Capitalism v Communism

[Deleted User]

I know @Xzi very well, I know he's not a dummy.

then why are you asking such a question such as if communists debate in good faith to xzi specifically? I'll let him do the talking, and perhaps maybe I'm wrong and remembering someone else. But I'm fairly certain on either another thread or here he stated he was democratic socialist and not in favor of full communism.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

and even then that's not the correct opposite. the opposite of fascism is anarchism, not communism if that was the intent.

 

[Foxi4]

then why are you asking such a question such as if communists debate in good faith to xzi specifically? I'll let him do the talking, and perhaps maybe I'm wrong and remembering someone else. But I'm fairly certain on either another thread or here he stated he was democratic socialist and not in favor of full communism.

Because I'm interested in his opinion.

and even then that's not the correct opposite. the opposite of fascism is anarchism, not communism if that was the intent.

Not according to Eysenck, but that's not relevant.

 

[KingVamp]

Libertarians enjoy personal liberty

Tell that to the people that can't get healthcare right now.

Corporations don't legislate, the government legislates. Libertarians enjoy personal liberty and de facto believe that the size and scope of the government should be minimal so that it cannot legislate to the detriment of their personal lives. They're not replacing the rule of the government with the rule of corporations, they are minimising the ability of third parties to impose their rule upon them.

No. They just buy and prop up the legislators they want instead. They are ultimately just changing the third parties. Yet too small of a government, they wouldn't be able to enforce laws. The trick is, to actually vote in the people that actually care about people and not just corporations.

 

[Foxi4]

Tell that to the people that can't get healthcare right now.

Why am I always put in the position of defending the American healthcare system? I don't like it either. Your system is not free market, it's a hodgepodge of incompatible ideas that doesn't work and cannot work. With that being said, name one law that prohibits anyone from "getting healthcare". Say it how it is - people can't afford it. You do not have an access problem, you have an affordability problem. In that realm my response is that you are not entitled to anyone's services, claiming otherwise is an endorsement of indentured servitude. You do not have the right to another person's labour. The actual problem that needs to be addressed is the cost, and there's a lot of things one can do to reduce it, none of which are ever proposed or discussed. All efforts are focused on finding a more ample supply of virgins to feed the dragon, as opposed to slaying the dragon. That's not my fault, libertarians didn't do that.

No. They just buy and prop up the legislators they want instead. They are ultimately just changing the third parties. Yet too small of a government, they wouldn't be able to enforce laws. The trick is, to actually vote in the people that actually care about people and not just corporations.

Sounds like you have the numbers advantage. Good.

 

[Deleted User]

Corporations don't legislate, the government legislates. L

That's inherently false. On paper yes, the government and business sector would be separate. However it most definitely is not in the real world. Literately follow the money.

Libertarians enjoy personal liberty and de facto believe that the size and scope of the government should be minimal so that it cannot legislate to the detriment of their personal lives. They're not replacing the rule of the government with the rule of corporations,

Also false. Money is power in this system. corporations at this point, have more money most of the poor combined. They've also effected legislature pretty much all the time. Multiple studies have shown when corporations get involved, your vote doesn't matter.

The actual problem that needs to be addressed is the cost, and there's a lot of things one can do to reduce it, none of which are ever proposed or discussed. All efforts are focused on finding a more ample supply of virgins to feed the dragon, as opposed to slaying the dragon. That's not my fault, libertarians didn't do that.

excuse me... "free" (taxpayer) healthcare should be a right. Period. Every other 1st world country has that. Saying that it's a matter of reducing cost is ludicrous. You know why it's expensive? It's because this is capitalism at what it does best. This is EXACTLY what happens when it is unregulated, which is exactly what you want to do.

If something is a need, something that is REQUIRED to live. That is a inflexible need. And capitalists have done well at squeezing every single dollar possible on inflexible needs. Morality is out of the question.

 

[Foxi4]

That's inherently false. On paper yes, the government and business sector would be separate. However it most definitely is not in the real world. Literately follow the money.

There have been zero laws passed by a corporation. You have a corrupt government problem, deal with that.

Also false. Money is power in this system. corporations at this point, have more money most of the poor combined. They've also effected legislature pretty much all the time. Multiple studies have shown when corporations get involved, your vote doesn't matter.

See above.

excuse me... "free" (taxpayer) healthcare should be a right. Period. Every other 1st world country has that. Saying that it's a matter of reducing cost is ludicrous. You know why it's expensive? It's because this is capitalism at what it does best. This is EXACTLY what happens when it is unregulated, which is exactly what you want to do.

Firstly, I reject the notion of positive rights. You are not entitled to coerce another person to do anything, be it directly or using the long arm of the government. Rights are inherently negative - you have the right *not* to be subjected to certain things. Your speech cannot be abridged, your freedom cannot be restricted without fair trial, your property cannot be unlawfully searched or seized etc. - your rights relate directly to you as a person.

Secondly, there are large swathes of first-world countries with entirely privatised healthcare systems - Switzerland immediately comes to mind. They have no free healthcare provided by the state whatsoever - everyone is required to purchase a private insurance policy and it's the insurance company, or yourself, who coughs up the bill, as it should be. The Swiss system also happens to be one of the best in the world, ranking far ahead of the United States.

If something is a need, something that is REQUIRED to live. That is a inflexible need. And capitalists have done well at squeezing every single dollar possible on inflexible needs. Morality is out of the question.

Going by that train of logic, I need food to live, therefore I am entitled to walk into Micky D's and get a free Big Mac. Uhm, no - it is inherently amoral to coerce anyone to do anything without their consent. If someone offers to give you something for free, that is their choice and their prerogative. If the state steps in and *forces* them to provide you with goods and services, that's coercion, especially if they are forced to do so for free (indentured servitude) or well below fair market rates (price fixing). You most definitely do not have the "right" to demand anything of another person.

 

[Deleted User]

further more

There have been zero laws passed by a corporation. You have a corrupt government problem, deal with that.

do you not know proxy politics at all? The corrupt government comes from politicians being paid off from businesses. Which then enriches said businesses.
Either getting backing from a large cooperation, in which they will loose funding. Then again, I guess you also forget Ajit pai who was a Verizon lawyer. And there's no damn way there wasn't some money thrown around for him to push through the majority of the public consensus that net neutrality should of be kept

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

. If the state steps in and *forces* them to provide you with goods and services

So the united states postal service? paved roads. I guess those are services not caring about. No one is really forcing anyone at this point, the majority wants free healthcare. Plan and simple. over 80% of Americans want it.

 

[Foxi4]

further more

do you not know proxy politics at all? The corrupt government comes from politicians being paid off from businesses. Which then enriches said businesses.
Either getting backing from a large cooperation, in which they will loose funding. Then again, I guess you also forget Ajit pai who was a Verizon lawyer. And there's no damn way there wasn't some money thrown around for him to push through the majority of the public consensus that net neutrality should of be kept

Can you name one law that was passed by a corporation, or can you not? I accept that certain politicians are corrupt and do not contest that claim, I contest the claim that corporations are responsible. When someone shoots another person in the head for giggles, I don't blame his mom for not raising them right - I blame the person. The party responsible for legislating is the government, therefore it is the government that is ultimately at fault and must be held accountable.

 

[KingVamp]

Why am I always put in the position of defending the American healthcare system? I don't like it either. Your system is not free market, it's a hodgepodge of incompatible ideas that doesn't work and cannot work. With that being said, name one law that prohibits anyone from "getting healthcare". Say it how it is - people can't afford it. You do not have an access problem, you have an affordability problem. In that realm my response is that you are not entitled to anyone's services, claiming otherwise is an endorsement of indentured servitude. You do not have the right to another person's labour. The actual problem that needs to be addressed is the cost, and there's a lot of things one can do to reduce it, none of which are ever proposed or discussed. All efforts are focused on finding a more ample supply of virgins to feed the dragon, as opposed to slaying the dragon. That's not my fault, libertarians didn't do that.

Who do you think is at fault for this hodgepodge and not a sensible healthcare system, like what everyone else has? (Hint: Corp) Off the top of my head, people trying to put laws in that would have allowed excluding people with pre-existing conditions.

Universal Healthcare makes healthcare both more accessible and affordable, and some countries still give you the liberty to get a private company. Either way, you aren't completely locked out just because you aren't rich enough. You are basically just saying, "Liberty for everyone! (except the poor)." Well, it is a good thing that I'm talking about services that just happen to serve everyone.

Sounds like you have the numbers advantage. Good.

Not sure what you mean.

 

[Foxi4]

So the united states postal service? paved roads. I guess those are services not caring about. No one is really forcing anyone at this point, the majority wants free healthcare. Plan and simple. over 80% of Americans want it.

The United States Postal Service only exists because it is enumerated as necessary in the Postal Clause of the constitution, empowering Congress to make laws that are necessary and proper to execute the task of distributing mail. If I were to make the call, I'd either shut it down or privatise it, but that's a constitutional conundrum - what is necessary and proper, but not ran by the government? On the flip side, if it works for federal banks, it could work for the post.

Roads are paved by private companies, not by the government. The government simply pays them to do so, because one of the (very few) responsibilities of the government is ensuring that citizens are empowered to exercise their rights. Roads are a necessary pre-requisite to commerce, they also enable freedom of movement, among other things.

It's always funny when people claim that in Libertaria we don't have roads. Again, you confuse libertarians with anarchists. We're not against *all* government services or *all* taxation, we simply limit its scope to the absolute bare minimum and let people fill in the cracks with private enterprise.

Who do you think is at fault for this hodgepodge and not a sensible healthcare system, like what everyone else has? (Hint: Corp) Off the top of my head, people trying to put laws in that would have allowed excluding people with pre-existing conditions.

Universal Healthcare makes healthcare both more accessible and affordable, and some countries still give you the liberty to get a private company. Either way, you aren't completely locked out just because you aren't rich enough. You are basically just saying, "Liberty for everyone! (except the poor)." Well, it is a good thing that I'm talking about services that just happen to serve everyone.

It's a hodgepodge of nonsense specifically because of government involvement in what should be a private and consensual arrangement between a customer and a service provider. If any specific industry could be blamed for lobbying in order to reach this state of affairs, it's insurance companies, not healthcare providers. The reason why they became so big and so unaccountable is, among many things, employer-based insurance. The government did that, not healthcare providers.

Not sure what you mean.

You'll have to read it again and figure it out then, I did bold the relevant part.

 

[KingVamp]

The United States Postal Service only exists because it is enumerated as necessary in the Postal Clause of the constitution, empowering Congress to make laws that are necessary and proper to execute the task of distributing mail. If I were to make the call, I'd either shut it down or privatise it.

lol Everything aside, why? It is working just fine.

 

[Foxi4]

lol Everything aside, why? It is working just fine.

The USPS is a money pit. It was initially thought of as a source of revenue for the young United States, but that hasn't been the case for years. Private mail and courier services are cheaper, faster, better-organised and more efficient. The USPS on the other hand comes at an annual *loss* of $9 billion dollars. Somehow, the U.S. Government manages to lose money in a business where UPS, FedEx and other companies are *making* money while providing a better service. I wouldn't send a package via USPS unless I intended to lose it in transit.

 

[Deleted User]

Can you name one law that was passed by a corporation, or can you not?

alright. copyright term extension act. of 1998. Which was near when Micky mouse was about to enter public domain. I don't think I have to tell you that lawmakers got political donations from Disney for that to pass.

 

[Foxi4]

alright. copyright term extension act. of 1998. Which was near when Micky mouse was about to enter public domain. I don't think I have to tell you that lawmakers got political donations from Disney for that to pass.

I bolded the culprit for you. Go hang them.

 

[Deleted User]

I bolded the culprit for you. Go hang them.

alright. copyright term extension act. of 1998. Which was near when Micky mouse was about to enter public domain. I don't think I have to tell you that lawmakers got political donations from Disney for that to pass.

I bolded the part you missed. Money is power. I've told you that multiple times.



Disney gave them an offer they could not refuse. Most politicians want power, but to stay in power, they need money(power) to stay in office. Companies provide that power through political donations.
If they refuse, another person will just show up, who will get Disney's funding( or corporation here) and they'll beat them. And we stay in the same place. changing faces but no change in policy.



coperations have the power to influence entire elections through political donations. Which get's the level of who we get to pick in elections. Who get's the most eye sight. And more ads in general determines who we know and who we elect.


This is corruption bleeding from the economic system into the governing one. Bribery can take multiple shapes and forms.

 

[Foxi4]

I bolded the part you missed. Money is power. I've told you that multiple times.

This is getting super circular, so I'll just end it here with an analogy. If I give you $5 bucks to jump out of the window and you jump out of the window, you're an idiot. I take no responsibility for your injuries, you should've recognised my offer as inherently malicious.

Lawmakers make laws. If they take dirty money and legislate based on that, they are the culprits here. Corporations, in and out of themselves, have no control over what a lawmaker does. They can shower a congressman with money in the hopes that they will vote the way they want them to vote, but the person doing the voting is still the lawmaker. Disney doesn't answer to you, your congressman/woman does. You have certain interests, Disney has certain interests, and you both donate to those same politicians. At the end of the day the lawmaker picks a side, and if they pick the side that gives them more money over the side that is right, you picked your congressman poorly. Sorry, no refunds.

It most certainly is not "an offer they can't refuse", you've watched the Godfather one too many times. They just like money. We all like money. Some of us just have spines, while others do not. You can have all the money in the world and still lose miserably - don't look any further than Mini Mike Bloomberg for evidence. You can only go against the wishes of your electorate for so long before they catch on, at that point no amount of money will save you.

Tl;dr Disney didn't do that, Congress did that.

 

[Deleted User]

This is getting super circular, so I'll just end it here with an analogy. If I give you $5 bucks to jump out of the window and you jump out of the window, you're an idiot. I take no responsibility for your injuries, you should've recognised my offer as inherently malicious.

That's a really false analogy. And also, really? calling it circular?

Maybe it's not clear enough
politician:"I want to be in the government for x reason"
can't do it because they need money for ads.
Company: "we'll back you, your beliefs align with us"
politician:"alright"
get's the money needed for ads
Once he's in office, he doesn't need to worry for a while. however now, he can't do anything to piss off that company. while in office, otherwise he risks not getting relected.
if he chooses to vote for the people:
Politican:"Alright I know this isn't exactly favorable to you, but it's for the people"
Company: angry hang up
politician realizes he fucked up. As contributions from the company disappear. Elections roll around, and he cannot find funding required. looses election
Different politician:"I want to be in office"
Company:"we'll support you"
Different politician gets elected.
Or we get what is more common, the politician avoids pissing off their cooperate donners, or even further, sucks up to more companies to increase odds of a win.

 

[Foxi4]

That's a really false analogy. And also, really? calling it circular?

Maybe it's not clear enough
politician:"I want to be in the government for x reason"
can't do it because they need money for ads.
Company: "we'll back you, your beliefs align with us"
politician:"alright"
get's the money needed for ads
Once he's in office, he doesn't need to worry for a while. however now, he can't do anything to piss off that company.
if he chooses to:
Politican:"Alright I know this isn't exactly favorable to you, but it's for the people"
Company: angry hang up
politician realizes he fucked up. As contributions from the company disappear. Elections roll around, and he cannot find funding required.
Different politician:"I want to be in office"
Company:"we'll support you"
Different politician gets elected.

Of course it's circular. There's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the relationship between a campaign's budget and its performance. Candidates lose hundreds of millions of dollars because they just don't appeal to people, they're the ones who ultimately cast the vote. You could be every corporation's best friend, that doesn't buy you approval. Certain faces could be on every street corner and you still wouldn't vote for them, specifically because they support certain policies you do not. Unless you accept that as a relevant factor, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.

You seem to have trouble with the analogy, so I will explain more plainly. I am offering you money and expecting you to do something detrimental, in this case to your health. You know this at the point of receiving the money and make a conscious decision to do so anyway because you want $5. At that point, as far as I'm concerned, it's on you. If you didn't realise that you might get crippled by the fall, or in terms of politics, cripple your career by accepting the money and legislating against the interest of the public, that's really not my problem - you're culpable regardless. You're in control of your decisions, not me.

 

[Deleted User]

Of course it's circular. There's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the relationship between a campaign's budget and its performance.

Really? Then explain the countless millions to even billions of dollars coming through if it isn't that important.

Candidates lose hundreds of millions of dollars because they just don't appeal to people, who ultimately cast the vote

this is flawed for two reasons.
A. Problem you can just lie you know.
B. The power of marketing can change the entire way you see a person or item. The larger the budget

 

[Foxi4]

Really? Then explain the countless millions to even billions of dollars coming through if it isn't that important.

There's nothing to explain, there are studies on this very subject that you can look up. To give you an extreme example, there isn't an amount of money Donald Trump could spend on his campaign that could sway you to vote for him solely because he's Donald Trump. Anything short of just giving you a million dollars to hand would be ineffective because you find him to be a morally objectionable candidate. You know this, yet you argue like that isn't the case.

this is flawed for two reasons.
A. Problem you can just lie you know.
B. The power of marketing can change the entire way you see a person or item. The larger the budget

See above. There is only so much you can achieve with marketing and careful wordsmithing. Again, getting circular.