Why we need a strong government to check capitalism.

[jar]

Just came across these pictures I took a few years back and that might be something a few folk may not have seen.


http://www.fototime.com/9BBD3045B391113/large.jpg


Those are Mill Coins, from several of the cotton mills in South Carolina. They are an example of true capitalism; the company looked out for the workers, provided stores where they could buy the needed products, owned the houses and the land the church was built on and the pastor worked for the company, the graveyard and streets, employed even the doctors and owned the hospital. The police and firemen worked for the company. The company owned the baseball team and the field they played on. It owned the school and the teachers

Now many of you may be familiar with "Company Money" from the folk song, John Henry, but these were not pile drivin' men but rather Lintheads (https://www.google.com/search?q=Lintheads&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSguPVyprLAhUrvIMKHQbBDBsQsAQIQQ&biw=1441&bih=988). The dust and lint from the milling machines filled the air, covered their hair and clothes, filled every breath they took.

Now this wasn't slavery, anyone could quit work if they wanted. Of course you could not strike; strikes were broken up by the police, the State Militia, hired thugs or even the National Guard when necessary. But individuals could quit. And if your lungs got so bad you couldn't work you could still live in the house as long as the rent got paid; paid in Company Money. If you did quit you could keep your clothes and other possessions you actually owned but that was it. Leave town.

And there was the rub.

When you are paid in company money it can only be used in the company store. Go back and look again at those coins. They are non-transferable, could not be converted into US currency or even used anywhere BUT the company store. You could not even use it in some other company's store.

Often, the lint dust (or coal dust or ...) led to severe breathing problems that made it impossible to work. As long as you had a spouse and kids that could go to work in the mill, you could continue to live in the house. But if there were not family members that could pay the rent in mill coin, you had to leave.

You had to leave with absolutely no money. Even if you had saved your Company Money it was not convertible. If you had a car or truck, you might be able to take your clothes and furniture and pots and pans but few folk had a car or truck and if all you had was Company Money you could not even hire anything but a Company Truck with a Company Driver. If you were well loved in the company that might happen.

But that was long ago.

Actually, no. It is what existed even through World War II. Look at this next picture.


http://www.fototime.com/D34DC872BF5E1B4/large.jpg


Look at the date on the coin in the lower right.

And the next time someone tells you we need a small government, to get rid of all the rules and regulations, the EPA, the Clean Air Act, the Fair Labor Practices and all the other governmental benefits we have implemented in the last half century, take a look again at these coins and the pictures of the Lintheads.

We need a 900 pound gorilla to act as a check against rampant capitalism.

[pajaro]

Just came across these pictures I took a few years back and that might be something a few folk may not have seen.


http://www.fototime.com/9BBD3045B391113/large.jpg


Those are Mill Coins, from several of the cotton mills in South Carolina. They are an example of true capitalism; the company looked out for the workers, provided stores where they could buy the needed products, owned the houses and the land the church was built on and the pastor worked for the company, the graveyard and streets, employed even the doctors and owned the hospital. The police and firemen worked for the company. The company owned the baseball team and the field they played on. It owned the school and the teachers

Now many of you may be familiar with "Company Money" from the folk song, John Henry, but these were not pile drivin' men but rather Lintheads (https://www.google.com/search?q=Lintheads&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSguPVyprLAhUrvIMKHQbBDBsQsAQIQQ&biw=1441&bih=988). The dust and lint from the milling machines filled the air, covered their hair and clothes, filled every breath they took.

Now this wasn't slavery, anyone could quit work if they wanted. Of course you could not strike; strikes were broken up by the police, the State Militia, hired thugs or even the National Guard when necessary. But individuals could quit. And if your lungs got so bad you couldn't work you could still live in the house as long as the rent got paid; paid in Company Money. If you did quit you could keep your clothes and other possessions you actually owned but that was it. Leave town.

And there was the rub.

When you are paid in company money it can only be used in the company store. Go back and look again at those coins. They are non-transferable, could not be converted into US currency or even used anywhere BUT the company store. You could not even use it in some other company's store.

Often, the lint dust (or coal dust or ...) led to severe breathing problems that made it impossible to work. As long as you had a spouse and kids that could go to work in the mill, you could continue to live in the house. But if there were not family members that could pay the rent in mill coin, you had to leave.

You had to leave with absolutely no money. Even if you had saved your Company Money it was not convertible. If you had a car or truck, you might be able to take your clothes and furniture and pots and pans but few folk had a car or truck and if all you had was Company Money you could not even hire anything but a Company Truck with a Company Driver. If you were well loved in the company that might happen.

But that was long ago.

Actually, no. It is what existed even through World War II. Look at this next picture.


http://www.fototime.com/D34DC872BF5E1B4/large.jpg


Look at the date on the coin in the lower right.

And the next time someone tells you we need a small government, to get rid of all the rules and regulations, the EPA, the Clean Air Act, the Fair Labor Practices and all the other governmental benefits we have implemented in the last half century, take a look again at these coins and the pictures of the Lintheads.

We need a 900 pound gorilla to act as a check against rampant capitalism.


Those of us who lived before EPA and the government programs of the 1960s and later ought to very well know why these watchdog agencies are needed. Dumping all kinds of crud into the ground and water. Working in the city and finding the smog fallout on your shirt collar.

It's a free country, and you can vote the way you want, but if you are not among the very rich there are parties whose candidates want to emasculate protections, and are you wise to vote for them? Even if you are among the very rich, you have yours and do you want some bunch of fools to drive the common man to rebel peacefully or otherwise? Destabilizing the status quo? Even the Romans had the coliseum and wheat giveaways.

[Morgaine]

Same sort of thing could be said about EU - however, this time for environmental reasons. The rubbish got dumped, not sure what rules and regulations there were but in 1990(?), EU regs limited the ability of toxic stuffs in the waste to leach out in new landfill sites..

There are a few community currencies in the UK, e.g. http://bristolpound.org/ but there, via the one bank/credit union, you can get sterling out of it. Also http://www.totnespound.org/ but there is a commission to convert back into sterling.

[Dragonmaster Lou]

Indeed. When people talk about regulation and stuff, I tell them that we sometimes need strong government regulation because "people can often be greedy jerks" (to put it bluntly). In a perfect world, yeah, we wouldn't need it, but it's an imperfect world full of imperfect humans.

[Deb]

I don't think there was company money but there were company stores in the mining industry in the UK. It was effectively the same because that was the only shop available in many mining towns. By the time you paid the rent for your company house and paid their high prices for food there was nothing left. That went on until 1945.

[Morgaine]

Just phoned a friend. There were mill coins in the UK, and also in mining towns.... outlawed in the UK in about 1910, he said.

Folk music - http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/t/tennessee_ernie_ford/sixteen_tons.html - Tennessee Ernie Ford

[bluesea]

That is the same basic system used in the Hawaii sugar plantations, for immigrants that were brought in as indentured servants from China, Japan and the Philippines.

[empliau]

Like that song, "Sixteen Tons" - Saint Peter, don't you call me, cause I can't go: I owe my soul to the company store!

I remember Tennessee Ernie Ford as a silly comic with a silly voice from my childhood. I was amazed at that song - a startling piece of social commentary.

[jar]

I grew up listening to the songs of Guthrie, Woody not Arlo, and there were many such songs. I was also lucky enough to wander around Appalachia before it was chic and saw the ruin caused by modern mining and around Arizona to see the mountains that were just tailing from the copper mines, in the south when in the second largest city in the state over half the roads "south of the tracks" were still unpaved and city sewer and water was a reality only "north of the tracks" and when a billboard at the edge of town said "Nigger, don't let the sun set on you here! signed the sheriff" did not even garner comment. My wife was an art teacher at the "separate but equal junior high south of the tracks" and none of the ceiling lights in her classroom had bulbs and her supplies were one fifty pound hunk of semi-dried clay.

AbE:

If you ever get the chance listen to Lady Day sing "Strange Fruit" and Odetta sing "Careless Love" and Big Momma Thorton sing "Houn' Dog".

[Chuasam]

I love jazz and swing dance and I never really thought about what 16 tons was other than a catchy song. That is absolutely Terrifying.

[jar]

For those not familiar with the history two good places to start are the General Textile Mill Strike of 1934 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_workers_strike_%281934%29) but in particular, the small event that came to be known as the Honea Path Massacre (http://www.independentmail.com/news/local/seventy-five-years-later-the-chiquola-incident-in-honea-path-still-significant-ep-415021796-350179581.html).

[dneal]

We need a 900 pound gorilla to act as a check against rampant capitalism.

I'd rather have a 50 pound dog with teeth. 900 pound gorillas cost too much and just lay around doing whatever they want. I can train the dog, but it's not safe to even get close to the gorilla.

[SIR]

All I want for Christmas, is Direct Democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

[jar]

All I want for Christmas, is Direct Democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

As long as the Direct Democracy is limited by some 900 pond gorilla (for example a Constitution and legal system) which can override the will of the people it is possible acceptable; not ideal but acceptable. The major problem is that in most instances there does not exist and informed citizenry that has been taught HOW to think, the process and mechanics of thinking or history.

[SIR]

Override the will of the people?!
Jesus and Barabbas is your fear, perhaps?

[jar]

Override the will of the people?!
Jesus and Barabbas is your fear, perhaps?

Not at all; ignorance, particularly of history (witness the posts in this thread from folk who were not aware of rampant capitalism) and an uneducated electorate that have never been taught how (the process) to think is what I fear. We need protection from a tyranny of popularity as well as rampant capitalism and fascism.

[SIR]

Override the will of the people?!
Jesus and Barabbas is your fear, perhaps?

Not at all; ignorance, particularly of history (witness the posts in this thread from folk who were not aware of rampant capitalism) and an uneducated electorate that have never been taught how (the process) to think is what I fear. We need protection from a tyranny of popularity as well as rampant capitalism and fascism.

The problem I see with representative democracy is that many staff - civil servants, parliament members, and ministers, to name a few - lack life experience; they have been bred, raised, and groomed for their roles or largely come from the world of business, hence why I can see the appeal of socialism, communism, and anarchism to the 'masses'.
Being British, I have been surprised by the effectiveness David Cameron has shown, but on the other side his support for one side of the argument in terms of EU membership and the attempts to shepherd the rest of the party into supporting his agenda shows the weakness of party politics.
I'd much rather all members of parliament were independents, I'd also much rather have no monarchy or an absolute monarch than a constitutional one, but then again I'd rather just have Vladimir Putin than either the Queen or David Cameron, and I'd much rather have a direct democracy with a secure constitution than any or all of the preceding.

[RNHC]

I am sorry to disagree with my friend, SIR, but the problem with direct democracy is the underlying assumption that a hundred idiots can make a better decision than one genius.

[RNHC]

In an ideal capitalist market, for any industry, one company will begin to dominate and eventually will monopolize the market which anyone who took intro Econ class will know that is a very bad thing. A 900 lb gorilla alone is not enough. First, we need a strong, "smart" laws and rules in place. Then we need a strong government (900 lb gorilla) that is willing and able to enforce the laws.

[SIR]

I am sorry to disagree with my friend, SIR, but the problem with direct democracy is the underlying assumption that a hundred idiots can make a better decision than one genius.

By whose standards do you judge them idiots and what is the cause of them being idiots?
Just because we don't understand them does not mean they do not understand us... or that they are less intelligent, but mental aptitude is only inherent to a certain extent, a lot is the result of nurture and methods of teaching; further, economic and other issues extrinsic to education, learning, and social integration play a very large part in shaping mental development. Freud is renowned for overlooking environmental influences in the analysis of psychology and mental development.
We need to get away from the idea of 'original sin'; investment in a persons development is multifaceted - differences in spiritual, emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sociological factors should not preclude an individual's involvement in communal politics.

[jar]

I am sorry to disagree with my friend, SIR, but the problem with direct democracy is the underlying assumption that a hundred idiots can make a better decision than one genius.

By whose standards do you judge them idiots and what is the cause of them being idiots?
Just because we don't understand them does not mean they do not understand us... or that they are less intelligent, but mental aptitude is only inherent to a certain extent, a lot is the result of nurture and methods of teaching; further, economic and other issues extrinsic to education, learning, and social integration play a very large part in shaping mental development. Freud is renowned for overlooking environmental influences in the analysis of psychology and mental development.
We need to get away from the idea of 'original sin'; investment in a persons development is multifaceted - differences in spiritual, emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sociological factors should not preclude an individual's involvement in communal politics.

Original sin does not enter into it but education does.

I cannot address the education in other nations but in general in the US it is abysmal.

We do not teach what is needed to be an informed citizen.

We do not teach How to think; the processes required to think.

We do not teach actual history but rather myth.

We do not teach critical thinking.

We do not teach personal responsibility.

The average natural born American could not begin to qualify for citizenship compared to those immigrants that do try to become citizens.

This thread is a great example. Much of what has been touched on is simply not known by the average US voter.

[SIR]

I am sorry to disagree with my friend, SIR, but the problem with direct democracy is the underlying assumption that a hundred idiots can make a better decision than one genius.

By whose standards do you judge them idiots and what is the cause of them being idiots?
Just because we don't understand them does not mean they do not understand us... or that they are less intelligent, but mental aptitude is only inherent to a certain extent, a lot is the result of nurture and methods of teaching; further, economic and other issues extrinsic to education, learning, and social integration play a very large part in shaping mental development. Freud is renowned for overlooking environmental influences in the analysis of psychology and mental development.
We need to get away from the idea of 'original sin'; investment in a persons development is multifaceted - differences in spiritual, emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sociological factors should not preclude an individual's involvement in communal politics.

Original sin does not enter into it but education does.

I cannot address the education in other nations but in general in the US it is abysmal.

We do not teach what is needed to be an informed citizen.

We do not teach How to think; the processes required to think.

We do not teach actual history but rather myth.

We do not teach critical thinking.

We do not teach personal responsibility.

The average natural born American could not begin to qualify for citizenship compared to those immigrants that do try to become citizens.

This thread is a great example. Much of what has been touched on is simply not known by the average US voter.

It would appear that we are very much in agreement Jar; the two areas of human 'knowledge' which we, in the UK, most neglect to teach children in our national curriculum are law (including principles, history, development, and current areas in need of reform) and psychology (I don't think I need to emphasise the advantage even a basic understanding of human psychology would give children) - as you say a lot of what we do teach is largely unimportant or downright irrelevant, and the standard of teaching and pastoral care of children is very low.

[jar]

It would appear that we are very much in agreement Jar; the two areas of human 'knowledge' which we, in the UK, most neglect to teach children in our national curriculum are law (including principles, history, development, and current areas in need of reform) and psychology (I don't think I need to emphasise the advantage even a basic understanding of human psychology would give children) - as you say a lot of what we do teach is largely unimportant or downright irrelevant, and the standard of teaching and pastoral care of children is very low.

In the US the goal of education has changed from creating an informed citizenry to vocational ed; job training. The result may be great for business but does little for governance.

AbE:

One book I often recommend as a starting place to learning how to think is a slim volume (No, not 1066 and All That but that would also do) called Language in Thought and Action by S. I. Hyakawa.

[RNHC]

By whose standards do you judge them idiots and what is the cause of them being idiots?
Just because we don't understand them does not mean they do not understand us... or that they are less intelligent, but mental aptitude is only inherent to a certain extent, a lot is the result of nurture and methods of teaching; further, economic and other issues extrinsic to education, learning, and social integration play a very large part in shaping mental development. Freud is renowned for overlooking environmental influences in the analysis of psychology and mental development.
We need to get away from the idea of 'original sin'; investment in a persons development is multifaceted - differences in spiritual, emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sociological factors should not preclude an individual's involvement in communal politics.

Idiots as in those who are unwilling or unable to make informed decision due to lack of mental capacity, ignorance or sheer apathy. I don't know about UK but in the US, the level of indifference to civic responsibility is staggering. Even the ones who are willing to do their duties lack the education and knowledge to smartly carry out their responsibility. IMHO, the educational curriculum in the US has changed from nurturing the very best to catering to the lowest common denominator. It's amazing how little people know about their governmental structure. It's true that overwhelming majority of Americans will fail the citizenship test. As my middle school civic teacher (an extinct breed since I don't believe civic classes are taught anymore) has said, citizenship is a privilege. Unfortunately, most of us hasn't earned the privilege.

[SIR]

Universal suffrage means universal suffrage; it is not for one or another to decide who or who is not capable of contributing to decision making, therefore, representative democracy is a fallacy, an oxymoron, and an insult.

[jar]

Universal suffrage means universal suffrage; it is not for one or another to decide who or who is not capable of contributing to decision making, therefore, representative democracy is a fallacy, an oxymoron, and an insult.

So you assert. But what evidence is there that that is the case or that universal suffrage is desirable or that unchecked democracy is something worth having?

And what does that have to do with the topic?

[SIR]

Universal suffrage means universal suffrage; it is not for one or another to decide who or who is not capable of contributing to decision making, therefore, representative democracy is a fallacy, an oxymoron, and an insult.

So you assert. But what evidence is there that that is the case or that universal suffrage is desirable or that unchecked democracy is something worth having?

And what does that have to do with the topic?

You assert a more influential government is a better thing, but history endlessly demonstrates that all government passes thru tyranny to eventual final ruin - build on unsound foundations and failure is your only fate, you will reap what you sow; therefore, control and you will be controlled, deceive and you will be deceived - he who has no theory will find revelation.

Your suggestion is simply backward, one might even say 'retarded'.

[SIR]

We need a 900 pound gorilla to act as a check against rampant capitalism.

I recall comments of yours in another thread suggesting to the effect that if one is not happy with the way things are done in a certain place then one should not dalliance with complaining but should simply find somewhere else to express one's self; perhaps Saudi Arabia would be more to your liking?

Back to your original point regarding mill coins, I agree we should beware of becoming slaves of capital, but you should remember how the army and the police have been oft well utilised in the histories of many first world states in the disruption of labour solidarity and industrial action.

:lazy:

[jar]

Universal suffrage means universal suffrage; it is not for one or another to decide who or who is not capable of contributing to decision making, therefore, representative democracy is a fallacy, an oxymoron, and an insult.

So you assert. But what evidence is there that that is the case or that universal suffrage is desirable or that unchecked democracy is something worth having?

And what does that have to do with the topic?

You assert a more influential government is a better thing, but history endlessly demonstrates that all government passes thru tyranny to eventual final ruin - build on unsound foundations and failure is your only fate, you will reap what you sow; therefore, control and you will be controlled, deceive and you will be deceived - he who has no theory will find revelation.

Your suggestion is simply backward, one might even say 'retarded'.

I'm sorry but that is just word salad and bumper sticker illiteracy.


I recall comments of yours in another thread suggesting to the effect that if one is not happy with the way things are done in a certain place then one should not dalliance with complaining but should simply find somewhere else to express one's self; perhaps Saudi Arabia would be more to your liking?

Back to your original point regarding mill coins, I agree we should beware of becoming slaves of capital, but you should remember how the army and the police have been oft well utilised in the histories of many first world states in the disruption of labour solidarity and industrial action.

Again, what does that have to do with the topic?

Is there any reason to think that a government with universal suffrage would be any different than any other form of government?

The US today has about as close to universal suffrage as maybe anywhere except perhaps Russia during the Soviets; there was real universal suffrage there. Almost all decisions were made by the local soviets and national soviets. Companies were run by corporate soviets where all the workers got together and decided corporate goals and policies.

Universal suffrage is no panacea or assurance of anything.

Armies and police have certainly disrupted labor even here in the US and in fact, if you listen to some of the rhetoric in the current madness here you can see calls for just such behavior by government.

Remember, in the US there is very nearly universal suffrage. And in the US today there is strong voter support for a Fascist candidate who constantly lies and points to achievements or tyrants and quotes their works. Il Donald may well get elected by the US Universal Suffrage.

Perhaps a better solution than universal suffrage might be universal education in how to think, how to use the techniques of critical analysis, evidence based decision making, accurate history (this thread is even an attempt at that) so that voters can make reasonable and rational choices on how their government should behave.

But before that could happen in the US (and I don't try to change any other nations government of choice) we need to make a few other changes.

We need to add a restriction on suffrage so the corporations are not given suffrage.

We need a National Education Policy.

We need to re-institute the Chinese Wall between News and Editorial and between News/Editorial and Advertising.

I understand that you are a well meaning chuunibyou but your posts show that you really need to learn how to think. May I suggest as a first small step a slim volume called Language in Thought and Action by S.I. Hayakawa and then a snother short read, The Authoritarians by Robert Altemeyer and avoid the fantasies by Ayn Rand.

[SIR]

Universal suffrage means universal suffrage; it is not for one or another to decide who or who is not capable of contributing to decision making, therefore, representative democracy is a fallacy, an oxymoron, and an insult.

So you assert. But what evidence is there that that is the case or that universal suffrage is desirable or that unchecked democracy is something worth having?

And what does that have to do with the topic?

You assert a more influential government is a better thing, but history endlessly demonstrates that all government passes thru tyranny to eventual final ruin - build on unsound foundations and failure is your only fate, you will reap what you sow; therefore, control and you will be controlled, deceive and you will be deceived - he who has no theory will find revelation.

Your suggestion is simply backward, one might even say 'retarded'.

I'm sorry but that is just word salad and bumper sticker illiteracy.


I recall comments of yours in another thread suggesting to the effect that if one is not happy with the way things are done in a certain place then one should not dalliance with complaining but should simply find somewhere else to express one's self; perhaps Saudi Arabia would be more to your liking?

Back to your original point regarding mill coins, I agree we should beware of becoming slaves of capital, but you should remember how the army and the police have been oft well utilised in the histories of many first world states in the disruption of labour solidarity and industrial action.

Again, what does that have to do with the topic?

Is there any reason to think that a government with universal suffrage would be any different than any other form of government?

The US today has about as close to universal suffrage as maybe anywhere except perhaps Russia during the Soviets; there was real universal suffrage there. Almost all decisions were made by the local soviets and national soviets. Companies were run by corporate soviets where all the workers got together and decided corporate goals and policies.

Universal suffrage is no panacea or assurance of anything.

Armies and police have certainly disrupted labor even here in the US and in fact, if you listen to some of the rhetoric in the current madness here you can see calls for just such behavior by government.

Remember, in the US there is very nearly universal suffrage. And in the US today there is strong voter support for a Fascist candidate who constantly lies and points to achievements or tyrants and quotes their works. Il Donald may well get elected by the US Universal Suffrage.

Perhaps a better solution than universal suffrage might be universal education in how to think, how to use the techniques of critical analysis, evidence based decision making, accurate history (this thread is even an attempt at that) so that voters can make reasonable and rational choices on how their government should behave.

But before that could happen in the US (and I don't try to change any other nations government of choice) we need to make a few other changes.

We need to add a restriction on suffrage so the corporations are not given suffrage.

We need a National Education Policy.

We need to re-institute the Chinese Wall between News and Editorial and between News/Editorial and Advertising.

I understand that you are a well meaning chuunibyou but your posts show that you really need to learn how to think. May I suggest as a first small step a slim volume called Language in Thought and Action by S.I. Hayakawa and then a snother short read, The Authoritarians by Robert Altemeyer and avoid the fantasies by Ayn Rand.

You can want a lessening of your own rights all you like, but I'm glad those who are your betters have already made provision for that not to happen to the rest of us.
You can still have yourself committed or sectioned, don't worry we'll take care of you.
Until then, keep up the good work, there's a good chap.

[jar]

You can want a lessening of your own rights all you like, but I'm glad those who are your betters have already made provision for that not to happen to the rest of us.
You can still have yourself committed or sectioned, don't worry we'll take care of you.
Until then, keep up the good work, there's a good chap.

Again, what does anything in your post have to do with anything I have said in this or any thread on this forum?

Is it possible English is not your first language?

[SIR]

You can want a lessening of your own rights all you like, but I'm glad those who are your betters have already made provision for that not to happen to the rest of us.
You can still have yourself committed or sectioned, don't worry we'll take care of you.
Until then, keep up the good work, there's a good chap.

Again, what does anything in your post have to do with anything I have said in this or any thread on this forum?

Is it possible English is not your first language?

I'm talking about direct democracy, what are you talking about?

Is it possible you are not as well informed as you think?

By the way, regarding your post "I claim fake ... replica Hermes, likely made in China" (http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/306222-anyone-seen-hermes-new-mail-line/); Hermès stationary are real.
http://usa.hermes.com/leather/writing/mail/grain-d-h-writing-pads-gm-1/bloc-correspondance-grain-h-a5-65575.html
Perhaps not be so reactionary, and make an effort to get your facts right first rather than trying to impress with your enthusiasm for being a know it all?

[jar]

You can want a lessening of your own rights all you like, but I'm glad those who are your betters have already made provision for that not to happen to the rest of us.
You can still have yourself committed or sectioned, don't worry we'll take care of you.
Until then, keep up the good work, there's a good chap.

Again, what does anything in your post have to do with anything I have said in this or any thread on this forum?

Is it possible English is not your first language?

I'm talking about direct democracy, what are you talking about?

Is it possible you are not as well informed as you think?

By the way, regarding your post "I claim fake ... replica Hermes, likely made in China" (http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/306222-anyone-seen-hermes-new-mail-line/); Hermès stationary are real.
http://usa.hermes.com/leather/writing/mail/grain-d-h-writing-pads-gm-1/bloc-correspondance-grain-h-a5-65575.html
Perhaps not be so reactionary, and make an effort to get your facts right first rather than trying to impress with your enthusiasm for being a know it all?

You do know that this is the first time you mentioned Direct Democracy and universal suffrage and direct democracy are not synonyms.

If you would like to discuss the various forms of direct democracy then perhaps a topic on that subject might let you learn a little.

But you still have not explained why even direct democracy would be relevant to this topic?

You do know that Hermes was the messenger of the Greek Gods and around somewhat longer that boutique stationary or maybe you have not learned about humor yet.

It's not just possible I am not as informed as I'd like to be but in fact a certainty. That is why I must once again ask you what either direct democracy or universal suffrage have to do with the topic? Inform us.

[SIR]

You do know that this is the first time you mentioned Direct Democracy

http://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/15265-Why-we-need-a-strong-government-to-check-capitalism?p=163672&viewfull=1#post163672

Rewrite history in your own time, I'm out.

:lazy:

[jar]

You do know that this is the first time you mentioned Direct Democracy

http://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/15265-Why-we-need-a-strong-government-to-check-capitalism?p=163672&viewfull=1#post163672

Rewrite history in your own time, I'm out.

:lazy:

You are right, you did mention it in this thread but you have still never explained how that is relevant to the topic or why direct democracy would be of value in relation to the topic.

If you think universal suffrage or some form of direct democracy would help limit rampant capitalism perhaps you can present your case.

[MatthewLee1959]

Two issues in this thread are of particular interest to me. First, the issues discussed hit home on a personal level, and are not simply and exercise in academic theory. I graduated from Stonewall Jackson High School in Charleston WV. I haven't just vacationed in coal country, I lived there. I know how each holler in West Virginia is separate and isolated. You didn't socialize, or marry from the next holler. Even now I haul coal almost every day from a coal mine in Central IL to a power plant in the Chicago area and then bring flyash back. I therefore have both an academic view and a practical one.

Living in Illinois I can see what would happen to the United States in the case of direct democracy, or electing a President by popular vote, rather than our weighted system of an electoral college. The electoral college and the equal number of Senators from each state accomplish the same thing and that is to insure rural states have a voice. Those of us who live in "fly over" country don't get run roughshod by only 5 states, we have a voice.

No reasonable person questions the need for rules and regulations, but maybe the reason the 900# gorilla is so big is because he is fat. Maybe if that gorilla would go on a diet he could do a better job. After the trucking industry was deregulated it became apparent that allowing anyone to drive any type of truck was not going to work. Highway fatalities involving big trucks was skyrocketing and the people demanded action. The result was congress forced the creation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or FMCSA for short. They accomplished a lot of good, revamping the hours of service, setting up driver fitness standards in physical and educational areas made it more likely people, including drivers made it home safely. They also set up mechanical standards for trucks, and made carriers responsible for their actions. They also put the power to drive safely in the hands of drivers. Now if a driver is out of hours and refuses to drive, the company has no choice, but to allow the driver to shut down.

So, if they have done so much good, what's the problem? They keep looking for excuses to pass new regulations that don't improve safety. We have the regulations we need, now they need to concentrate on enforcement. However, like most bureaucracies, they are addicted to overeating. The point is that we need a gorilla, but unchecked that gorilla becomes worse than the problem he was supposed to protect us from.

[sidpost]

Whether a 900# Gorilla, corporate abuse, or general bureaucracy suppressing the will of the people, the fact remains large groups of people need some boundaries to ensure equity and opportunity for all in a society. These boundaries also mean corporate entities, businesses in general and, governments need ground rules and boundaries as well so they don't become abusive overlords suppressing the will of the people they claim to serve.

Company money is one example among many of how a corporation can abuse its workforce and suppress their free will. The same can be said of many forms of government such as but not limited to Saudi Arabia, ISIS, North Korea, and others. No one system is perfect but, it is easy to point out the worst offenders.

Unfortunately today IMHO, most people while well intentioned are misguided and poorly informed. Where I am from, people speak of the "far left" and others speak of the "far right" and forget about majority in the middle. They also generally have very misguided opinions of others they have never been in contact with. Bias and prejudice runs rampant further complicating social issues. And, the media's obsessional focus of the abhorrent outliers only serves to further obscure or, outright hide, the more significant issues facing societies at large.

Until the populace at large has sufficient education to understand what has happened in the past and, free access to unbiased news to understand the issues of today, it is very difficult for any representative government to rule effectively. The governments that are not representative are only concerned with with 'brainwashing' the populace, having enough money (or resources) to build weapons to ensure their continued rule and are generally immune from any concerns of the populace they rule over until an overthrow attempt is large enough to overwhelm the weapons and resources of this unrepresentative form government.

In modern times, if you look at the fall of the Soviet Empire, early Russian democracy and, the Russian state today you can see what happens when the people at large lack the education, critical thinking skills, and free will combined with unrestricted power in the hands of oligarchs. I seriously doubt anyone not a part of the "elite class" would choose to have a governance system like modern day Russia. Hungary and Turkey are two more that are undergoing significant change and may become further examples following the Russian example. The same can said of nations that are heavily influenced by industrial entities though the issues are not easily identified by people who are not living within these governmental entities. The history of the Catholic church is yet another example of a totally different type of governance that has had its own issues over the centuries that can be both supportive and abusive to the populace it serves.

The results of these influences and attempts at governance can be readily observed if you look at the rise of populism and various forms of extremism today. People want change but, lack the education, knowledge and, experience to effectively and constructively change their local societies. All you need to do is look at the most recent US Presidential election, Brexit, and the rise of various groups in France and Austria as a few examples of people that want change and have had varying levels of success of achieving change. What remains to be seen is what the result of voter anger at the ballot box will be to nations when you "shake things up" out of frustration with the status quo.

In summary, I am glad I live in a society with a governance system that allows me the freedom to leave it if I am truly unhappy or see a better one across the border. While most modern governments have aspects similar to the 'company store', unlike them however, you have the ability to migrate and take your possessions with you so ultimately you can exercise FREE WILL and leave if you want too.

[myu]

There is a major schism in the philosophy of political parties. It's either Business First or People First. Some try to straddle the line, but many seem to remain polarized.

The FUNDAMENTAL FLAW with putting business over people, is that this is a short term benefit. It PRESUMES there are people innately doing good in business, and that prosperity will "trickle down" to the people. Perhaps in some cases it will, but history has shown that more often than not it will NOT trickle down much. A thin streak of slow dripping water, versus a nice steady shower.

The basic problem? PEOPLE. Morals. Ethics. Integrity. Honesty. Compassion. You cannot have these if you do not put people first. Education and parenting are KEY to fostering such people. You treat education as an afterthought? And you'll end up with people who are like sheep, mindless and bleating, unable to think for themselves. Some politicians are overtly insidious, really wanting a dumb and gullible population to accept their policies without question and remain loyal. It's the power hungry who do this.

So, we need SOCIAL PROGRAMS. ACCOUNTABILITY. But no, some politicians will create barriers to this, like turning "socialism" and "liberalism" into curse words. They don't want money spent on education, but rather on military interests. Make businesses lose 1 to 2% of their profits because of environmental regulations? Bah! Throw it out. Business first! Oversight? That delays business. Throw it out. "Business is best at taking care of itself," which has been said by GW Bush and Trump. But we've seen what they do... 2008 crash. It happened because of anemic or missing regulations. We put new ones in place, and there you go... one party avidly seeks to undermine it all. OUTLANDISHLY GREEDY. How can these people do this and not feel the slightest remorse? Because... anemic character. Power and money hungry. Those are far more important than being fair to the people.

Sorry... in order for a society to work, you need GOOD PEOPLE. And we're anemic on that right now. Enough that it has allowed terrible things to happen in our government. We can't keep going like this and remain a strong, civil republic. Cannot.

[EricTheRed]

All of this talk about more "education" is nonsense, at least from a funding standpoint in the USA. Our country spends far more per student, adjusted for inflation, than we did in the 1950s when our public schools were the best in the world. They are now near the very bottom of western society, according to standardized tests, and we have many college graduates from very expensive colleges and universities who are unable to think critically or express their ideas effectively in writing. The main problem with our schools is they have been taken over by ardent socialists and left wing liberals who indoctrinate rather than teach their students. Starting in elementary school and continuing through college, if a student expresses a different viewpoint, no matter how well founded or eloquent, the teacher often retaliates by publicly ridiculing the student and giving them a poor grade. The rest of the students see this and respond by mindlessly repeating the left wing drivel being spoon fed them for the remainder of their academic careers and they consequently are lauded by their teachers. When they graduate, many have no employable skills, no moral compass (God is dead according the liberals) are hooked on drugs (if it feels good, do it say the liberals), and end up living in their parents basements, going on welfare, becoming single parents, etc. For the first time in American history, this generation is expected to have a lower standard of living than their parents. Thanks liberals. Not surprisingly, throwing more money at this problem in no way ameliorates it.

The other fundamental problem in American society is that approximately 47% of the population do not work and live on the taxes paid by the remaining 53%. Yet these 47% are allowed to vote even though they pay no taxes and have no skin in the game. Not surprisingly, they vote to increase their benefits endlessly without concern about the long term negative impact to the American economy. Ruthless Democratic politicians support policies which logically creates and nourishes this toxic environment as this is their base of elective power. They also continuously push for more unskilled migrants from third world countries to enter the USA, and also get on welfare, food stamps, etc to enlarge this base. Not to be outdone, the Republican establishment also encourages the entry of millions of unskilled migrants from the third world (even though the vast majority become Democrats) as Big Business can exploit these workers by paying them very little in wages and benefits. Most of their income ends up being paid for by the shrinking American middle class taxes as the migrants easily qualify for social benefits since their income is so small. These establishment Republicans believe their only loyalty should be to their "shareholders" not the American people.

Most of the threads above understandably express concern over the greed of the Republican establishment but its disheartening to see they mostly ignore the even larger societal problem caused by the left wing Democrats...

[Lady Onogaro]

Usually everything cost more at the company store, so you were always in debt to them. They extended credit, which would essentially keep you tied to the store since you could not leave until the debt was paid or risk arrest. Every paycheck, the debt grew. You could not catch up. Thus you ended up "owing​ your soul to the company store."

Sent from my HUAWEI Y336-A1 using Tapatalk

[Lady Onogaro]

I am sorry to disagree with my friend, SIR, but the problem with direct democracy is the underlying assumption that a hundred idiots can make a better decision than one genius.

By whose standards do you judge them idiots and what is the cause of them being idiots?
Just because we don't understand them does not mean they do not understand us... or that they are less intelligent, but mental aptitude is only inherent to a certain extent, a lot is the result of nurture and methods of teaching; further, economic and other issues extrinsic to education, learning, and social integration play a very large part in shaping mental development. Freud is renowned for overlooking environmental influences in the analysis of psychology and mental development.
We need to get away from the idea of 'original sin'; investment in a persons development is multifaceted - differences in spiritual, emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sociological factors should not preclude an individual's involvement in communal politics.

Original sin does not enter into it but education does.

I cannot address the education in other nations but in general in the US it is abysmal.

We do not teach what is needed to be an informed citizen.

We do not teach How to think; the processes required to think.

We do not teach actual history but rather myth.

We do not teach critical thinking.

We do not teach personal responsibility.

The average natural born American could not begin to qualify for citizenship compared to those immigrants that do try to become citizens.

This thread is a great example. Much of what has been touched on is simply not known by the average US voter.
Jar,

I teach writing courses, so l have some experience with this. The thing about critical thinking is that it can't overcome tribalism. Every study shows that people will vote against their own self interests rather than break with their tribes. I've seen this over and over again in discussing everything from elections to tattoos. And the desire for your tribe to be right means that whatever its leaders must be right too. So you have to accept that they know what they are doing even if it's pretty clear they don't. My students, for example, will agree that some no name brand of x works as well as y which costs much more. But they will still buy y. Their tribes buys y, so they will too. The same thing applies to politics so far as l can hear. It isn't that people don't see the problems with their candidates. They will follow their tribes. They just don't want the problems to be there. It's Colbert's truthiness in action whatever the issue may be. Look at Imhof and his snowball stunt. There's no climate change because I have a snowball here? There's so many problems here l can't address them, but this is a person who doesn't want it to be true. I can think of some economic reasons he doesn't want it to be true, but maybe he actually fears it's true. And he's doing this to get the support of his tribe to tell him he's right. Tribalism has its good aspects, but it has some awfully bad ones too.

Sent from my HUAWEI Y336-A1 using Tapatalk

[dneal]

The thing about critical thinking is that it can't overcome tribalism.


I disagree somewhat. It can, but it isn't easy. As jar points out, the fact that we don't teach critical thinking exacerbates the problem.

The problem of logic vs emotion, or reason vs rhetoric is not new (and I think that is the crux of the issue rather than 'tribes', although certainly like-minded people tend to group together).

Plato said "I see what is right and do it". Ovid, refuting Plato, said "although I clearly see what is right, my base human nature prevents me from doing it." Mark Twain noted "People do no end of feeling, and mistake it for thinking". Those paraphrased comments differ in age by roughly two millennia, and they're still true today.

Still, we see rational actors break from their 'tribes'. Listen to or read Camille Paglia. She has broken from the tribe of mainstream feminism. Plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum broke from their 'tribes' in this last election, voting (or not) for the two main candidates.

[Lady Onogaro]

The thing about critical thinking is that it can't overcome tribalism.


I disagree somewhat. It can, but it isn't easy. As jar points out, the fact that we don't teach critical thinking exacerbates the problem.

The problem of logic vs emotion, or reason vs rhetoric is not new (and I think that is the crux of the issue rather than 'tribes', although certainly like-minded people tend to group together).

Plato said "I see what is right and do it". Ovid, refuting Plato, said "although I clearly see what is right, my base human nature prevents me from doing it." Mark Twain noted "People do no end of feeling, and mistake it for thinking". Those paraphrased comments differ in age by roughly two millennia, and they're still true today.

Still, we see rational actors break from their 'tribes'. Listen to or read Camille Paglia. She has broken from the tribe of mainstream feminism. Plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum broke from their 'tribes' in this last election, voting (or not) for the two main candidates.

I think they just make or find themselves new tribes. Look at what Napoleon said about capturing the imagination of the populace. He disdained the French populace, in the main. But he knew he could lead people who were afraid. ("Good and decent people must be protected and persuaded by gentle means, but the rabble must be led by terror.")

Most politicians use that to pull together their tribes, and then everyone else is the enemy of the tribe. And it seems to me that that's why we are not going to be a united people anytime soon. We can't pull together against a common enemy or for a common purpose. Instead, we are looking at each other as the enemy, and our governmental leaders are even saying that they no longer have a common vision and can no longer work together. I'm entirely depressed by it. I really don't see a way out. The only thing that makes me hopeful is that when I turn off the TV and just go about my life, people are kind, helpful, and concerned about each other.

[dneal]

The thing about critical thinking is that it can't overcome tribalism.


I disagree somewhat. It can, but it isn't easy. As jar points out, the fact that we don't teach critical thinking exacerbates the problem.

The problem of logic vs emotion, or reason vs rhetoric is not new (and I think that is the crux of the issue rather than 'tribes', although certainly like-minded people tend to group together).

Plato said "I see what is right and do it". Ovid, refuting Plato, said "although I clearly see what is right, my base human nature prevents me from doing it." Mark Twain noted "People do no end of feeling, and mistake it for thinking". Those paraphrased comments differ in age by roughly two millennia, and they're still true today.

Still, we see rational actors break from their 'tribes'. Listen to or read Camille Paglia. She has broken from the tribe of mainstream feminism. Plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum broke from their 'tribes' in this last election, voting (or not) for the two main candidates.

I think they just make or find themselves new tribes. Look at what Napoleon said about capturing the imagination of the populace. He disdained the French populace, in the main. But he knew he could lead people who were afraid. ("Good and decent people must be protected and persuaded by gentle means, but the rabble must be led by terror.")

Most politicians use that to pull together their tribes, and then everyone else is the enemy of the tribe. And it seems to me that that's why we are not going to be a united people anytime soon. We can't pull together against a common enemy or for a common purpose. Instead, we are looking at each other as the enemy, and our governmental leaders are even saying that they no longer have a common vision and can no longer work together. I'm entirely depressed by it. I really don't see a way out. The only thing that makes me hopeful is that when I turn off the TV and just go about my life, people are kind, helpful, and concerned about each other.

Although the far right is bat-sh!t crazy too (IMHO), I think the majority of the country is tired of the left and their antics; and driving most people back to the center. For some hope, watch The Rubin Report on YouTube. Dave Rubin is a gay liberal who used to be on The Young Turks. He's had enough, and is rebelling against the radical left; calling himself (rightly so) a "classical liberal". He does some great interviews now with all points of the political spectrum.

[Lady Onogaro]

I'll check it out.

[dneal]

I teach writing courses, so l have some experience with this. The thing about critical thinking is that it can't overcome tribalism. Every study shows that people will vote against their own self interests rather than break with their tribes. I've seen this over and over again in discussing everything from elections to tattoos. And the desire for your tribe to be right means that whatever its leaders must be right too.

Saw this link on FB today and thought of your post.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe_clean

[fountainpenkid]

Dave Rubin always cracks me up when he calls himself that--though while I don't love interviewing style, he does manage to provide his guests with space to more thoughtfully lay out their arguments. His brand of "classical" liberalism just excuses or masks bad policy and bigotry--I lost respect for him when he called the Trump win a "victory" for free speech.

[Lady Onogaro]

Yeah. Checked him out. I'll pass.

[dneal]

Yeah. Checked him out. I'll pass.

I'm curious about what you didn't like? I've found some of the interviews to be boring, but some, like the one with Yaron Brook, are fascinating.

For fountainpenkid, which are you referring to? This is the only one a quick Google search turned up, but I don't see anything unreasonable in his points.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSni2uJDtUE

[Pendragon]

Just came across these pictures I took a few years back and that might be something a few folk may not have seen.
And the next time someone tells you we need a small government, to get rid of all the rules and regulations, the EPA, the Clean Air Act, the Fair Labor Practices and all the other governmental benefits we have implemented in the last half century, take a look again at these coins and the pictures of the Lintheads.
I'll tell you we need small government. Working at a small version of the companies you described in the 1980s was what allowed me to go to college. Thank goodness for Ronald Reagan, limited government and lots of job creation. Think big government is good? North Korea has it. It takes care of everything, cradle to grave. The two won't be all that far off unless one does exactly what one is told. Bigger isn't necessarily better.

Capitalism is our friend. Especially for those of us who want to get ahead in life.

[jar]

Just came across these pictures I took a few years back and that might be something a few folk may not have seen.
And the next time someone tells you we need a small government, to get rid of all the rules and regulations, the EPA, the Clean Air Act, the Fair Labor Practices and all the other governmental benefits we have implemented in the last half century, take a look again at these coins and the pictures of the Lintheads.
I'll tell you we need small government. Working at a small version of the companies you described in the 1980s was what allowed me to go to college. Thank goodness for Ronald Reagan, limited government and lots of job creation. Think big government is good? North Korea has it. It takes care of everything, cradle to grave. The two won't be all that far off unless one does exactly what one is told. Bigger isn't necessarily better.

Capitalism is our friend. Especially for those of us who want to get ahead in life.

Capitalism is a friend as long as it benefits you. But capitalism is also ruthless and uncaring and without empathy or consideration. Unchecked capitalism is terrifying.

[EricTheRed]

Unchecked capitalism is also unchecked freedom, which for hardy, intrepid, independent souls, is a splendid thing with endless opportunity. Unchecked government is what is truly terrifying. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, the Roman Emperors Caligula and Tiberius...

[jar]

Unchecked capitalism is also unchecked freedom, which for hardy, intrepid, independent souls, is a splendid thing with endless opportunity. Unchecked government is what is truly terrifying. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, the Roman Emperors Caligula and Tiberius...

Yes. Balance is good.

[myu]

Here's how I envision a Democratic system that actually works:


Voting is mandatory, from age 18 up to 70, unless you're mentally disabled, hospitalized, or in a sanitarium. If you don't vote, and you're not counted, then you suffer a tax penalty. You want to live here? Then participate in the basic level of politics -- VOTE! You don't have to be informed. You don't have to be brilliant. Just vote.
Political service must be diversified, by race, gender, and economic level. The tendency is for wealthy elites to usurp political offices. This must be prevented.
All politicians MUST disclose their finances. Even the president.
There must be, at all times, at least 3 political parties. A 2-party system is fraught with problems. You need at least 3 to have checks & balances
The president must abide by clearly laid out public protocol. He is not permitted to publicly deride any person, company, party, or country. He may not show direct favoritism to any business.
The president may not directly own any business or stock. Within 60 days of assuming office, he must be completely divested of any financial instruments that he has designated, and everything put into a blind trust.
The president may not hire any relatives, even as advisers, that would have official positions in the White House. Of course, he is free to talk to anyone he wishes, but no relatives may be appointed cabinet positions.
The government's key mission is: 1) Providing a fair and balanced business environment that works for everyone, 2) Protection of the people, 3) Protection of the environment, 4) Financial accountability for all expenses to the people, and 5) Providing guidance and security for allied nations across the globe.
The government must be prudent with revenue. Major budgets must be voted on by both Congress and the Senate. No more endless monies for military, intelligence, and black ops activities.


Our present system is broken and corrupt. It cannot continue as-is. Trump is simply exposing the worst of it.

[ethernautrix]

Unchecked capitalism is also unchecked freedom, which for hardy, intrepid, independent souls, is a splendid thing with endless opportunity. Unchecked government is what is truly terrifying. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, the Roman Emperors Caligula and Tiberius...

Yes. Balance is good.

Yes. Why extremes?

I just watched an episode on DVD of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia (strong language and ideas alert): "Charlie Goes America All Over Everybody's Ass (2006) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0826387/synopsis?ref_=ttpl_pl_syn)." (LInk is imdb.com's summary.) Idealism is a beautiful concept but impossible.

[dneal]

Here's how I envision a Democratic system that actually works:


Voting is mandatory, from age 18 up to 70, unless you're mentally disabled, hospitalized, or in a sanitarium. If you don't vote, and you're not counted, then you suffer a tax penalty. You want to live here? Then participate in the basic level of politics -- VOTE! You don't have to be informed. You don't have to be brilliant. Just vote.
Political service must be diversified, by race, gender, and economic level. The tendency is for wealthy elites to usurp political offices. This must be prevented.
All politicians MUST disclose their finances. Even the president.
There must be, at all times, at least 3 political parties. A 2-party system is fraught with problems. You need at least 3 to have checks & balances
The president must abide by clearly laid out public protocol. He is not permitted to publicly deride any person, company, party, or country. He may not show direct favoritism to any business.
The president may not directly own any business or stock. Within 60 days of assuming office, he must be completely divested of any financial instruments that he has designated, and everything put into a blind trust.
The president may not hire any relatives, even as advisers, that would have official positions in the White House. Of course, he is free to talk to anyone he wishes, but no relatives may be appointed cabinet positions.
The government's key mission is: 1) Providing a fair and balanced business environment that works for everyone, 2) Protection of the people, 3) Protection of the environment, 4) Financial accountability for all expenses to the people, and 5) Providing guidance and security for allied nations across the globe.
The government must be prudent with revenue. Major budgets must be voted on by both Congress and the Senate. No more endless monies for military, intelligence, and black ops activities.


Our present system is broken and corrupt. It cannot continue as-is. Trump is simply exposing the worst of it.

You lost me at people have to vote, but don't have to be informed.

[fountainpenkid]

Unchecked capitalism is also unchecked freedom, which for hardy, intrepid, independent souls, is a splendid thing with endless opportunity. Unchecked government is what is truly terrifying. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, the Roman Emperors Caligula and Tiberius...
It is not possible to be this optimistic in the face of the body of scientific literature on the subject. As jar implies, it seems that the most successful modern economic systems have a balance of capitalist and socialist policy.

[jar]

Unchecked capitalism is also unchecked freedom, which for hardy, intrepid, independent souls, is a splendid thing with endless opportunity. Unchecked government is what is truly terrifying. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, the Roman Emperors Caligula and Tiberius...
It is not possible to be this optimistic in the face of the body of scientific literature on the subject. As jar implies, it seems that the most successful modern economic systems have a balance of capitalist and socialist policy.

Go back to the image in the OP.


http://www.fototime.com/9BBD3045B391113/large.jpg

When you are paid in Company Money that is good only in the Company Store and cannot be converted into US currency and live in a house owned by the Company and can be evicted at any time and you are a Lint Head who will almost surely die from breathing the air inside the factory and your kids have to work there too just to get enough Company Money to buy food and clothes at the Company Store and if a hand gets caught in the machine you are likely to lose your hand and your job since you won't be able to do your job and if you complain about conditions you will certainly get fired and thrown out of the Company owned house but you do have unchecked freedom which is a splendid thing with endless opportunity for you and your family to starve, die from working conditions or simply accept what The Man allows you to have.

[pengeezer]

Unchecked capitalism is also unchecked freedom, which for hardy, intrepid, independent souls, is a splendid thing with endless opportunity. Unchecked government is what is truly terrifying. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, the Roman Emperors Caligula and Tiberius...

Yes. Balance is good.

Yes. Why extremes?

I just watched an episode on DVD of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia (strong language and ideas alert): "Charlie Goes America All Over Everybody's Ass (2006) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0826387/synopsis?ref_=ttpl_pl_syn)." (LInk is imdb.com's summary.) Idealism is a beautiful concept but impossible.



You are correct--Idealism is Utopian and a wonderful concept. Unfortunately,human nature wrecks it.


John

[Pendragon]

Not at all; ignorance, particularly of history (witness the posts in this thread from folk who were not aware of rampant capitalism) and an uneducated electorate that have never been taught how (the process) to think is what I fear. We need protection from a tyranny of popularity as well as rampant capitalism and fascism.
But who is going to protect us from the protectors? Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Ieng Sary and Pol Pot protected people from capitalism and fascism. Ninety million lives is a rather steep price to pay to eradicate plutocracy and feudalism. Even the Fascists did not do that much damage, and they were tremendously destructive.

[EricTheRed]

Not at all; ignorance, particularly of history (witness the posts in this thread from folk who were not aware of rampant capitalism) and an uneducated electorate that have never been taught how (the process) to think is what I fear. We need protection from a tyranny of popularity as well as rampant capitalism and fascism.
But who is going to protect us from the protectors? Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Ieng Sary and Pol Pot protected people from capitalism and fascism. Ninety million lives is a rather steep price to pay to eradicate plutocracy and feudalism. Even the Fascists did not do that much damage, and they were tremendously destructive.

Great point Pendragon. Its best for citizens of a country to avoid extremes in all things and support a government of checks and balances and the rule of law over any individual (no matter how charismatic that leader may seem to be).

[oldstoat]

Great point Pendragon. Its best for citizens of a country to avoid extremes in all things and support a government of checks and balances and the rule of law over any individual (no matter how charismatic that leader may seem to be).

May I in turn quote Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls in the 1990s:


Lord Denning 1899–1999
British judge

To every subject of this land, however powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller's words over three hundred years ago, ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you.’
in a High Court ruling against the Attorney-General, January 1977

It's always worth reminding governments that making laws does not place them above the law