I'm so glad the draft sees little support. Young guys must still register though.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Stuff Republicans say.
- Thread starter Alceste
- Start date
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I think young women of age need to register for selective service right alongside their male peers, or we do away with it all together.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Capitalism, without regulation, allows for slavery, colonization, and rampant poverty; it also leads to monopolies, which is a self-contradiction that is built into capitalism. Money and a free market do not create any sort of liberties, and many non-capitalist societies have had more freedoms and some capitalist societies have had fewer. To think you have to have free market capitalism to be free is no different than believing you need god or a gun to be free, and is to have a very narrow scope of freedom and power. Capitalism also makes life very hard for those who at a disadvantage. This is where taxes are needed, so that those who struggle, have hard times, or can't make it own their own can live, and to give them a chance to make it on their own. Inhibiting capitalism, or better yet moving beyond it, would allow people to have more power, rather than letting a handful of obscenely rich tycoons give billions to campaigns and get special favors because they write the checks, all so they can hold even more power. Inhibiting capitalism can make it impossible for child labor produced imports (America is a huge importer of these), and better yet, keep jobs here instead of shipping to Chinese factories that pay pennies a day, ending exploitative prison labor, and putting and end to the "too big to fail" crap that the super wealthy pull because they won't have the power to do it. You personally can still do whatever you want, except get so big that you control massive swathes of the market and parts of the government.
That still doesn't cover the fact up that Republican men want to make reproductive choices for women.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
You put it in perspective. Einstein put it this way....
Why Socialism?
Seems the words were true then and true now....
Democracy vs. Oligarchy - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
I use the prhrase..."Corporatocracy"...to describe our current situation. It seems we have some people that are just fine with this though.
Last edited:
Who said there should be no laws against slavery? Socialist & communist regimes had slavery too, btw. Slavery should simply be made illegal by law. All economic systems need a political structure to ensure basic rights.
Again, we may have laws against crimes. But as with slavery, colonization is seen happening under even socialist & other economic systems. The political systems in place will either prevent or enable such things.
Other systems allow for poverty too. Mass starvation has been the signature of commie countries. Capitalism has the advantage that people may rise up from it.
Monopolies are not a necessary condition for capitalism. I oppose them because they inhibit free markets. This is where laws can help keep markets free.
No sort of liberties at all? I've started & run businesses, formed partnerships, & done other things which would land me in prison if I lived in Cuba or N Korea. I see this as wonderful liberty....which socialists & communists would like to make illegal.
What are these free societies who eschew capitalism?
You won't convince me that belief in sky fairies & Jewish zombies has anything to do with my freedom to strike up business relationships with my fellow man.
What kind of freedom would we have if it were illegal to trade with others, to hire/work for others, or band together to accomplish large enterprises? I wouldn't want a government so powerful it could prevent such freedoms.
Tis a mistake to believe that capitalism is necessarily the nasty governmental corruption you see here. That would be like saying that socialism is always a N Korean style....although it is hard to find a better example.
Is covering up that fact an issue at all? No. What's being largely ignored in leftish & feminist campes is that oppression comes in many forms, not just Pub men against women. We must face the fact that Pub women (& Dem men & women) also oppose bodily full autonomy. To blame only men is not just blatant sexism, it's also futile.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I already said you'd be free to do whatever, but you insist your things would be illegal, even though they wouldn't. Keep in mind, I am not advocating fascism or a dictatorship.
Nobody wants to make these things illegal. You simply believe we do.
I didn't say it was. And no, N Korea is not a good example of socialism as it is ruled by a totalitarian regime.
You are the one who said Rs are more socially accepting than Ds, and when I put out the issue of women you have tried to, not really downplay it, but refuse to acknowledge this a very nasty problem within the Republican party.
If we need laws, then we are inhibiting capitalism.
It seems you presume that our corrupt crony-capitalistic government is what capitalism must be. But let's assume for the moment that is what we're stuck with. Would you rather live here, or in socialist worker paradises like N Korea? Face it, bub....you can't find anyplace which has ditched capitalism, & turned out better for it.
Those who benefit from corruption (eg, Clintons, Elon Musk, Bear Stearns) will of course be happy with crony capitalism. I'd love to burst their bubbles.
If you're eliminating capitalism (free economic association), then how else would you accomplish this without a powerful force to enforce this prohibition? If not illegal, then capitalism would happen. You proposed eliminating capitalism. Without making it illegal, & prosecuting offenders, how then would this be achieved? I see no other mechanism.
What modern society without capitalism is anything other than fascist?
This is utterly wrong (as I've pointed out repeatedly). I said that the right is more tolerant of Libertarians (& our social libertarianism) than the left is of Libertarians (& our economic libertarianism). Check post #579 again in light of this further explanation.....you'll see.
No. I see more general oppression, in which Pub men oppressing women is just a subset. I still note that you don't acknowledge the larger problem, ie, that oppression can happen to both men & women by both men & women. Again, I say that it's dysfunctional & sexist to blame only men, & especially only Pub men.
Well, that's just silly. Laws which prevent monopolies, for example, help keep markets free, which is good for capitalism.
Note: The editing function isn't working well. I cannot clean up this post to be very readable. I blame that purple font of yours.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I've done no such thing. All I did was give Einstein's perspective of how he saw it and what direction he thought it was going. Then I fast forwarded to Bernie Sanders basically giving conformation to what Einstein said long ago. All forms of governmental regimes are capitalist in some way or fashion.
And nowhere did I advocate the abolition of capitalism. You're inferring something that wasn't in my response. I see the good and the bad in the system and from what I can tell of Einstein's comments on the matter as he saw it in his day he was correct. Again.....that's not to say the system needs to be done away with because that's impossible.
I don't have a problem with you bursting their bubbles as long as we can add hundreds of others from all political spectrums....including the Koch's, the Romney's and anyone else looking to make risky investments with their money at the expense of the American people...
Last edited:
Who would trust a guy sporting such a bad haircut?
Never claimed you did.
Good.
Those darned Kochs! Supporting gay marriage & other libertarian causes!
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
People who are for big government and those for small government actually fear the same thing. They just define it differently.
Those afraid of big government are afraid of it because they feel that it could be a fascist totalitarian organization. This would oppress them and they would loose freedoms.
Those who are not afraid of big government are typically afraid of "big corporations" which would limit their freedom and they don't even get a vote. They see government as the only entity that can protect them from large corporations. Government at least has an illusion of power of the people.
So both sides do have merit. A powerful government can be disastrous. But without a powerful government incredibly powerful corporations will decimate us. But what people need to understand is that the ones who "really" run the government are the same people that run the corporations that they fear.
Those afraid of big government are afraid of it because they feel that it could be a fascist totalitarian organization. This would oppress them and they would loose freedoms.
Those who are not afraid of big government are typically afraid of "big corporations" which would limit their freedom and they don't even get a vote. They see government as the only entity that can protect them from large corporations. Government at least has an illusion of power of the people.
So both sides do have merit. A powerful government can be disastrous. But without a powerful government incredibly powerful corporations will decimate us. But what people need to understand is that the ones who "really" run the government are the same people that run the corporations that they fear.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
But I wasn't addressing their social positions. I was talking about how they're no different than the others you cited when dealing with the issue of crony capitalism. They and a few others are at the top of the dung heap.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I'm leery of both extremes.....
They tend to produce the same results.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What you are responding to is the same kind of nauseating mantra put forth by some on the right. If somehow you have some qualms against some aspects of capitalism, then you really must admire N. Korea and the old Soviet Union. This morning on a thread dealing with science, one of these people mentioned that it was science minus religion that made the Soviet system fail. Ya, right!
So, what you said above is spot-on. [darn! I just used a common expression that's used in the UK, so I must be a bleeding-heart liberal/socialist who's anti-American.
]
Actually, you only stated the name without a specific supported allegation.
But I wasn't addressing their social positions. I was talking about how they're no different than the others you cited when dealing with the issue of crony capitalism. They and a few others are at the top of the dung heap.
What nauseates is when it's proposed that capitalism be eliminated, but fans of doing this will never provide an example of where it's been done. That leaves it up to me to me....prompting it's the old "no true socialism" fallacy. And then posters who don't bother to read all the posts about it complain about N Korea as an example of a capitalism free society. Feel free to provide a better one if you wish.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
BTW, as an addendum to my last post, it might be helpful is some on the right to maybe read this: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why? There are various forms of socialism, and most countries in the world today are using a combination of capitalistic and socialistic aspects to their economic system. As socialism supposedly doesn't work, then I guess some on the right are really going to have a hard time explaining why China's GDP, which is also a mixture, but also is more socialistic than most countries in the west, is slated to pass us up within the next few years. But do prepare yourselves to hear all the excuses why it isn't what it appears to be.
Why? There are various forms of socialism, and most countries in the world today are using a combination of capitalistic and socialistic aspects to their economic system. As socialism supposedly doesn't work, then I guess some on the right are really going to have a hard time explaining why China's GDP, which is also a mixture, but also is more socialistic than most countries in the west, is slated to pass us up within the next few years. But do prepare yourselves to hear all the excuses why it isn't what it appears to be.
You should note that discussions about eliminating capitalism are not necessarily about opposing hybridization. Also note that the PRC has abandoned the purely socialist approach, & has embraced capitalism with enthusiasm. Hong Kong (ranked #1) now has greater economic liberty than Americastan (ranked #12 & falling).Why? There are various forms of socialism, and most countries in the world today are using a combination of capitalistic and socialistic aspects to their economic system. As socialism supposedly doesn't work, then I guess some on the right are really going to have a hard time explaining why China's GDP, which is also a mixture, but also is more socialistic than most countries in the west, is slated to pass us up within the next few years. But do prepare yourselves to hear all the excuses why it isn't what it appears to be.
Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom