CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by caltour2:
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.
Ah, common ground. 
Quote:
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.)
I don't have the time to put in the effort right at the moment on these points, however I believe the idea that the wealthy, or Big Money, as you say, are inherently selfish and evil and have no ability to care for the less fortunate, is in reality way off base. The fact is that the vast majority of wealthy people in this country give away a majority of the wealth they accumulate, mostly to the poor, helpless, and less fortunate.
I would also argue the long term viability of any pay-as-you-go social security system given the reality of demographics and our declining fertility rates which are no longer capable of sustaining an increase in the U.S. population. Simple math indicates that our current socsec system will not suffice. Three counties in the Galveston, TX, area who opted out of the current socsec system in 1981 and privatized their retirement system, are able to provide 250% of the current socsec system's benefits (5k per month instead of 2k per month) using less withholding for much of that time period (I believe they recently increased the withholding between individual/business to pretty much match the federal socsec system). Study Chile's socsec system, which uses privatized accounts and is one of the strongest socsec systems in existence on the planet. I am a huge supporter of capitalism and it's principles, including emphasis on individual rights and the illegality of forced wealth redistribution.
That said, the socsec system isn't our biggest problem down the line, it's our medicare/medicaid system, which according to the most recent figures, as baby boomers retire, will produce a 40 trillion dollar liability.
The reality of our social programs will become ugly over the next several decades, as we will be forced to entertain massive tax hikes (to rates similar to many European nations), massive benefit cuts, or a combination thereof. Demographics is destiny, it cannot be demonstrated against or argued with, and demographics will produce profound cultural and economic changes on our and many other societies across the globe over the next 50 years.
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.
Quote:
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.
You misread what I wrote, I was referring to the definition there of democracy, not capitalism. Democracy is egalitarianism when purely implemented, the majority of the moment. Capitalism keeps democracy in check, and vica versa. As you wrote, the systems at times are at odds and at times on the same page with each other, so far we've got the best mix of the two, or as I am so fond of saying, we have the least of the evils on the globe at present.
Quote:
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).
Interesting, I'd say that the capitalist economic system is my preferred expression of our Civilization IMHO. But hey, that's just me.
More to come later...
|
