Is this a politicial forum? can we debate freely?

[top gun]

That synopsis is incorrect. Capitalism is not based on capital investments/expenditures in government and its a violation of capitalist principles to offer "tax incentives", I.E. taxpayer funded subsidies, for any goods or services.

Capitalism does require the free flow of capital but only on a voluntary basis. For example, mandating that all citizens purchase Healthcare insurance violates capitalist principles by eliminating the voluntary nature of the flow of capital and mandating that a good or service be purchased by the public under threat of force. This is coercion, not capitalism.

Capitalism, despite the common misconceptions, is not anarchy. Capitalism calls for government to do one job and do it well: Protect our Individual Rights. Enron was not capitalism in action, it was fraud and government collusion in action. Same with the economic meltdown of the financial sector, fraud and government collusion, not a result of adhering to capitalist principle but an example of abandoning capitalist principle.

In your world it would be anti-capitalism to force people buy car insurance too. But we all know how necessary that really is.

There has to be a blend. 100% capitalism is not good. You can sing that it is from the rafters all day and night... but it still is not. Without regulation businesses will always eventually take unfair advantage of it's workers and the public as well as have much less regard for the environment.

The Robber Barron days are gone. There are Anti-Trust rules and all kinds of other regulations for good reason.

And ENRON was capitalism run amuck...

 

[GenSeneca]

In your world it would be anti-capitalism to force people buy car insurance too. But we all know how necessary that really is.

We are not forcing people to purchase the vehicle then forcing them to insure it.

There has to be a blend. 100% capitalism is not good.

Then be an open supporter of Fascism, Socialism or Communism rather than just bashing Capitalism.

Without regulation businesses will always eventually take unfair advantage of it's workers and the public as well as have much less regard for the environment.

If a business, or an individual, violates the rights of any individual, then its the responsibility of the government to stop the violations. That is the purpose of government, to protect the rights of individuals.

Unfair advantage is a vague term but if a company is defrauding employees or investors, then their rights are being violated and the government is within their charter to respond appropriately.

In the case of environmental concerns, it would be a violation of your individuals rights for me to dump waste on your land, poison your water supply, etc. etc. and the government has a responsibility to act when such individual rights are being violated. So the notion that Capitalism equals a total disregard for the environment is a false, but popular, misconception.

The Robber Barron days are gone. There are Anti-Trust rules and all kinds of other regulations for good reason.

I agree, there are some regulations that are good, like those that protect the individual from force and fraud. We've been over the "robber baron" excuse for hating capitalism before and you seem to ignore governments role in creating that, and other, messes in the economy.

The Robber barons are no different from Enron or the Financial crisis, in all three cases, the government got in bed with business and the result was a disaster... and the same government that created the mess, blamed capitalism and business while absolving themselves of any responsibility for the role they played in created the mess.

If you think Robber barons, Enron and the Financial meltdown are bad, then you should look at placing "regulations" on government to prevent them from meddling in the market and creating another economic catastrophe.

 

[Richard Savage]

The abuses of the system can all be fixed with a single legislative act. All that needs be done is for Congress to repeal the provisions under Title 11 exempting financial derivative contracts from bankruptcy. Without that exemption, the market will be forced to regulate itself. It's as simple as that.

 

[always]

In your world it would be anti-capitalism to force people buy car insurance too. But we all know how necessary that really is.

There has to be a blend. 100% capitalism is not good. You can sing that it is from the rafters all day and night... but it still is not. Without regulation businesses will always eventually take unfair advantage of it's workers and the public as well as have much less regard for the environment.

The Robber Barron days are gone. There are Anti-Trust rules and all kinds of other regulations for good reason.

And ENRON was capitalism run amuck...

You claim you were a coach!I find that impossible to believe! certainly not a sports coach! Maybe you coached welfare cheats on gaming the system but coaching anything positive! ,NO WAY!!

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

The abuses of the system can all be fixed with a single legislative act. All that needs be done is for Congress to repeal the provisions under Title 11 exempting financial derivative contracts from bankruptcy. Without that exemption, the market will be forced to regulate itself. It's as simple as that.

Well, all righty then...please go help fix this health care debacle...would you...PLEASE.

SERIOUSLY...go get that mess cleaned up so we all can start arguing about something else

 

[Dr.Who]

Can you post where you read that? The first thought that came to my mind when reading this post was the delta shmelt and the intentional famine happening in Calif.

Here is the AP story reprinted on Fox.
http://world.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=17040&content=25895953&pageNum=-1

Here is the AP story removed from Airamerica (page not found).
http://airamerica.com/breakingnews/2120/

 

[Dr.Who]

Thoughtful & insightful post Richard.

That's the first advice I give to anyone feeling depressed. I say... go out and help someone else. It is amazing how seeing yourself helping someone else makes you forget your own problems a little.

How many uninsured people have you donated money to help get medical care? What charity did you go through?

 

[Dr.Who]

Capitalism does require the free flow of capital but only on a voluntary basis. For example, mandating that all citizens purchase Healthcare insurance violates capitalist principles by eliminating the voluntary nature of the flow of capital and mandating that a good or service be purchased by the public under threat of force. This is coercion, not capitalism.

Capitalism, despite the common misconceptions, is not anarchy. Capitalism calls for government to do one job and do it well: Protect our Individual Rights. Enron was not capitalism in action, it was fraud and government collusion in action. Same with the economic meltdown of the financial sector, fraud and government collusion, not a result of adhering to capitalist principle but an example of abandoning capitalist principle.

Thats right. The basics of a contract is that it must be entered into willingly. If one is coerced to do something then that is a violation of their rights.

 

[Dr.Who]

The founders could not possibly know of every single thing that might happen and prepare for it.

They knew enough to provide the gov with enough power to protect our rights.

robber barrons would be violating rights and gov would have enough power to stop it!

 

[top gun]

We are not forcing people to purchase the vehicle then forcing them to insure it.

You are forcing people to insure something that they bought with their own hard earned money that they may never be in a wreck in their whole life.

Under your strict vision of capitalism it's in the same category. And as a matter of fact used to be that way. You didn't always have to have car insurance.

Then be an open supporter of Fascism, Socialism or Communism rather than just bashing Capitalism.

This trying to pigeon hole people to your personal stereotypes is getting tedious. A people can blend various things into their government... a government can evolve.

Why not just continue to be slave owners? Answer: Because times changed, it was not the appropriate thing to do.

If a business, or an individual, violates the rights of any individual, then its the responsibility of the government to stop the violations. That is the purpose of government, to protect the rights of individuals.

Unfair advantage is a vague term but if a company is defrauding employees or investors, then their rights are being violated and the government is within their charter to respond appropriately.

In the case of environmental concerns, it would be a violation of your individuals rights for me to dump waste on your land, poison your water supply, etc. etc. and the government has a responsibility to act when such individual rights are being violated. So the notion that Capitalism equals a total disregard for the environment is a false, but popular, misconception.

I agree, there are some regulations that are good, like those that protect the individual from force and fraud. We've been over the "robber baron" excuse for hating capitalism before and you seem to ignore governments role in creating that, and other, messes in the economy.

The Robber barons are no different from Enron or the Financial crisis, in all three cases, the government got in bed with business and the result was a disaster... and the same government that created the mess, blamed capitalism and business while absolving themselves of any responsibility for the role they played in created the mess.

If you think Robber barons, Enron and the Financial meltdown are bad, then you should look at placing "regulations" on government to prevent them from meddling in the market and creating another economic catastrophe.

Just like I said regulation IS needed because without it big business has/would again eventually take unfair advantage of its workers, the public and the environment.

Moving on from that you are against things like Social Security & Medicare. That's your opinion to hold. But the fact is they are the kind of programs that are of such great need the government did the right & necessary thing to step in an help. I'm glad I live in a country that does do things like that. If that makes me a fascist commie to you or anything else that's your opinion.

Mine opinion is it's simply the right thing to do. America votes for it's leaders. It is American.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Thats right. The basics of a contract is that it must be entered into willingly. If one is coerced to do something then that is a violation of their rights.

If a 14 year old child has no health care, and gets sick...they had no choice to be covered did they? SO do you

A: let them die
B: pay for them with Tax dollars ( that is a violation of tax payer rights!)

Don;t worry
Pick A and and your a heartless person who want's kids to die becuse they don't have money..B and you are in favor of Violating peoples rights. SO you can't win, you lost already.


Fact is, unless your willing to say anyone with out health care coverage should just die in the street unless some random charity pays for it....then shut about about crying that the goverment is going to make sure that evryone has it, or if they choose not to...pay in to pay part of the costs of treating the uninsured taxpayers who will show up , like it or not.

 

[GenSeneca]

You are forcing people to insure something that they bought with their own hard earned money that they may never be in a wreck in their whole life.

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. You're the one who thinks we should mandate people purchase Health insurance and you're the one trying to use the mandate of car insurance as an example of why its acceptable to make such mandates.

Under your strict vision of capitalism it's in the same category. And as a matter of fact used to be that way. You didn't always have to have car insurance.

The difference is, when you didn't buy car insurance and got into an accident, the government didn't force taxpayers to cover your expenses.

Government does currently force taxpayers to subsidize the health care for people who got sick or injured without health insurance.

This trying to pigeon hole people to your personal stereotypes is getting tedious.

I'm not trying to pigeon hole, you're just being evasive as to what you really believe... its that or you haven't taken the time to browse through all the political ideologies to find out where your political beliefs actually lie.

A people can blend various things into their government... a government can evolve.

Precisely what are you looking to have government "evolve" into?

Why not just continue to be slave owners? Answer: Because times changed, it was not the appropriate thing to do.

Now that we've "evolved" we simply make slaves out of people based on their level of productivity rather than their race.

Just like I said regulation IS needed because without it big business has/would again eventually take unfair advantage of its workers, the public and the environment.

If a regulation protects individual rights, then it should be a law and not a regulation. The regulations that I have a problem with are the ones that have nothing to do with protecting individual rights, like CAFE standards.

I again remind you that we'd also be better served if we placed limits on the power of government, so it doesn't take unfair advantage of workers, the public and the environment.

Moving on from that you are against things like Social Security & Medicare.

On the federal level, yes. If individual states want to build themselves up as welfare states, then it is their right to do so but the federal government should not be obligated to bail them out once their socialist utopia goes bankrupt.

That's your opinion to hold. But the fact is they are the kind of programs that are of such great need the government did the right & necessary thing to step in an help.

What you're proud of is government using its monopoly on force to take money from one group and redistribute it to another... to each according to his needs, from each according to their ability.

I'm glad I live in a country that does do things like that. If that makes me a fascist commie to you or anything else that's your opinion.

Whatever you call yourself, you're not a supporter of Capitalism or Individual rights.

Mine opinion is it's simply the right thing to do. America votes for it's leaders. It is American.

We live in a Republic, not a democracy, and in a Republic, the "consent of the governed" is tied to governments obligation to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Dr.Who]

If a 14 year old child has no health care, and gets sick...they had no choice to be covered did they? SO do you

14 year old minors don't have the ability to legally enter in to a contract. their parents or guardians contract for them. It is the guardians choice.

A: let them die
B: pay for them with Tax dollars ( that is a violation of tax payer rights!)

Don;t worry
Pick A and and your a heartless person who want's kids to die becuse they don't have money..B and you are in favor of Violating peoples rights. SO you can't win, you lost already.

B is a violation of others rights so we don't pick that.
A is not even on the table so we don't pick that.
C is let the parents get them health insurance before they get sick
D is let the parents pay with cash or credit
E is let them appeal to charity
F is let them appeal to family
G is let them appeal to church or community
H is let them appeal to strangers
I is let them appeal to the state gov that may be allowed to provide care under the state constitution

Fact is, unless your willing to say anyone with out health care coverage should just die in the street unless some random charity pays for it....then shut about about crying that the goverment is going to make sure that evryone has it, or if they choose not to...pay in to pay part of the costs of treating the uninsured taxpayers who will show up , like it or not.

No one is dying in the street so why do you even bring it up.

 

[Dr.Who]

Just like I said regulation IS needed because without it big business has/would again eventually take unfair advantage of its workers, the public and the environment.

"Unfair advantage" would be an example of trampling someone's rights. Regulation would be needed to protect those rights. We call those regulations laws. It is the purpose of gov to protect rights.

But that is not a justification for further regulation that does not protect rights. Doling out services is not an example of rights being protected through regulation. It is in fact an example of rights being violated to buy votes.

 

[top gun]

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. You're the one who thinks we should mandate people purchase Health insurance and you're the one trying to use the mandate of car insurance as an example of why its acceptable to make such mandates.

So you are saying people SHOULDN'T be forced to carry auto insurance which is undeniably wrong headed. That would be dangerous and stupid.

The difference is, when you didn't buy car insurance and got into an accident, the government didn't force taxpayers to cover your expenses.

Oh contraire. If you don't have auto insurance and cause an accident your medical bills are paid by us all in the emergency room and the person you hit has to pay out of their own pocket for your entire mistake both vehicle & medical.

Government does currently force taxpayers to subsidize the health care for people who got sick or injured without health insurance.

So you should have no problem with us making that system even better by including everybody... just like auto insurance.

The reality is that no one knows they are going to get into an accident nor do they know they will get seriously ill or injured. And since very very few would have cash on hand to cover such occurrences the need for insurance exists. It's called guaranteed responsibility.

I'm not trying to pigeon hole, you're just being evasive as to what you really believe... its that or you haven't taken the time to browse through all the political ideologies to find out where your political beliefs actually lie.

Well we will have to agree to disagree. I believe in a blend of the best ideas and policies from whatever philosophy they originate from. Might be from Confusius... don't care.

Precisely what are you looking to have government "evolve" into?

Just like we realized slavery was wrong or that woman actually should be able to vote we should strive to be or evolve to the most fair state we can at any particular given time depending on all circumstances.

Now that we've "evolved" we simply make slaves out of people based on their level of productivity rather than their race.

Better than by the color of their skin.

If a regulation protects individual rights, then it should be a law and not a regulation. The regulations that I have a problem with are the ones that have nothing to do with protecting individual rights, like CAFE standards.

As someone who grew up when cars ran on toxic leaded gas and most got about 8mpg highway and now look at what we have today... Love CAFE standards and emissions regulations absolutely love 'em.

I again remind you that we'd also be better served if we placed limits on the power of government, so it doesn't take unfair advantage of workers, the public and the environment.

And when I see that happen I'll jump right onboard with you. But I have to see it first.

On the federal level, yes. If individual states want to build themselves up as welfare states, then it is their right to do so but the federal government should not be obligated to bail them out once their socialist utopia goes bankrupt.

Well the fact is we all vote for both State & Federal leaders. There needs to be some consistency across the board on many things. When we didn't we had segregation. We had pockets of school systems that made today's worst system look like Harvard. We had terrible abuse of prisoners in some states until the Feds got involved. Drug trafficking goes across State lines...

I could go on & on but bottom like just like Social Security or Medicare Health Insurance Reform should be on a National basis. That's what I truly think is best.

What you're proud of is government using its monopoly on force to take money from one group and redistribute it to another... to each according to his needs, from each according to their ability.

Again we look at this differently. I'm generally against speeding... but if I'm rushing someone to the hospital then I'm for speeding. Sometimes a need wins out.

Whatever you call yourself, you're not a supporter of Capitalism or Individual rights.

Let's just say I'm not as black & white about it as you seem to be.

We live in a Republic, not a democracy, and in a Republic, the "consent of the governed" is tied to governments obligation to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

If you read what I said... I said a Republic (a representative democracy). Representative democracy is the definition of a Republic.

re⋅pub⋅lic Pronunciation [ri-puhb-lik]

noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.