Real World Event Discussions

Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, May 7, 2010 16:50
VIEWED: 8545
PAGE 4 of 16

KWICKO

Saturday, April 24, 2010 1:58 AM

Quote:
Or every local community could collect from every family, much like a home owners association collects for maintaining its driveways and streets.

So you're in favor of HOAs? Can I move into a home in a particular neighborhood and opt out of an HOA if I don't want to play?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If 10% of the people control 90% of the resources AND DON'T USE IT to subjugate and oppress the other 90% of people, they're not being good little capitalists, are they?

They can always use it for good, instead of for evil. Good capitalism, actually, is the best form of capitalism.

If you use your capital to develop safer and more efficient technology that makes lives easier, you're using it for good. If you use it to strengthen local communities and environments, you're using it for good. If you operate your business for good, you are shoring up a long and prosperous financial future with loyal employees and customers that will stand the test of time and earn money forever.

THAT is good capitalism.

The problem is, our current system encourages short term gains, and ONLY short term gains. CEO's are rewarded by the performance of their quarterly earnings. So they use their capital to swindle and scam. That is bad capitalism, because short-sightedness loses tons of future earnings.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

KWICKO

Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:03 AM

Quote:

I'm NOT outraged by "Steps to combat pollution, over population, environmental destruction, mass extinction of species, increased use of diminishing resources." I am all for fighting any destruction of our planet.

"Fighting", how exactly? Not by force, obviously. Not by threatening someone to make them stop. How would you fight any destruction of our planet? I'm not being snarky; I'm really interested in how one fights this stuff.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If 10% of the people control 90% of the resources AND DON'T USE IT to subjugate and oppress the other 90% of people, they're not being good little capitalists, are they?

They can always use it for good, instead of for evil. Good capitalism, actually, is the best form of capitalism.

If you use your capital to develop safer and more efficient technology that makes lives easier, you're using it for good. If you use it to strengthen local communities and environments, you're using it for good. If you operate your business for good, you are shoring up a long and prosperous financial future with loyal employees and customers that will stand the test of time and earn money forever.

THAT is good capitalism.

The problem is, our current system encourages short term gains, and ONLY short term gains. CEO's are rewarded by the performance of their quarterly earnings. So they use their capital to swindle and scam. That is bad capitalism, because short-sightedness loses tons of future earnings.

So how do you get good capitalism from our current system, and do so without laws, taxes, or "force"? It seems pretty clear that appealing to one's sense of enlightened self-interest hasn't worked at all. That's like trusting a cocaine addict to know when to say when.

You have laudable goals, but I question HOW you plan to get there.

Thoreau had noble goals, too. But nearly 150 years after his death, would you say we're closer to needing no government at all, or further from that ideal?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:09 AM

And by the way, thank you for a fascinating conversation. You've brought much to think about, and it's a most welcome addition around these parts!

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you're in favor of HOAs? Can I move into a home in a particular neighborhood and opt out of an HOA if I don't want to play?

I personally hate HOAs. But I don't have anything against voluntary contracts between consenting adults. So for people who like them, more power to them.

If you agree to buy a home with a HOA, then you are agreeing to participate in the HOA. You can't agree to that contract, and then bail out. No. (Well, you CAN break contracts, with specified losses, but that is a different issue altogether.)

But choosing to live in a particular state or country is not the same as choosing to buy a home in a HOA-governed neighborhood. You haven't voluntarily entered into any contract just by being born.

I used the HOA model because it is something people are familiar with. But you can tweak the model so that it is voluntary instead of forced.

Will there be freeriders? Of course. A voluntary system isn't perfect. But I prefer the problem of freeriding than the problem of having 90% of my money fund things I have no wish to buy (like war).

Just me.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

They can always use it for good, instead of for evil. Good capitalism, actually, is the best form of capitalism.

If you use your capital to develop safer and more efficient technology that makes lives easier, you're using it for good. If you use it to strengthen local communities and environments, you're using it for good. If you operate your business for good, you are shoring up a long and prosperous financial future with loyal employees and customers that will stand the test of time and earn money forever.

THAT is good capitalism.

The problem is, our current system encourages short term gains, and ONLY short term gains. CEO's are rewarded by the performance of their quarterly earnings. So they use their capital to swindle and scam. That is bad capitalism, because short-sightedness loses tons of future earnings.

Capitalism is neither inherently good nor bad. It's a rather organic system based on demand and supply and it's aim is to create a profit. It has it's plus sides, it does create wealth and it can be responsible for large scale, innovative projects. By it's very nature it relies on short term goals, and tends to be exploitative towards labour and resources.

We've seen first hand how exploitative systems based purely on supply and demand can be. Someone mentioned the bison as an example, hunt a creature to extinction, tomorrow be damned. I think we have a well documented history of screwing up our environment. Jared Diamond's book 'Collapse' documents the rise and fall of a number of civilisations based on misuse and over exploitation of the environment, so it's not like these claims of it happening are outragous.

I said before, much of the world is like a toilet and it's true. If you visit countries with high populations and few environmental controls and a history of being exploited by first world corporations and you can see the future that lays ahead of us all. Personally, I'd prefer to keep the rainbow colours away from our waterways.

So I can't see why some of the current movement towards creating more sustainable lifestyles is creating such a hoo ha. Leaving aside the fact that global warming is a well documented phenomena, why would there be such an outcry except that it effects some business profit and loss margins?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Fighting", how exactly? Not by force, obviously. Not by threatening someone to make them stop. How would you fight any destruction of our planet? I'm not being snarky; I'm really interested in how one fights this stuff.

Good question!

Well, there are different ways. I can think of 2 grassroots methods. There is persuasion, of course, where you educate people to pressure companies to change their practices. But this requires good capitalists (and I mean good financially, not necessarily good at heart), which you rightly point out, are hard to find nowadays.

There is lifestyle change, in which everyone can change their consumption practices and buy less products that harm the environment and their communities. Buy local, buy organic, buy green, that kind of stuff. (There's a pretty cool documentary called "What Would Jesus Buy?" that addresses these problems. You just gotta put up with a lot of preaching, literally.)

My favorite though, is technology. (I'm a scifi geek, what can I say?) Technology, historically, has been the most significant revolutionary for good or bad. Develop good technology, and a lot of the old problems can be solved.

For example, what if someone found a way to make cold fusion work? What if someone invented the technology to reclaim the resources in our landfills? You get the idea.

We need to pour much more of our efforts and community resources into education and scientific/technological research than we do. Teachers ought to have the social status that doctors have now.

And when I say, "ought to," I don't mean by force.

There has to be a revolutionary change in our value system, so that we value curiosity and invention more than consumption and material vanity. We should be encouraging garage laboratories instead of discouraging them with laws and business licenses and patents and legal crap. We should be encouraging more interest in science and mathematics.

America has turned into a scientifically illiterate nation out to buy everything it sees on TV. This only benefits the bad capitalists who don't want to have new and better technology supplant their existing capital investments.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's a rather organic system based on demand and supply and it's aim is to create a profit.

I believe there is a correlation between moral capitalism and higher profits. So in your terms, you can say that good capitalism = bigger profits. Bad capitalism = smaller profits.

Quote:
By it's very nature it relies on short term goals, and tends to be exploitative towards labour and resources.

What nature is that? Profit can be calculated in both long and short term goals. I don't see what kind of "nature" restricts it to short term goals.

Exploitation occurs only with short sighted capitalism, the "bad" kind that have no long term commitments and no long term profits.

Quote:
Leaving aside the fact that global warming is a well documented phenomena, why would there be such an outcry except that it effects some business profit and loss margins?

It's not as well documented as you think. :)

Where is this outcry coming from, have you noticed? How are these people being affected financially by GW? Do you have any concrete examples of outcriers being financially invested in denying GW? (A link and source would be nice too.)

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So how do you get good capitalism from our current system, and do so without laws, taxes, or "force"?

Getting rid of the law that defines the "corporation" as a "person." Eradicate the laws that already exist that makes a business immune to accountability.

Get rid of laws that stifle competition and technological development.

Get rid of taxes that stifle competition and techonological development.

Think of economics like an ecological system. A good natural system has a good cycle of life, where everything has a predator or other natural factor to limit its population growth.

Laws and taxes interfere with the natural economic ecology. They artifically prop up and protect predators that would have otherwise been taken out or limited. Usually, they are instituted by said predators to take out their competitors.

Remove those crutches, and expose them to their natural vulnerabilities. That would be a good start.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT