Poverty in the world is caused by a lack of capitalism. China's economy is only now starting to grow because of AMERICAN corporations stepping in, and giving them jobs, and in general, income of capital.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 5:43
I guess poor bums on the street proves America isn't capitalist...
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 5:59
China owns half of america.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 6:16
>>2
In most cases it's their own fault. It's been researched that many bums in America aren't bums cause they had no other choice.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 6:20
Yeah. Homelessness in capitalist countries is really more of a lifestyle. Practically anyone can get work and hence a home these days if they honestly want it.
China is a socialist country, or a mixed economy, if you want to look at the situation generously. They have almost no freedom whatever (economically speaking), and almost no personal freedom either.
China is not capitalist. Capitalism, by Ayn Rand's definition is a social system in which all property is privately owned. All the production, trade, everything else associated with capitalism follows from that definition.
I don't think that capitalism makes people/society richer. What does are increases in technology. Technological advances allow people to live life easier, they make harder tasks simpler, and they free up workers for other tasks.
One great example of this is the move away from an agrarian society. It is no longer necessary to have a majority of people grow/raise food. The technological advances in agriculter, transportaion, preservation, etc. have had the biggest influence on man kind ever.
Now if that is not in contest, then the discussion should be what organization of people will tend to lead to these technological advances? If this question can be answered then it should be clear which organization would be better to society as a whole.
She wrote plenty of non-fiction. You are clearly misinformed.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 22:48
>>11
To summarize it China is country where nationalistic and capitalistic elite abuse the socialist system for their own gain. Kinda even worse than typical socialism.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 22:50
>>7
You too are misinformed. Plenty of jobs available in America. Even I got decent paying one(fixing computers) and I didn't even go to highschool.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 23:20
Economic freedom prevents tyrants from taking away people's money, but it doesn't stop property owners from forming monopolies and extorting their community.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 23:30
>>22
The mechanics of the free market work fine. Read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 1:30
People you need to realize that America has a mixed economy at best and a Socialist economy at worst. We have capitalistic tendencies of being able to make and spend money, but we also have social programs galore such as soical security, medicare, medicade, and welfare among others, and we are constantly trying to socialize healthcare. This is not a pure capitialist system as we have anti-trust laws to stop monopolies, and employment laws to prevent harsh treatment of employees. We hand the government control over 50 percent of our average income, and more than that after sales and property taxes, and we give them control over our retirement options, and everything else that they believe we aren't capable of handleing ourselves. WE ARE IN A SOCIALIST SYSTEM, stop trying to point out otherwise both sides. Socialists there is no huge capitalist block keeping you down, in fact you have achived most of what you wanted to thoughout the 80s and 90s. You are actually keeping yourselves down (those in power are holding down those without) because the socialist agenda only makes sence when people feel downtrodden. Capitalists: we had our day, now it is the day of the socialists. I am not saying be quiet, but just relax a bit more. History has shown that socialism falls apart under it's own weight after a while, and capitalism forms from people picking up the pieces. It may be an ugly collapse comming to us, but it will happen. debt mounts and the dollar no longer has anything backing it. The upside down piramid that is a socialist system eventually topples from bad foundation.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 2:10
>>19
Everything she wrote was fiction. You are clearly misinformed.
>>11
That is why I referred to the Chinese people, and not to the government or its economic system. Honestly, there are plenty of native ambitious and capitalistic entrepreneurs springing up all over that country. If one is to claim that China's wealth is being produced by Americans, it is true concerning the input of huge sums of capital, but not necessarily the hard work that is put into creating infrastructure and commodities. The proof is that China's domestic and export market is served by many Chinese owned companies.
"They have almost no freedom whatever (economically speaking)" <-- and this statement is a load of shit. True that millions are restricted, but no freedom whatsoever? bullshit.
>>20
Not sure what you're getting at there, don't the capitalistic elite abuse the capitalistic system as well?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 12:41
>>24
I agree with much of what you say, though I doubt your prophecies about the socialist system falling... I guess it happened to the Soviets eventually.. but China, for example, is growing, not falling, and they are more socialist than the United States.
I think it is because they apply a few of the things that make capitalism work to their shoddy system, and it is then somehow able to keep itself functioning. With this thought in mind, unless the US government grows a LOT MORE, and we see real, hardliner socialism here, I couldn't see a socialist-style collapse in the near future.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 13:00
>>26
Geez, no matter how obvious I make things, there's always some idiot who takes it at face value.
Hint: it's a snide remark about her writing, you illiterate retard. Next time I'll stand outside your door with a amp screaming "I'm not entirely serious" just to make things extra obvious for you.
But let's rewind a bit, shall we? Take a close look at >>14. Do you see those books? Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead? Last I checked, that's fiction, yet this is being advanced as some form of proof that "capitalism drives achievement and progress".
Thank god nobody who thinks objectivism is the shit gets in power. With their one-dimensional thinking and utter insensitivity to a nuanced reality, they'd drive us all off a cliff while fapping to their ideology.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 13:17
>>30
LOL? Once again you prove how misinformed you are.
"Thank god nobody who thinks objectivism is the shit gets in power. With their one-dimensional thinking and utter insensitivity to a nuanced reality, they'd drive us all off a cliff while fapping to their ideology."
One of the objectivists who wrote some of those books--ALAN GREENSPAN, was in the fucking Federal Reserve.
"But let's rewind a bit, shall we? Take a close look at >>14. Do you see those books? Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead? Last I checked, that's fiction, yet this is being advanced as some form of proof that "capitalism drives achievement and progress""
I never cited those books as proof that capitalism drives achievement and progress. That much is self evident. Greed leads people to start businesses, expand them, research and develop new things to make people's lives better and easier, etc. You just assumed that.
Anyways, the last of the three cited there happens to be NON-FICTION, dumbass.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 14:21
>>29
China is growing economically by allowing capitalistic influences and outside trade and profit. this is not socialism, in fact they are growing by droping the barriers created by pure socialism. And you can't refute that our debt climbs to all time highs, propelled by our social programs not getting paid for and the buracratic choke it is causing on the money. Even elliminateling every governemnt program that isn't "socially progressive" we would still be in debt over our head. Socialism just can't be maintained forever, it eventually collapses from lack of solid founadation in revenue.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 17:09
>>30
Like Bush driving us off a cliff while fapping to his religion.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 19:00
One of the objectivists who wrote some of those books--ALAN GREENSPAN, was in the fucking Federal Reserve.
He's objectivist only in name. He didn't get along too well with Ayn Rand, and his economic policies are anything but. And then there's this:
That little outburst was a culmination of Greenspan doing things his way for nearly fourty years. Even rudimentary research on the matter leaves a lot of room for doubt about how much of her dogma he bought, and how long he bought it. Fourty years is a long time...
You just assumed that.
Yeah? So why did >>14 (you?) list them? Just for shits'n'giggles?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 20:54
For those of you who said mexicos president bush if fapping off to religion and selling out america, nicely put.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-18 0:10
>>34
So the fuck what? I guess someone doesn't know what the fuck neo-objectivism is, eh?
Just because Greenspan wasn't a fucking hardliner orthodox objectivist doesn't mean he couldn't be described as an "Objectivist."
Just because you are not a hardliner conservative doesn't necessarilly mean the label "conservative" would be inapropriate.
"Yeah? So why did >>14 (you) list them? Just for shits'n'giggles?"
The non-fiction gives many valid arguments as to why Capitalism is not only morally sound as an economics system, but also why it drives achievement.
Capitalism does drive achievement though. That much should be self-evident. Most advances in the world were made by selfish people, who made them for selfish reasons, be it money, love of their work, etc.
Aside from that, maybe I thought they were good books?
Not every religious person buys into all the shit in the bible. What makes you think all Objectivists agree with Ayn Rand on every given issue?
Objectivism is based on reason, rationality, and individuality. If, based on these principles, you arrive at /slightly/ different political conclusions, you could still consider yourself at least a neo-objectivist.
You seem to think that all objectivsts must follow the will of Rand like a bunch of robots, which clearly shows how little you actually know about her works.
Greenspan still agrees with much of of Objectivist ideals, or at least the political ones. Sure, he may not be the most consistant one in the bunch, but he is likely more an "objectivist," or a "neo-objectivist," than anything else.
I think someone is just a religious fuckhead who got their panties in a bunch at the mention of an athiest conservative like Rand.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-18 11:38
The non-fiction gives many valid arguments as to why Capitalism is not only morally sound as an economics system, but also why it drives achievement.
You didn't explain why you listed two pieces of fiction. A couple of literary caricatures do not prove a thing. Try three pieces of non-fiction next time, and preferrably from a variety of respected authors. You can't compare Joseph Stiglitz or John Rawls with a hack like Rand, although I can at least respect Greenspan.
Objectivism is based on reason, rationality, and individuality.
A whole lot of shit is based on reason, rationality, and individuality. Rand's little world only pays lip-service to the first two ideals.
You seem to think that all objectivsts must follow the will of Rand like a bunch of robots, which clearly shows how little you actually know about her works.
Or your wishful thinking. In my experience most wannabie objectivists, which almost certainly includes you, think of Rand like the next coming. Why did you list two of her novels otherwise? fapfapfap
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-18 18:41
>>37
"Or your wishful thinking. In my experience most wannabie wiobjectivists, which almost certainly includes you, think of Rand like the next coming. Why did you list two of her novels otherwise? fapfapfap"
Because they were good books. I liked them. I recommend them.
Interpret them how you want, but I put them there. The simple fact that you are making such a big deal over my putting them clearly shows that you are just an overzealous religious prick who can't take the promotion of a non-religious conservative.
"A whole lot of shit is based on reason, rationality, and individuality. Rand's little world only pays lip-service to the first two ideals."
A lot of things are. However, not many other things are as consistant, or as principled. Even if there were a lot of things, just the fact that I decided to show Rand shouldn't mean that much to you. I think someone has a political axe to grind.
"You didn't explain why you listed two pieces of fiction. A couple of literary caricatures do not prove a thing. Try three pieces of non-fiction next time, and preferrably from a variety of respected authors. You can't compare Joseph Stiglitz or John Rawls with a hack like Rand, although I can at least respect Greenspan."
A 'hack' like Rand? So I should listen to a random dipshit like you whom I met on the internet instead of actually reading what she has to say, and making the judgement for myself?
For the record, I'll list whatever the fuck I want to list. The proof that Capitalism drives achievement is self-evident. The world over, to the degree that a nation is free, is generally speaking, the degree to which it is prosperous and successful.
"Or your wishful thinking. In my experience most wannabie objectivists, which almost certainly includes you, think of Rand like the next coming. Why did you list two of her novels otherwise? fapfapfap"
Generally speaking, I'm a libertarian. That said, considering Ayn Rand's unfavorable viewpoints regarding them, I think it is quite clear that your blanket generalization was bullshit.
Joseph Stiglitz? I agree with a lot of what he has to say, though as far as writers go he is nothing next to Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand is classic. Stiglitz, while his positions on a couple issues I'd agree with, is just another writer.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-18 23:43
Because they were good books.
No, they weren't. I know this sounds elitist, but please, for your own sake, read more. Even as a fifteen year-old I recognized Rand's literature for crap, and today I shake my head at many of the books I did like at that age.
I think someone has a political axe to grind.
Yes, I do. Rand was a bitch who bent or broke her ideals whenever it suited, her literature was garbage, and her "theories" were expounded better by any number of writers before and after. The only reason anyone has heard of her is because of the Ayn Rand Institute, and because she was bright enough to write easily-accessible material.
I'm not being entirely fair, because there's nothing wrong with Objectivism per se (albeit too simple), but I am sick and tired of people claiming to be Objectivists. To a one they were all selfish egocentric idiots with a large helping of unwarranted conceit playing make-believe. Doubtless there are exceptions, but I have yet to meet one.
your argument does have some truth. but mainly because china has shifted from a communist approach to a more capitalist one. in this case it works because china has the massive labour resources and demand to aid this development. it's not as you say, the americans once again, saving the needy. china was bound to develop into a leading economy regardless of america.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-19 11:06
This has probably been mentioned but communism has never been done right. Every Communist party has always descended into a bonapartist pseudo workers state where all the power is held by the few, they often hold all the money as well.
China for example, has been a dictatorship for years. Maoism isn't communism, it's a damn dictatorship.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-19 11:50
>>43
That's half truth and half communist propaganda. Marx was authoritarian and communism was intended to be very authoritarian and stricly controlled system. True communism is strictly authoritarian society in which every worker works for good of state and they have no right to own property, but state is supposed to provide them all they need. In short it's slave camp in which everyone is supposed to be equal as in equally fucked. Communist countries in past have been quite true to Marx, but their rulers have in all cases abused system for their personal gain.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-20 0:14
>>41
The point is that the reason you dislike Rand is not because of any meritorious reasons, but rather because you just dislike her politics/philosophy.
"Read moar."
The reason you think I haven't read anything is simply because you can't see through your bias against Rand or her work, so you think it is bad, and anyone who could possibly see anything in it is obviously ignorant, stupid, or has bad taste in literature.
The fact that you compared her to a partisan writer such as Stiglitz should show that your opinions regarding her literature are mere reflections of your politics.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-20 7:35
but rather because you just dislike her politics/philosophy.
What do you think the purpose of her literature was? What the fuck do you think "This is John Galt Speaking" was about? The moral of these stories? Do you realise that Ayn Rand herself believed there was little difference between literature and philosophy? Why did you list those books if it wasn't for the philosophy they espouse? Why do people even read them?
You are a total imbicile?
simply because you can't see through your bias against Rand or her work
See the above. You presented pieces of fiction as proof of the superiority of Capitalism due to the philosophy inherent in them, then you attempt to disclaim the philosophy? Nice!
Thanks for proving yet again that most objectivists are morons.
"See the above. You presented pieces of fiction as proof of the superiority of Capitalism due to the philosophy inherent in them, then you attempt to disclaim the philosophy? Nice!"
Maybe you should look above. They weren't all fiction, nor did I present them, or try to present them, as proof that Capitalism works. Maybe you should read through these again?
Capitalism works because of the self-interest/greed factor. I never tried to say it worked because of 'proof' presented in Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead.
I recommended the books because I liked them.
"Why do people even read them?"
Why read any fiction? They are good books.
"Thanks for proving yet again that most objectivists are morons."
However the entire point of communism is that every worker is involved in running the state. Like a co-op. Everyone is elected etc. Also people do have a right to own property. However prosperity is achieved not personally but when the entire state prospers. Thus everyone is equally fucked or not fucked depending on how much work they do.
Aside from the fact that this is a -political- board, in which we are having a -political- discussion, about -capitalism-.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-21 21:19
nor did I present them, or try to present them, as proof that Capitalism works Again, read up. I listed them because I liked the books. Aside from the fact that this is a -political- board
Either you're using pieces of fiction to support your argument, or you're not. What's it going to be? y/n: _
>>55 is right. Cut the bullshit, fuckbrain. You obviously brought up the books to further cement your idealogical stance in this argument. Just admit that you fail and move the fuck on.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 0:45
>>56
"Just admit that you fail and move the fuck on."
No.
"You obviously brought up the books to further cement your idealogical stance in this argument."
The books had nothing to do with my original argument that the reason capitalism works is the greed/self-interest factor.
I presented the books because they present a moral case for Capitalism.
This moral case has absolutely nothing to do with my original argument, which, as stated above, debates the simple fact that Capitalism WORKS.
Any association you made on this is purely assumptive.
When I said: "And capitalism drives achievement and progress," I in no way was trying to say the reason Capitalism "drives achivement and progress" is because it is morally sound.
The fact that it is a morally sound system is just the icing on the cake. Capitalism works.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 0:52
I presented the books because they present a moral case for Capitalism.
For few definitions of moral.
Selfishness and egoism go hand in hand with immorality.
"Selfishness and egoism go hand in hand with immorality."
I disagree.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 1:16
That's it? You disagree?
You think that acting with little regard for your fellow man is moral? There's a large number of criminals in prison who'd love that, but society doesn't agree.
We have a good diagnosis for a person who thinks like you: antisocial personality disorder.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 1:20
I should be permitted to have anti-social personality disorder and everyone else should just bend over and take it. You are only telling me to be moral because I am not you!
In fact, I should be the supreme despot of the world who controls his minions using his mind powers. I will call my government the Zarg Dominion of God Powers and Destruction (Zedogpad for a short pronounciation).
I will not stop plotting and scheming and screwing over my fellow man until I achieve this.
Which brings up back to Ayn Rand and those fucking books again. Objectivism, at it's very core completly invalidates any disagreement as to what is immoral or not. There is no way to objectify morality, though you seem to think Capitalism is well on it's to doing this, it's not. By viritue of subjectivity lucid and nebulous nature there can never be something that is completely objective.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 1:32
What I love about Randites is that they always think they'll be the winners, when invariably they'll be the ones ground face-down into the dirt.
There will be two possible winners: a tiny group of ruthless and brilliant people who beat all the others, or a mob of individuals who realised that there's strength in numbers. The odds are against the preaching idiot in question getting into group one, and they're excluded from group two by definition.
Of course, that raises the question: why does there have to be a winner? This isn't the jungle.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 1:47
>>62
Humans are capable of morality, but only in small amounts. In order to get people to put a lot of effort into making the economy work they need to gain what they put in. The fairest and most efficnet way of doing this is simply to allow people to compete in the market place and earn their own cash through trade, paying a little tax so to fund a police and military to preserve the free-trade environment.
Maybe in 5000 years when all humans transcend into a super new epoch of über greatness can an economic system be beased entirely on morality, but certainly not at the moment.
Do you understand now?
>>63
I agree, marxist are always on about a foolish lower class beating the crap out of everyone. I have a better idea, why not make everyone middle class. The middle class are always trying to be virtuous to get on the side of the lower class so they can gain power, according to marx. Perhaps this is true, but his conclusion is fucking stupid. The solution is to make everyone middle class, so that everyone is virtuous. To make everyone a property owner and a worker, so that everyone works and has private property.
What honestly makes you think that capitalism is merely about "making the economy work"? To succeed in capitalism, you need to not only gain what you put in, but what others' put in as well and if you have to cut some corners and a few people get hurt- then business is business right? The nature of the market place can never be 'objective' because the very need for a market place is subjective and the market place is only capable of responding to subjective needs.
Do *you* understand now?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 14:21
>>65
"What honestly makes you think that capitalism is merely about "making the economy work"?"
I've just told you, your next step isn't to repeat your previous argument, but to either agree with me or challenge my argument in debate. I'm sorry if my explanation wasn't as full and exploratory as it should have been, this is just some forum on 4chan and not very important to me. I left out the obvious so that I wouldn't condescend you and waste my time, but perhaps I left out too much. Luckily I feel the need to answer your queries.
"To succeed in capitalism, you need to not only gain what you put in, but what others' put in as well and if you have to cut some corners and a few people get hurt- then business is business right?"
I expected you to deduce from my argument that in a capitalism if your business is failing it is because less people are buying your products and services, this is not due to the crimes of your competitors but rather the decreasing usefulness of your company. "Cutting corners" occurs in socialist economies aswell as capitalism and thus is not a good example of the differences between capitalism and socialism. I do not deny that crime occurs in a capitalism, but it should be obvious that crime is easer in a socialism since it depends on a lot of trust in the people in charge of allocating resources and in a very large government which is difficult for the public to discipline.
"The nature of the market place can never be 'objective' because the very need for a market place is subjective and the market place is only capable of responding to subjective needs."
An economic system which aims to give people what they work for is based on the fact that human beings are largely subjective. You should have deduced this from when I wrote..
"Humans are capable of morality, but only in small amounts. In order to get people to put a lot of effort into making the economy work they need to gain what they put in. The fairest and most efficnet way of doing this is simply to allow people to compete in the market place and earn their own cash through trade, paying a little tax so to fund a police and military to preserve the free-trade environment."
I do not deny that the capitalist system is not perfect and that resorting to socialist practices where it does not work is necessary. Companies in a democratic-capitalism are as accountable to the people as companies in a democratic-socialism by the rule of law, except that they are more efficient due to the need to compete and they are not linked to the government making it more difficult to corrupt the democratic process. Democracies are capable of a mix of different economic systems and they generally choose a capitalist base with a few socialist institutions to solve problems that capitalism cannot, this is because socialism is less efficient than capitalism and undesirable in the majority of the economy, but it is a better method than capitalism where a monopoly is inevitable (such as water services).
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 15:07
"That's it? You disagree?
You think that acting with little regard for your fellow man is moral? There's a large number of criminals in prison who'd love that, but society doesn't agree.
We have a good diagnosis for a person who thinks like you: antisocial personality disorder."
So, according to you, man has no right to live for himself, sacrificing neither others to self, nor self to others?
The important aspect of this that you seem to miss is: "sacrificing neither others to self".
The point is that a businessman who lives peacefully, harming nobody else, who offers his products to others for voluntary, peaceful trade, harms nobody else in the process, and should thus be as free to do so as is possible, while still maintaining a society in which other people are free to do so as well.
Capitalism is unavoidable, bountiful and vital to progress. But the same factor that fuels it -endless wants of humans- are also intrinsical in some of the worst breaches against international justice and progress today (Without hesitation, corporations ignore spreading prosperity in favor of making profit of: Kongo, The minerals of Afghanistan, the Unocal pipeline, India, China and so on). Capitalism is a horrible power w/out the consciousness of consumers, and you're not too big on that in the US.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 16:49
>>69
Sure. But those wars of foreign aggression and whatnot, are undertaken by the government. This is a problem with the mixed economy, in which corporations can bribe out, and control the government. If the government didn't have the authority to go to war to begin with, and if it wasn't centralized enough to do so, under the command of just a handful of individuals, it would not likely have mattered if a handful of large corporations wanted the war.
This is all beside the point, of course. If you simply agree that, generally speaking, freedom is a good thing, and that people should be free to act as they please, so long as that action does not cause direct, demonstrable physical harm to another individual, or impede his rights to the same, you are a Capitalist, generally speaking.
Um, no. There's really nothing else to say here >>67 and >>69 pretty much have it right. You're delusional if you think Capitalism is the best possible solution for everyone. You seem to still be approaching the argument from a purely economical stand point. But this is about morality, here. And the sucessful companies are the immoral ones. Is this a human failing? Yes, but that's what I meant when I said that it is virtually impossible to even entertain the notion of objectivity in the HUMAN world, a world we've built on subjectivity.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-23 8:00
So, according to you, man has no right to live for himself, sacrificing neither others to self, nor self to others?
On the contrary. Regrettably, said rhetoric is inconsistent with your own position. If you're selfish and egoistic, you'll sacrifice others for your own ends. After all, if it's good for you, who cares about everyone else? Why do you think we lock such people up (except the bright ones who go on to white collar crime)?
Before advancing a counterargument, it helps to check it doesn't shoot you in the foot first.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-23 9:06
>>71
Capitalism isn't best solution for eveyone, but that's not it's point. Capitalism is free system in which natural selection rules. Fortunate, wise and strong people eat unfortunate dumb people. It may seem cruel and merciless, but it works. We humans are animals afterall.
Name:
Xel2006-06-23 9:41
>>73 The problem with such a libertarian stance is the lack of pragmatic exemplification. Many of history's worst chapters began with intention of enterprise, expansion and progress. There are a few million tortured/raped/contaminated/burned/shot/force-laboured-to death aztecs et al. that have a little to say about The Selfish Ideal.
You own yourself (your body).
Nobody has the right to initiate physical force or violence upon another human as a means of gaining values.
So tell me, what do they have to say about the selfish ideal? From your description, I would say it doesn't sound like they are adhering to all the core principles of libertarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-24 0:25
>>74 There are a few million tortured/raped/contaminated/burned/shot/force-laboured-to death aztecs
we're better off without the aztecs, besides they cut peoples hearts out and threw them down a huge flight of stairs i dont know about everybody else here but that sounds like a buttload of karma that brought them down. Also the final blow to the aztecs came when the spainiards launched a massive invasion utilizing the surrounding peoples who were enslaved and repressed for a long time. So basically the aztecs had it coming and nobody in their right minds mourns their loss (at least we stole their recipe for hot chocolate before we destroyed them, lol).
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-24 1:06
>>74
Just because the conquistadores were fucktards, doesn't mean the Aztecs weren't also fucktards. Most of human history has consisted of tyrannies beating the crap out of each other, remember that.
Oh, and just becuase the guys who killed the indians and kept slaves said they were democratic, doesn't mean they actually represent democracy. Sort of like how you commies say the soviets were not a real communism, but a tyranny masquerading as a communism. Bear in mind that Democracy is a method of eliminating tyranny by educating the public of how tyrants maintain and come to power and organising the police and military to prevent it which has succeeded in reducing corruption and tyranny substantially in many countries across the world, whereas communism is just an interpretation of marxist theories and socialism is a half-assed version of communism.
Name:
Xel2006-06-24 4:37
>>75 Nobody really adheres to them, and I guess my real disagreement with libertarianism is its reliance on virtues to act as failsafes on selfishness. Said failsafes have kinda failed in the past. >>76 It wasn't just the Aztecs, yet you have a certain point. >>77 Said Conquistadors weren't democratic. They came from a monarchy at the time.
lol wut? That *is* the point, you dense fucktard. "Capitalism is a free system in which natural selection rules" is capitalist DOGMA. That has never been the case. And that can never be the case by virtue of the fact that every example of capitalism is wrought with apparent or inevitable failure. This is what Xel means by "pragmatic exemplification"
Um, what? No. No, no, no. This really should've ended already. >>76's post when stripped down bare is pure subjective nonsense and then for you to echo his sentiments is wholly rediculous for someone claiming to adhere to a policy of objectivism.
I'll also note that you refuse to address the indefensible fact that human kind has never been an "objectivity" loving species. Subjectivity is what sets up apart from the animals. It is what makes us better than them. Subjectivity created the wheel and fire weilding. Subjectivity created the theory of relativity. How you can sit there and assume capitalism, despite it's glaring moral and philosophical flaws (like it's inability to address and reconcile the existential issues of mankind) is beyond comprehension. I can only deduce from this that you are a troll and a faggot.
G'day.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-24 16:18
>>78
Who cares if they've failed in the past? Rich folks don't have to donate to charity if they don't want to. Nor should they have to. Um, hello? They earned their money. Why is it their responsibility to babysit other people?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-24 17:41
>>80 Some people just think they deserve to be paid to breathe, is what it amounts to. Believe it or not, there are ACTUALLY people out there, who think they have a 'right' to money out of other people's pockets.
Name:
Xel2006-06-24 17:59
>>80 & >>81 I've been through this before. Everyone. Doesn't. Start. On. Square. One. If some people have a headstart, they should be ready to offer some crumbs to those that started off with determening handicaps beyond their choice and prevention. Welfare is natural, but like all governmental restrictions it must not be taken for granted, the way others take pacifism or the openness of the internet for granted
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-24 18:35
>>82
Yeah, I think wellfare for disabled people is good and nice thing, but see absolutely no reason why those who aren't disabled should get it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-25 0:31
>>82
"'ve been through this before. Everyone. Doesn't. Start. On. Square. One."
Do you think I haven't been listening? It is irrelevant what square they happen to be starting on. It is not the "rights" of the recipient which are in question in the case of giving money to someone. It is the right of the property holder.
"If some people have a headstart, they should be ready to offer some crumbs to those that started off with determening handicaps beyond their choice and prevention."
That 'headstart' that you speak of is another individual who chose to give him the produce of his labor voluntarilly. There is absolutely no reason why they should be forced to give this up. It is not that they have any kind of 'right' to recieve it. It is that the giver has the right to 'give' it.
"Welfare is natural, but like all governmental restrictions it must not be taken for granted, the way others take pacifism or the openness of the internet for granted"
Welfare is a horrible abuse of individuals in society that actually work. It should be repealed at once. Freedom is what should not be taken for granted.
"Yeah, I think wellfare for disabled people is good and nice thing, but see absolutely no reason why those who aren't disabled should get it."
Many people that are disabled are disabled because of their own negligence or stupidity. Ex: a teenager gets drunk at a party and dives off the shallow end of a pool, becoming partially paralyzed.
In a situation such as this, why on earth should all the other responsible individuals be forced at government gunpoint to pay for his negligence and irresponsibility?
Charity is a wonderful thing. Forced charity is stealing.
Name:
Xel2006-06-25 4:21
>>83 I'm talking about being born a woman or being gay, those are also slight handicaps in american society. >>84 The headstart I'm talking about is not inheritance, but being born and raised in a good environment to two parents. The advantage such a person receives comes at the expense of those born less fortunate, an unfair reception of opportunity. Hence the leverage. I wonder how much of a paycheck goes to welfare anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-25 4:59
>>85 I wonder how much of a paycheck goes to welfare anyway.
it would be zero if we didn't have people sucking the life blood out of the economy by getting "free money". People on welfare are just like leaches, and if you just keep letting more and more people suck money from the economy pretty soon there will be no more money. A society can't exist when there are more people taking then producing.
The advantage such a person receives comes at the expense of those born less fortunate, an unfair reception of opportunity.
Thats bullshit. its not my fault sombody didn't grow up in a "good environment" and i don't owe them shit. Besides if you think free money will make up for that then you are a dumbass. There have been many people from bad backgrounds who have grown up to be INCREDIBLY successful. Look at Andrew Carnegie.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-25 5:33
>>85
Umm, hello? How is being transsexual or gay a handicap? I'm gay and I have decent job and income. I'm not closeted either.
Name:
Xel2006-06-25 7:39
>>87 I'm sorry for the generalization. I'm not trying to paint a mural of pure injustice in order to make an exaggerated case for welfare, but discrimination is widespread, and that is a force that acts negatively on a person, despite said person not choosing his position, but being born with it. Those born with an advantage has it at the expense of others, hence leverage is justified. Welfare is in today's practice a faulty and negative societal force. In theory and as a princip, however, it is not.
Secondly, more people to the right think it is A-ok to allow employers to keep certain types of people out of the company, which is no more than a surrender to the bigotted and a damning charge for the right's capacity to free the individual. And that is also a problem with the market, it always sucks up in order to make a profit. The right must give the conservative faction of the christian majority the finger before I accept is an alternative.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-25 8:18
>>88
In my experience such bigotted employers are rare and exists only on low-education and low-income slave jobs. Besides it's highly unlikely that your employer will ever know about your sex life(if he does even care), unless you tell it to him ofcourse, but I see no reason why should anyone go around and telling "hey I'm gay", unless it's appropriate. I mean people don't generally talk about their sex life with strangers. I also believe employers do have full rights to choose who they employ. It's their business. If they discriminate gays instead of complaining to goverment gays should organize a demonstration against them, collect adresses and get in touch with gay employees in that company. I don't believe many persons are born as gay either. I'm gay myself and I remember pretty clearly it was choice. I tried women, but found men more lovable.
Name:
Xel2006-06-25 8:26
>>89 There is more evidence of nature than pro-nurture, but I just wanted to get a minor point across, related to the fact that companies need to stop being so populistic. I need some stats on this anyway, so thanks for countering me.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-25 8:40
>>90
Sadly, I don't have any stats, but that's what I have experienced. Reason why I'm against anti-discrimination laws affecting inviduals(goverment should ofcourse not discriminate anyone) is that while itself it's nice thing in history it has lead to bad things such as affirmative action and outlawing "hate" speech. It's bad when you give minorities unfair advantage and freedom of speech and expression is universal and I do honestly believe people have right to say and think what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone physically or slander specific inviduals, but those two exceptions are illegal anyway.
Name:
Xel2006-06-25 12:23
>>91 Yup. 85% of all interracial crime is black-against-white, not v.v. But dems shy away from such facts because they are tied to all black people (good or bad), much like reps are stuck with all kinds of christians. You get the politicians you deserve, and the politicians get the voters they deserve.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-25 22:57
>>91
Agreed. Obscenity laws are stupid. The Freedom of Speech is there to protect the offensive speach. If the speech being said isnt offensive, what is stopping you from saying it?
The term "interracial crime" fails. Black criminals aren't attacking whites because they are white, they are attacking them because the general perception is that white people have money.
Name:
Xel2006-06-27 4:14
>>94 And that is a viable reason for singling out whites? That sort of profiling harms america to an insane degree.
Name:
Xel2006-06-27 4:19
>>95 I jst realized you weren't implying that it was viable at all. I apologize.
>>97 The human mind, like all animal minds, has been proven to generalize between at any given moment. It is actually that innate paranoia that saved our monkey asses in the past, and now causes subconscious bigotry. In that case, the problem isn't racial discrimination, rather racial generalization.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 9:20
Humans naturally fear things they don't really know. This is why jews who tend to be secretive are though to be conspirators that control world and very same reason is behind why blacks are feared and hated. They're particularly dangerous minority(although I don't believe it's race related, more related to socioeconomic factors) and rumors spread quickly thus people begin to assume that every black man is criminal. In essence we need to make distinction between "good"(read law-abiding) and "bad"(read dangerous criminal) people and not by race.
It's not viable at all. But, generally speaking, who's fault is it that whites have access to a certain amount of wealth that blacks can seem to, or don't believe themselves to be able to reach?
It's not general black population or the white population who is to blame, but surprisingly enough those who would use those facts and statistic to enforce policies that snow ball racial generalization.
Once we're unable to come together, it makes it easy for us to be controlled.
Name:
Xel2006-06-27 11:00
>>100 Well, point taken. I once heard an otherwise intelligent libertarian say something about the little dude from Boondocks being upset, and then stating "it's not my fault that I come from a community that value success and progress." That left a sour taste in my mouth; It's not like blacks were once given an equal chance but then decided to break up some bourbon and mooch of society instead.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 13:26
>>101
It's beside the point. Those who happened to be born into a "good" family should not be forced to work harder to make up for the ills of those who were not born into "good" families.
Just because other people grew up in shitty families doesn't mean those of us who didn't should have to pay for them and their shitty families.
Name:
Xel2006-06-27 14:16
>>102 Okay, I'll run this through one more time in the hope it will be news to someone, or at least piss someone off. When those from a better past gain advantages in the many steps of life, they do so at the opportunity cost of those with the same cerebral/physical/mental potential who did not stand a chance due to environmental determinism. Good is in this case a parameter that doesn't belong inside quotation marks. Wealth may not be a constant, it is continuously produced, but all of it isn't of one's own fair making. When all people start on square one (that is, your life situation when born doesn't influence your future to such an absurd degree), then Soc. Sec. can disappear.
Until then I'll gladly pay each month in order to bracket things, and vote for politicians that work for a sustainable future w/out welfare while at the same time enforcing soc. sec. everywhere.
And no, I don't believe in social justice since it is an illogical utopia. But a society without welfare but with environmental determinism is a society I have to defend my fellow humans against.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 17:34
>>104
How do you intend to make nobody effected by what situation they are born into. The only way I can think of is to eliminate parenthood altogther and have the state raise every child equaly. If my parents have more money than you that means they can afford more to purchase me more books than yours. It means I can afford to get spoiled more. It means so much that the only way to balance the scales is to have the state take both of us away from our respective parents and raise us on it's own so that we are raised in absolute equality.
If you want to donate money you can, the govenment doesn't have to tax you for you to give. You can donate money to school districts of your choice, to charity of your choice, to whatever poor person you choose. That is your fucking choice and more power to you if you do it. Stop saying that just because you are willing to donate money gives you the right to take my money and donate it too. Because that is bullshit elitism that makes you think that way.
Name:
Xel2006-06-27 18:00
>>105 This isn't about removing the source of inequalitites, this is about preventing said inequalities from accumulating into polarizing, dividing and unsound economic segregation. However, I do believe that all people should have a very high minimum level of education and I also believ that all job applications should be sent in anonymously. I believe that racial/sexual/orientation profiling by employers should be punished very harshly and lastly no differences in appearance should have an effect on your lot in life. If your parents are rich then fine; they will have more capability to protect and this is an incitement for others. It's when a person born into poverty has a 1% chance of getting up that you have to understand that while environmental determinism is unavoidable, it's effect must be limited. Until you non-elitists give an alternative that doesn't resemble an urban fucking jungle, I'll gladly vote so that both I and all you industrious, striving and constitutional people have to PAY.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 18:37
>>104
Why are you so attracted to that ideal? Can't you see that it involves the use of brute force?
People shouldn't be FORCED to do so many things. We should roll back government from as many aspects of our lives as we can... private institutions can do everything better, and not only that, they do it without the use of physical force.
The point being that you are forcing your ideas onto others like a a typical thug... common really. Can't we be more civilized than that?
What's the difference between tax collectors and robbers/thugs?
One has the illusory shroud of legitimacy provided by the government, and the other does not.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 21:47
I give cash to beggars, but I make deals with them, like I say hold my tools for me for an hour whilst I do my gardenning and you will get $15. I make them know that I am paying them for the work and not out of pity. I now have myself a whole host of niggas who basically help me carry things around, do a few things for me at work, it's awesome. There is this one mestizo guy, so it's multi-racial, I just call them my niggas because that's what they call each other. I'm not like racist or any of that nonsense, it's just a tradition to call low paid black workers niggas, if they didn't want me to call them that they'd say. My only law is that they take a shower, they are US citizens, don't scare the local children with their contorted faces and don't use drugs on my premises.
I am paying them a lot for a little work, yes, but this way they learn. This one nigga I promoted in a little ceremony involving whiskey and a BBQ. I promoted him to African American, he lives at the same warehouse where he works at one of my colleagues who imports and distributes tyres. He does a fine job of carting the things around and works a 12 hour day for a 10 hour day of minimum wage.
I'm not sure what you capitalists and socialists think, but I am putting the bums to use and being charitable at the same time and I'm not even doing it for a tax break. I think my way is probably the best.
You guys are arguing against the fundamentals of social order. History has shown us what happens when the weak outnumber the strong and are not cared for. You pretty much get total anarchy. Social Welfare is a compromise with the socially weak and those that didn't start with the advantages you or I might have had. Without social welfare the majority of the people would not only be destitute and impoverished. But they would be certainly even MORE willing to take what you have. And because they are the multitude and you are the minority social order would be reduced to something far less civilized than what we have now.
And "FORCED"? You mean how we sorta forced Africans to come to America and become slaves? You mean how we are sorta forced to pay taxes that lack proper representation, the very issue that our forefather rebelled over. We're being forced every fucking day- go take issue with those 'forces'. We're talking about making it so that you can and your kids can walk down the streets at night without risk of being mugged because NO ONE has any money.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 2:08
>>112
No they wouldn't. Under a fully libertarian government and society, I'm sure they would all be far better off than they are now.
And this is why most people fail at politics. You can't just throw all your weight behind one system or set of ideals and claim that you're so sure that "we'll be better off". You have no proof of that! You don't fucking know. So why all the conjecture? Especially in this instance. Your arugment isn't supplanted by anything but "take my word for it.".
Meanwhile mine is pure logic. If you don't take care of the weak in a society where the socially weak out number the sociall strong you get the french revolution, you get total anarchy (not the good kind)=== if that's "your thing" then by all means...........
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 7:59
>>112
Why would anyone(especially kids) need to walk on streets at night?
Name:
Xel2006-06-28 9:26
That Rand, she argumented that women were at their best like never-as-equal-but-just-as-sexy accesories to men. She found non-heterosexuals unnatural even though science says otherwise. Her fans says that was the consensus back then. So, the godess of individualism caved to obsolete, retarded peer pressure. MotherFUCK Ayn Rand; I love all my fellow humans whether they can give 25-page hymns to selfishness while looking sexy or not.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 14:58
>>116
"I love all my fellow humans"
I don't. You love Hitler just as much as you love Einstein? You love Stalin just as much as you love Beethoven?
Get real. I love based on the virtues that a human has, not just because he happens to be a human.
Rand was right on many things, such as that. Even if I disagree with her politics, she was a respectable author.
There are plenty of logical arguments that demonstrate that most of the problems of society right now are caused directly, or indirectly by governments, not private enterprise.
There are plenty of arguments showing that your average person would be better off in a free society than in an enslaved one.
"If you don't take care of the weak in a society where the socially weak out number the sociall strong you get the french revolution, you get total anarchy"
THAT is the reason we have police and government. It is not to redistribute income. The government exists to defend citizens from other citizens. The Bill of Rights is there to protect citizens from the government.
Name:
Xel2006-06-28 15:43
>>117 Loving isn't the same as trusting/respecting/approving/appreciating/supporting/condoning etc. I just don't have an experience of conflict where hatred, indignation, contempt or conviction has been useful.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 16:41
>>119
I don't understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that you should love man for the things that make him/her virtuous, not just because he is a man.
I dislike Hitler. He was an authoritarian asswipe.
I like Beethoven. He wrote good music.
The point being, love is not based on race, but on merit, and reason. I love individuals for reasons, not just because they are humans.
Name:
Xel2006-06-28 17:04
>>120 I only assess people when it is necessary for me to take a stance. I simply avoid judgement because I don't trust my mind to be objective if I start from an emotional position.
Precisely. >>120's ideal of love sounds entirely fucked up. It might work in marriage or friendship. But applied to the whole human race? It's best to love them because they exist. The most virtuous examples of mankind are people who perscribed to this: Jesus, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, etc
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 1:02
>>118
Answer this Xel you ignorant asswipe. Time for you to come to terms with the fact that you are a stupid fuck!
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 2:09
>>122
Jesus, Ghandi, and Mother Theresa? So you love them the most? Hmm... ok.
Let's imagine two worlds. One filled with the following kinds of people:
Bill Gates, Einstein, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Andrew Carnegie, Aristotle, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Mozart, Bach, Mark Twain, Nikola Tesla, etc.
The other world is filled with selfless people with an indiscriminate love for all humanity: "Jesus, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, etc."
>>122
It's best? Forget what is 'best.' Go with what is true.
What qualities do you look for in the people you love?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 2:23
>>126
My kind of person would be one who is: intelligent, self-reliant, has individuality, and a high self-esteem based on honesty, integrity, and accomplishment, to name a few.
Something like that. (Not taking into account appearance.)
Name:
Xel2006-06-29 3:28
>>123 Take it easy anonymous. I don't believe that soc. sec can persist in its current iteration, nor do I believe it is principally wrong. It's kinda what >>112 said; we can't allow automatic segregation to accumulate. But government must be limited, consumers must become more empowered and aware and of course taxation is a bit of slavery when you don't reap the benefits. But as I've said; all the money you and others of your income bracket isn't made fairly, because others missed the opportunity simply by being born in the wrong place/time etc.
Name:
Xel2006-06-29 4:32
>>124 We don't have to choose; industry and altruism are both human aspects with bases in the limbic system. Stop pitting them against each other, that's the main reason I gave Rand the finger in the end.
How is it you guys don't understand this? Are you just stupid? You didn't get your money "fairly" because you're making it off of people who did not have the same advantages you did. Not only are the ethically implications damning, but you are also wrong if you think this is "pure capitalism". It isn't.
Name:
Xel2006-06-29 5:20
>>130 There is this myth about america being a better meritocracy than others, but I think their greatest factor is the flexible, demanding job market and market choice. A meritocracy it aint however, which is why soc. sec. is still justified. The system needs to be streamlined, partially privatized and slowly removed though. As long as people can get jobs and don't have to be trodden down or turned obese by the unconscionable food industry, soc. sec. can be removed and I will applaud that. For now, soc. sec. is the punishment for those that don't approach americas strengths and weaknesses w/ nuance.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 5:42
xel is a smarter, calmer anti-chan without the cussing and gay jokes
Name:
Xel2006-06-29 6:33
>>132 It's difficult to accept a net compliment without sounding like an utter utter tool, but Thank You dude/dudette/whatever people are these days.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 12:23
>>131
Many people are born into this system. Punishing innocents is justified?
Name:
Xel2006-06-29 15:45
>>134 They aren't "innocent" per se, but they are reaping benefits of advantages that wouldn't have been theirs save for luck. In this case, some bracketing is justified, not paying taxes is a crime. That doesn't mean I accept the current iteration of soc. sec., I just don't believe there is a principal or philosophical case against it. And with the minimun wage at the level it is, this will just pile up. You need to pull your impoverished fellow citizens closer before you cut the cord.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 16:00
>>135
Taxes are akin to slavery in my opinion. The cord cutting should commence as quickly as possible. Social Security, welfare, and government health care programs should be the first to go. Following that, the wars of foreign aggression.
Name:
Xel2006-06-29 16:22
>>136 They shouldn't "go" just like that. You'd have a revolution and you'd deserve it. LImiting it while changing american culture and causing new jobs, that I'm for. In the meantime you'll have to accept this diet slavery anyway, and you're not getting my vote until you offer a very detailed plan for empowering the citizen as well as the consumer.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 16:31
>>137
Well, see, the problem that I see with it is, people have been paying into these programs, in many cases for a lot of their lives. They have to. Again, government enforces it. I think we should look for ways to dish out the money back to those who put it in, and then close down the system, as it is obviously bloated, inefficient, and causes more problems and ills than it is worth.
Name:
Xel2006-06-29 16:59
>>138 Again; if you close down the system you are making an ethical slight of the highest order and the ensuing revolution will be justified. A slow but very steady removal of soc. sec. with connected changes in general society and introduction of more meritocratic ideals? I'm all for that. As long as the libertarians educate the consumer and keeps things purely secular I'm on the barricades for them. If all they can talk about is big gov, guns and soc. sec. is slavery they can go have "delicate adventures" with themselves.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 18:26
>>139
Not all libertarians are for a complete separation of state and economics. Many support changes like those you suggested there.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 19:21
>>140
Those who are for complete separation of state and economics are particular anarcho-invidualist sect known as anarcho-capitalism.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 21:22
>>141
Exactly, and I was pointing out to him that not all people who vote libertarian are that extreme. For that matter, not many libertarians APPROACH being that extreme. A few do, but most don't.
Name:
Xel2006-06-30 2:59
>>142 It's just the impression I've been given by a lot of libs. There's a scary lack of nuance.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 15:49
There's also a scary lack of intelligence in this thread.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 17:33
>>139
"As long as the libertarians educate the consumer and keeps things purely secular I'm on the barricades for them."
What do you mean educating the consumer?
Name:
Xel2006-06-30 17:58
>>145 Make people independent thinkers. There is no place for companies like McDonalds for a rational consumer who takes responsibility.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 18:29
>>146
How are you going to make people independent thinkers? How specifically?
I don't eat at McDonalds, ever. I have the utmost of respect for individual rights though. (Property rights.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 18:57
I eat at sometimes McDonalds if I need cheap food, but I'm still pure libertarian. I don't see McDonalds as evil either, but then again personally I'm computer business. Pretty sure many who are in food business find it big evil stealing their profits. I won't comment on those who find it evil for "ideological" reasons as they tend to be sad crackpots.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-01 3:01
Libertarians are greedy fuckheads.
Name:
Xel2006-07-01 3:12
>>149 Stop with the generalizations. While generalizations are the goal of all endeavours of social sciences (approximations and predictions are also strived after), they are to come after years of study, cross-checking and study of pragmatic examples. You are a sort of general disturbance that doesn't really belong out of a shoutwire.com comments list.
Name:
Xel2006-07-01 3:20
>>148 What profit-stealing are you talking about? How can you not think that McDonalds is at least a negative force that needs to be changed by consumer outcry? Do you even exist or am I having a nightmare?
McDonalds food isn't cheap in the long run, and by taking a short-term saving on a cheap meal that offers as much nutrition as a ciggarete wrapped in bacon, you are sending yet another positive, encouraging signal to a company that will continue to harm defenseless people, just because you lacked imagination and time. Unless you spend the time saved on fast eating with writing eye-opening books, making art or shooting gay-bashers you have caused a net damage to the world.
The only "ideological" reason I don't approve of McDoanlds is that I believe in personal responsibility (which was, at my latest check, the core of libertarianism and a functioning laissez-faire state) and that it is my duty to tell capitalism what it can and can not do without reverting to crackpottery.
>>154 I see that the hyena is grudgingly walking away from the carcass, telling the cheetahs it never cared about the outcome anyway. >>155 The cheetahs are really impressed and surprised by the hyenas indifference, not to mention its decision to disapprove of their tactics. The cheetahs have been pwnt by the hyenas skillful and intelligent retreat. Fascinating.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-01 13:23
>>151
While I agree with you that McDonalds is a bad place to eat..
I'd like to stress a few things:
"McDonalds food isn't cheap in the long run, and by taking a short-term saving on a cheap meal that offers as much nutrition as a ciggarete wrapped in bacon, you are sending yet another positive, encouraging signal to a company that will continue to harm defenseless people"
People are NOT defenseless. I agree with you McDonalds is a negative force on humanity, and the world. Nonetheless, people are far from defenseless. People should know by now that McDonalds sucks, their food is unhealthy, and the practices that go into making it are a little less than savory.
Common.. if you didn't know by now that McDonalds' food is horrible for you, you didn't take the time to look at the nutrition facts, and you couldn't guess that "Double Quarter Pounders with extra cheese and a coke with a large order of french fries" is a recipe for a heart attack and possibly diabetes, you are a moron.
Not to mention all the films that have been released on McDonalds. For god's sake, don't act like the populous is "defenseless," even if they didn't know it was unhealthy and such by all the above reasons, they still had the opportunity to read all the articles on the net, the library, the bookstore, and definitely last but not least, see that movie SUPER SIZE ME.
I just had to point this out... people have had PLENTY of warnings about McDonalds' food... more than plenty. If they still eat it, they deserve what comes to them.
Name:
Xel2006-07-01 14:27
>>157 "People should know by now that McDonalds sucks, their food is unhealthy, and the practices that go into making it are a little less than savory." - I was talking about people in the third world and the rainforests, but now that you mention it lots of american kids are defenseless and in the protective middle class/stressed out lower class the parents are also subject to nagging and threats of children. Companies try to turn kids against their parents via advertising.
Regarding the array of info available against McWhatever, the lower class isn't capable of keeping their ears above the klaxoning of pop-"culture", advertising and their hectic lives. Plus, with public schools being what they are I seriously doubt any American know what a calory/amino acid/transfat is.
McDonalds is mostly a subconscious choice, the result of child nagging, laziness or stress. The amount of people in an area that visit McGrease is like a barometer of self-awarenees, independent thinking and IQ levels...
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-01 14:40
>>156
This has to be one of the stupidest dumb fuck analogies of all time. With wild animals intelligence isn't much of an issue. As long as humans have a serviceable level of health, intelligence is the defining darwinian factor. If you're so stupid you cannot equate eating too much fatty food with becoming morbidly obese, you deserve to suffer! There is such thing as the preservation of justice which should be the sole service provided by the government aswell as competition from other fast food stores who will want to expose the poor practices of their competitors and the free press. You are not living in a police state. If you want to whine, do it somewhere where you are not beating thin air.
In fact go to north korea right NOW and begin exposing the poor practices of Kim Jong-Il!
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-01 14:50
>>158
Oh, let's start a witch hunt, since we all subconsciously buy food at mcdonalds we are all suspects...
Name:
Xel2006-07-01 15:20
>>159 If you live in a house and you accumulate asbestos poisoning, is it really your fault. Yes intelligence is key here but considering the fact that these people know nothing except american society, isn't there something wrong with the environment that has shaped them into these... spheres? I'm not condoning their behavior nor their cost for the healthier ones, but fact is; they are all the "victims" of the same persistent factors in the american lifestyle. >>160 I'm not saying we go to Mc in our sleep. I'm saying that for many people it has become second nature. It's like bigotry and sexism; it is so much easier to battle it if you first see your own unconcsious prejudices and such. I don't buy Nike, Mc, anyhting from Coca-Cloa and I shun as much plastics as I can. My dad recycles, and such. Shit accumulates, as do good things.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-01 17:28
>>161
I know that Mc food sucks and is unhealthy(hell, even all really good food is unhealthy only veggies are healthy), but I still sometimes buy Big Mac when travelling if no pizza is available. I know what Coca-Cola does in third world, but you can ignore that their main drink rocks and you don't really have any alternatives. Sure there's Pepsi, but don't they do same things? I don't buy nikes though, but not, because I have anything against company. It's just that I prefer real shoes over sneakers and have sense of style meaning I don't run around in sports wear. I guess I'm cynical hedonist bastard then. Now it's true that I don't like globalism and big corporations for one reason. They steal jobs from many as it's much cheaper to manufacture stuff in some third world sweatshop, but it's not like I can do anything against it and it's not that big problem yet.
Name:
Xel2006-07-01 18:36
>>162 No alternatives... Ever heard of this "pure water" thing that was just revealed in Japan? It's the "happening" of the day now. Your argument is basically that you can't be arsed to make your lifestyle in better sync with the world. How the ftaherfuck is that a viable stanpoint in any aspect? The worst part is that you say that it's not a big problem... Yet. the problem with your "chill out and have a beer you crackpot"-mentality is that you share it with millions of other mollified westerners. We once had an ad here in Sweden, it's an image of a man pouring some paint in the sink thinking: "What's the harm?". The following poster featured hundreds of tiny people sharing the same thought bubble: "What's the harm?". EVERYTHING ACCUMULATES.
"I guess I'm cynical hedonist bastard then." No you're not *A* laid-back, acerbic, cool motherfucker that knows the score, lives large and doesn't give *A* shit while still being amicable. You're not Denis Leary up in this, not even Carrot Top. You're just a net loss and blemish for humanity in general. You are a consumer, capitalism is in your hands. You just chose the easy road and that's pitiable.
"HUHU THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!!! THAT POST SURE ISLONG N' GAY XEL IS SUCH A FAG FOR WRITING LONG POSTS!
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-01 18:56
>>162
There are alternatives. Try Jones soda. It's good stuff. The bottles are expensive, but you can get the cans at most Target stores in the U.S. (at least the one near me) for the same exact price as the large name brands (coke & pepsi). I don't know anything negative really about Jones... they seem like a small, cool, and somewhat individualistic company though. Plus, their soda is superior... premium quality soda at the same price as coke and pepsi (if you buy cans).
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-01 19:00
Xel, I don't really know what happens in your country, I'm not from Sweden, I'm from the United States. I can tell you that in the United States, as an average, lower-middle class kid, the message about McDonalds *IS* out there to anyone who isn't too lazy to go read / watch it. Trust me. Not only that, if your friends are conscious consumers, they usually let you in on the facts. Trust me dude, there is no excuse to not be informed. Those people who go there either are too lazy to know, don't want to know, just don't care, or do care but like eating there and just eat there anyway because... they just don't give a fuck.
They aren't defenseless. The child marketing thing is possibly half true, but that can be avoided by good parenting, and anyone of average or higher intelligence should eventually get over the McDonalds marketing and advertisements. I did... there's no reason others can't.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-01 19:02
I'm poster 165 continuing... something I forgot to add.... that is to say, again... they know, it's their fault.
Maybe they didn't 20 years ago, but after all the recent anti-mcdonalds stuff, movies, ads (subway ads come to mind..) and rampant critisizm of them, and fast food in general, there's really no excuse to NOT know what is going on.
Name:
Xel2006-07-01 19:13
>>165>>166 Okay, you're starting to convince me. If it is as easy as it is to know what's good for you, then becomin uglier is basically what you deserve. I wonder if their profits have gone down as of late anyway. I mean, you have people eating out or eating take-out. three times a day because it is basically cheaper/faster. That is non-existent in Sweden. Still, your experience is better tha mine in this case.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-01 19:24
>>164
Gotta try that >>167
Becoming uglier? I used to be fat, but not anymore. I just started to eat less. Doesn't matter what you eat if you don't eat too much. There are also people with extremely good metabolism and they never get fat no matter what they eat or what they do. I have buddies who eat many donuts daily, mostly sit in front of their computer, drink lots of beer and god knows what, but they're still not fat nor ugly, although being geeks they're not really good looking, but one of them happens to be cutest man I've seen in real-life comparable to Po-Ju boy and it's all natural.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-01 19:26
>>167
According to the movie Super Size Me! or whatever it was I saw a few months back, their profits and sales are actually increasing.
However, to the credit of the average joe in the United States... organic and 'health' foods sales have been increasing dramatically recently. People are (at least partially) waking up to a better, less irresponsible, and less corporate way of living and eating.
Incidentally, the owner of one of these alternative foods stores, John Mackey (owner of the HUGE alt. foods corporation known as Whole Foods) is a libertarian. :)
You should read his essay on the POSITIVE side of free markets and Capitalism he gave in a speech. He seems like a decent guy, even if I *personally* disagree with SOME* not all, of his viewpoints on the economy.
Plus, his stores are pretty cool too... I've been to one once.