What they embrace, I don't know but it isn't capitalism and it might even be worse than communism.
Let's start with a definition of capitalism: An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy.
So naturally with capitalism the company that can produce the product consumers want to buy wins. Consider broadband. People want cheap fast broadband. Who provides it? Well, no one, but if you want broadband you can pick from a handful of monopolies. Some competitive groups like a municipality might actually be able to make some cheap fast broadband, but we don't like that type of competition in our capitalism. We'll go lobby (read bribe) our easy pukes and make government intervene. That's our "capitalism." Bye bye broadband, Hello dark ages.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 3:16
>>1
Holy shit! You've figured out that there's corruption in government! Maybe next you'll realize that party affiliation doesn't imply lockstep agreement.
Also, I missed the part where the federal government prevented the establishment of municipal broadband. Even though city governments are, well, governments, not exactly private. If you're so gung-ho about capitalism, wouldn't that be the wrong way to go about things?
Personally, I think the problem is endemic to capitalism itself. Though reforms can do some good, ultimately, capitalism needs to be abandoned as it has proven itself to be incompatible with the common good, and with human dignity.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 22:21
Vote Libertarian! Everyone knows Capitalism would regulate itself if all government restraints were removed! Every single object, living creature, and theoretical space in existence should be privately owned! The government's only purpose in existing should be the protection of landholders! How could any human possibly disagree with the Libertarian party view?
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-02 23:35 (sage)
>>4
The "common good" of holding back the smarter and more skilled to give equal oppurtunity, punishing success while rewarding failure and dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator? There's a reason communism has failed every single time.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-03 2:38
>>6
That's just it; nobody deserves to be smarter or more skilled than anyones else.
>>2
Every state needs to secede immediately, and not along this red/blue crap. There needs to be The United States, and then there needs to be Washington DC.
I think you missed my point, there buddy. I know what a fucking social contract is, but do I believe that's proper reasoning for the limitation of all personal freedoms? NOPE and FUCK NO. Why? Because Social contracts are a matter of convience, people follow them when they see fit. There's a bunch of shit that you believe, that clearly violates the social contracts create in writ as to the rights of humans to reproduce. What you imply and suggest is complete control over what other people do with their sexual organs. That's facsism, fanaticism and at it's core- fundamentalism. Typically the American social contract rejects these notions, just like we reject islamo extremism.
whoops, wrong thread.
anyway, >>10 still missed my point. you can take this reply and plug in human rights to equal education and all that. either way >>10 fails for his fundamentalist zealotry
You won't even read a short page about some ideas that had a major impact on political theory? Ideas which are prevalent in America due to Rawls, you complete fucking moron. I'll wager you don't know who John Rawls is.
You were in such a hurry to write what amounts to "no u", that you didn't even notice you were posting in the wrong thread. Of course you didn't read the link. Talk about willful ignorance.
Ad Hominem's are classless. Politic theory is bullshit, especially in it's currect bi-polar "American" incarnation. And yeah, I do know who John Rawls is, the question is- does this change anything? NO IT DOESN'T