Two Party System = EPIC FAIL!!!

[Gipper]

Until you guys have some kind of actual proof that what I'm saying is patently untrue, just saying it over and over doesn't make it correct. Our society has gotten more and more legalistic in every possible way, so comparing the number of pages now to the number of pages in the 1930's is ridiculous because in 1930, 95% of the crap we have to deal with today didn't exist. In the meantime, in reality, Wall Street has more freedom and power today to speculate and set up their unethical schemes than it did 20, 30 years ago- regardless of whatever regulations you keep seeing appear. Multinationals have more power to set up shop and exploit people and natural resources than ever before- now, not even nations are sovereign. Companies hold the cards, not countries, and there are plenty countries in huge debt because of shitty deals they had to accept due to economic circumstances forced upon them by the bigger nations and the companies that came out of them. Do a little reading on England and its Banana Republics, if you're curious... or the Opium Wars... or pretty much all of history. The U.S. Constitution has a lot of wonderful ideas but it has been eroded over the years. Every so often, the rich step too far overboard, too many common people suffer, and the government realizes it's going to have a revolution on their hands if they don't do something about it, so they do- and for a time, things get a little more stable. Then it starts again. We are in one of those times now. If Dodd-Frank was actually limiting the people who run Washington in any significant way, it wouldn't have passed. Again, whatever terms you want to use is fine with me- the result is that today, corporations have the ability to do more than they used to without having to answer for their actions as much as they used to. Call that over-regulation or de-regulation, the bottom line is companies have less government interference over their actions.

As to bringing slavery into the argument, if you really want to go there, then you have to admit that capitalism is slavery in a different name. The age-old strategy is the same- those who have will always try to find ways to exploit those who don't have. You can physically force them do do it like in the old days, or you can economically force them to do it like in the new days. Either way, it's slavery. All the people working for shanty-town factory-towns in 3rd world countries getting paid 20 cents a day are slaves, even though, technically, they are "free". And, to a more subtle extent, television and media creates a different kind of a slave- one that willingly wants to keep its shackles. This is the most clever permutation of slavery yet, because no one is going to start a revolt as long as they are comfortable. So we've removed "slavery" from this country and hidden it in other coutries behind a lot of hypocritical new labels, but don't kid yourself- we live our nice middle-class lives because there are people right now getting screwed over. Many, many people, children, parents, you name it. If they didn't exist, we wouldn't have the luxury of arguing with each other right now.

Socialism in it's spirit is the desire to see everyone get a fair share of our collective wealth; it is the acknowledgement that no man is an island, and that, no matter how self-made you think you are, the reality is your success actually came about with the help of others in many ways you may never be aware of. It seeks to spread the rewards of that success among everyone, who is working together for a better future. That certainly sounds more moral than the philosophies I've heard come out of mouths of libertarians I know (and I'm not criticizing libertarianism as a concept. My point is that any system can be twisted for bad in the hands of the right people.) I am not a socialist- but I see the good aspects of it, just like I see the good aspects of capitalism. The only truly moral system I can see is no system at all, where each man is free to fully decide for himself what he wants to do. The minute you impose law, freedom is already compromised, so if you're arguing that socialism forces people to do things, so does every system we've ever invented.

If a group of people freely choose to live in a society where the wealth is shared, and set up a regulating body to take care of the logistics, you're telling me that's immoral? The problem is, just like with capitalism, the examples of socialist governments in history are not as idealistic- and, just like with capitalism, end up just being tools for persecution and abuse. But in that regard, we're not any less guilty, or more moral. We have a lot to be ashamed of in terms of our actions, and pleading ignorance isn't really an excuse.

I'm not a moral relativist at all- I simply realize that a man-made invention is just that- man-made. Morality transcends that. No matter what system of government you choose, the moral rules will be the same- and if they are followed, that system will work, because the people running it are honorable. Your belief that free market capitalism will save the day is what's naive around here, even though it sounds really nice in theory.

First, it appears you now KNOW that the fed gov is NOT deregulating and the world has NOT operated under capitalism the past 20 years, as you initially stated. You were wrong on those points....and you are wrong on so many more....

The last four paragraphs of your post are full of socialist indoctrination.
1. You think capitalism must result in the wealthy exploiting the non-wealthy. This is incorrect, but believed by many on the Left. The rule of law prevents exploitation. Governments MAIN role is to FAIRLY impose the rule of law on ALL.
- Economics is NOT a zero sum game as you and BO believe. America IS NOT WEALTHY BECAUSE WE EXPLOIT THIRD WORLD NATIONS...THIS IS SUCH SOCIALIST BS. If not for America the world would still be dying of numerous dread diseases, warming themselves by the fire, suffering under numerous tyrannies, etc.........................................................
- And our society and economy is NOT that different from what is was in the 1930s....that is just an excuse to grant more powers to the central government.
2. Socialism IS slavery. Government force used to spread the wealth, IS SLAVERY. Government loves people like you who believe socialism is good, because that grants them coercive powers. There is NO GOVERNMENT FORCE on the individual in free market capitalism with the rule of law.
3. I NEVER agreed to collectivism, but I am forced to abide by it or face imprisonment...even execution. You think this is just fine. Not me. "No man is an island..." what a terrible commie cliche. You must have loved it when Big Ears said, "You didn't build that!" So you conclude we need a big omnipresent tyrannical government to impose collectivism because without it, our society would be so cold hearted toward the less fortunate. Can't you see how they have brainwashed you?
4. You think a big coercive arbitrary central government using force on the individual, is good. I do not.

 

[dogtowner]

Dodd-Frank was never intended to solve problems but rather add cost to corporations. That in and of itself hurts consumers who bear that cost. It is fair to say that business will always stay ahead of the curve of government regulation because they have smarter guys. So as long as you have an adversarial relationship between the two the worse it is for the consumer.

A truly free market is the best answer. It eliminates business influence on government, allows consumers to pick winners and losers and returns competition to where it belongs, the marketplace.

 

[dogtowner]

Dodd-Frank was never intended to solve problems but rather add cost to corporations. That in and of itself hurts consumers who bear that cost. It is fair to say that business will always stay ahead of the curve of government regulation because they have smarter guys. So as long as you have an adversarial relationship between the two the worse it is for the consumer.

A truly free market is the best answer. It eliminates business influence on government, allows consumers to pick winners and losers and returns competition to where it belongs, the marketplace.

 

[dogtowner]

Dodd-Frank was never intended to solve problems but rather add cost to corporations. That in and of itself hurts consumers who bear that cost. It is fair to say that business will always stay ahead of the curve of government regulation because they have smarter guys. So as long as you have an adversarial relationship between the two the worse it is for the consumer.

A truly free market is the best answer. It eliminates business influence on government, allows consumers to pick winners and losers and returns competition to where it belongs, the marketplace.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Could you say that again?

Dodd-Frank was never intended to solve problems but rather add cost to corporations. That in and of itself hurts consumers who bear that cost. It is fair to say that business will always stay ahead of the curve of government regulation because they have smarter guys. So as long as you have an adversarial relationship between the two the worse it is for the consumer.

A truly free market is the best answer. It eliminates business influence on government, allows consumers to pick winners and losers and returns competition to where it belongs, the marketplace.

Pardon me--what was that again?

 

[dogtowner]

Could you say that again?


Pardon me--what was that again?

Dodd-Frank was never intended to solve problems but rather add cost to corporations. That in and of itself hurts consumers who bear that cost. It is fair to say that business will always stay ahead of the curve of government regulation because they have smarter guys. So as long as you have an adversarial relationship between the two the worse it is for the consumer.

A truly free market is the best answer. It eliminates business influence on government, allows consumers to pick winners and losers and returns competition to where it belongs, the marketplace.​

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Deja Vu.
Groundhog Day.

 

[Gipper]

Dodd-Frank was never intended to solve problems but rather add cost to corporations. That in and of itself hurts consumers who bear that cost. It is fair to say that business will always stay ahead of the curve of government regulation because they have smarter guys. So as long as you have an adversarial relationship between the two the worse it is for the consumer.​

​

A truly free market is the best answer. It eliminates business influence on government, allows consumers to pick winners and losers and returns competition to where it belongs, the marketplace.​

Free market capitalism is the answer, but I wonder how many Americans would agree with us. Sadly many have been brain washed by the government indoctrination centers...aka p-schools. Liberalism has very effectively contaminated the minds of millions of Americans and it may ultimately kill the greatness of America.

 

[dogtowner]

Free market capitalism is the answer, but I wonder how many Americans would agree with us. Sadly many have been brain washed by the government indoctrination centers...aka p-schools. Liberalism has very effectively contaminated the minds of millions of Americans and it may ultimately kill the greatness of America.

education is the key.

if someone suggests that this impediment to free markets or that one is somehow beneficial, they need to be taught otherwise. then once that is done collapsing the rest of that house of cards should be child's play. the simple fact that there is no end of examples of how anti free market action has led to disastrous outcomes should make this chore prerty easy to do.

and it works. been doing it for 19 years with the kiddo and now no real need to.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well I have lurked my way through this thread and now...2 cents:

The volume an amount of regulations have increased exponentially. Anyone can know from that that the amount of control the gov exercises over businesses and individuals has grown likewise.

yes there are plenty of examples of regulations being removed or modified. That is just because politicians and those they are in bed with constantly compete against each other to get the best deal for themselves. they are not concerned for america in general though they should be.

We need laws to punish lawbreakers and to establish order and the rule of law. I know of no regulation that needs to exist and could not be replaced with a just law or whenever possible nothing at all.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

This is getting silly. Rather than truly listening to what I'm saying, you opt for a simplified bumper-sticker version so you can then call me a socialist. Try to understand that reality is much more nuanced than the silly, simplistic refrains that both you and liberals love to throw at each other. I am not a Socialist. I am showing you that there is more to Socialism than your simplified version; conversely, if this were a liberal-leaning forum I'd probably be showing them how Capitalism isn't the devil's invention. You guys are both equally blind in your emotional attachment to ideology. Let's try this one more time:

The fact that our government is burdened by more regulations in some areas doesn't change the fact that it's also been deregulating in others. In both cases, the changes are favoring big businesses. In areas where over-regulation hurts small businesses, that's what's happening. But that's not what I have been talking about because, ultimately, that is small potatoes compared to the massive abuses over in the financial sector where things have been DE-regulating. I've offered you lots of historical examples and facts, as well as the obvious argument that it makes no sense for a corporation to favor having the government limit them with MORE rules, which is what you believe is happening. If we stick to the financial crisis of 2008, the events leading to that, the overall trend towards "globalization" which basically your free-market philosophies put into action all over the world, then YES, quite clearly, this new wave of neo-con multinational capitalism is spreading like cancer. Now, that does not mean that capitalism itself is evil. What it means is that a certain group of people have taken the concept of capitalism to a ridiculous extreme and, in the name of black-and-white ideologies, twisted what was meant to be a healthy system promoting growth into one that promotes the growth of a tiny group of people at the expense of everyone else. NAFTA is not a socialist movement- it's an example of what I'm talking about, and it has only benefited McDonald's, WalMart, et al by allowing them to freely set up shop in Mexico. Mexico has suffered because of NAFTA, and the U.S. has as well- the only people that don't suffer are those big companies. Again, this is not socialism. This is the new flavor of capitalism you are arguing for.

So as to your assertions:

1. You think capitalism must result in the wealthy exploiting the non-wealthy. This is incorrect, but believed by many on the Left. The rule of law prevents exploitation. Governments MAIN role is to FAIRLY impose the rule of law on ALL.

No, I think capitalism CAN result in that, and is currently doing so. The rule of law is not preventing exploitation, because, as you've been saying all along, they keep inventing more and more laws to do just that. This is not that difficult to grasp or prove. It's what mankind has been doing to each other since the beginning of time, no matter what "ism" they are living under. Seriously, read your history! You think Capitalism is going to suffer a different fate than every other form of government since the beginning of time? Every society thinks they're the most enlightened until they fall.

America IS NOT WEALTHY BECAUSE WE EXPLOIT THIRD WORLD NATIONS...THIS IS SUCH SOCIALIST BS. If not for America the world would still be dying of numerous dread diseases, warming themselves by the fire, suffering under numerous tyrannies, etc.........................................................

There you go with your black / white version of reality. America has prospered for MANY reasons, some good and noble, others not. Yes, we have great medical research. Yes, we've discovered and invented some cool things. So? To say we don't exploit third world nations is either incredibly ignorant, or just a plain lie. Whether through military might or economic bullying, that's mostly WHAT we do as a nation. That's not socialist B.S. that's decades of factual reports and testimonies. Name a country and we've most likely been involved in either a coup, or have many of our companies over there setting up factories with terrible working conditions and barely any pay so that we can have cheap electronics and cheap clothing. Are you actually doubting this? Remember how many companies have stopped manufacturing in the U.S. and moved overseas for cheaper labor? What do you think that means? It's a nice deal between our unethical companies, our unethical government, and their unethical governments that let them set up shop without paying taxes or having to abide by any health, safety, or labor standards. Everyone makes good on the deal except for the actual people working 80 hour weeks for peanuts. No matter where you turn in this world, the rules are stacked against the individual, and their only real option is to get a job that gives them nothing in return if they want to feed their family. Whether it's serfdom or modern capitalism, the end result is the same. Or let's look at how we even got this big chunk of land in the first place- through our noble massacres of American Indians, or by taking part of Mexico away by force. Not exactly the God-fearing, freedom-loving folks we like to call ourselves. Hell, we're not the only ones doing this, it's what people have been doing for centuries, but let's be honest about it. the American Way is no different or better than other ways. In the end, it's one group of people screwing over another- that's been the story from day 1. Your arguments are going from well-reasoned to completely laughable now.

continued in part 2...

 

[bobbyjimmy]

And our society and economy is NOT that different from what is was in the 1930s....that is just an excuse to grant more powers to the central government.

Care to give evidence? I gave evidence to the contrary. You haven't. In your version of history, FDR apparently did nothing, and his presidency left the economy pretty much the same as Mr. Wilson had left it. No new rules were made to curtail the financial abuse the country took. The stock market crash must have happened by chance, a fluke, which is why the government did nothing about it, created no new laws or regulations, and the whole thing just sort of fixed itself. That's why FDR was elected 3 times and why so many old-time republicans hated him.

2. Socialism IS slavery. Government force used to spread the wealth, IS SLAVERY. Government loves people like you who believe socialism is good, because that grants them coercive powers. There is NO GOVERNMENT FORCE on the individual in free market capitalism with the rule of law.

First of all, our government forces us to pay a big chunk of taxes which it then uses to spread the wealth by giving us schools, libraries, roads, fire station, a police force, local cultural events, nationwide cultural events, medical support for people with disabilities, government scholarships... etc. According to your definition, this is slavery. I don't really get how you define "rule of law" because laws only work if they're enforced, and that means forcing people, and that's what you just said is slavery. So if you're willing to admit that we are all slaves in one form or another, then yes, Socialism is slavery... but so is any attempt at establishing law.

Second, I didn't say it's good. I said it's a tool, like a hammer. Remember? I showed you how Socialism isn't the evil thing you said it was, the same way that "guns don't kill people, people do." I explained to you why people might actually choose socialism, freely, and why it came about in the first place. It wasn't something imposed on the masses, it was something embraced by the masses. My point is that both systems have, in the theoretical world, noble intentions and are solutions to problems, but in the real world, are only as useful as the people running the show- and since people are weak and fallible, so are the systems they set up. But the same goes for both your beloved capitalism and your hated socialism- both sound good on paper, both have shown to do a hell of a lot of damage in reality. I'm not arguing for either- I'm showing you how blinded you are by your ideology.

3. I NEVER agreed to collectivism, but I am forced to abide by it or face imprisonment...even execution. You think this is just fine. Not me. "No man is an island..." what a terrible commie cliche. You must have loved it when Big Ears said, "You didn't build that!" So you conclude we need a big omnipresent tyrannical government to impose collectivism because without it, our society would be so cold hearted toward the less fortunate. Can't you see how they have brainwashed you?

I'm not agreeing to collectivism, I'm saying it exists in capitalism as well, in democracies, in everything. The only system it won't exist in is anarchy, which is no system at all. You want to argue for that, hell, I'm all for it- let's get rid of ALL laws and force ourselves to figure it out without Mr. Policeman standing behind us. That's as libertarian as it gets! Anything else requires muscle to enforce your laws- including your system- which brings us back to the big omnipresent government you hate. As for "no man is an island"- there's nothing communist about that statement, it's just a fact, unless you want to prove to me that you were born on your own, raised yourself, and basically reinvented the wheel and every other human discovery, hunted your own food with your own tools, etc. so that you can truly claim that you have depended on no one your entire life. All I'm pointing out is that some people have chosen to acknowledge that we can't succeed without help, and believe that our government should reflect those same values of sharing and compassion. You don't have to agree. You want a different system that reflects YOUR values. Great. But your system is no more or less moral than theirs. And in both systems, you're still free to be an asshole- because neither system really has anything to do with morals. They're just inventions people made to solve problems.

4. You think a big coercive arbitrary central government using force on the individual, is good. I do not.

I don't think it's good. I think I've explained to you what I think. I think if you don't bother providing some kind of factual backup to your claims, and if you keep on calling me a socialist and not responding to my arguments, this is a waste of my time. But at least I've provided an intelligent point of view that challenges yours. Time will tell if it has any impact or not.

 

[GenSeneca]

Until you guys have some kind of actual proof that what I'm saying is patently untrue, just saying it over and over doesn't make it correct.

Logical Fallacy: (shifting the) Burden of proof – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.

Just claiming "Deregulation!" over and over does nothing to prove the legitimacy of your claim. You cite examples like Glass-Stegall but such regulations have been replaced by other regulations, such as Dodd-Frank. That being the case, we've actually supported our claims of ever increasing regulation at the hands of the state while you have not.

As to bringing slavery into the argument, if you really want to go there, then you have to admit that capitalism is slavery in a different name.

Such accusations are absurd. In a Capitalist society, you are free to renounce your freedom at any time and join a Collectivist commune where you place yourself at the mercy of the collective. In a Collectivist society, I am not given the option of having freedom, I'm forced to live as a slave to the collective.

If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.​

​

Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer’s permission. He does not hold it by permission—but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave cannot. - "Textbook of Americanism", Ayn Rand​

I work for 3 employers because we provide each other with a mutually beneficial exchange, my labor for their money, and this arrangement is accomplished through volitional consent and without the need for any forms of coercion. The labor they get from me is more valuable to them than the money they pay me, the money they pay me is more valuable to me than the time it takes for me to do the work. Both of us are free, at any time, to cancel this arrangement and go our separate ways. This system of volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange creates value, that value benefits not just myself and my employers but all of society as well.

In your system, the fruits of my labor are forcibly extracted and redistributed to whatever third parties the collective deems are more deserving than me to have it. This is NOT a mutually beneficial exchange and it's NOT volitional. I cannot refuse to allow some portion of my labor to be confiscated "for the common good". That system violates my rights as an individual, it destroys value, and eventually destroys society.

Socialism in it's spirit is the desire to see everyone get a fair share of our collective wealth; it is the acknowledgement that no man is an island

All men are individuals. The only kind of Rights that exist are Individual Rights, those rights belong to all individuals, equally, and without exception. Collectivism obliterates individual rights and enslaves every individual to the collective, by force.

The minute you impose law, freedom is already compromised, so if you're arguing that socialism forces people to do things, so does every system we've ever invented.

That is incorrect. Capitalism bans the initiation of the use of force in society:

Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.​

​

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement. - Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand​

​

Collectivism abolishes individual rights, it replaces volitional consent with the use of force, and it replaces mutually beneficial exchange with slavery as it forces some individuals into uncompensated labor for the benefit of some other individual or group. Collectivism is slavery.

If a group of people freely choose to live in a society where the wealth is shared, and set up a regulating body to take care of the logistics, you're telling me that's immoral?

You're not giving anyone the opportunity to "freely choose", you're simply forcing them to be part of the collective and that is immoral. If you want to live on a Collectivist/Socialist/Communist commune, I don't care, it's your life do what you want with it. However, when you force me to be a part of your collective, you violate my individual rights and force me into slavery. That is not civilized, it's immoral.

Your belief that free market capitalism will save the day is what's naive around here, even though it sounds really nice in theory.

I didn't not claim Capitalism would "save the day", only that Capitalism is a moral system and that every form of Collectivism is immoral. As far as 'saving the day' goes, I cannot see how one could logically conclude that such an outcome could result from imposing an immoral system that destroys value. Only a moral system, a system of volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange - a system that creates value rather than destroying it, could ever "save the day" by virtue of it's benefits to all mankind.

 

[Gipper]

Care to give evidence? I gave evidence to the contrary. You haven't. In your version of history, FDR apparently did nothing, and his presidency left the economy pretty much the same as Mr. Wilson had left it. No new rules were made to curtail the financial abuse the country took. The stock market crash must have happened by chance, a fluke, which is why the government did nothing about it, created no new laws or regulations, and the whole thing just sort of fixed itself. That's why FDR was elected 3 times and why so many old-time republicans hated him.

I had thought we were making progress, but I see we have not.

You still believe we are operating a capitalist economy. For one to believe this, one has to be terribly misguided.

You also believe the fed gov is DEREGULATING sectors of the private economy, which is completely false.

You believe capitalism and socialism are equal, when one uses force and the other does not. The use of force makes them entirely UNEQUAL.

And again you continue to get things WRONG.
1. FDR was elected FOUR times not three.
2. You stated our economy was 95% different today than the 1930s. I dispute this. My point, 95% is a big number and completely illogical.
3. Citing local government services is more deflection. Local and national government are not the same. Local governments are forced to accept the decisions of their citizens. We are debating the actions of the central government, which all Americans must abide by. One can easily leave the jurisdiction of a local government. We can't do the same with the central government.
4. It would appear from you statements on the Great Depression and the fool FDR, that you believe FDR's actions got us out of the Great Depression. Nothing could be further from the truth. He prolonged it with his idiotic interventions, causing terrible harm to millions of Americans....much like Bush and BO have done and are doing....

You have been terribly brainwashed. I still have hope for you, but it is dwindling.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

You have been terribly brainwashed. I still have hope for you, but it is dwindling.

Wow, you avoid most of what I say and just respond to little things like getting the number of FDR presidencies wrong. From my point of view, you guys are the brainwashed, as you exhibit all the same characteristics found with anyone who spouts the same rhetoric- Ayn Rand quotes being a key example. Can you be more stereotypical? Talk about touting the party line. Call me brainwashed but I don't know a single person who shares my exact point of view- I know lots of people who share elements of my point of view, because my point of view actually acknowledges that most belief systems have SOME truth and some falsehood. So I agree with some of the points free-market libertarian ideologists say, just not all. And even though I grew up here, after actually traveling for a long time and experiencing other cultures, I can see why people choose to live differently than the U.S.- something no one here seems to be able to fathom. I'm not really sure who you would say is brainwashing me, since I doubt you'll find any group that is saying what I'm saying, although the reverse is not true. The best you can muster is "if you don't want to subscribe to our black and white, one sided point of view, go ahead- but you're brainwashed!"

If you're going to argue moral and philosophical virtues of freedom and slavery, you can't parse your argument by saying "I meant the CENTRAL government. Local governments are okay." The point remains, if you live within a system of government, you are NOT free to do whatever you want. You're just playing with semantics- the concept of freedom goes beyond wordplay and legal loopholes, it is an actual state of being that can't be defined by your narrow terms. You pay taxes. You are forced to pay taxes. If you don't like it, you can't just move to another country for many reasons. Here's two: 1) you literally don't have the money to move 2) you literally don't have the legal papers to work in another country, and no one is giving them to you. So you're stuck in the free U.S.A. Don't agree with our tax system? If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. That's force from the government. If I don't want to wear my seatbelt, I get fined. if I don't pay the fine, I lose my car. I can also lose it if I don't want to pay some guy to insure me. If I still drive, I go to jail. There are countless examples of force in this country for doing things that are not immoral. How is that morally better than socialism? You define capitalism in the best possible light, ignoring its ugly side (which I detailed in the last post and which you ignored) and then define socialism in the worst possible light, pointing out the Big Brother negatives and ignoring all the positives. Talk about brainwashed. If you take a step outside your bubble you will see that they are both just inventions. The specific USSR government of the 20th Century is not socialism or communism- it is one specific group of people that took the concept of socialism and then twisted it for their benefit. There is no reason why you can't have a socialist state that allows you to leave if you don't like it. The same can be said for capitalism. Most of the world despises the U.S. and with good reason- they see all the terrible things our capitalist ideology has created (again, refer to previous post.) But the truth is that they're mistaking the concept of capitalism for the specific instance of a small group of Americans who have distorted capitalist ideology over time and turned it into another exploitation machine.

Now for more philosophy-
Ayn Rand's philosophies are very seductive but they ignore a very central truth of humanity. We see ourselves as these individual creatures who are self-aware enough to want to pull their own strings. This is the basic conclusion any child arrives at in their simplistic logic- they have a will, they have a drive, they want to do what they want to do. But in so many ways, that whole point of view is just not reality. We don't actually make decisions "freely" as we fool ourselves into thinking we do. All our decisions are based on something- sex drives, hunger drives, survival drives, social needs, fear, emotions, so many things that are beyond our measure. I believe in reason and logic, but no decision, no matter how objective you think you are, is a purely reasoned decision. All these other factors come into play. We are not truly free from our own bodies, yet admitting this goes against our very desire for being individuals. I'm an extremely individual person- I have no desire to be told what to do, or to live in a society with dumb laws that hold me back. This country is full of them, moreso than many other countries I've been in- all sorts of dumb laws that force me to do this and prevent me to do that. I wish I could control where my tax money went to- it certainly wouldn't go where it currently does. I read the Fountainhead a long time ago, it appeals to my personality immensely. I get where you're coming from. It's just that reality goes way beyond that narrow point of view. All this stuff you're spouting is a philosophy, one that can't be proven. If you buy into a bunch of basic assumptions, then it follows logically. But those assumptions are not fact- they're just the assumptions you wish you believe in. Good for you- but they're not fact. You grew up in a capitalist society that trumpets a certain flavor of individualistic freedom (at least in words, not actions.) We've gone through 13 years of school being given the same history lessons that "prove" to us why American Ideals are the greatest in the world, just like every kid in every country hears their own version of the same B.S. And now you're arguing for those very same ideals. If anyone is brainwashed around here, it's you guys, who haven't strayed from the lessons you were given as kids. Guess when humans are most susceptible to brainwashing?

All of this is only brought up to counter your ridiculous assertions about me being a socialist. Basically, anyone not trumpeting your form of capitalism as the only righteous future for America is a liberal/communist/socialist. Thus, you rewrite history to fit your views (well, more accurately, others rewrite it and you buy into it) in which our country is headed down the slippery slope of socialism, even though social programs keep getting cut year after year, losing funding until the point of extinction, and corporations have less legal obstacles in their way, allowing for excessive growth and lopsided profit margins. That's a bizarre definition of socialism, but hey, you guys hold on to it! At least when Corporate Loving, Warmongering Obama wins it'll give you fodder for another 4 years of telling each other what's wrong with this country- SOCIALISM!