The Capitalist System Is Decaying Because Of Its Own Contradictions

you lost debate so you want to switch subject to you? Do you know what a straw man is?

 

Aristotle , our Founders, and Friedman detested statism whether liberal, communist or monarchical. That makes perfect economic sense. Sorry

 

Your binary language only tells me that you know nothing about economics

 

wow, another crushing great argument but guess what genius your non binary language tells me you know nothing about economics. Is getting in the mud your tactic when you have lost a debate?

 

After scrolling down 31 posts of absolute incoherent BS by a single person I'm left with no option but to add a name to my ignore list.
Please take note that you will waste only your own time by responding to any of my posts in the future.

 

ALL WRONG, ALL WRONG, ALL WRONG

You've got your factual history all wrong.

The present Social Democracies in Europe have evolved and its principles of social-advancement are at the heart of the European Union. Which, I will remind you, is larger in population than the US by almost 60%.

It is therefore the economic heart-throb of far more people than reside in the US. So, ask yourself, how could so many people get economic policy so wrong? I'm waiting for your answer.

Because in terms of principles that benefit mankind Social Democracy is closer to fairness than the US. Let's take just one parameter, the comparison of Minimum to National Median Wage (where the OECD list of countries is far better off than the US):

Note (in the above infographic) that in the OECD countries, of which the greater part are European, the minimum-to-median wage is 30% higher than that of the US. Not only,
social-subventions offered the poor in the the OECD countries (minus the US) are far better off than in the US itself.

Meaning what? The poor in the OECD countries (again with the exception of the US) are far better off than in the US itself. Due to the social-subventions that one receives if in that class.

There is no way to counter this fact by arguing that Average Wages in the US are higher than in in the rest of the OECD, which is indeed true. In the US, the Disposable Income (per capita) is 45% higher than in the EU. Which means that the American Middle-class is better off than the EU Middle-class.

The difference however in Disposable Income in the US versus the EU is due to levels of taxation, which are higher in the EU than in the US. The distribution of tax-levels amongst OECD countries is depicted here:

Note in the above infographic that the EU countries above the OECD-average (in red) are all more than 20% higher in taxation levels than the US.

US overall taxation levels are the lowest of any developed country on earth. Just what the hell more do YOU (plural) want?

My Point? Tax higher incomes and spend the money on social-subventions is far more fair-and-equitable than as presently practiced in the US. And the two key socioeconomic programs assuring such equitability are a free post-secondary education that allows one to climb the income ladder to better paying jobs and a National Healthcare System that doesn't cost an-arm-and-a-leg (pun intended!) ...

 

First, I was completely taken aback by your name calling because this is not the James I know. Perhaps the metaphoric analogy was too deep for you to grasp. I believe I read it in her non-fiction work Philosophy: Who Needs It.

In any event, I could find no such country as Chi-Raq, so I assume your referring to the Spike Lee movie. I haven't watch it, but from the reviews I read, it appears to be a soft porn version of Lysistrata by Aristophanes. The premise is intriguing, no sex until the violence stops. I also grasp the title, a shorten version of Chicago-Iraq, with Spike Lee making the point that parts of Chicago were more deadly and violent than the war in Iraq. How this is related to my paraphrasing Ayn Rand's observation that the Democrats want to control the economy (the wallet), and the Republicans want to control your mind, your thoughts, your soul (the bedroom--sex is not just physical, it is very integrated with your psychology, i.e., your intellect, your view of love and your place in the universe) escapes me. Indeed, it rather proves my point, seeing how the city is controlled by a Democrat machine created by Richard Daley, which loves taxes, and cares very little about your sexual activities, including prostitution. It's always about taxes. Chicago needs more money for everything, except fighting crime. They support gay marriage, sexual activity of children, are against abstinence, and consider the answer to high teenage pregnancy rates to be free condoms.

The republicans are, and especially during Ayn Rand's era, anti-gay, anti-sex, anti-free expression, concrete bound religious fanatics, who apparently go to great lengths to make sure Jesus didn't die for nothing. They weren't then, nor are they now, trying to conserve the founding fathers principles of liberty, they were and still are trying to conserve religions influence in politics. For example, the candidacy of the religious nut, Moore in Alabama, who thinks the constitution is toilet paper and the Supreme Court a toilet bowl--something to ignore until one needs to defecate. To this day, the prevalent thought in body political is that our founding fathers based this nation on Judeo -Christian principles. Nothing could be further from the truth. They were heavily influence by Locke's natural law, and Greek Philosophy, especially Aristotle, the were also heavily influence by Thomas Aquinas and his reintroduction of Aristotle to the world. Another example of Aristotelian influence is Jefferson's warning to put reason first in all things and to question everything, including the reality of God. Judeo-Christian principles had very little influence on the founding fathers creation of the first free nation on earth, and the first nation that told the government what it can and cannot do, and let the citizens do anything they wished as long as it didn't violate the individual rights of another.

Indeed, it was Jonathan Edwards hatred of the Enlightenment and his leading of a religious reactionary movement against Jeffersonian ideas, and a free society becoming more secular than religious that created the lie that America is a Judeo-Christian nation. It is not. America was founded as a secular republic based on the principles of individual rights with an economic system that is very anti-Christian, Capitalism.

"The Great Awakening arose at a time when man in Europe and the American colonies were questioning the role of the individual in religion and society.
It began at the same time as the Enlightenment which emphasized logic and reason and stressed the power of the individual to understand the universe based on scientific laws. Similarly, individuals grew to rely more on a personal approach to salvation than church dogma and doctrine. There was a feeling among believers that established religion had become complacent. This movement emphasized an emotional, spiritual and personal relationship with God."--https://www.thoughtco.com/great-awakening-of-early-18th-century-104594

In closing, let's skip the name calling and stick to debating ideas.

Ayn Rand: "The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law. The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history. All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/america.html

Yaron Brook: Objectivism, Religion, and the Role of Government


What America is for a free soul:

Motive Power by Bryan Larsen, one of today's greatest artist.

Visit his paintings here:http://cordair.com/

 

THE REAL MEANING OF A "REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY"

The primary objective of the American colonies was to free themselves from a monarchy by means of basic democratic principles - foremost of which was the free election by all of the adult population of the peoples' political representatives. First to a "congress", then of the presidency.

The notion of a "republic" was (and still is) secondary to the primary objective of a "democracy", the key principle of which is "one person, one vote and only one vote".

Which, from the very beginning, was manipulated deviously first in the constitution itself (to appease southern states) and to this day in the 12th Amendment - where one vote no longer means the outcome is necessarily the result of a majority vote of the total population.

The Electoral College must be done away with for America to finally achieve what it wanted from the very first instance - a Real Democracy. Doing away with the Electoral College or Gerrymandering will in no way affect (except for the better) the notion of a republican* democracy called the United States of America ...

*republican definition ("small r") = a supporter of governance by elected representatives of the people (rather than a dynastic monarchy or a dictator or any despot) residing in states; and in which supreme power is held by the people and their said elected representatives in a legislature, and which has an elected executive (president or governor).

 

Interesting that a socialist would suggest capitalism is dying when the major population countries and emerging economies are embracing capitalism.

 

So yo are willing to accept it if the government is benevolent toward its population.

 

If the population so chooses, then yes. Each country must do what works best for it in my opinion.

 

The Electoral College illustrates the genius of the Founders. You are intelligent enough to figure out why.

 

All the above shows exactly the opposite of the intent of the post.

 

Capitalism creates the highest opportunity for individual freedom of any economic system.

 

Exactly - socialism gets individual incentives totally wrong and capitalism gets individual incentives totally right.

 

Amen, brother, Amen.
Ayn Rand: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

Dr. Yaron Brook - The Morality of Capitalism - Radley College, Feb 2017

One aspect of Capitalism that is great is its ability to radiate joy and progress through an entire population. Here is one of the results of living in a capitalist nation
How Far We've Come by Byran Larsen@http://cordair.com/artists/larsen/works/how-far-weve-come/index.html

 

Long silly rant easily defeated. In Republican 1950s there were no Chi-Raq‘s. 76% of black kids didn’t grow up in broken or never formed homes. Our founders were extremely religious moral human beings who took religious principles as a given foundation to their lives and to the constitution they wrote.

 

And if it works for the particular country in question, then it is a good thing.

 

Europe has about 60% of the per capita income that the United States has. And they would have 20% of the per capita income if they could not rely on American inventions to keep them in the modern world. Further their civilization failed and we had to bail them out and re-create them in our image through 2 World wars.

 

While that may be true, the current system they use obviously works for them, so I say good for them as long as the population is happy which so far it appears to be.

 

To James:
Name calling again. No refutation. Just smears. Facts are facts. History is History. And faith is a prelude to force.
Good luck and best wishes

 

Yes, the Great Society and War on Poverty marked the end of progress for certain minority groups in the US.

 

I'm reminded of Oprah's visit to Denmark where she commented on the lack of storage and closets in their homes. 'Where do you keep your stuff?' - 'We don't have stuff'.

 

Faith in BIG GOV is a prelude to force.

 

I'm an Objectivist, which means I am also an atheist and haven't any faith in anything. I accept only reason, logic, science, truth, and facts. As such, I only support a constitutional republic based on the principle of Individual Rights, with an impregnable wall of separation between religion and government, between education and government, and between the capitalist economy and the government.