fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
The ball is in your court. You say you're a capitalist. Define it. Prove it.
Whither foxpaws and the definition of capitalism?
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
Foxpaws whither out of town for the last few days and will be whithering out of town for the next week - just checking in - But I will be back next week with your answer Foss (once again practicing capitalism on the road...) - I am rather surprised you are so anxious...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
More contemptuous than anxious. But whatever makes your hosiery go up and down...Foxpaws whither out of town for the last few days and will be whithering out of town for the next week - just checking in - But I will be back next week with your answer Foss (once again practicing capitalism on the road...) - I am rather surprised you are so anxious...
More contemptuous than anxious. But whatever makes your hosiery go up and down...
Well, my hosiery is firmly held in check by a lovely garter belt, since you seem to be questioning that foss...
So, Foxpaws’ take on capitalism, and why I am one… (my little essay foss – still waiting on yours…) As a warning - this is a very personal 'take'...
I believe that capitalism is the best way to encourage and reward innovation. Where does the largest amounts of innovation happen – in capitalist countries. I think that inventors, innovators, etc. should all be rewarded well, and the best place to reward them is monetarily within a free marketplace, driven by supply and demand. Build the better mousetrap, and the marketplace will reward you. Sell superior parts for that mousetrap, and the marketplace will reward you. Provide excellent service for repairing that mousetrap, and the marketplace will reward you. Run the company that builds the mousetrap well, improving on profit margins and sales figures and the marketplace will reward you.
However, your mousetrap needs to be protected. Patent laws, intellectual property laws, copyright laws, all have to have the heavy hand of the government behind them to make them work, and be enforceable. What good is it to build the best mousetrap out there, if only to have the innovation ripped off and sold at 1/2 the price by competitors who don’t have to pay development costs. Reasonable timeframes regarding these legal monopolies need to be adhered to, but with good laws in place, the inventor gets to reap the rewards he is due.
Also, the idea of fair ‘play’ needs to fit into the rewards equation. Your company may build a wonderful item, but in the manufacturing of that item, other businesses may suffer. If your factory pollutes a river, the farmers downstream are losing their water source for crops. Their business will fail, because of your actions. The government needs to step in to make sure that the irresponsible or illegal actions of one business don’t infringe on the rights of another business. Just as an individual’s rights stop when they infringe on other individuals.
Under this umbrella is also the ideal that companies are not allowed to knowingly harm people. Whether it be physical, mental or monetary, people rights and business rights do overlap. Should you continue to sell a product after you have found out it is damaging to people’s health? No. If you build ponzi schemes that knowingly misrepresent facts to people should we just say ‘you should have known better’? No. And real laws and penalties from the government need to be in place to regulate this.
I also think that you should be compensated for what you do – but, that compensation, other than minimum wage, cannot be regulated or false ceilings be put in place by the government. Does a hamburger flipper deserve the salary of a surgeon – of course not. Just as a good surgeon will make less than an excellent surgeon (in theory). But, does the hamburger flipper deserve a minimum expectation, yes. Exploitation has happened in the past – the laws are there for good reason, if stripped away, once again corporations will do what they do, exploit. It is in their short term interest to do so. It is human nature to do so.
I also look hard at speculation that falsely raises prices, even though demand has remained constant. When oil prices go up because demand increases, the marketplace gets into gear, and does what it does best – create more supply, and charge what the market will bear. However, when nothing but speculation drives up the price of oil, the marketplace tries to compensate on those false numbers, creating a house of cards. These bubbles damage the economy for long periods of time, and usually the speculators are rewarded while the public (including businesses) are left to pay the price. Here, once again, government regulation is required to create ‘real supply and demand’ and not have a marketplace that is subject to damaging speculative supply and demand. It is one thing to speculate on an undervalued asset, it is another thing to speculate because of excess liquidity.
Capitalism is based on people. It is economic freedom. However, in our free country we have laws that protect people from other people, so their rights are protected. So there also needs to be laws that protect people from business and business from business. At the core of all of this are humans, and human nature is such that some people will kill other people. There isn’t anything we can do about that, it is human nature, so we have laws that hopefully protect us, and if necessary, punish those who break those laws. Since businesses are made up of people they end up with the same ‘nature’ as humans. Some businesses are bad, and will harm people. However we can protect people and other businesses from those bad businesses with a system of laws and punishments.
I believe in capitalism, just like I believe in the ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, my rights stop at the infringement of my neighbor’s rights. If businesses kill, damage, or treat others unfairly, there needs to be laws that prevent and punish. The marketplace doesn’t do this on its own. The punishments within the marketplace are all monetary, and often unrealized until large profits are made and either spent, redistributed into other ventures or moved offshore. The punishment within the marketplace rarely reflects the magnitude of the crime. We have laws that ‘regulate’ the individual side of the equation: murder, rape, theft, battery. We also need laws that ‘regulate’ the business side of the equation: environmental damage, human loss of life or damage to quality of life, theft. Unfettered capitalism is no different than a country without laws to protect its people. It doesn’t work, and ends up destroying itself. You need laws to protect people from capitalism. Just as you have laws that protect the people from government.
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Never mind that the first two sentences quoted above have never been shown to be true - I've never seen anyone use more words trying to define capitalism - and failing.
Capitalism by definition is 'free market.' What you've described is anything but. Exactly what I expected, however.
You're not a capitalist. Your last two sentences are the linchpin.
mespock
Marxists - Socialists
Foxpaws whither out of town for the last few days and will be whithering out of town for the next week - just checking in - But I will be back next week with your answer Foss (once again practicing capitalism on the road...) - I am rather surprised you are so anxious...
Foxy you make Fossten cream his pants .. LOL ...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Self delusion, especially by a woman, is a powerful yet destructive emotion.
Joeys Lincoln
Active LVC Member
Well Foss your turn
So, anarchistic capitalism won't destroy itself? Let's take my first 'law' request - intellectual property laws. Don't believe in them Foss? Why? In unfettered capitalism there is no interference from the government - including such items as copyright and patent laws. How well does capitalism work without those laws?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Nice Alinsky trick, fox, trying to make this about me. But the fact is that you don't believe that a minimum government presence is all that is necessary. In fact, you have said that capitalism had a good run but now it's over. You also claimed that capitalism murders and imprisons millions. Your position is that since the exception proves the rule, the rule should run rampant.
Your two-faced approach won't fly here.
You are referring to the Ayn Rand argument where I said that lack of good accessible health care kills in a true capitalist system. This is a fact of unfettered capitalism. If you can't afford you do without. Is it fair - that is a judgment call, and not where we are going here - I am a capitalist Foss - just not one that believes in rampant, unregulated capitalism. You could argue the public highway system is a socialist program - it is, should we get rid of it as well? Lets go for an anarchy based capitalist society. You pay out of pocket for police protection, fire protection, etc? Is that where you want to go?
So, why shy away from the question regarding patent and copyright laws? Perhaps your vision of capitalism free from all government constraints isn't the fairyland you make it out to be?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You're presenting a false choice - we either have to have state capitalism or anarcho-capitalism. That's a flawed argument, and your highway system argument is a phony straw man - it falls under anarcho-capitalism, which is a very extreme form of capitalism. Interesting that you would make that your false choice. In reality, there are many forms and definitions of capitalism. Sorry, you FAIL.
You can push your straw man all you want, fox, but the reality is that you are not a capitalist. You've bashed capitalism at every opportunity. You actively campaigned for and still support a man who is destroying the private sector in this country. Just because you favor enriching yourself doesn't make you a capitalist. The truth is you aren't for prosperity across the board.
By the way, what (generally) do you do for a living?
Yes Foss there are many forms and definitions of capitalism - I happen to like one that has some government regulations in place, and one that coexists besides some socialist programs, such as public roads, police and fire protection, a publicly supported school system (please note - I did not state public schools - there is a huge difference). You are the one that often seems to be going down the road of extremism. No government intervention. However, when asked about certain types of government intervention - such as intellectual property law, you balk. Obviously capitalism requires some regulation, you certainly haven't come up with a good answer on why you might remove intellectual property law. You and I differ on the amount or depth of regulation - but I am not a socialist. You are quick to label fail or not fail - if my vision doesn't march hand in hand with yours, I fail. I don't want to see private industry turned over to the government, I want to have everyone rewarded for their industry. I believe capitalism is the best mechanism to do that. Just because my view of capitalism includes laws and regulations that protect citizens as well as other businesses and their rights, doesn't mean I am not a capitalist foss. In fact, I could point out that the ideal that your form of capitalism (I am assuming 'your' here - I have no idea of what your ideal of capitalism is foss - you often don't state your viewpoint, or your convictions so you can attack without being attacked in return), without rules and regulations in place that protect natural rights, is against our beloved Jeffersonian view of democracy. You fail foss, if you attempt to justify rampant and unfettered capitalism. You can't even state why the most basic of laws - protection of intellectual property (the pursuit of happiness, in case you were wondering) is wrong. In unfettered capitalism you wouldn't have those laws.
So, does your form of capitalism have some form of basic law underlying it?
And what difference does it make what I do for a living?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
It's relevant to the question of whether or not you're really a capitalist.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Mkay, it's really hard to read walls of text. Please learn to use paragraphs. You're supposedly some sort of writer, yet you write like an amateur.
You're still knocking down straw men, fox. Let me know when you're done putting words in my mouth. But I have to say, government "intervention" is the wrong way to go about setting up a capitalist society. Governments should be in the business of removing constraints to trade instead of putting more in, i.e. interfering, which is by the way the form of market you support.
Should there be protections for consumers? Yes, but it should not be the government constantly stacking the rules and regulations higher and higher, and the government should not be punishing productivity and ingenuity while looting from producers and giving to those who refuse to produce. The market should be in control as much as is humanly possible. The government should seek to get out of the way as much as possible. Government intervention, as you so lovingly call it, causes more harm than good. You certainly advocate the opposite approach - the government should determine how money gets spent, who gets to spend it, how much is spent, who gets to earn, how much they get to earn, etc. That's as far from capitalism as you can get.
The biggest problem with government bureaucracies designed to 'help' consumers is that they also seek to grow their budgets and get promoted. This inevitably results in higher regulations, taxes, and restrictions on the very businesses that provide jobs, products, and R&D which drives innovation - which are inevitably passed on to the consumer. Eventually government 'intervention' results in government bureaucracies competing with the private sector for the same dollars, and then the benign, helpful demeanor is dropped, and it becomes a war, which government ALWAYS wins and the consumer ALWAYS loses.
You whine about anarcho-capitalism, but I'd rather take my chances on my own than become a slave.
On one hand, you try to use benign sounding examples like highways and intellectual property protections, and on the other hand you wink and nod at the blatant takeover of auto companies, banks, and the entire healthcare system. That's hypocritical and very disingenuous. In short, you "strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel."
By the way, you refuse to admit that you are in favor of state capitalism, which ISN'T capitalism but socialism, the way you've defined it. Who's balking now?
Here I get to be lazy, I go with train of thought. I don't have time to create responses that are works of art. So do I write for a living? Since you seem to know what I do for a living why did you ask?
What capitalist enterprise do you undertake each day Foss?
So, we have you protecting consumers - with laws and regulations - correct? It is OK for the government to intervene - so long as it lines up with your viewpoint of capitalism? I am sure that is how everyone thinks foss, 'it would be perfect if only the government just followed my guidelines.'
Where have I advocated where the government dictates how your personal funds should be spent? They dictate where your tax dollars get spent - but you vote them in so they spend them where you see fit. But as far as how you spend your net income? There are some places where it is dictated now - many states require car insurance for instance. I personally don't think the federal government should state how I spend my net income (I am against the part of the health care bill that requires individuals to have health insurance - I think that should be a state-by-state decision, as well as a state expense if the individual state doesn't require health insurance, not a federal expense) however, I do think that at the state level there could be some leeway. I personally like that there is a requirement for fiscal responsibility for vehicle ownership in Colorado.
So, somehow the military is beyond this though - correct? Money spent in the private sector on behalf of the military, creating innovation, jobs, products, profits is OK? The space program doesn't do this, the various grants, etc that go to funding research in medicine, agricultural, energy, just doesn't count?
I don't want the government taking over the private sector - did you not read that part foss? I want regulation to deal with problems that have arisen because of unregulated sectors in finance, health care, etc., but I have no desire to be part of a socialist health care system. Nor do I want a federal banking system or any type of government owned industry. They may have taken over GM for a short amount of time, but they will release it back to the private sector, the government doesn't want to be in the auto industry.
I don't want state capitalism - there is no way seeking sensible laws and regulations that protect consumers is promoting state capitalism. Where have I ever stated that I want government to be the corporation from which all goods and services flow... blick.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I work in the healthcare industry.
Vast oversimplification. If you're going to mischaracterize my statements, there isn't any point in talking to you.
You advocate for Obama, who is on the verge of passing an unconstitutional law requiring people to purchase health insurance whether they want it or not.
There you go again with your false arguments. There is no state anywhere that mandates purchase of car insurance. It is optional.
Do you hear yourself? If you write like this for a living, I don't see how you can compete in the private sector. Maybe you write propaganda for the government.
You cannot say this with a straight face and support Obama.
Weak argument. You're trying to prove the rule with the exception. And what space program? NASA is nothing but a propaganda arm for the global warmingists now.
BALONEY. Even you don't believe that weakling statement. Name one instance where that's ever happened - government relinquishing power. :bowrofl:
And yet you still support Obama, knowing full well that he is the epitome of the slick salesman of state capitalism. So you're either a liar or you're a moron.
So, foss, you always take my statements and simplify them to one sentence - I am not allowed the same leeway? Just a simple question - do you believe in unfettered capitalism? If not, you obviously believe in some regulation.
You voted for Bush, yet obviously he did things you didn't agree with - correct? There are things that I don't agree with that Obama does, there are always areas where the people you vote into office and what your ideals are differ. Or maybe you did agree with all of Bush's actions... Did you?
In Colorado you have to have insurance or prove you can fiscally handle the monetary results of an accident where you are found at fault... You can't get a title for your car if you don't have car insurance. Now if you don't own a car - well, then of course you don't need car insurance. I suppose that could be where you are going.
Yes - early on I said this was a very personal viewpoint that I am taking here foss - "I"... I am sorry if you don't like it, but I get tired of all the canned crap that is thrown around out here, it isn't discussion, it is boring. And you still think I write for a living? Maybe you are just jealous... hard to tell...
I agree with Obama on some things, and disagree with him on others. The balance was in favor of him over McCain when I compared the two candidates.
There are more Foss - and NASA did create many innovations in the past - and can again in the future... you might not agree with it's current focus, but agencies change their focus all the time... it will probably change in 2 years time again.
I will be surprised if the government controls GM in 2 years from now - let's just revisit this then. It will sink or swim, but the government will be out of it. And, do you want a list of all the laws that have sunset provisions in them just as a start of how government relinquishes power foss... it is a long, long list...
He isn't going to create a state run capitalist economic system, you can be a fear monger all you want, along with all the other right wing extremists out there foss, but he won't. The people won't let him, even if that is what he wants to do. However it isn't. He isn't a fascist.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Still presenting that false choice flawed argument, eh?
I don't prefer anarcho-capitalism, no. But I'd take it over what you advocate, which is socialism. Homesteaders did just fine for a long time without intellectual property rights lawyers.
So, fox, do you agree with the federal regulations preventing nuclear plants and oil drilling and refining on our own soil?
That's a dumb question, and a rhetorical one. But you will still advocate for Obama's reelection, won't you?
Duh. So you see, FAUX, your argument is apples and oranges. Obamacare MANDATES purchase or jail. See the difference?
If you'd just answer the question...
The balance of what, his fancy words? Are you really that dumb, or did you have a good idea in advance what Obama was planning?
"Can?" Whoa, slow down there. Don't go out on a limb or anything. As if that proves your point or something.
Again, red herring arguments from you. What's the sunset provision in the auto company takeover, hmm?
Ah, ad hominem to cap off your litany of flawed arguments. So I'm a fearmonger. Well, you can deny he's a fascist all you want, just like you blindly argued Hillary wasn't a weak person, but if it looks like a duck, waddles, and quacks...
No they wouldn't have - if it weren't for farm equipment, patented farm equipment, as well as engineered seeds (also patented) that capitalists invented because they knew they could get a patent and create wealth, homesteaders would have had a tough go of it, along with the ability of farmers to feed a nation. Without intellectual property rights very little gets invented, there really isn't much incentive. Let's go back to the middle ages Foss - that is what you are advocating.
I agree with them when they protect people, not when they prevent competition. I can look out my window right now and see drilling, and I drive by an abandoned nuclear power plant quite often. The drilling is great - we have lots of wells here, and I am happy we can get cheap local energy. The abandoned nuclear power plant is just scary. There is no way they should have built it, let alone attempt to bring it on line. If the proper regulations were in place, we could have had a running, efficient nuclear power plant sitting here - instead we have a ruined hulk. Because there wasn't proper regulation, we have a monument to stupidity. Nuclear power is viable, but we are sitting on 100 years of clean, cheap energy right under our feet - natural gas. Coal is silly - there is no reason to right now explore clean coal, nuclear power needs to come on line soon, once we do what the French do - design and build one type of safe, sane plant, instead of every plant being different. But for now, we need to exploit what we have, natural gas - cheap, easy to transport, many times cleaner than 'clean coal' or gasoline, safer, less impact to acquire, and almost no loss of life and no measurable degradation of quality of life to the people who deliver it.
Depends on who runs against him. Once again foss, I have voted across the fence many, many times.
Nope, if you drive here without car insurance you can go to jail... sort of depends on number of offenses. And I thought the federal plan was based on Massachusetts plan - fines but no jail time. Do you have that part of the bill Foss? And once again - I don't like that part of the health care bill - I have done my part in contacting my representatives and others I know in Washington to make a case against it.
What question?
I went by platform, looking at his past voting records and what he said. It is all you ever have with any candidate. I still like healthcare reform, it is one of the reasons I voted him in. I don't like parts of the current health care reform bill, but that happens with almost every bill. If you don't understand the compromise of politics foss, you should move to somewhere with a dictatorship.
"Can?" Whoa, slow down there. Don't go out on a limb or anything. As if that proves your point or something.
Foss, unlike you I look at this country as 'can' you apparently have forgotten to do that.
The government has set deadlines for GM to do an IPO (I believe at the end of this year, or perhaps the very beginning of next year) and then the government will start selling off the shares it owns. I don't know if there is a time line for selling the shares, because of market fluctuation. But, there is a process set in place. Since it isn't a law that is working here there wouldn't be a sunset provision, just a schedule with deadlines and goals.
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Incorrect. I NEVER advocated that. Mischaracterization of my position in order to deflect attention away from yours. Nothing new from you, though. Red herrings abound. Alinsky is like breathing to you, isn't it?
Another rambling wall of text. We could discuss all this stuff in a different thread. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. So you're saying that you disagree with the Democrats' position on our natural resources EXCEPT for coal. What do you propose we use to produce electricity?
Wow, what a pathetically weak copout.
Let me repeat this, for those who aren't as obtuse as you: CAR INSURANCE IS NOT MANDATORY.
What do you do for a living? You still haven't answered.
So you knew he was a big government, big spender, big tax, anti-private sector liberal, and you call yourself a capitalist? /barf at the absurdity
Aww, aren't you cute, trying to make this about me again.
There is no guarantee that the government will sell its shares. Look how the gov treated the banks that tried to pay back their bailout money.
Ah, but you are quick to gloss over the fact that your idea that homesteaders wouldn't have faired as well without equipment and supplies that were patented is pretty weak. And yes - it does sound like you want to return to the middle ages if you don't think that intellectual property law helps drive innovation and therefore the free market system.
Obama has stated that he isn't blanketly against nuclear - he just wants sane nuclear power, in fact in November...
The Obama administration and leading Democrats, in an effort to win greater support, are eyeing federal tax incentives and loan guarantees to fund a new crop of nuclear power plants across the United States that could eventually help drive down carbon emissions.
It is if you drive a car in colorado - did you not read the link I provided, well, here is another one... you either have to have car insurance or provide proof that you are fiscally able to bear the costs involved if you are in an accident.
I am in automotive.
He isn't anti-private sector - however, he is a democrat - which would lead me to say yep - bigger government, a spender (but so are Republicans) and taxes - both sides tax, it is just who and how you pay the piper... You voted for Bush - who gave us big government, spent a lot, however he did cut taxes on higher incomes (to the detriment of the deficit) but decreased revenue that was returned to the states, which in turn increased their tax rates. So, not only did Bush greatly increase the deficit with his tax decreases and spending, he also created a situation where the states increased their taxes, so there wasn't a net tax cut for many individual tax payers - just a tax shift.
Nope there isn't, just as there isn't a guarantee on whether or not they will nationalize the entire private sector next week.