-Caveat Lector-
MJ wrote:
<< A totalitarian state thrives on propaganda, and there
is no more effective way to limit thought than to
control the language itself. By changing definitions
of words through continual association, any serious
discussion involving the concepts that the words
represents becomes hopelessly muddled.
The words 'democracy', 'hate' and 'racism' immediately
comes to mind. -- Thomas Sowell >>
This, I believe to be true, but I also think that Facism, hate and racism also
go together.
<<Laissez faire capitalism means the complete separation of economy
and state, just like the separation of church and state. Capitalism
is the social system based upon private ownership of the means
of production which entails a completely uncontrolled and unregulated
economy where all land is privately owned. But the separation of
the state and the economy is not a primary, it is only an aspect of
the premise that capitalism is based upon: individual rights.
Capitalism is the only politico-economic system based on the
doctrine of individual rights. This means that capitalism
recognizes that each and every person is the owner of his own
life, and has the right to live his life in any manner he chooses
as long as he does not violate the rights of others.>>
Our country would be better off if we had a capatalist system such as this,
but as you stated before... words change through constant association.
Capitalism now is the subjugation of the poor by the rich in reality, mostly
through the granting of charters to corporations. Corporations are not formed
for the public good as they were supposed to be, but are formed to make the
rich even richer through manipulating government laws.
<<The essential nature of capitalism is social harmony through the
pursuit of self-interest. Under capitalism, the individual's
pursuit of his own economic self-interest simultaneously benefits
the economic self-interests of all others. In allowing each individual
to act unhampered by government regulations, capitalism causes wealth
to be created in the most efficient manner possible which ultimately
raises the standard of living, increases the economic opportunities,
and makes available an ever growing supply of products for everyone.>>
>From what I have seen in my lifetime, capitalism mostly raises the standard of
living for those who already have a high standard of living, and there is very
little "trickle down" to the common person who does the labor in the rich
man's factory. An "ever
growing" supply of products does no good for someone who cannot afford to buy
them. If the business owners did share the wealth with the workers, that
would be equitable, but I think, unrealistic by what I've seen so far.
<< The free-market operates in such a way so that as one man creates
more wealth for himself, he simultaneously creates more wealth for
everyone, which means that as the rich become richer, the poor
become richer too. It must be understood that capitalism serves
the economic self-interests of all, including the non-capitalists.>>
Could you explain in more detail how a man who creates more wealth for himself
will simultaneously create more wealth for everyone? (Not trying to be
sarcastic, just interested in your theory)
<< Contrary to widely held beliefs, capitalism is not a system which
exploits a large portion of society for the sake of a small minority
of wealthy capitalists.>>
Unfortunately that is just what this system is doing right now. I see that it
is also not a pure capitalist system, an element of socialism is there... in a
big way.
<< Ironically, it is actually socialism that
causes the systematic exploitation of labor. Since the socialist
state holds a universal monopoly on labor and production, no
economic incentive exists for the socialist state to provide anything
more than minimum physical subsistence for the workers except to
perhaps prevent riots or revolutions.>>
This may depend on the leaders of such a system. If they/he/she want to be
popular and stay in office (provided it is an elected office) it would be in
their/her/his best interest to increase production, make the business more
productive, pay more wages to the workers. Actually I can see no reason why
the leader would not want everyone to be well off finacially, nothing to lose
and everything to gain.
<<Exploitation is inherent to
the nature of socialism because individuals cannot exist for their
own sake, rather, they exist merely as means to whatever ends the
socialist rulers -- the self-proclaimed spokesman of "society," may
have in mind.>>
This could very well be the case if the rulers were not elected.
<<Capitalism undoubtedly has certain boils and blotches
upon it, but has it as many as government? Has it as
many as marriage? Has it as many as religion? I doubt
it. It is the only basic institution of modern man
that shows any genuine health and vigor.
-- H. L. Menken>>
Government and capitalism do not mix as we now have a system of just that with
the corporations controlling most of the populace and the government. As I
said before there is an element of socialism in our society also, and it
becomes very muddled as to which is gaining ground/which is losing ground.
<<Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of
belief in freedom itself. -- Milton Friedman >>
The way I see it is that the "free market" that Clinton and his followers are
trying to lead us to, is not, in fact, a free market at all. It seems to me
to be a Fascist movement where the corporations, which are privately owned
will have access to very cheap labor resulting in the corporations making more
money, and not sharing their good fortune with the workers. I can also see
that it is a socialistic movement in that, it works to bring down our economy
to that of a third world nation, making a large rift between the rich and the
poor... A purely socialistic form of government is not supposed to do this,
but we see that the communist/socialist regimes of eastern Europe have
actually widened the gap between rich and poor to the point where the poor are
nearly starving and the rich have an abundance of everything, including power.
These are both Statist forms of government which, I believe the founders of
this Republic were trying to avoid. I sincerely believe that our Constitution
was made so that we could be free to do what we want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon the rights of others.
Lawyers, judges, legislatures, presidents, etc.... all lawyers have
perverted the Constitution and the plainly written words of it.
Your redefining capitalism idea is a good idea, maybe the original idea,
but how many laws would it take to keep it like that, and how could it be
perverted into becoming the system we have today?
Regards,
Bob Stokes
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
