No one can ever win a debate on the internet either.

 

I get a lot of question's about how I "feel" about certain issues. It is irrelevant how I feel. Feelings are not part of the method of logic, they are not evidence of a conclusion. The fact that a person has feelings is only evidence that, through some kind of process they earlier came to some kind of idea, which completely leaves open the question of the idea's relationship to the reality of the situation. $3.00 a gal. gas and high medical cost are the result of misguided governmental policies not capitalism.

Life under "laissez faire capitalism" the middle class would thrive. The only people who would suffer would be those who tried to live off the producers. Those who choose not to work would be dependent on the benevolence of others. Not like the current system where taxes are expropriated and a person's need becomes a claim on what another earns.

Yes I know the difference between socialism and communism and fundamentally their isn't much. Socialism may be established by force, as in the former Soviet Union or by vote in what was once Nazi Germany. The degree of which may be total as in the former Soviet Union or partial as in the UK or France. The differences are superficial, the basic principle is the same. Its goals are the abolition of private property, general prosperity, progress and peace, but the results have been disasterous.

I have visited the countries of which you speak and I will take USA's standard of living hands down. This discussion is going far afield of the scope of this forum and better left to another venue.

 

I agree with your point the middle-class would thrive. I also agree with your observation on taxes. I for one have been working since my teenage years and I cannot understand how people can't find work in this country...

Glad you're on board - good points.

-LAFF

 

Thanks LAFF I appreciate your kind words.

 

Wow, that 2% guy is right. You ARE a waste of time.

Thanks for the lecture on logic and feelings. *snore*. Now criticize me and say I "lost" the "debate" because I couldn't counter your "logic". Quite frankly, your post was completely devoid of logic and chock full of opinion. You left the word "opinion" out of your lazziez-faire middle class statement, but in reality, unless you are a fortune teller, that was nothing but your opinion. And we've already proven by Regan's socio-economic experiments of the 80s and Bush I's of the early 90s that "trickle down economics" don't really trickle down.

And also you clearly DON'T know the difference between Communism and Socialism. Or Facism for that matter. The Nazis and Musolini's Italy were facists... dictatorships that stayed in power with force and imposed socialist rule. Communism is where nobody has property rights and the government owns everything. The former Soviet Union was Communist, even though they used the word "Socialist Republic" in their name. You and I will agree that Communism was doomed from the start because there is no true commune. The proletariat will always be lacking and the "politboro" will always have the money and power. That's what killed the USSR.

The countries I mentioned, being Canada and most of Europe, are socialist. That means that people pay high taxes and for that money the government provides them with their social services according to need. They still own their own property, elect leaders, and have democratic rule of law. Of course, that system isn't perfect, but neither is ours.

But you're right. I'm using logic against your opinion and falsehoods, so we'd better call the debate to a close. Good day, SPORT.

But one thing before I go... I'd like to hear your response to my Ayn Rand comments. You didn't touch that one.

 

John Pennekamp, you are a dumbass!

Even comparing Canadian/European political systems to ours...!

 

Oh, that was an intelligent response. Come up with that yourself? You've gotta love the Redneck Agenda: Liberals=Bad Evil Dumbasses Republicans=Wise, Christian Leaders.

 

Why do you choose to call those who are conservative "red necks"? By the way I find your arguments about healthcare and gas funny. Look at the tax basis in your socialist countries and those here in the United States. I think you will find more disposable income after tax and insurance here in the good ole US. Do you honestly think that England has $3 gas. Dont think so because of excessive taxes. Want to watch TV in England, OK pay the tv reception tax. Income tax is a only a portion of the taxes these people pay. Look up the total tax rates and disposable income then come back to me with your utopian ideas. I think you will find you have it better here. Your free healthcare in those countries is hardly free.
I dont understand why would you punish those that generate wealth? There will always be haves and have nots. Get over it, that is life. Why should those with the intellect, drive etc. be held back? Check out the socialist thinking in schools and tell me which is better for society. We give the kids with great intellectual potential all of 2 hours of special attention each day for them to reach their potential. We give kids that mentally will be labeled incompetant when they reach majority age special attention all day with their own classes. That is just plain bad for society and is throwing good money after bad. In the military the saying is you never reinforce failure, only success. It makes sense but liberalism wont have any of it they would rather reinforce failure not success.
It is ok to debate or whatever you call it on the web. I think everyone has their idea of how to help society but differ simply in their strategy to get there. The liberal idea makes, to me, little sense. I find it funny that you call me a redneck and yet you have no idea if I come from a middleclass upperclass or lowerclass home, whether I am from the midwest, west, east or south. I thought the liberals were the ones that dont like labels, oh I forgot unless someone happens to disagree with them.
Now how would you like it if your airlines reinforced failure. Oh yeah many do with ticket prices less than the cost of making the flight. Liberalism does not work no matter how or where it is used.

 

Settle down J.P. I am not here to “criticize” anyone. At the risk of being sanctioned by the moderators of this forum I will make an attempt to clarify as well as provide answers for some of your misconceptions.

At the dawn of the 20th century, as the “Industrial Revolution” was maturing, the U.S. economy was growing at an unprecedented rate resulting in an ever expanding standard of living. For evidence of this all one has to do is look at the achievements of Ford, Bessemer, JP Morgan, Vanderbilt, Carver and too many others to mention. With these men came the fruition of the factory system and mass production with its unparalleled ability to create an abundance of consumer products inexpensively. When Henry Ford doubled the wages at his factories (without an edict from government) this gave rise to the middle class. If other concerns were to properly staff their businesses they also would have to meet the rise in labor costs. Ford could now sell cars to people who had the ability to make the purchase. But it wasn’t just the rise in wages that brought this prosperity; it was the increased productivity of the American worker that was the causal factor of increased wages. More goods and services could be manufactured driving prices down, thereby satisfying pent up demand for new products. With this new found productivity the number of hours the factory worker spent toiling at his job began to decrease. It was the productivity of the American worker that brought us the "weekend" not the labor unions. Capitalism did not create poverty it merely inherited it. These advances did not arise in a cultural vacuum. During this period the involvement of government was the lowest it has ever been. It was during this era the country was closest to “laissez-faire” capitalism.


BTW don’t bother bringing up the “Great Depression” that is definitely a debate for another forum. However, its causes were primarily: the disintegration of the world economy due Germany’s inability to repay its WW1 war debts along with rising socialism in Europe, “New Deal” legislation, and the Wagner Act.

As for Reagan and his economic policies he was merely following JFK’s model of lowering taxes and getting government off the back of American people. It was Bush, the ol’man, who labeled Reagan’s economic policy “trickle down”. In case you have forgotten or to young to remember the prime lending rate went from single digits in 1976 to near 19% in 1979. Unemployment was around 15%. Reagan’s policies gave rise to one of the longest economic expansions in history, serving ol’man Bush’s as well as most of the Clinton administration. The economic problems we face today are a result of Congress spending money like drunken sailors. (my apologies to drunken sailors, as I have several friends who meet that description)

I will try this again. Fundamentally there is NO difference between socialism and communism. They both attempt to achieve the same ultimate end. Communism uses force to enslave people and socialism uses the vote of the people. It is the difference between murder and suicide. Socialism and fascism both involve the right to own private property. The right to property means the right to use and dispose of as one chooses. The difference between the two theories is socialism, in its pure form, negates private property and advocates turning ownership and control to the state. Fascism on the other hand leaves ownership in the hands of private people but transfers control to the state. Either way you cut it ownership without control is a fraud.

As far as your crack about Ayn Rand, I did not respond because that is definitely beyond the scope of this forum and would definitely incur the wrath of the moderators. If you really want to discuss Ayn Rand and her ideas go to the forum section at http://www.capmag.com/. There are plenty of people who would be more than happy to discuss with you her ideas.

In closing all I have to say is the events of the 20th century prove dramatically two things: that the capitalist system creates enormous prosperity and all forms of statism lead to poverty and, ultimately, collapse.

 

I thought this Thread was about Unions?