Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Like I said, I tend not to put much weight in what the press has to say.



My respect for the press has been dwindling lately, too. Most media outlets do little more than reprint press releases; the press is mostly just a messenger boy for the government and the business elite.

Whatever happened to investigative journalism? Journalists missed some of the biggest stories of out time: the savings and loan disasters, the Enron, WorldCom, GlobalCrossing (etc., etc.) disasters, the impending collapse of the Soviet Union, and the smokescreen of lies that led us to initially support the war in Iraq.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Capitalism limits our democracy -- defined as the majority of the moment -- to its only useful purpose: the electing of various individuals to various positions of public office. Other then this limited aspect, the power of the majority is severely limited. Capitalism in this sense only supports a limited "democracy", but not a pure one.



You've touched on a very important point: capitalism and democracy are not necessarily compatible in every way. In fact, they are somewhat antagonistic. Not many people understand this. Many Americans think capitalism and democracy are a match made in heaven, that they mutually support each other, and together they make our nation indestrucible. But that's pure speculation; our little experiment in democracy and capitalism has not yet stood the test of time. It is entirely possible that the vast power of capitalism will eventually overwhelm our democracy. Then, the wealthy elite will control America, just as it has controlled every other nation state (at least every nation state that ever lasted long enough for them to so so).

Our history shows that Big Money periodically makes brazenly undemocratic grabs for power (for example, the "Gilded Age" of the Robber Barons, the 1920's pro-capitalist initiatives, the deregulation of the Reagan era, and the corporate-dominated agenda of the present administration). It's not yet clear whether the interests of the common man (fair wages and secure benefits, affordable health care, social security, well-funded public schools, access to affordable college education, etc.) will be crushed by the interests of Big Money (lower wages and benefits, health care only for the highest bidders, "personal retirement accounts" in lieu of social security, declining public schools, and reduced financial aid for college students.)

Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Under capitalism no individual, nor any group of individuals, whether they be a minority or a majority, can violate the inalienable rights of any other minority, including the most oppressed minority that has ever existed -- the individual. In the sense, commonly used, that democracy means egalitarianism -- the equality of results (wealth), by an unequal protection (violation) of rights -- capitalism is entirely opposed to it.



Really? I have never understood capitalism to "oppose" the violation of anyone's rights, or to promote egalitarianism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Capitalism is all about maximizing the use of resources for the greatest possible profit. Is the local venture capitalist going to defend me when someone defrauds me of my life savings? Will real estate investors come to my aid if I am denied a home due to the color of my skin? That has never happened in our entire history.

Don't get me wrong, I think capitalism is the greatest engine for material well-being ever devised, and it has given us all amazing good lives. But it would also leave you and me for dead on the side of the road if we couldn't pay for an ambulance and a doctor.


Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Personally, I'm not a fan of big government (that fact should be fairly abvious by now! ). I really have difficulty understanding how anyone can put faith in an entity that, in the final analysis, utilizes physical force as it's only method of manipulating people to do it's bidding for the "public good." Behind every single gov't program, ultimately, is a gun. Why anyone would want to have their lives in submission to such an entity, is really beyond my comprehension.



Two points:

1. To quasi-liberals like me, government is an expression of our Civilization (with a capital "C"). It is our way to defend ourselves from the barbarians, to organize our common affairs, and to care for those who would otherwise be left to die in the gutter. I like Civilization. It makes me proud to be part of it. I gladly pay taxes and support a (reasonably-sized) government because I want it to keep keep a lid on the capitalists who would otherwise cut down every last tree, dump mercury into every water source, and abscond with every last dollar of my pension fund. Like you, I don't like "Big Government." We have a bloated government now, and it needs to be a lot more efficient. But it sure as hell beats gutters filled with the dead and dying people. It beats having landscapes layed to waste by Big Mining, Big Lumber, and Big Development.

2. There is not a "gun" behind every government policy. Most government policies are willingly supported by the general public. Most people willingly obey laws concerning fraud, theft, pollution regulations, safe driving, etc., because they want to live in Civilization. They want to cooperate with their neighbors in creating a liveable society. So it's just not true that we obey government policies only under threat of force (i.e. guns).