then I tend to disregard.

Yeah, and his point was that the Gordon Rand/Ayn Gekko quote only makes sense if you ignore history. Thus ... look again.

OHhhhh! I'm glad I asked.

[Therean]

Keep it to pot folks - or I'm burning this crop down.

Why do the mods of so many forums have a problem with thread drift?

The consistency of it suggests to me that there must be some kind of reason behind it, beyond isolated mod wankery.

[Greebo]

Reason being, Therean, is that political and/or religious discussions can and have spiral out of control quickly and can come, if unpruned, to dominate any conversation:

"I like kittens!"
"I like puppies!"
"Both were made the the FSM you heretics!"
+++
"Hey, where can I buy pizza in Bumfuck, Nebraska?"
"In hell! No Pizza for the impurity!"

Even just talking about how people talk about it derails threads.



PS - Organizations of Police Chiefs support decriminalization, I wonder why the politicians love criminals and hate the police.