Right, Left or somewhere in between

[TheWickedGerman]

Again, context dropping. You think those children in sweatshops work there because they are forced to? No, they do it because the alternatives are even worse.

Nonody is pointing a gun to the company and forces them to hire small children and paying them almost nothing. And most times children are forced. They get beaten up by adult "guards" when they work to slow and much worse things happen. I cant believe you are defending child work.

[Kronoch]

Lots of them get sold by their parents to the sweatshops because they can´t afford to look after their children anymore. And yeah, the choice between starving or working in a sweatshop isn´t much of a choice. They´re forced to do that if they want to survive. And it´s the rule of pure capitalism that allows that to happen. I´m in favour of capitalism, but pure capitalism is bad.

And Hong Kong, isn´t that the city with nine years free (governement funded) education? And with governement funded schools, health care and public transportation? I believe it is.

[ZeroTwo]

Funny, I always fancied myself a socialist-capitalist.

After a more thorough read-through of the thread (this time reading discussions as well as just the list-posts) there's really only one thing that has leapt off the page to me;

Abortion: "It's a woman's right..."

What's up with that? I agree with abortion and think it is essential to help girls stay functioning and live full lives, and to prevent children from getting in to bad situations e.g. starting life without a chance in hell of ever being adjusted well because a 21 year old sorority girl cranked you out by accident.

Where is the male accountability here? The analogy my sideways brain came up with:

A man paints a nude portrait of a woman. The man and woman worked together to create something, so why is everyone so hunky-dorey with the idea that the responsibility lays (or lies? I never remember) entirely with the painter? "It's his painting" they'll all say, "if he wants to destroy it, I'm happy to leave the choice up to him."

What if the woman believes the nude is beautiful? What if she wants to keep it? What if she demands that it be shown?

Obvious real-world legal difficulties aside, that's where I'm working from.

While I believe in abortion, I don't believe in a woman's right to have an abortion if the male participant wants it. This, of course, excludes all of the unwanted pregnancy styles (rape, incest, etc.)...

Why should I be able to so easily throw up my arms and give away the responsibility to the woman? Men need to have a choice in this as well.

[Kronoch]

Your analogy would work if the painting was instead tattood on the man´s entire body. The woman can just walk away, while the man is stuck with it.

I believe most people do mean unwanted pregnancies. In those cases the woman shouldn´t be forced to keep the baby if she doesn´t want it or if she can´t take care of it. Honestly, she´s the one that carries it around for nine months with extreme inconveniece.

[Mr.Pickles]

Lots of them get sold by their parents to the sweatshops because they can´t afford to look after their children anymore. And yeah, the choice between starving or working in a sweatshop isn´t much of a choice. They´re forced to do that if they want to survive. And it´s the rule of pure capitalism that allows that to happen. I´m in favour of capitalism, but pure capitalism is bad.

Excuse me, so you think that if the gov't were to get involved with sweatshops (they already do in some cases, and it has a negative effect) it would give children much better jobs?

When you implied the free market was better than a somewhat controlled market.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood what you said. Even the 19th century wasn't pure capitalism. The subsidied US railroads are an example of this.

Of course they work in a sweatshop because they're being forced to. Who the hell wants to voluntarily work in a sweatshop? They're not being forced at gunpoint, no. But not having money to buy food leads to hunger, which is a pretty strong incentive almost on par with someone pointing a gun at you.

I would say they in fact do want to work in sweat shops, because the alternatives are horrible. I am not in anyway saying sweatshops are good compared to the western world, I am merely pointing out that the alternatives are even worse. Again, if allowed to flourish, capitalism will take care of it through the creation of more wealth. It happened in Hong Kong, it can happen in other parts of the world as well.

And for those naysayers about Hong Kong: Yes, Hong Kong has many public programs, but that wealth used to fund those programs didn't come out of thin air. It was a result of near laissez-faire policies for many years.

[Lampshade111]

I consider myself somewhat to the right and I am probably going to end up voting for McCain due to his stance on the issues. Aspects of the atheistic and insane far left who want to recreate society scare the hell out of me.

Gun ownership: I am fine with it, it is our right after all.

Gun control: Some is good but too much is just stupid. There should be extensive background checks and you should not be able to purchase RPGs and automatic grenade launchers. Yet we need to focus on cracking down on the illegal sale of firearms.

Abortion: I believe it is generally wrong. The federal government should not ban it, yet the states should have the right to if they wish.

Gay Marriage: I believe it is wrong. There is no good reason to change our definition of marriage to homosexuals or multiple partners. States should have the right to allow civil unions, although the gay community should show public deceny and keep their business behind closed doors like everybody else.

Universal health care: Undecided. It could work out well, but the often praised Canadian system is full of problems. Better solutions are needed.

Afghanistan: Continue full operations in Afghanistan and destroy Taliban and Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan using airpower, artillery, and light/airmobile infantry units and special operations forces.

Iraq: Continue with current operations for a few more months, perform a major sweep, and then begin redeploying forces out of Iraq as we continue to train and support the New Iraqi Army. Eventually remove most forces from the country besides for a few units defending major bases we will continue to hold. Provide special operations and air support to the Iraqis, and if their military and government do not fall apart, continue supplying them with equipment they need to fight the insurgents.

Iran: Take a tough, no appeasement stance. Despite their radical leadership they know what we could do to them.

Death penalty: Maintain it for certain crimes but it should not be too common. Many jails need to be made "less friendly" to their inmates. Hell, there is no reason they should not be out their breaking up rocks like they used to do.

Illegal immigration: Learn English and work to obtain citizenship, otherwise your just going to have to deal with picking crops for cents a day.

Censorship: Depends. Generally against it, but certain military and covert operations must be censored.

Don't ask, don't Tell: I support this policy as it is important for maintaining discipline and setting a standard. The military is not politically correct civilian life. If you cannot serve without shouting out your sexual orientation to everybody you may need to rethink your priorities.

Sex education: I am generally okay with this but we should continue supporting abstinance programs. Shock them with how badly they will screw up their life. Yet schools should not be confidentially providing students with condoms and birth control like some have proposed. Something is very wrong with society when middle schools start offering such services.

Military budget: We should NOT cut the budget yet again. Our forces need all they can get and it is time for a major modernization. However we should work to remove corruption and waste spending in the defense industry and reform the procurement process so we can get the most for our money.

Energy: Allow offshore drilling, and greatly increase the use of nuclear power in our country. Remove Carter's restrictions on nuclear reprocessing and build "breeder" nuclear reactors. Continue to develop alternative energy sources and hybrid electric vehicles.

Hope & Change: You mean this isn't enough? What else do you want?

[Aesaar]

Excuse me, so you think that if the gov't were to get involved with sweatshops (they already do in some cases, and it has a negative effect) it would give children much better jobs?

I think that if the government got involved, children wouldn't need or have jobs like that. That's what happened here when our government got involved.

[No Surrender]

While we're going for historical examples, let's have a look at the USSR 1921-1939. Using the Five Year Plans, Stalin took the Soviet Economy from the rags of its Tsarist existence to being one of the most productive economies on earth as well as improving life expectancy, literacy and general standard of living. Should I use that as an argument for Stalin's slash'n'burn do-what-I-say-or-I'll-kill-you economic system? Unbridled capitalism works in very much the same way, it produces economic growth but with inequities so massive that if you're not at the top, you're screwed.

The industrial revolution example is equally absurd. The wealth increases of the industrial revolution didn't come with the application of capitalism, it came with the application of more advanced technologies. Yes, everyone's standard of living rose but look at the relative increases between the proletarian factory worker and the bourgeoisie factory owner. Yes, the workers had it better off but they still got shafted relative to what they should have seen in terms of rising living standards.

[rabb14]

Universal Health Care:
The only way a society is going to work is if the strong take care of the weak, and that includes the financially strong.

Or you can just teach the weak how to be strong. I'm sorry but I don't agree with this one bit.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

/me drops an i-beam on rabb14's spine

be stronger dammit

[Paladin]

Heh, I was considering making a post just like that TDS.

[CommodoreKitty]

Realistically speaking, the weak simply cannot be "taught" to be strong. If the resources of the world were unlimited and if everyone had around the same talents and skills, that would be a valid statement. But it isn't, because these things do not exist. The very fact that not everyone can have everything itself insures this. Unless you forcibly make sure everyone has the same amount of stuff, some will always have more than others. And wherever there is a discrepancy in wealth, you will have rich and poor. There is no way around it, it is the way the world works.

Things like UHC try to accommodate for this fact and level the playing field somewhat. They take from some and give to others, because realistically those who do not have, will not have. To be sure, some will be able to bring themselves up, and they become your "rags to riches" stories, but the resources to make this happen across a population simply do not exist.

[BmB]

Obviously we should just cleanse the world of the weak then.

We cannot teach them to be strong. But we can make sure the weak aren't so weak as to be miserable.
Even then, I'd disagree. You can teach anybody pretty much anything if you go about it right. But that is another discussion.

Having a smaller contrast also means the weak who can, will be far more likely to lift themselves up to strenght. One of the bigger complaints we hear about from USA poors is that it is very hard to get up from poverty. Just like it's very hard to get up from middle class. We can't have a world where you re born into a position. That's the middle ages again.

Ideally the world is reduced to middle class and awesome class.
UHC helps do that somewhat by ensuring even the poor aren't restricted by their health. It's very hard to get money for health care if you are too ill to work.

[Mr.Pickles]

While we're going for historical examples, let's have a look at the USSR 1921-1939. Using the Five Year Plans, Stalin took the Soviet Economy from the rags of its Tsarist existence to being one of the most productive economies on earth as well as improving life expectancy, literacy and general standard of living. Should I use that as an argument for Stalin's slash'n'burn do-what-I-say-or-I'll-kill-you economic system?

You need to read your history again. The soviets allowed capitalists into the country and invest in different industries. The capitalists built up the country quite nicely. Then the soviet gov't basically screwed them out of their investments.

The industrial revolution example is equally absurd. The wealth increases of the industrial revolution didn't come with the application of capitalism, it came with the application of more advanced technologies. Yes, everyone's standard of living rose but look at the relative increases between the proletarian factory worker and the bourgeoisie factory owner. Yes, the workers had it better off but they still got shafted relative to what they should have seen in terms of rising living standards.

And advanced techonologies are a bi-product of capitalism, which is the system that rewards the intellect.Capitalism rewards thought and inventiveness over physical labor, as can be seen countless times throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.

What exactly should the factory worker have got? I explained earlier why it is in the employers best interest to pay at market level. Am I saying that all factory owners treated their workers perfectly? No. But they would have been rewarded by treating their workers better, as can be seen with Henry Ford.

I have no problem with bargaining tools like labor unions, as long as they get no special benefits and do not initiate force.

I think that if the government got involved, children wouldn't need or have jobs like that. That's what happened here when our government got involved.

Why wouldn't they need jobs like that? Where is the wealth going to come from so children won't need those jobs? By the time most western gov'ts outlawed child labor, it was already becoming a less common practice because parents had enough wealth so that they wouldn't have to send their children to work.

[BmB]

You are still babbling besides the point.

None of that is a reason we should use the system from back then.

[Vaarok]

Somebody used the Five Year Plan as a positive example of government control? WHAT? Am I the only person on this forum who's read Gulag Archipelago?

[Mr.Pickles]

None of that is a reason we should use the system from back then.

No one is claiming that. While it was more deregulated back then, it still was no where close to laissez-faire capitalism.

[No Surrender]

You need to read your history again. The soviets allowed capitalists into the country and invest in different industries. The capitalists built up the country quite nicely. Then the soviet gov't basically screwed them out of their investments.

That's so absurd I don't even know where to begin tearing it to shreds. I guess I should start by pointing out that Stalin reversed any vestiges of private ownership in the USSR left by Lenin's New Economic Policy. Peasants were forced to collectivize their land into communes and all major industries were state owned. How is this capitalistic in any way, shape or form? You say that the USSR tried to encourage investment by foreign firms, I would like you to provide some sort of evidence to support this as opposed to selling agricultural products overseas to finance the purchase of machinery for heavy industries. Yes, foreign experts were invited to fill in gaps in Soviet technical knowledge but I have yet to find any reference to foreign investment in the USSR pre-1945.

Also, if advanced technologies are the by-product of Capitalism, I suppose the Soviet space program never existed then? If you don't count putting the first man-made objects and people into space as "advanced technology" then I have no idea what silly definition you work by. As for being paid market level, why do you think workers in the 19th century worked ungodly shifts of 10+ hours? Because they felt like it? Because factories were such pleasant places to work? No! It was because the wages that they were being paid hourly weren't enough to live on on a 40 hour work week. The reason minimum wage exists is so that any given worker working a reasonable amount will have enough to live off, not because the government felt like intervening for the hell of it.

Vaarok: I used the Five Year Plans to prove that 1) Capitalism isn't the only way for an economy to develop by leaps and bounds and 2) That means which promote the highest level of economic development aren't always the best for the people. Haha, I wasn't actually trying to say that the Five Year Plans were pleasant or should be implemented elsewhere.

[man4857]

Some news for you: The US is NOT a democracy. The US is a constitutional republic in which majority rule only in political matters, and then only without violating individual rights. Democracy (in the traditional sense of the word) is mob rule in which the individual could be overriden by the collective.

Actually the US is a democracy. It is fundamentally structured as a representative democracy. A representative democracy to be exact "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."

[Mr.Pickles]

Ouch, someone here is a little bit anti-capitalistic....Let's take your points one at a time:

That's so absurd I don't even know where to begin tearing it to shreds. I guess I should start by pointing out that Stalin reversed any vestiges of private ownership in the USSR left by Lenin's New Economic Policy. Peasants were forced to collectivize their land into communes and all major industries were state owned. How is this capitalistic in any way, shape or form? You say that the USSR tried to encourage investment by foreign firms, I would like you to provide some sort of evidence to support this as opposed to selling agricultural products overseas to finance the purchase of machinery for heavy industries. Yes, foreign experts were invited to fill in gaps in Soviet technical knowledge but I have yet to find any reference to foreign investment in the USSR pre-1945.

Read Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917-1930 and then 1930-1945 by Antony Sutton. That should help.

Also, if advanced technologies are the by-product of Capitalism, I suppose the Soviet space program never existed then? If you don't count putting the first man-made objects and people into space as "advanced technology" then I have no idea what silly definition you work by. As for being paid market level, why do you think workers in the 19th century worked ungodly shifts of 10+ hours? Because they felt like it? Because factories were such pleasant places to work? No! It was because the wages that they were being paid hourly weren't enough to live on on a 40 hour work week. The reason minimum wage exists is so that any given worker working a reasonable amount will have enough to live off, not because the government felt like intervening for the hell of it.

I am not saying no inventions take place under a statist regime. I am saying that the field of development is very narrow. How many inventors and geniuses died in the Gulag or because of food shortages?

Workers worked long shifts because they needed to make money. That simple. And after more wealth was created, the work day was shortened because real wages rose. And do you think employers paid low compared to modern standards because they were all greedy capitalists? No, they had to pay market level. I have already explained this a couple times.

Actually the US is a democracy. It is fundamentally structured as a representative democracy. A representative democracy to be exact "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."

If you'll notice in my post I was speaking of democracy in the traditional mob rule sense of the word. A constitutional republic and a representive democracy are somewhat similiar, if I am not mistaken. Constitutional republic more adequately describes the US system. I try to avoid using rubber words like democracy.

[Aesaar]

Why wouldn't they need jobs like that? Where is the wealth going to come from so children won't need those jobs? By the time most western gov'ts outlawed child labor, it was already becoming a less common practice because parents had enough wealth so that they wouldn't have to send their children to work.

Those parents had enough wealth because the government started forcing factories to pay a state-set minimum wage. This discussion is just going in circles.

Read Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917-1930 and then 1930-1945 by Antony Sutton. That should help.

Read A History of Twentieth-Century Russia by Robert Service. I can do that too. Telling us to read a book isn't a good argument. I'm fine with sources, but they can't replace your whole argument.

You're thinking of Lenin's New Economic Policy, which allowed small businesses to reopen for private profit, created to prevent the Russian economy from collapsing following the civil war. Stalin abolished it in favor of the Five-Year Plans, which made the USSR's economy completely state-controlled.

[rabb14]

Wow, this forum has got some pretty extreme people, and not in a good way either. Congratulations on taking an innocent comment, destroying it, then comparing it to the will of Hitler. It's always nice to be reminded how many ass-holes populate these boards.

What I meant was that it's more efficient to teach(see:education) individuals how to take care of themselves than it is for the masses to take care of those who don't know how. That doesn't mean we should kill or abandon those who lack the ability. But we shouldn't just default to the stance of "we have to support everyone cuz it is the right thing to do, so do it. Oh yea and if you are successful, you have to pay more. You have a lot of money, so you should pay more because you got money to waste."

Give a man a fish, an he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and he'll eat for a life-time...or something like that.

[No Surrender]

I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm merely in opposition of Laissez-faire policies and people who think that "the free market" is the answer to every question ever posed by man. As for your source, Sutton? Really? You're going to take the word of a man, who's "most important work" (his words) is a conspiracy theory about how Skull and Bones runs the US? What's next, an essay about the wonders of industrial deregulation in the 19th century by someone who thinks Denver International Airport is a secret underground base for the Lizardmen?

On a more academic note, I'd like to point you towards a critical academic review of Sutton's work. This is only the first of 3 pages and you can access the rest of the article if you attend a university or library that can give you access. I've read the rest of the article and extracted a quote which I believe to be pertinent to the debate at hand:

"Of course, the Soviet Union was a backward country before the revolution, and did borrow much technology from the West, mostly bought and paid for through the nose. But Sutton goes much further, pushing the point in an exaggerated rhetoric: "The Western contribution to Soviet Production between 1917 and 1930 was total. No imporant process has been isolated which was not a West-to-East transfter" (p.340). Of course, where else would they have found technology in those days? The trouble is that Sutton implies from that trusim that the main efforts to rebuild and expand the Soviet economy came from Western capitalists rather than the Soviet people. One should rather emphasize that their sacrifices were bitter and hard to take, beginning with the vast amount of agricultural produce that had to be exported to pay for Western machinery and technology."

(Emphasis mine)
It would be of questionable legality for me to post the rest of the article and I have neither the time and inclination to transfer it from PDF but the gist of the argument is that Sutton used poor sources and completely neglected the fact that the USSR bought and paid for everything it received from the West.

You might not have meant to say that technological development came from capitalist societies but your wide and indefensible statement of "And advanced techonologies [sic] are a bi-product of capitalism" didn't convey that meaning at all. I won't comment on whether a miscommunication has occurred here or whether you're merely trying to weasel your way out of a statement which you can't defend in light of evidence on the contrary. As for whether I think employees were paid low wages compared to today's standards because employers were greedy, I am no more qualified to assert that factory owners were greedy bastards any more than you are qualified to say they weren't! Neither of us can attribute motivations to people we don't know. All I'm saying is that before stricter regulation, people would work for tiny amounts of money in long hours and in squalid conditions. And as I've already explained many times, market rates aren't good enough sometimes for a person to live off. Your argument presupposes that there is no such thing as a market failure, a stance which most economists would disagree with.

[TheWickedGerman]

Nobody increasing his live standards by by sweatshops expect the big companys. It´s nothing other than child slaves work. Company´s abuse the situation of the poor and buy children of the poor. Ironically many of the parents thinking, it´s hard work but it´s ok.

Children gets abused there. They get beaten, sometimes to death if they dont reach production goals. They get no proper food, they have to wrok til physical exhaustion, many of them die because of the work, the bad treatment and conditions. 20 and more chidlren are held together in small naked rooms with no comfort like pigs. They never will get some wealth, they will be long death before the situation in their country will impove(IF it improve).

And this sweat shops will not improve the situation in these countries(many of them have already partly big companies and high tech industries e.g. India, sweatshops still exist because just a small part has access. The goods they produce are for us. USA and Europe and other rich countries. They will not crate jobs there, they will not cause local companies to florish.

Nobody forces the Esprite or Nike to do so. They could hire adults there, pay them accordingly to what is neccesary that people can live from their work, and it would be still ass cheap and they would still make a lot of money without having to raise prices.

When I see people posting stuff about sweatshops here I almost could s***t over my keyboard. I have 2 chidlren on my own, and cand understand how someone can defend something that only brings great great suffering to children.

I apologize if my text is too rude, but this is something really important for me, and abusing children is something where i can´t be polite about.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Wow, this forum has got some pretty extreme people, and not in a good way either. Congratulations on taking an innocent comment, destroying it, then comparing it to the will of Hitler. It's always nice to be reminded how many ass-holes populate these boards.

What I meant was that it's more efficient to teach(see:education) individuals how to take care of themselves than it is for the masses to take care of those who don't know how. That doesn't mean we should kill or abandon those who lack the ability. But we shouldn't just default to the stance of "we have to support everyone cuz it is the right thing to do, so do it. Oh yea and if you are successful, you have to pay more. You have a lot of money, so you should pay more because you got money to waste."

Give a man a fish, an he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and he'll eat for a life-time...or something like that.

It's a friendly discussion, noone meant anything personal or pointed. Don't worry, na na na na, be happy, na na na na.

Noone disagrees with the 'Teach a man to fish' principle, but what is the practical application of that when it comes to health insurance? What I was trying to point out in my comment is that life sometimes gives you shit that you can't possibly be prepared to cope with. It's a near certainty that someone you know will suffer a horrible accident or health emergency (aside from the troubles of old age) and no amount of self reliance or education will help.

[Merforga]

Gun Ownership: I'm all for gun ownership

Gun Control: Of course, the people who own illegal firearms should be severely punished, and the people who own legal firearms should have some restrictions in where they carry it, or the type of firearms they can own etc.

Abortion: I believe it's the woman's choice to make.

Gay Marriage: If people care for one another then they should be able to marry.

Universal Health Care: I'm not too sure on this one.

Current War: I'm sick of it.

Illegal Immigration: Help them become viable parts of society instead of shunning them away.

Death Penalty: It should be used depending on the severity of the crime

Sex Education: Of course, the more educated someone is the better choice that person can make.

Censorship: I don't think we should be censored as long as it is done i ngood taste, or to prove a point.

[Aussiemoo]

Merforga, good to know you've got some opinions there.

The argument that globalization helps developing nations through investment would be true if it were not for the fact that developing nations are always corrupt, and corruption + injections of capital = greater corruption. When the only reason for setting up a factory in Vietnam is that they have lower wages than China, then there is absolutely no incentive for the government to institute any legislation that makes wages go up for their people, whether it be through limits on hours or company health-care. In fact, the incentive is to do the opposite to stay competitive and get the investment and taxes/bribes. Capitalism is a wonderful system for employing people and spreading technological advancement, but if it's not tempered with some humanity and compassion, then it's a poor system. When someone needs a kidney removed and cannot work the factory, no amount of education will replace the benefits of having a good health-care plan.

[Moe]

Pickles, you need to stop with the persecution complex. Not everyone who argues against a wholly uncontrolled free market is anti-capitalistic. And telling someone to read a book is not an argument. Kindly come up with your own.

You still haven't responded to my argument about being forced in a satisfactory manner. Being forced to do something means that you have to comply because there are no viable alternatives. A woman being raped at gunpoint is being forced into having sex, because the alternative would be to get shot. Using your definition however she is doing this voluntarily because there are alternatives, albeit worse ones. In a similar vein, children are forced to work in sweatshops because the alternative is having no income, and since those countries lack any form of social security system (you know, that anti-capitalistic repressive thing that stifles the distribution of wealth) they'd have absolutely no means of paying for necessities like food. So yeah, they're being forced to work there.

rabb: You can't teach everyone to be stronger. Disabled people are immediately at a disadvantage, for instance. You'll be hard-pressed to find high paying jobs for mentally retarded people. There will always be strong people and weak people, maybe not in the physical sense, but in regards to wealth, power and influence. And since we're a society and not a pack of wild animals we take care of our own instead of using a darwinistic approach where the weak get purged. And it's the only way a society is going to truly work, if only because it's in our own best interest that the less fortunate get the same chances as everyone. Your taxes may indirectly be responsible for sending that bright young kid who had the misfortune of being born into a fucked up family in a fucked up region to college, and in return his taxes will then later on help pay for your retirement. What's bad about that?

[Mr.Pickles]

Alright, let's try this again:

I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm merely in opposition of Laissez-faire policies and people who think that "the free market" is the answer to every question ever posed by man. As for your source, Sutton? Really? You're going to take the word of a man, who's "most important work" (his words) is a conspiracy theory about how Skull and Bones runs the US? What's next, an essay about the wonders of industrial deregulation in the 19th century by someone who thinks Denver International Airport is a secret underground base for the Lizardmen?

On a more academic note, I'd like to point you towards a critical academic review of Sutton's work. This is only the first of 3 pages and you can access the rest of the article if you attend a university or library that can give you access. I've read the rest of the article and extracted a quote which I believe to be pertinent to the debate at hand:

I don't think that laissez-faire is the solution to all our problems. I am merely saying that is the best solution available. Yes, even under laissez-faire there would still be some recessions, but no where near the magnitude of something like the Great Depression.

I can quote others, too.

In his book, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press;1970), Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:
"For impressive evidence of Western participation in the early phase of Soviet economic growth, see Antony C. Sutton's Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1917-1930, which argues that 'Soviet economic development for 1917-1930 was essentially dependent on Western technological aid' (p.283), and that 'at least 95 per cent of the industrial structure received this assistance.' (p. 348)."

Moving on....

You might not have meant to say that technological development came from capitalist societies but your wide and indefensible statement of "And advanced techonologies [sic] are a bi-product of capitalism" didn't convey that meaning at all. I won't comment on whether a miscommunication has occurred here or whether you're merely trying to weasel your way out of a statement which you can't defend in light of evidence on the contrary. As for whether I think employees were paid low wages compared to today's standards because employers were greedy, I am no more qualified to assert that factory owners were greedy bastards any more than you are qualified to say they weren't! Neither of us can attribute motivations to people we don't know. All I'm saying is that before stricter regulation, people would work for tiny amounts of money in long hours and in squalid conditions. And as I've already explained many times, market rates aren't good enough sometimes for a person to live off. Your argument presupposes that there is no such thing as a market failure, a stance which most economists would disagree with.

Although a lot of military technology was developed under the Soviet system, very few practical items were available. You'd be hard pressed to come up with more practical inventions by citizens in mostly noncapitalistic countries than those living in semicapitalistic countries.

Decent shoes, automobiles, soap, food, utensils, rugs and much much more were very hard to find. I have to question your reasoning if you consider this as an economy that developed "leaps and bounds." Capitalism has no such problem. If there is a demand for a product and means of producing it, the item will be produced. Capitalism is vastly superior to any other system, economically speaking. Capitalism is also vastly superior philosophically as well.

Newly created wealth eliminated much of the poverty of the time and very soon workers could live off their wages. It wasn't a zero-sum game for the employers and the employees. It is also important to note that as more goods were produced, the prices came down so workers could buy goods, cheaper.

You still haven't responded to my argument about being forced in a satisfactory manner. Being forced to do something means that you have to comply because there are no viable alternatives. A woman being raped at gunpoint is being forced into having sex, because the alternative would be to get shot. Using your definition however she is doing this voluntarily because there are alternatives, albeit worse ones. In a similar vein, children are forced to work in sweatshops because the alternative is having no income, and since those countries lack any form of social security system (you know, that anti-capitalistic repressive thing that stifles the distribution of wealth) they'd have absolutely no means of paying for necessities like food. So yeah, they're being forced to work there.

Being forced to do something means no alternative that does not call for the initiation of force.

Who the hell is going to be paying for a social security system? Where is the wealth going to come from?

@The Wicked German (this covers some of your points too, Moe): I think you (wicked german) are somewhat overexaggerating the situation. I have no doubt the work place can be bad, but you make it sound like concentration camps. Unfortunately sometimes there are sweat shop monopolies in place, usually enforced by the gov't. Capitalism thrives on competition. That's one of the major reasons for its success. Many of the companies that run sweat shops do pay much more than what could otherwise be earned by these children.

I am simply saying that child labor is better than the alternative of death for these children. Hopefully one day there won't be a need for child labor, as more wealth is created. But the question is: Would you rather have these children working towards a goal that will eliminate child labor some day, or for these children to simply die on the streets?

[BmB]

No one is claiming that.

If we don't disagree... why are we arguing?

Who the hell is going to be paying for a social security system? Where is the wealth going to come from?

Are you dumb? It comes from the taxes. It works in many, many countries.

[Zir]

Gun Ownership: Not for me. People don't get shot here and I like that. There might be a slightly higher risk of burglary or attack but I believe alongside gun crime all as a group are lower than in countries with guns. I like them a lot aesthetically.

Gun Control: Handguns only unless you're a hunter. You don't need to make a huge hole in someone and you don't need enough stopping power to go through the guy and hit something behind him.

Abortion: I'm against it unless it's necessary. When contraceptives fail or the woman was taken advantage of then it's a great facility as a safeguard against a ruined life, but when women sleep around and don't give a shit about contraception and use abortion as an alternative should be barred from the option. I don't like the "pro-choice" argument, because the potential kid has no choice in the matter. The kid doesn't have the capability to choose but nor does a catatonic grandparent with alzheimers, and you can't just kill those. I think late term abortions are an abomination, the time frame for eligibility should be low. If it takes you more than a few weeks to decide then it isn't a big enough problem for you.

Gay Marriage: I'm not "against" it, I'm happy to support civil partnerships, but I always thought marriage was a ceremony specific to the context of a man and a wife. So, I don't believe it's "wrong" I just don't think marriage applies to gay people. The vows are man and wife, the woman receives a diamond ring, the man is called a groom. I don't understand how you can have two grooms, why not have an alternative ceremony? I also trivially hate the idea that when seeing that you're married, instead of people asking "hows your wife?" they might have to ask "husband or wife?", that goes for both gay and heterosexual people.

Universal Health Care: Everyone will need to use the health care system at some point, so it is fair that we all pay to support a system that will cover ourselves and the people we know. As taxes go, this one is great value.

Current War: I think we're done now.

Illegal Imigration: Can't come up with a solid opinion on this.

Death Penalty: No, not ever. I'm personally extremely glad most western countries have realised how grim and medieval it is. We have too little resources to deal with criminals, but as far as I'm concerned that's a problem on a par with global warming in that there is no real obvious solution. Capital punishment, due to its nature, is not a viable option to solve this problem so it isn't relevant as an solution. The bottom line is, most justice systems say that killing people is wrong, therefore they should not be killing people or they're being hypocrites. Lead by example and don't be so institutionally dumb.

Sex Education: Sure. Sexual repression on the part of the people teaching our kids just leads to more anatomical shame and naivety. It's basic anatomy.

Censorship: Against it, but all for the right to tell people to shut the fuck up.

Do any one of these topics matter more to you than all the others combined?: They're not all equally important to me, but not really.

[Moe]

Being forced to do something means no alternative that does not call for the initiation of force.

Define force please, because there's more than just physical force. There's the force of nature, and of course social and economic forces.

But the question is: Would you rather have these children working towards a goal that will eliminate child labor some day, or for these children to simply die on the streets?

What if the "work" they're doing is prostitution?

[snrjefe]

What I meant was that it's more efficient to teach(see:education) individuals how to take care of themselves than it is for the masses to take care of those who don't know how. That doesn't mean we should kill or abandon those who lack the ability. But we shouldn't just default to the stance of "we have to support everyone cuz it is the right thing to do, so do it. Oh yea and if you are successful, you have to pay more. You have a lot of money, so you should pay more because you got money to waste."

But that requires systems that provide that teach people to take care of themselves. If these systems are also driven by capitalism, then the education system begins to stratify with some groups dropping out or not getting involved in the first place due to cost. Then you end up with essentially what we have now. Rich kids go to good schools, middle class kids go to decent schoos and poor kids either go to shitty schools or don't go at all. Anyone that has priced out pre-schools recently knows what I mean. (For those not familiar with the term, pre-school is essentially enlightened daycare for toddlers the year prior to kindergarten which is the first publicly funded school grade.)

Not appealing to a low, common denominator falls apart because it creates a group that isn't trained to 'succeed' who will likely end up on some form state assistance. I agree wholeheartedly in teaching a man to fish, but if you teach one man to fish with a modern fishing trawler and give him all the gear he'll catch it all and force the person who learned to fish with a pole, string and worm to buy his fish at a premium with the minimal wages earned by working on the aforementioned boat.

That's what happens in schools today in the US. The richest communities can pay the most and have the deepest pockets since schools are largely funded through local sales and property taxes. Thus they have the best teachers and equipment and facilities. Poor, inner city schools have run down facilities, books published in the 60s and teachers that are most likely on some student loan payment program to teach there. Which kids are learning to fish, and which kids are just being baby-sat for 6 hours a day?

Sure some people lift themselves up and are held up as proof the system works, but there are several hundred thousand people for whom the system has failed.

I am continually astounded at the lack of priority given to education when one considers the benefit to both major parties. Republicans should be all about empowering the individual and liberals should welcome the increased spending for the public good. Maybe there's some metagame going on where the wealth elite Republicans really don't want 'poor' kids to have a decent education so they'll stay as fast food swilling wage slaves, or the Democrats don't want to erode the welfare part of their base.

[Mr.Pickles]

If we don't disagree... why are we arguing?

I was referring to going back to a 19th century system. I don't want a 19th century system because it was far from laissez-faire. I mentioned subsidied railroads as an example of where capitalism went wrong in the 19th century.

Are you dumb? It comes from the taxes. It works in many, many countries.

Please stop taking my words out of context. I was referring to a poor country with very little domestic wealth. If virtually everyone is poor, who are you going to tax? Even the corporations that run the sweat shops are not going to pay enough in taxes to help any sizeable amount of people. We have to remember that the gov't is an ineffecient redistributor of wealth.

What if the "work" they're doing is prostitution?

I wouldn't consider anyone who does that immoral, as they are doing it to stay alive. At least sweat shops give some alternative to things like prostitution.

Moe, I fear that defining force is going to be arguing semantics. Politically speaking, coercion may be a more appropriate term, as it is more precise and physical.

[BmB]

Now you are plain self contradictory. Figure out what you want.

[Mr.Pickles]

Now you are plain self contradictory. Figure out what you want.

I am praising the Industrial Revolution, but it wasn't as good as it could have been. While it had many good points to it, the 19th century was far from the laissez-faire capitalism that I want.

[Moe]

Moe, I fear that defining force is going to be arguing semantics. Politically speaking, coercion may be a more appropriate term, as it is more precise and physical.

I wasn't trying to get you bogged down in semantics, but my point is that dire economic need is a form of coercion. The way you used the word "force" implied physical force, and I would have challenged your definition of being forced to do something if it were based solely on the application of physical force.

I wouldn't consider anyone who does that immoral, as they are doing it to stay alive.

I would consider the dude who goes to Thailand to sleep with underage girls immoral, even if his money helps them buy food.

[BmB]

I was referring to going back to a 19th century system. I don't want a 19th century system because it was far from laissez-faire.

If that doesn't read: "I wan't to go back to shitland, but I don't want to." Then what the hell?

[Mr.Pickles]

I would consider the dude who goes to Thailand to sleep with underage girls immoral, even if his money helps them buy food.

I was talking about the sellers, not the buyers of the service. If it is the only viable way for the sellers to stay alive, then it is not immoral. The buyers are amongst the lowest and sickest people on this earth, I agree with you.

I wasn't trying to get you bogged down in semantics, but my point is that dire economic need is a form of coercion. The way you used the word "force" implied physical force, and I would have challenged your definition of being forced to do something if it were based solely on the application of physical force.

OK, economic need can be a form of force. I was using it to refer to physical force, which is more of a political sense of the word. I am sorry for any misunderstanding. I will try to be less ambiguous in the future.

BmB, you aren't understanding what I am saying.

To clarify: I don't want the 19th century system back because it wasn't the laissez-faire system that I am arguing for. I don't see what you are confused about.

[Lampshade111]

We don't need European level taxes here in the United States.

[BmB]

We don't need USA level healthcare in Europe either.

[roflmao]

We also don't need Latin-american style government control over utilities in the US. (kinda out of the blue? :P)

Let me emphazise this:
We have to remember that the gov't is an ineffecient redistributor of wealth.

This has been proven time, after time, after time. It's not about the strong helping the weak, I'm not some selfish evil capitalist scumbag. I just want to help the "weak" in the best way possible.

Small European countries with denser populations than the US can support a universal health care system with a lot more ease. They don't have to give health care to 300 million people and still worry about having enough money to maintain the country just because of the size of "it".

Let's also please not forget that US is very roughly about the size of Western Europe. Universal health care is not efficient money wise in Germany, it's just maintainable. It would be extremely interesting to know how a privatized health care system would work out in Germany.

And honestly, it doesn't take much investigation to see why universal health care would fail in the US. If the US is already having a hell of a lot of trouble maintaining Medicare, which is extremely inefficient. How in God's name is the US supposed to maintain a universal health care system, if it cannot even handle the relatively small government health care program it already has?

[Paladin]

Actually, you know, in Sacramento (Where I grew up), the county actually does own the utility companies, and they're better than any others I've ever encountered...

The government may be an inefficient redistributor of wealth, but humans in general won't redistribute without being forced into it. History shows that pretty well too.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Small European countries with denser populations than the US can support a universal health care system with a lot more ease. They don't have to give health care to 300 million people and still worry about having enough money to maintain the country just because of the size of "it".

Let's also please not forget that US is very roughly about the size of Western Europe. Universal health care is not efficient money wise in Germany, it's just maintainable. It would be extremely interesting to know how a privatized health care system would work out in Germany.

the United States spends twice as much per capita for health care as Germany does...without insuring everyone.

Canada spends a bit more than Germany and has far more problems with being spread out than the United States does. IIRC it doesn't get quite as good results as Germany but again it covers everyone and spends far less.

[roflmao]

Yeah, thats actually kind of my point. Just imagine what would the cost of health care would be if it were run by the government.

You cannot use Germany as a good example in favor of a universal health care system. Why? Because Germany has had universal health care since 1883. For all we know a privatized health care system in Germany could be three times as efficient as the current health care system (and six times more efficient than the US).

Any health care system, privately run or government funded is going to be less efficient in the US than in Germany. Germany is more efficient overall because of it's circumstances. Small country, only 80 million people, and Germany isn't spending 439 billion dollars in their military to conquer the world.
Germany is not proof that an universal health care is more efficient than a private health care system. All Germany proves is that it's more efficient than the US, period.

Nontheless, it's pretty impressive how well Germany has done with its gov't run health care system.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

/me shrugs

judge for self

per-capita, % of GDP.

Austria 3606 10.1
Belgium 3488 10.4
Canada 3678 10.0
Czech Republic 1490 6.8
Denmark 3349 9.5
Finland 2668 8.2
France 3449 11.1
Germany 3371 10.6
Greece 2483 9.1
Hungary 1504 8.3
Iceland 3340 9.1
Ireland 3082 7.5
Italy 2614 9.0
Korea 1480 6.4
Luxembourg 4303 7.3
Mexico 794 6.6
Netherlands 3391 9.3
New Zealand 2448 9.3
Norway 4520 8.7
Poland 910 6.2
Portugal 2120 10.2
Spain 2458 8.4
Sweden 3202 9.2
Switzerland 4311 11.3
United Kingdom 2760 8.4
United States 6714 15.3

[Mr.Popo]

Are you dumb? It comes from the taxes. It works in many, many countries.

When was the last time there was a school shooting or serial rapists breaking into peoples houses or murderers of saw-like proportions in Denmark?
Oh right, never.
Bad things might happen to me, sure. But I should quite frankly be more worried about being run over than being distrustful of my society.

Having guns create more problems than they solve. Fact.

I can't help but read this thread and continue thinking, "How long before people get it through their heads that a European country the size of Denmark is in no way comparable to a country with the size and population density of the US, and therefore suggestions that economic policies and methods of law enforcement would make a flawless transition are somewhere beyond completely fucking idiotic?" You can't determine whether or not universal health care is going to work by looking at a country with less than a fraction of your population. You can't determine whether or not certain law enforcement practices will work by looking at a country with less than a fraction of your population density. It's time to step off the ivory tower, because you're making a complete ass out of yourself.

You could think "How could we implement a similar policy here at home without fucking over our entire economy?" but you can't think "IT WORKED THERE! WHY THE FUCK AREN'T WE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE!?"

[roflmao]

Efficiency and productivity are two different things TDS. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to prove, would you mind explaining a bit more to a poor, deeply troubled soul? .

Germany both produces less, and is more efficient with what it produces than the US. (strictly talking about health care here) Universal health care isn't somehow going to magically make the US more efficient, it will just make the seriously fubared situation worse.

Just from the top of my head:
The more people you have to manage, the more money you spend and the use of that money is less efficient. The US has more than triple the population Germany has. Therefore it wouldn't be irrational to assume that given the circumstances, the US should be 3 times less efficient than Germany when it comes to health care.

It is just common sense to assume that health care in the US will be vastly less efficient than health care in Germany. This fact is complete seperate and irrelevant to whether the health care in either of the two countries is goverment funded or not.

Canada might have vastly more land than the US. But it also has 10 times less people. While both land-size and population both contribute to inefficiency in providing health care. I'd say that the sheer number of people a nation has is a much larger factor in health care inefficiency than how much land that same nation has. And last time I checked, Canada isn't doing too well with its health care system.

(I'll be eagerly waiting to read your post until tomorrow, as for now, g'night)

(yay for triple ninja edit)

I'm very delighted to know that Germany is able to have the super-awesome health care system they have, good for them. But, you have to be realistic. An efficient, universal health care system in the US is just a dream that will never come true.
Honestly, on a personal level, who doesn't want universal health care? I'd love it.

[BmB]

I don't see how population density makes any difference in the gun thing. In fact it might make it worse.

And now you are just kneejerking it. We were talking about the moral implications of health care.
Also, I thought things like this is why you have states?

[roflmao]

Hm, maybe not in the US. But in a poor 3rd world country, population density can have a huge impact on the amount of violence commited.

But yes, I sort of drifted off-topic there. Sorry about that, you will just have to forgive me ().