Says quite a bit about what we have talked about, but a good read nonetheless:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/03/13/copy_protection/index.html?x

The quote of mine was only part of it, he didn't quote me on any of the reasons I am doing my buy and return campaign. Though the article seems more towards what is to come and not the specifics now.

I'm reasonably happy with the article, although he never bothered to mention that I was part of that whole "Felten" lawsuit.

(Incidentally, when the reporter was asking me for other places he could go looking for information, I sent him here to our fine web board. I also pointed him at the guy who wrote ExactAudioCopy, but I guess he was happy enough with what he got here. )

I think the record companies have every right to incorporate copy-protection in their products. But when the government starts making legeslation against thwarting the protection, that's where I have a problem. Once you buy a product, you own it. The seller has no say on what you do with it. It's not theirs anymore. It's yours. Damned liberals......

Damned liberals......

Liberals? Go read the Salon article. This isn't a traditional liberal/conservative issue. It's more of a big business vs. free speech issue, which cuts across traditional political lines.

This isn't a traditional liberal/conservative issue.

Okay... Comic of the day...

In reply to:

---

Damned liberals......

---

Sigh. Just for your information, the DMCA was sponsored by Rep. Howard Coble, who happens to be a Republican and an arch-conservative.

BTW, he hates immigrants just like you do; you'd like him.

just because someone is a republican dosen't mean they aren't a damn liberal

I'll give you that, which is why I said Republican AND Arch-conservative.

But when the government starts making legeslation against thwarting the protection, that's where I have a problem. [snip] Damned liberals......

Good grief, the word "liberal" is used for some strange things in the US. You'll be saying next that Michael Eisner is a communist...

Peter

The word ``liberal'' has acquired a negative connotation amongst certain portions of the US populace, and it is starting to be used as a general pejorative by the ignorant in political discussions.

Right, hence the cartoon I linked...

It would help if I'd actually read it, I suppose.

Good cartoon.

"It's more of a big business vs. free speech issue"

I disagree. Like I said above, I believe the 'big business' has every right to incorporate copy-protection into their products. After all, you don't have to buy it. What I do have a problem with is big government. Uncle Sam doesn't have the right to tell me that I can't thwart the copy protection, or for that matter, tell me how I can and can't use it. And big government, along with all the ever growing freedom-eroding restrictions and regulations, is what the liberals today stand for. It's the same issue with them trying to tighten restrictions on fuel efficiency. It's none of anyone''s business how efficient I burn my fuel. I paid my dollar twenty for my gallon of 87 octane gasoline, and if I wanted to burn it just for the sheer pleasure of watching it burn (that would be 0 mpg, by the way), then that's my right. It's my fuel and I'll burn it as ineffeciently as I see fit.

ninti,

1) What is DMCA?
2) How do you come to the conclusion that I hate immigrants?

"The word ``liberal'' has acquired a negative connotation amongst certain portions of the US populace, and it is starting to be used as a general pejorative by the ignorant in political discussions. "

You can say what you want, but I know what a liberal is (at least in the US. The term 'liberal' has taken many different shapes and forms over the years. If you don't know my definition of liberal, think Hilary, Gore, Tom Daschle, NOW, PETA, treehuggers, etc.) The right and the left have gotten further and further apart. The left wants to control and socially engineer everything, while the right just wants to leave people alone and let things work themselves out. The left continously strays more and more away from capitalism and towards socialism. I find it ironic that human rights is usually associaed with the left, yet if you look at the things they stand for and the laws they pass it's exactly the opposite. Some democrat in congress now wants to tax the whole world on tobacco products. It's rediculous. He wants to force OTHER countries to impose taxes on their citizens.

And don't even get me started on the evironment freaks. 99% of then would rather kill infants than cut down a [censored] tree. PETA confiscated over 2,000 animals in abusive situations last year (i believe last year). They killed over half of them. Yeah, they put them to sleep. Now does that make sense? And they stand for the ethical treatment of animals? So by that logic, a woman who is beat on by her husband would be better off dead. These type of people talk a lot of pretty talk, but when it's all over they do a whole lot of jackshit.

And why does the left want to disarm America? Hitler himself said the first step is to disarm the people. It's obvious that gun control laws will only disarm law-abiding citizens with no intent to do any harm. Gun owners in England failed to resist the passage of "reasonable" gun laws, and have seen their rights almost completely disappear in the space of a few decades. England changed from a nation with almost no restrictions on gun ownership and no crime, to a nation where crime is rising and all but certain rifles and shotguns are banned.

That is why don't agree with the liberal agenda, not because I'm ignorant or mistake what they are, but because I don't agree with what they stand for.

As for business vs. government, you disagree with yourself in your post, in that it's the government protecting the rights of the businesses over and above the rights of the citizens. Government works as an intermediary, but it is business that forces the issue, usually through legal bribes (read ``campaign contributions'').

DMCA is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the law that was passed that, amongst other things, makes it illegal to try to circumvent copy protection.

We come to the conclusion that you hate immigrants based on earlier posts of yours that pretty much said that outright (that they should all be deported, or something to that effect; I'll see if I can find the thread). (Edit: Here we go: ``Bin Laden isn't really much of an extremist. He is actually doing what the Koran says. It's an evil religion. I also think that any foreign GUESTS should be sent home. They're not all guilty, but as a whole they've overstayed their welcome.'')

If you know what it is, then you should define it. It wouldn't take any more effort that using a dictionary, yet you fail to do so, instead naming a bunch of people who are no more liberal than the average Republican of twenty-five years ago, plus some political organizations that have very specifica agendas, that, IMHO, supercede conservative and liberal pigeonholes.

Then you list some ad hominem arguments that really have nothing to do with whether or not you know what a liberal is, nor with copy protection.

Also, you may note that the vast majority of the period between 1920 (when England's gun control laws were passed, if I'm correct) and today, the British government was controlled by the Conservative party, including what was likely the biggest period of crime in recent years, the Thatcher years, and you may note that she was a raving conservative.

In other words, don't just quote random facts and hope that they have something to do with the point. Try to gather a cohesive argument that you can defend, rather than just spouting off.

Alright I don't have to prove to you I know what a liberal is. The term liberal can mean and has meant many different things. A liberal 50 years ago isn't the same as a liberal today. A liberal in England may not be the same as a liberal in the US.

As for your first point, the government isn't protecting the rights of a business. A business doesn't have the right to tell me how I can and can't use their product after I purchase it. After I purchase it, it's mine, not theirs. They should have no say in the matter. I don't have any say in how they spend the money they receive from my purchase.

As for the immigrant thing, did I say I hate immigrants? Or did I just present a solution to solving the problem of keeping unwanted foreigners out? They don't have a right to be in the country; it's a privledge. And unfortunately a small minority are taking advantage of that privledge. If there's a better solution to the problem then I'm all ears.

"In other words, don't just quote random facts and hope that they have something to do with the point. Try to gather a cohesive argument that you can defend, rather than just spouting off."

Why don't you try to have some sort of substance in your arguments instead of just throwing around insults?

You don't have to prove to me that you know what a liberal is. You've already demonstrated that you don't, and your refusal to do so now only implies that you're unable to find a definition.

I agree that they don't have the right, but, nonetheless, that is what's occurring. You might note that the majority of the last seven years of the US Congress has been controlled by the Republican party, a period during which the rights of corporations have largely overshadowed the rights of the individual.

But now I've got better things to do than try to change your mind, a futile task.

In reply to:

---

2) How do you come to the conclusion that I hate immigrants?

---

What, you think we have forgotten all your previous posts? Your work in the "I Crush Empeg!" thread will live in infamy forever (or at least until Paul decides to wipe the hard drive of all the useless posts.) You were doing better for a while, but you have been sliding back again lately.

The left wants to control and socially engineer everything, while the right just wants to leave people alone and let things work themselves out.

riiiiiight, like with the Defense Of Marriage Act?

perhaps you're confusing social conservatism with libertarianism.

--dan.

So being pretty conservative myself, what is a good definition for a liberal? Since this board is my only interaction with non-conservatives, and I do use the term "liberal" a lot, I'd like to educate myself if I have some wrong idea. I usually use the term to refer to those who believe that people are basically good and when they do bad we should try to help them get back to their "good" selves. I guess I've always though this was a "liberal's" basic philosphy, so let me know if this is off base.

-Jeff

(I'd rather see discussion of the original SDMI topic, but, hey, whatever.)

To most self-defined liberals that I know, the word "liberal" is more of an umbrella term for a lot of more specific beliefs that may or may not be held by other folks.

Some (stereo-) typically liberal positions:

- Big government isn't necessarily bad (or, there are desirable things in the world that the free market won't do by itself)

- Big business isn't necessarily good (Enron being the shining example of this)

- Laws and policies that have a disproportionate impact on "minority" communities should be viewed with skepticism (this includes "profiling", and all other sorts of crime including capital murder: convicted black murders are more likely to be executed than convicted white murders, and accused black murders are more likely to be convicted)

- Religion and sexuality are examples of "minority" communities, as above (which tends to drag in concepts like support for gay/lesbian/etc. rights, freedom from religion, and so forth)

- The environment matters (which comes back to the "big business isn't necessarily good" issue -- many businesses would happily pollute and pillage the environment in the pursuit of profit, mostly because they don't have to pay the costs of their behavior)

There are also a number of "liberal" policies that many "conservative" people would be likely to agree with.

- freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, etc. (even when that freedom means defending somebody else's right to say something that you find offensive, and it also includes things like the freedom to bear arms)

- privacy matters (there should be limits on what information people can track about you, and there should be mechanisms to punish people who violate your privacy -- this also includes opposition to things like spam)

My favorite dichotomy between modern American "conservative" and "liberal" positions, is that liberals seem to like government regulation of business, but they dont' like government regulation of personal behavior. In contrast, conservatives seem to object to government regulation of business, but love the idea of government regulation of personal behavior. It's all very amusing.

NOTE: I was very careful here to qualify my statements above. There's a big difference between saying "big government isn't necessarily bad" and saying "big government is always good."

That's not a bad overview of the current state of affairs, but, as with all things, specifics are liable to change. Probably the best way to look at is is with the basic viewpoints of both camps.

In my opinion, the largest difference has to do with the size of the group that they consider ``me'' or ``us''. That is, everyone wants to help themselves, but liberals tend to have a much larger group that they consider to be themselves than do conservatives. Liberals also often extend the concept of self beyond what they are themselves, so that they end up defending minority groups they are not part of, or animals, or plants, or the entire world.

Of course, this definition is both malleable and relative and doesn't lend itself to actual actions. That is, that definition doesn't necessarily say that a liberal would be in favor of or against music copy protection. The liberal might consider the group he's trying to protect to be the artists, in which case he might be in favor of it, or he might be trying to protect the consumer. On the other hand, the conservative might have a fiscal interest in the recording industry, or he might be an empeg owner. What I'm trying to say is that the political leaning isn't the only factor in making political decisions. It's just effects how that person applies his personal beliefs.

Now, in the US's current climate, conservatives tend to be rich white guys who are pro-big-business (largely because the reason that they're rich is because they are big business), while liberals are often, not unreasonably, associated with minorities and the underclasses, perhaps because those groups feel that the best way to help themselves is to try to help all the groups in similar situations.

To take a real-life (exaggerated) example, consider the rap star that made it out of the ghetto. The conservative extremist would take his money and go live in Beverly Hills by himself, unconcerned that his former neighbors are still living in poverty. As we head towards the liberal extreme, we encounter the star that will just hire his friends as his ``posse''. Then onto the one who gives back to his community in some material manner, like opening nice establishments in that neighborhood. Finally, at the liberal extreme, you might get to the one who continued to live there and distribute his money to all of the people in the neighborhood. You can see that most people lie somewhere in the middle. They're not so callous as to ignore everyone else, but they're not so overly generous as to give all of their money away. But note that none of that has to do with big business or government or anything like that, and also note that these people came from exactly the same background.

Edit: I'd like to point out a couple of other things, now that I think about it a little more. First, it's easily possible for a person to be conservative about certain things, but liberal about other things. Second, there are a number of issues that my definition doesn't seem to cover, but that seem to be divided along liberal/conservative lines, like illegal drugs issues and abortion, which, by my definition, would have to be liberal issues for most legislators, since they encompass groups that the legislator would not be a part of. Perhaps the liberals want to see those peoples rights expanded and the conservatives are against singling out those groups? Maybe....

Also, an interesting question would be why you consider yourself conservative if you don't know what liberal is? Go back and reread the cartoon Tony posted before and remove the snideness from it and then apply it to yourself. Is it possible that you might be a liberal and not know it? (I'm not saying you are, as I know next to nothing about you, but the fact that you've labeled yourself as one side of a coin without knowing what the other side looks like is a little suspect.) (Oops. Obviously, that was directed at FerretBoy, not you DWallach. I forgot to whom I was actually replying.)

You stereotype conservatives as stingy and selfish, while you portray liberals as caring and giving. I don't think it has to do with the person's personality. If you take it to the extremes, then the conservatives would be for charitable giving as optional, while liberals would make it mandatory. I'm all for giving charity, but I'm not gonna tell another person what to do with his money.

There is no way you could describe the term 'liberal' in a definition. You would have to write a term paper on it, especially if you wanted to describe all it's different meanings in different time periods and places. For instance, a group of people trying to overcome oppression are considered liberals. That kind of liberalism is rare in America. If you want me to describe mainstream American liberalism as it it exists today, then I can sum it up in two words: moderate socialism. If you take it to the extreme all the way to the right you have almost pure capitalism. Take it all the way to the left and you have socialism. The ideals at the respective extreme are behind most views of conservatives and liberals.

There is no way you could describe the term 'liberal' in a definition.

I just did.

... moderate socialism

You say this like it's as abhorent as a facist state or a religious oligarchy. "Moderate socialism" is a term that, in its generality, describes most European countries, as well as Canada. These are perfectly sane, rational ways to run the show.

The ideals at the respective extreme are behind most views of conservatives and liberals.

At the extremes, on either end, you get entirely unpleasant effects. Systems of government (and more generally, of society) are far more complex and subtle than "going all the way" to your favorite ends. Modern society is all about creating a balance among conflicting interests, whether through market-driven or regulatory mechanisms.

Unfortunately, modern politics being what they are, particularly in the U.S. two-party system, there's a deliberate movement to create an artificial "us vs. them" mentality as a way of painting the other party as a bunch of doddering slobs who will destroy God, truth, and the American Way (tm) if we only gave them the chance. If you let yourself look past that, you'll find that there are politicians on both sides of the aisle both with and without a clue. You can't reduce the entire spectrum of political thought to a one-dimensional axis with the end points labelled "conservative" and "liberal".

(Of course, you can always try to believe in such artificial labels, but that doesn't make you a conservative or a liberal. It makes you an idiot.)

Well, I do have an idea of what liberals and coservatives tend to do, but you had me thinking about how I would define either group and I was comming up empty. I am definately conservative (ie, I fall on the convervative side of those defining issues that you mentioned), but I do see problems with some of the conservative stances.

As we all should, I try to seek out truth and make descisions based on knowledge rather than just aligning my beliefs with one group or another. I tend to find that I agree conervatives again and again, and really don't understand liberal stances on many issues. So, I'm pretty conservative (though I don't consider "liberal" a bad word).

I once heard a liberal say that the basic difference between liberals and conservatives is whether they view man as inherintly good (liberals) or bad (conservatives). This was a persons attempting to get to the core of issues and I thought he might have a point. It seemed to me that liberal stances are trying to "fix" people and conservatives are trying to bring people to "justice". Because I am pretty uneducated in politics (computers and music are my forte) I was looking to see if this was a close definition. After your lengthy post, I think that probably these issues can not be boiled down to such a simple statement.

-Jeff

"there are politicians on both sides of the aisle both with and without a clue. You can't reduce the entire spectrum of political thought to a one-dimensional axis with the end points labelled "conservative" and "liberal"."

I agree.

That would be my own bias showing through. I was trying to be even-handed, but that's hard to do. There are advantages to conservatism, in that you can expend your efforts on a smaller group and possibly be more likely to get the effect that you want than when you're trying to effect a much larger group.

Again, I personally believe that many conservative people tend to be too stingy in the wide realm of things. I also believe that they don't see themselves that way, and they may not be. Many liberals tend to be too giving.

Obviously, no definition can encompass the almost completely subjective concepts of liberalism and conservatism that exist today.

I'll have to interject that the main problem that I have with liberalism today in America is the welfare issue. It is abhorrent to me that the government forces hard-working people to pay for the livelyhood of those people who are just too damn lazy to work for themselves.

I work for local government. Being a computer guy, I get paid much better than most, but there are people that I know that work for $13-15000 per year. At that level they have less income than a person living on welfare and doing nothing for themselves except reproducing so that their income check will increase. Not to mention that many of these women have children with multiple fathers simply for the reason that they get more money from the government if they are different "families" which is of course is a problem since a strong father figure is one of the best ways to prevent a child from turning to a life of crime. There are two main problems with this policy. The first being that it is unconstitutional for the government to rob Peter to pay Paul. The government's role should NOT be social welfare. That is the domain of religious organizations and charitable organizations. The second is that the current "system" rewareds large families leeching off society as a whole, which is leading to a larger and larger welfare system. If we continue in our curent trend, there will be more people living on welfare than there are working. This of course will lead to a complete breakdown of the system.

The other problem I have personally is abortion. Being adopted, it hits home harder for me than most that terminating an "annoying" pregnancy is murder. My birth parents were 15 and 16 at the time I was born. I for one am extremely grateful that they had the guts and backbone to do what was right and not simply convenient and by this giving me a chance at life.

My 2 ¢

I would argue that welfare is a good thing that has been distorted and exploited by a few bad seeds. Would you still feel the same way if the type of people that you (legitimately) rail about in your post were removed from the equation? That is, if welfare were given to only the people that cannot work? I understand your point and agree with it, but I think that your apparent conclusion that welfare be abolished is much too strong. Certainly, these people that you discuss are in the wrong, yet working within the law, but, IMO, it is still the job of the government to protect its citizens, and I think that many (most? I don't have any statistics) in the welfare program are deserving of that protection.

I take the other stance with you as far as abortion is concerned. (BTW, my wife was also adopted and agrees with me on this issue.) I have come to the conclusion that there is no way to reconcile our differences, and it would be an issue where we'd all have to agree to disagree, if it didn't have significant real-world consequences. I tend to agree with you on a personal basis (I would at least like to believe that I would not abort a pregnancy, but, then, I'm not a woman), but I have a hard time saying that someone else shouldn't do it. I would probably tend to look down on a person who aborted a pregancy simply due to inconvenience, but medical concerns, I believe, are legitimate, as much as I wish that they never were. I'm very middle-of-the-road on this issue, I think.

I would just like to point out, again, that liberalism and conservatism do not have to define you as a person. It is easily possible to be very conservative on certain issues and very liberal on others. For example, I'm very conservative on a personal level, but very liberal on a political level. That is, I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but that benefit wears off pretty quickly once I start dealing with a person directly. (This fits the earlier statement that liberals tend to think of people as inherently good, which, I think, is kind of another way of looking at my earlier pseudo-definition.)

I agree.... Welfare is different than Disability in my book. I have no qualms helping those that CANNOT work as opposed to those that WILL not.

Unfortunately, even THAT is not covered under the constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html.

As to the abortion deal, I agree, medical complications are a different scenario. If the choice is the mothers life or the baby, well then, a choice has to be made. The same can be said of some siamese twins. There are cases when leaving them attached would be deadly to both, but removing one would allow the other to live. Who gets to make that decision? Or should we at all? I for one am not even close to wanting to touch that one.

Take it a step farther. Debilitating diseases. What do you do with someone who is in so much pain that they WANT to die? Let them? or use all our techie-tools to keep them "alive" as long as we possibly can, at the cost of hundreds of dollars a miserable day? The problem with this decision is that it's a fairly slippery slope and not a far cry from erasing old people who are not in pain, but mentally not there at all. The next logical step is to erase old people who are no longer contributing to society as a whole. I know, this is a stretch, but it has happened before. (Germany, 1941)

Then again, I for one don't want Gov't telling me that I cannot ask for and obtain my own death if I am in agony and there is little to no hope of a recovery..

BTW, I also agree that we can certainy agree to disagree. That's one of the things that makes this country so great. We are all allowed to have any feelings and opinions we like, whether they are popular, or right, or not.

> Unfortunately, even THAT is not covered under the constitution.

Is it expressly prohibited?

Edit: In fact it does provide for just that:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

It even mentions the word welfare.

It mentions the welfare of the United States, not it's citizens.

> It mentions the welfare of the United States, not it's citizens.

Is there a difference.

You might not like Welfare, but it is hardly unconstitutional. If you like, consider it an anti-riot tax.

Seems like a HUGE difference to me. Anyway I guess this is a case where we agree to disagree. I for one am against any form of socialism at all because it takes the desire to better yourself, and by extension your society, out of the equasion. You are in essence rewarding the lazy and penalizing the driven. That is exactly opposite of the way it should be. Again, this is talking about welfare, not disability.

> I for one am against any form of socialism at all because it takes the desire to better yourself, and by extension your society, out of the equasion.

I agree, pure socialism doesn't work for exatly that reason, and that has been proven over and over again. But pure capitalism doesn't work either, it creates too much misery for some people. The amount that welfare costs the rich is small, the benefit to those that need it large. There are those who abuse it, but there are a lot of people who do not have a lot of choices in life, no matter how driven they are.

If somebody wants to make it, they can. Especially in the U.S. People crying about being poor.....I just don't buy it. I see temps come in for their first day where I work, saying they just need a chance, then they don't show up the next day. I can go out and find a job in one day, yet I don't even have a high school diploma. If you want something, it's up to you. Even if you're just making $5.15/hr, you may be poor compared to the rest of the US, but you'd be in the 99th percentile of the richest people throughout history. For those that convince themselves that they can't make it, or they spend all their money on heroin and alcohol or whatever, I feel sorry for them. I really do. But I know they brought it on themselves. This socialist attitude of 'someone else is responsible for me (as in the government) if I don't take control of my own life' just doesn't fly for me. And no, I'm not rich. I'm starting out at the bottom just like everyone else.

As for welfare, nobody starves in America. You can have a meal for less than 50 cents. Ramen noodles only cost about 10 cents a pack. You can find free water almost anywhere. So if you're on welfare, you're living better than many people in the world. Even if you're poor and not on welfare, you're much better off than many people for the simple reason that you're free and have the opportunity to make something of yourself. The only welfare that I think would be appropiate is for serious disability and food stamps for really poor children. No able-bodied and sane human is incapable of taking care of themselves; they just choose not to.

EDIT: "pure capitalism doesn't work either, it creates too much misery for some people."

What do you mean by this? People start having nervous breakdowns? The US is pretty darn close to pure capitalism, although it keeps straying away. The only reason pure capitalism wouldn't work is because of monopolies. Somebody like Bill Gates would just keep getting more and more powerful and his sons and grandsons would keep getting more and more powerful to the point that they were more powerful than the entire nation and the govenment. They would in effect become a government. But that's why we have anti-trust laws.

> As for welfare, nobody starves in America....No able-bodied and sane human is incapable of taking care of themselves

What about housing? Transportation? Medical bills? I really don't want to be insulting, because it is a decent argument, but I suspect that a lot of people who maintain it have plenty of opportunities and don't really see the people that don't.

> The US is pretty darn close to pure capitalism, although it keeps straying away.

There is no country in the world that is pure capitalism, and the reason is that people would indeed starve in the street. In pure capitalism there is no reason to help anyone else, it is pure Darwinism. And while Darwinism may be a natural way for the natural world, it is ugly and would be unpalatable to people of conscience.

Reminds me of a quote:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

It is abhorrent to me that the government forces hard-working people to pay for the livelyhood of those people who are just too damn lazy to work for themselves.

It must be great to live in a country where there is a job for everyone that wants one. That is NOT the case in many other countries in the world.

Rob
(Someone who pays a hell of a lot more toward supporting those "lazy" people than you do in the US)

"US is pretty darn close to pure capitalism, although it keeps straying away"

Ok, really this just isn't true, and I'm glad its not. I don't like big government, but, as has been mentioned before, pure captitalism is an extreme and flawed end at which we do not want to find ourselves. I don't want to wax religious on you (although, with the way this thread is going, I wouldn't be suprised if we put it all into the mix), but any system of government, economics, etc. designed by mankind is going to be flawed. That is truly the brilliance of the U.S constitution: these guys knew they couldn't create the perfect government because there is none, so they gave us something flexable that could bend without breaking. There are plenty of examples of the framers of our gorvenmnet setting up ways to dilute pure systems that could end up being destructive. This is one of the reasons we have a three branch system of government.

We are far from socialism, but we are not, nor were we ever intended to be, pure capitalists.

-Jeff

(Someone who pays a hell of a lot more toward supporting those "lazy" people than you do in the US)

Oof, no kidding. That's one of the things that scares me about the way things have been going. I don't particularly want to pay 80% to taxes. That's one of the problems in Canada. Esp. since it's because of socialized health care. Of course, health care there pretty much sucks, which is why there are so many doctors set up on the US-Canada border. People just don't realize what we have in this country.

Jeeze, that was a weird paragraph. ;8^)

> (although, with the way this thread is going, I wouldn't be suprised if we put it all into the mix)

Hehe, it's the nature of political debate; everything ties into everything else.

I'm sure you were being somewhat sarcasic here, but obviously, there's not. (The unemployment rate in the US is currently at about 5.5%, which is low compared to many places, but still significant.) I've been out of work for 8 months now, and I'm having trouble finding a job. Given, I could probably go work at the McDonalds instead of as a systems administrator, but I hardly consider myself lazy. (Well, actually, I do, but not in this instance.)

Well I guess it depends on what you consider pure capitalism. I guess you could say it's no government at all, anarchy/darwinism, whatever you want to call it. But then you'd have to also say that the entire world is living in pure capitalism right now, because in this definition of capitalism governments will inevitably spring up, hence the result is the entire world as it exists today. So then you end up with capitalism not really existing or meaning anything at all.

I see capitalism as a nation with a limited government; only an organization to maintain order, defend the nation, and regulate monopolies. Now the trick is to create a government that is empowered by the entire people, not just a chosen few as socialist and communist governments usually end up. I think the framers of the constitution did a good job of this.

I'm just curious how much does everyone here pay in taxes? Be sure to include what country you're in.

I pay a little less than 20%, but I think I may be getting a lot of that sent back next april. I did when I was under 18, but I'm not sure if they will now that I'm a legal adult.

> I guess you could say it's no government at all, anarchy...only an organization to maintain order, defend the nation, and regulate monopolies

I agree with your second statement. Anarchy implies no laws at all. Pure Capitalism has laws and the means to enfore them, it just means no reditribution of wealth. Those that suceed and make money keep it and those that don't get squat. It means no welfare, unemployment, disability, work programs, or food stamps. It also implies no subsidies and very small and non-graded taxes. Taxes would still be levied at a minimal rate, but not for the purposes of redistribution of welath; only for a small amount of services like infrastructure, some civil servants (such as cops and firemen), and defense. Basically the economic part of the platform of the Libertarian party. It is a tempting view, but flawed in my opinion. If pure Socialism's weakness is that it believes too much in the inherent goodness of people, pure Capitalism's is that it panders to to their inherent selfishness.

> not just a chosen few as socialist and communist governments usually end up

Just don't confuse the two. Democracy and despotism are opposite sides of the same line, and Socialism and Capitalism are opposite sides of a perpindicular line. Communism was really just Socialist despotism (or perhaps oligarchy). Many countries, especially in Europe, lean towards a Democratic Socialism, and Nazi Germany was a pretty decent example of a Capitalist despotism, or the even better example of some Italian cities-states in the Renaissance.

> I think the framers of the constitution did a good job of this.

I agree. And I am not knocking Capitalism, it really seems to be the natural economic methodology for humans. I just think that it needs to be tempered a little bit.

I only have time to respond to one point....

"Capitalism's is that it panders to to their inherent selfishness."

You don't succeed by being greedy. You succeed by being successful, greedy or not.

> You succeed by being successful, greedy or not.

That's not really what I was trying to say. The pure Capitalist system doesn't care about the unsuccessful, for whatever the reason is that they are. Capatlism has no moral basis and creates no moral judgments. Society itself has to.

You don't think Capitalism is based on greed? Greed motivates people, which is why Socialism fails. To quote Gordan Gecko, "Greed is good". Ok, so maybe that is perhaps not the best source to use. How about one from the father of modern economics, John Maynard Keynes:

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all."

I'm not saying that is bad. Hell, it works, supply side economics is not all complete BS. But it alone is not enough.

You keep judging people on their morales. Let people freely trade amongst eachother as they like, and let God sort out the good and bad in the afterlife. Anything other than free trade is oppression. If you wanted to trade one of your spare empegs to a friend of yours for a bicycle or whatever, do you think someone should come in and dictate how the barter should go down? Or would you tell'em to go mind their own f'ing business and let you and your friend do what you like? Is that being greedy? Or just fair?

It's like you want someone to come and control your life for you. I don't get it. God put us all on this earth just the same. Why would I want to forfeit the right to another man to come and tell me what to do? If someone wants to be greedy, than I'll let them be greedy. It's none of my business. If someone wants to give everything they have to charity, then I'll let them give everything they have to charity. It's none of my business. As some guy once said, "the right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts." And that's how it should be. You have the right to swing your fists like a damn madman as long as you don't hit anyone in the nose. I'm in no position to judge why the hell someone swings their fists. Just don't hit me in the nose. If someone wants to self-destruct by being greedy, then there's nothing I can do. And making money isn't being greedy. You're not taking money away from anyone. You are in effect creating the money. If you carve a chair out of wood then you have made something worthless into something of value. The chair is only worth anything because someone is willing to trade their money for it. It's a fair trade. Why is it fair? Because their willing to do it. That's not being greedy. That's just making a living. Nobody forces anyone to buy or do anything.

There's a lot of stuff that you say that doesn't make sense. You say that people have the right to do what they want to do, yet, there are boundaries. If I buy a tank of gas, and burn it in my backyard, and all the smoke ends up in your lungs, then what? You won't be able to do *anything* to me, because your rights end at my nose. Government should not interfere.

What of other countries? If truly free trade is considered above all else, then when nations with abundant access to labor built products at significantly lower cost than American workers, then it is completely all right for them to be put out of jobs, completely all right for them to starve on the streets. Realistically, in the face of free trade, there will always be one or another company that will produce better and cheaper products and if free trade was truly the case, will completely annihilate industries on a national level.

Calvin