Capitalism works between equals

It never works and becomes crookism when one side holds all the cards.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1085 comments) on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 9:36:10 PM
 

Cards

The way anyone gets an unfair advantage is by getting the government to impose it.

by Darren Wolfe (4 articles, 124 quicklinks, 78 diaries, 595 comments) on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 10:09:14 PM
 

let's get out of the idological sandbox ....

Mr Wolfe seems to have a few serious misconceptions of his own as he criticizes an earlier article. He seems to believe that 'government' is like God, and sets the laws it wishes that all must obey - this is of course the civics book theory, and has some appearance of truth. But who controls government? We the People through our elections? Again, civics book theory - but in reality, as I think most grownups understand, Big Money controls government, and pretty much always has. There is some tension, of course, as there are always a few honest people trying to do good things, and also the government has to keep up some appearances of 'democracy' to avoid a bloody revolution, but all major policies are made in favor of Big Money against the little people. The tide ebbs and flows, of course, and every now and then the people rise up (more of a small swell really) and try to elect some politicians who will use the power of government to control Big Money, but such revolutions - such as Roosevelt tried after Big Money got REALLY drunk during the 20s and caused the financial meltdown that led to the depression - are usually quite limited in scope, and Big Money pushes back quick and hard. Mr Wolfe seems to feel that any rules at all controlling Big Money indicates that market forces are just terribly oppressed by some damned imaginary socialist conspiracy, but only those completely blinded by ideology would even entertain the notion that 'socialists' are running the government, when it is so obviously Big Money pulling the strings.
In a related way, Mr Wolfe seems to believe that if all restrictions were removed, 'the magic market' would ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. Again, if we were all a bunch of little sheep running around in our civics book sandbox, consumer-worker sheep and little mom 'n' pop shop sheeps, this might tend to work, but unfortunately the real world, including our much-overrated western 'democracies', has a lot of other things besides good little citizen sheep in it, and arguments and ideologies like Mr Wolfe's presuppose two serious fallacies that ensure such an outcome is about as likely as Santa bringing peace to the world - first, all players are very demonstrably not equal in the 'market', and secondly, a very serious oversight of all modern economics, they never factor in criminal behaviour, which more or less controls everything at the upper levels of modern society. Bribery, corruption, intimidation, and worse are all major factors in our governments and 'free' markets, and yet civics book economic theory works up its little models pretending they don't exist at all, let alone recognizing them as the major force they are. There are many other problems with the article, but these are the main ones, the others are related.
And until these things are recognized and dealt with, we're going to keep having these economic problems.
For some more enlightenment on banking - <A HREF="http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box01-money.html"> Banketeering - how the banks have been stealing trillions from you, and the tap is still running </A> .

by siamdave (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 63 comments) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 at 12:04:10 AM
 

Let's look at what libertarians really advocate

siamdave,

As to the first part of your post I actually agree with most of the first paragraph. The cause of the Great Depression was the Fed overinflating the economy followed by Hoover & then FDR's silly intervention. In other words the govrnment did it. 

&, yes, they were implementing a form of socialism.

As to the second paragraph, I know everyone isn't equal in terms of ability, intelligence, & drive. So what? Free markets still work. Any objective reading of history shows that. 

Inequality is to be expected. I'd rather see everyone unequally  better off than everyone equally poor.

I'm puzzled as to why you think libertarians don't account for crimminal behavior. The core of our ideology is the non-initiation of force.

I only had time to skim  your article about banks. It would seem that your view of them isn't very different from ours:

by Darren Wolfe (4 articles, 124 quicklinks, 78 diaries, 595 comments) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 at 8:10:06 AM
 

"Yes, they were implementing a form of socialism"

Mr Wolfe, please let me know how many forms of socialism there are in your estimation, with examples please.

by sliphoch (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 at 8:40:01 AM
 

Socialism

There's the "purest" form which is like what Lenin implemented in the USSR. It's also what the first settlers at Jamestown, VA & the pilgrims in MA tried. These almost immedeately failed & were replced by some kind of mixed economy in the US examples & a limited amount of capitalism within an otherwise socialist system in the USSR.

On the other hand you have the fascist variant in which private property exists in name only, the government really controls everything through police, tax, & regulatory agencies. The obvious examples of fascism were Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany. Today's mixed economies tend in that direction, though instead of a permanent dictator we have a revolving door of elected ones.

Let's not forget my wife's article:

Socialism in Guyana

by Darren Wolfe (4 articles, 124 quicklinks, 78 diaries, 595 comments) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 at 10:37:51 AM
 

you misunderstand socialism, I think, and banking ...

Mr Wolfe, you're not being really clear here, whether because you're writing in a hurry or because you are trying to conceal things, I don't know. You say at the first you mostly agree with the first para about the depression, but then you say Roosevelt's interventions were 'silly' without offering any alternatives, apparently implying no interventions would have been preferable - do you mean that the banks going crazy with money creation in the 20s was fine and there should have been no stopping of them, and they should have been allowed to carry on creating booms and busts at will, gobbling up all the property during the times they cut back on money creation that was signed over as collateral during the boom times? (classic capitalist-taker strategy - it ain't socialists or poor people who own banks) As we have seen, even though Roosevelt did try to initiate a few programs to hold back the banks and wealthy a wee tiny bit, they fought back quick enough to their original 'we shall not be questioned!!' stance, and got WWII going, with obviously Roosevelt's full conspiratorial cooperation (it's pretty solidly established that he knew Pearl Harbour was imminent and allowed it to happen to persuade the 'we're not going to war, jack/frank' public' to get with the capitalist program) - and that wasn't a socialist war, it was a capitalist war from every direction (classic capitalism - ordinary people pay heavily, capitalists prosper).

And you say Roosevelt's programs were 'socialism', which is at best a serious misunderstanding of what's been happening in the world, and at worst outright attempted deception and misdirection, but again classic libertarian 'analysis' - there is a big difference between socialism, in which We the People actually run the country, and look after one another (and don't start on about the USSR or Red China, which may have called themselves 'socialist', but were nothing like socialism at all, any more than a slave farm in the Old South was 'socialist' because all the 'workers' were treated 'equally' haha) - there is a big difference between a member of the aristocracy such as Roosevelt showing some tiny bit of noblesse oblige and suggesting his fellow predators treat the serfs with a bit more consideration, and any form of true socialism, in which We the People actually run the place, and make our own decisions - a situation that, as far as I can see, has never actually been tried in 'modern' societies, although democracy appears to be stronger in some places, such as the Nordic countries. There is certainly nothing like functioning democracy - a prerequisite for social democracy, obviously - in the north american 'democracies', and labelling things 'socialist' just because you disapprove of them is both false and unhelpful if you are interested in any serious analysis of what is happening here. The 'free market', on the other hand, whilst operating under a few weak restraints, has been in action almost forever, depending on how you want to count - that the peasants occasionally get pushed too far and set up a 'this far and no further you bastards!!' wall sometimes does NOT mean the peasants are ruling, only that the rulers, however reluctantly, have to accept some tiny restrictions on the unlimited freedom they would prefer to pillage and enslave.

But to avoid the very lengthy response your comments should have to deal with them with any fulness at all, I'll just say that in some ways your 'pure' libertarianism is not, I think, all that different from my pure socialism. Socialism has gotten a lot of bad press, in my opinion, and been the subject of a pretty serious lie campaign, because in reality I think a pretty strong majority of people would take it any day over capitalism given a choice - most people prefer 'let's look after each other' to 'king of the hill screw the rest of you haha!', which is what capitalism is essentially all about - and libertarianism sounds like as often as not. With true social democracy, there's a large middle class, a large range of incomes depending on the skills and work ethic of the individual, but there is no huge underclass of the extremely poor and uneducated and criminalized as capitalism demands, and no tiny class of super wealthy elite - the conditions that allow that kind of accumulation of wealth and power, which are pretty much all criminal and/or exploitive, cannot exist in a true democracy - you can become a millionaire through a combination of hard work and good luck, but there is no way to become a multi-billionairre through any channels that most people would find ethically acceptable in a democracy. But that's not a problem since we don't have a democracy.

I am pretty leery of your 'gold standard' banking also - he who has the gold, rules, for one thing, and for another gold is finite but populations grow, infrastructure grows, the value of our society grows as more things are produced - how do you deal with that with a finite thing like gold? The problem with fiat money is not that it is fiat, it is who controls it - when you have any form of money, gold or paper, controlled by a small group of people for their own benefit, you have all the problems we see today. If we had fiat money truly controlled by a responsible democratic government looking out (truly) for We the People and not capitalist overlords, it could function fine.

You seem to constantly conflate 'the Fed' with 'the government', but the Fed is a private banking conglomeration, surely you understand that? - with only the most nominal 'control' from the government. There is considerable effort made to help people believe it is government controlled, but it is not. Thus it is NEVER 'the gov' creating money leading to inflation etc, but private banks, for private profit - very large private profit. And very irresponsible (if, of course, the gov was actually printing money for its own purpose, where do these horrendous national debts come from?) And your libertarianism seems to be suggesting that private banks should indeed be allowed to control the money supply - a recipe for even more disaster than we have now.

Well, there's lots more to the discussion, but I better leave it at that for now. The banking things are addressed in more detail in the article you skimmed - I have also had a read of the link you provided to the Mises article, and it contains various fallacies and inaccuracies, generally addressed in the Banketeering article - for instance, the article says that Lincoln created money for the Civil War, and this led to some problems - it does not give the necessary context that Lincoln had the greenbacks created because the northern bankers supported the south and refused to support Lincoln, and afterwards there was a 'banking war' in which Lincoln was brought to heel. The greenbacks did not so much fail as they were murdered by the bankers, who did not care to share the power of money creation. They have never looked back, and we have never gotten out from under those chains. If libertarians are serious about freedom, then they would be serious about seeing money under democratic, not private, control.

by siamdave (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 63 comments) on Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 1:41:28 AM
 

Re: you misunderstand socialism, I think, and banking ...

Mr Wolfe, you're not being really clear here, whether because you're writing in a hurry or because you are trying to conceal things, I don't know.

You say at the first you mostly agree with the first para about the depression, but then you say Roosevelt's interventions were 'silly' without offering any alternatives, apparently implying no interventions would have been preferable - do you mean that the banks going crazy with money creation in the 20s was fine and there should have been no stopping of them, and they should have been allowed to carry on creating booms and busts at will, gobbling up all the property during the times they cut back on money creation that was signed over as collateral during the boom times?

(classic capitalist-taker strategy - it ain't socialists or poor people who own banks) As we have seen, even though Roosevelt did try to initiate a few programs to hold back the banks and wealthy a wee tiny bit,

they fought back quick enough to their original 'we shall not be questioned!!' stance, and got WWII going, with obviously Roosevelt's full conspiratorial cooperation (it's pretty solidly established that he knew Pearl Harbour was imminent and allowed it to happen to persuade the 'we're not going to war, jack/frank' public' to get with the capitalist program) - and that wasn't a socialist war, it was a capitalist war from every direction (classic capitalism - ordinary people pay heavily, capitalists prosper).

And you say Roosevelt's programs were 'socialism', which is at best a serious misunderstanding of what's been happening in the world, and at worst outright attempted deception and misdirection, but again classic libertarian 'analysis'

- there is a big difference between socialism, in which We the People actually run the country, and look after one another (and don't start on about the USSR or Red China, which may have called themselves 'socialist', but were nothing like socialism at all, any more than a slave farm in the Old South was 'socialist' because all the 'workers' were treated 'equally' haha) - there is a big difference between a member of the aristocracy such as Roosevelt showing some tiny bit of noblesse oblige and suggesting his fellow predators treat the serfs with a bit more consideration, and any form of true socialism, in which We the People actually run the place, and make our own decisions - a situation that, as far as I can see, has never actually been tried in 'modern' societies, although democracy appears to be stronger in some places, such as the Nordic countries. There is certainly nothing like functioning democracy - a prerequisite for social democracy, obviously - in the north american 'democracies', and labelling things 'socialist' just because you disapprove of them is both false and unhelpful if you are interested in any serious analysis of what is happening here.

The 'free market', on the other hand, whilst operating under a few weak restraints, has been in action almost forever, depending on how you want to count - that the peasants occasionally get pushed too far and set up a 'this far and no further you bastards!!' wall sometimes does NOT mean the peasants are ruling, only that the rulers, however reluctantly, have to accept some tiny restrictions on the unlimited freedom they would prefer to pillage and enslave.

But to avoid the very lengthy response your comments should have to deal with them with any fulness at all, I'll just say that in some ways your 'pure' libertarianism is not, I think, all that different from my pure socialism. Socialism has gotten a lot of bad press, in my opinion, and been the subject of a pretty serious lie campaign, because in reality I think a pretty strong majority of people would take it any day over capitalism given a choice - most people prefer 'let's look after each other' to 'king of the hill screw the rest of you haha!', which is what capitalism is essentially all about - and libertarianism sounds like as often as not.

With true social democracy, there's a large middle class, a large range of incomes depending on the skills and work ethic of the individual,

but there is no huge underclass of the extremely poor and uneducated and criminalized as capitalism demands, and no tiny class of super wealthy elite - the conditions that allow that kind of accumulation of wealth and power, which are pretty much all criminal and/or exploitive, cannot exist in a true democracy - you can become a millionaire through a combination of hard work and good luck, but there is no way to become a multi-billionairre through any channels that most people would find ethically acceptable in a democracy. But that's not a problem since we don't have a democracy.

I am pretty leery of your 'gold standard' banking also - he who has the gold, rules, for one thing, and for another gold is finite but populations grow, infrastructure grows, the value of our society grows as more things are produced - how do you deal with that with a finite thing like gold?

The problem with fiat money is not that it is fiat, it is who controls it - when you have any form of money, gold or paper, controlled by a small group of people for their own benefit, you have all the problems we see today. If we had fiat money truly controlled by a responsible democratic government looking out (truly) for We the People and not capitalist overlords, it could function fine.

You seem to constantly conflate 'the Fed' with 'the government', but the Fed is a private banking conglomeration, surely you understand that? - with only the most nominal 'control' from the government. There is considerable effort made to help people believe it is government controlled, but it is not.

Thus it is NEVER 'the gov' creating money leading to inflation etc, but private banks, for private profit - very large private profit. And very irresponsible (if, of course, the gov was actually printing money for its own purpose, where do these horrendous national debts come from?)

And your libertarianism seems to be suggesting that private banks should indeed be allowed to control the money supply - a recipe for even more disaster than we have now.

Well, there's lots more to the discussion, but I better leave it at that for now. The banking things are addressed in more detail in the article you skimmed - I have also had a read of the link you provided to the Mises article, and it contains various fallacies and inaccuracies, generally addressed in the Banketeering article - for instance, the article says that Lincoln created money for the Civil War, and this led to some problems - it does not give the necessary context that Lincoln had the greenbacks created because the northern bankers supported the south and refused to support Lincoln, and afterwards there was a 'banking war' in which Lincoln was brought to heel. The greenbacks did not so much fail as they were murdered by the bankers, who did not care to share the power of money creation. They have never looked back, and we have never gotten out from under those chains. If libertarians are serious about freedom, then they would be serious about seeing money under democratic, not private, control.

by Darren Wolfe (4 articles, 124 quicklinks, 78 diaries, 595 comments) on Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 8:23:46 AM
 

let's be serious, please

I just had a read of your wife's paper, and it is exactly what I am talking about with the demonisation of socialism - obviously Guyana was suffering under some sort of dictatorship that had nothing whatsoever to do with true social democracy. How would you feel if I walked around saying democracy was terrible - look at the People's DEMOCRATIC Republic of whatever-istan - wow!! Democracy is really bad!!! - obvious nonsense like this is one reason I find people who argue in favor of libertarianism to be generally untrustworthy.

by siamdave (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 63 comments) on Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 3:08:30 AM
 

Response from the Author of Socialism in Guyana: R. Wolfe

Your response does not say very much so my question to you is what do you mean by democratic socialism?  Is there really such a political ideology and if so where does it work - please give me an example.

If you should educate yourself about the history of Guyana's politics and how it gained its independence perhaps you would have a better understanding of the socialism that unfolded and that there is no difference between dictatorship and socialism.  They go hand in hand.  Dictatorship refers to "an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state." (Wikipedia).

 Given the above, when a dictator controls its people, goods and services, what do you call that?  When a population has no voice, when elections are rigged, and when the basic human rights are violated, aren't all of this part of govt's control in a socialist regime?

If socialism is good, give me an example of where it works?

On the economic front, take China and one of its cities, Shenzhen.  The latter was used in an experiment by making it a city that would function under capitalism (as China is a socilaist regime).  Today, they contrast Shenzhen to the rest of China and how it has grown and florished under capitalism.  It is almost foreign to the rest of China, necessitating even a visa to travel to its domain.

Rehana Wolfe

by Darren Wolfe (4 articles, 124 quicklinks, 78 diaries, 595 comments) on Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM
 

you're just dodging ...

Well, I sense you're about at the end of your tether, so I'll keep this short, but won't let your dodging be the last word.
"... The original interventions happened in the '20s with the money pumping you describe. The answer is no interventions begining with free market money...."
- but the interventions WERE 'free market money pumping' - far, far, far too much of it, which would never happen if the money supply was democratically controlled by intelligent people looking out for their own interests, rather than oligarchic capitalist bankers looking out for theirs (please note my ideas are based on democracy, which we do not have now, have never really had, and I don't really expect to see - I offer only a path out of the capitalist morrass, but don't really expect it to be followed)

"...Problem is that his "programs" were counter productive. They are the reason the Depression lasted so long..."

- no, the depression lasted as long as it did because the banks were permitted to carry on restricting the money supply in their own interests (accumulating property as mortgages etc could not be paid due to a shortage of money)

"...You're right about FDR, he needed to get the US into the war to take people's atention away from the fact that the New deal wasn't working..."

- as above, the New Deal wasn't working for various reasons, generally related to the fact that the capitalists were fighting it tooth and nail, and controlled the money supply - you continue to confuse (intentionally, I suspect) death by murder with failure due to poor ideas or something (see 'fall of Communism 1989')

"...Look at the Socialist Party platform of 1928 & its implementation.  FDR was not only the Democrat's nominee for prez but also the American Labor Party's & the Liberal Party's.You should know a little more before you accuse others of ignorance or deception..."

- it's a little unrealistic to compare 'platforms' with what actually happens anywhere, or what it all means

"...The idea that socialism could work if only....... whatever, is a dream. A powerful government  will abuse its power & be oppressive, it can't be used as a force for good.   The special interests always find ways to control the government..."

- true socialism is indeed a dream, one that opposes the nightmare (for most people) of capitalism. That it hasn't yet happened anywhere does not diminish it, nor does it mean we do not continue to struggle for it. (again, you would be guilty of the grossest forms of distortion if you pretend to equate the USSR or such places with the kind of socialism I speak of). We do live in an imperfect world, a world where people of physical or financial power use that power to dominate others, and that is what we need a government for - to assert the will of the majority against such power. And the minority do their best, when such governments are established, to take over that government, and use it for their own purposes, and have been highly successful in doing so - again, that does not mean governments formed to protect the many good citizens against the few evil ones are bad, simply that we need to learn to be more careful with our formation and control of such things, for predators are going to be with us always, and we will always need to be alert against them. The socialists - the majority of good people - are always vulnerable to the capitalist types, because when the two meet on a path, the socialist will never be the one to initiate violence or deception, it will always be the dog-eat-dog capitalist, so they always have that advantage of surprise, and the advantage of 'fighting dirty'. And so it goes. But we socialists will always prevail in the long run, because there are multitudes of Good Folk, and only a handful of genetically malformed capitalists trying to steal and enslave.

Sorry, I got a bit carried away, but the message remains, and I too am in a bit of a hurry these days, with other things to be doing (not being a capitalist, I have to work to support myself).

"...There has never been a pure free market, perfection doesn't exist. What history shows us is that the closer to the ideal one gets the better the results. .."

- but you keep dodging the question - better for who? The 'free market' is always going to be better for those strong enough to enforce their desires  on others, and what is to stop them if We the People do not band together and set some rules about fair play? We socialist types will play fair with one another - but when a capitalist-predator (libertarian?) type comes along and sees a chance to open a factory and exploit all those simple folk's labor, thus enriching themselves, they will leap at the chance. Great, of course, for the predator - much less so for the billions in the modern world so exploited.

"...Talk about a lie campaign. Libertarianism & capitalism are about people interacting voluntarily. This gives everyone the chance to go as far as their drive & ability will take them. It is under socialism that the elite screw the people by forcing equal poverty on them. I'd much rather see everyone unequally well off than equally poor, which seems to be the socialists goal..."

- 'Work in my factory for garbage wages or die', which is life for most lower-middle or lower class people (the large majority) of people in capitalist societies is not actually voluntary interaction. When you have some elite screwing the people in any way, you do not, by definition, have socialism, which is, by definition, we the people deciding through open democracy what we are going to do, together. Elites screwing masses of people is some form of dictatorship or oligarchy, always, in the modern world, in partnership with capitalists. If a rat runs around calling itself a civilized human being, and the capitalist says 'look at the nice person' - well, it's still a rat. You can't (rationally or believably) just go pointing to various dictatorships around the world and say "Oh my, look at the bad socialists!!! That proves socialism is bad!!!" - and expect to be believed. You really blow your credibility out of the water with this kind of crap. Socialism means We the People decide things in a Democratic way - anything else is something else. Drop the straw dogs arguments, they go nowhere.

"...This is pie in the sky dreaming. Can you give an example of this actually happening? .."

- no, I can't - as I said, that is what we are fighting for.

"..You make a good point, but you only partlt understand it. The wealthy use the government to protect their wealth at the people's expense. The answer is to take away the governments ability to do that, not dream about the people using that same power for their own ends. .."

- as I said earlier, but you don't want to go near, I understand - a truly democratic government exists to protect us normal good citizen types from the minority of strong and moral-less predators - your continuing imprecations to get rid of such governments exposes your true philosophy pretty clearly. As I also said, that predators understand this and try (successfully) to take over such governments does not invalidate their legitimacy, it just means we have work to do to stop this from happening so much. The predators today are very powerful.

"...Let prices drop to adjust to  rising production..."

- that stands up to rational examination about as well as Santa putting presents under the tree every Christmas

"...Actually, fiat money suffers from the same problem that any socialist sceme does, it doesn't have market forces to guide it:.."

- again, utter nonsense - a social democratic society would also be a market society, but a truly free market society, without dominance by powerful capitalist forces - and the money supply would be guided by what is necessary to allow the market to function freely, rather than by private forces manipulating the money supply to increase their own takings

"..The banking cartel known as the fed was created by the Federal Reserve Act. The government has to approve its leaders. Its private in name only. Don't fall for the charade. .."

- again, dissembling of the conman variety - the gov may select certain people, but the bankers control the government. GIGO

".. That was the whole point of creating a central bank, to creat more money for the government to spend..."

- again you avoid the central question - if the gov really controls the money, why are they accumulating such huge debts? It's all just a big scam, as I explain in Banketeering

"...Banks should be issueing competing currencies on a free market, not as part of a government created banking cartel. There's a world of difference."

- competing currencies is nothing more than enshrined chaos - where is the security for We the People, when we have to shop around for our means of exchange with one another? This is insanity

"..If socialists were serious about helping people they'd give up on the system that has failed everywhere it's been tried. Please don't give me the true socialists have never had power argument.  Looking at it from a nuts & bolts point of view socialism has been tried many times & always failed..."

- one example - just one, of a true social democratic state, where democracy actually ruled? I can't think of any.

by siamdave (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 63 comments) on Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 10:04:19 AM
 

Dodging?

Well, I sense you're about at the end of your tether, so I'll keep this short, but won't let your dodging be the last word.

No, I enjoy these debates, especially when I'm winning.

I see the dodging on your side not on mine.

"... The original interventions happened in the '20s with the money pumping you describe. The answer is no interventions begining with free market money...."
- but the interventions WERE 'free market money pumping'

You're redefining free market in order to discredit it. A central bank is a government organization, not a market one. 'nuf said.

"...Look at the Socialist Party platform of 1928 & its implementation.  FDR was not only the Democrat's nominee for prez but also the American Labor Party's & the Liberal Party's.You should know a little more before you accuse others of ignorance or deception..."

- it's a little unrealistic to compare 'platforms' with what actually happens anywhere, or what it all means

You're still dodging the original point which was that the New deal was socialism.

"...There has never been a pure free market, perfection doesn't exist. What history shows us is that the closer to the ideal one gets the better the results. .."

- but you keep dodging the question - better for who? The 'free market' is always going to be better for those strong enough to enforce their desires  on others, and what is to stop them if We the People do not band together and set some rules about fair play? We socialist types will play fair with one another - but when a capitalist-predator (libertarian?) type comes along and sees a chance to open a factory and exploit all those simple folk's labor, thus enriching themselves, they will leap at the chance. Great, of course, for the predator - much less so for the billions in the modern world so exploited. 

- 'Work in my factory for garbage wages or die', which is life for most lower-middle or lower class people (the large majority) of people in capitalist societies is not actually voluntary interaction. 

"...Let prices drop to adjust to  rising production..."

- that stands up to rational examination about as well as Santa putting presents under the tree every Christmas

by Darren Wolfe (4 articles, 124 quicklinks, 78 diaries, 595 comments) on Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM
 

siamdave...

Mr Wolfe seems to have a few serious misconceptions of his own as he criticizes an earlier article. He seems to believe that 'government' is like God, and sets the laws it wishes that all must obey

you posted this statement to criticize Mr Wolfe.  Are you suggesting that we can DISOBEY laws written by the government? Are you suggesting that if a tax payer does NOT obey the law, as written, does not  pay his/her taxes, and does not wave his/her rights because he/she refuses to file a tax return, nothing will happen? 

 If you are, Let me refer you to the case of Wesley Snipes.

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 507 comments) on Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 7:37:55 PM
 

orwell said it first -

You'll have to explain to me some day how "all must obey" translates into "we can disobey..." in the mysterious libertarian mind. That sort of thing would explain a lot, of course. I'm not going to engage in the income tax debate, it is one of the things that makes you all sound a bit loopy. Regardless of the desires of libertarians, we are always going to have governments, and they are going to be supported by taxes - at least until we get a true social democratic government which controls its own money, at which time alternatives may appear. Your theory that the US taxes are somehow not authorized is kind of tinhatty, really. But if you believe that 'you must do this' means 'we must disobey' - well, as I said, that would explain quite a bit.
(actually, as far as disobeying laws of a 'rightful' government is concerned, you might have a refresher of your own Declaration of Independence)

by siamdave (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 63 comments) on Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 10:54:09 PM