Political Leaning?

[Volnotov]

I never said it was authoritarian. That would just be stupid of me. I was saying that it's not freedom FOR those dying on the street.

While unemployment is the consequence of government, one has a right to not hire individuals.

That is what should be changed.

Another proof that you are anti-freedom, collectivist, oppressive and authoritarian. If you want freedom, if you believe in it then you believe individuals should be allowed/have the right to not hire individuals or be allowed/have the right to fire them if they want to.

If you really like freedom, if you are really that pro-freedom then you would even reject the concepts of morality and ethics.

Nice try, but I have to dissapoint you: You are authoritarian, oppressive, anti-freedom and collectivist.

[Vervaria]

Socially libertarian, moderately left-wing on economics, strongly non-interventionist.

[Georgism]

Roughly centre-left. Social Democrat.

[Augarundus]

I never said it was authoritarian. That would just be stupid of me. I was saying that it's not freedom FOR those dying on the street.

While unemployment is the consequence of government, one has a right to not hire individuals.

That is what should be changed.

So you would force a business owner to employ anyone and everyone in sight?

Fascist.


---


To: Jervak


The United States isn't capitalist. I've stated this over and over again.

Capitalism IS individualism.

To understand capitalism, one must understand INDIVIDUALISM.

Individualism is the idea that one man is entitled to himself and his property, and never subject to the will of another. This right to self and property is inviolable. It is the only philosophy that respects the dignity of a human person, and his ability to rule himself. As my self-created propaganda poster states, I am no slave.

The role of the state is to defend the right to self-sovereignty. Violence against women, blacks, or any other group is anti-capitalist: that is, it is anti-individualist. It violates individual rights, and is justified based on the collective will of a few individuals. These individuals' decisions are illogical, violent, and disregard individual rights. The right of all individuals to vote is also a capitalist one: it is anti-democratic. Democracy would entail the will of the majority of the voting block to disallow the rest the opportunity to vote. The dictatorship of the majority (sometimes known as the dictatorship of the proletariat) disregards the individual right to vote, which is based on the idea of the right to self-sovereignty and inherent rights, instead opting for the 'will of the majority' idea of oppression.

In an individualist system, rights are guaranteed. They are not subject to the will of any entity.

One should consider the fact, also, that the IDEA of labor unions are not intrinsically anti-capitalist. Bargaining is quite capitalist: the idea that individuals should gather and protest, thus exercising their individual rights to self-sovereignty, by not working is capitalist: it forces the employer, if he wants his business to succeed, to find a mid-ground with his employees.

There are cases, of course, in which unions have been anti-capitalist; that is, when they gain government influence. No entity, business, union, or individual, should have the ability to buy out the state.

Unions, in fact, were often built in order to establish white supremacist causes, by establishing collectivist legal policy that discriminated against certain groups. Many early labor unions were founded on ideals of racism and democratic oppression. While the idea of labor unions isn't anti-capitalist (that is, bargaining is quite capitalist), the ability of a union to hold special influence in state-affairs, thus allowing it to gain authority, is syndicalist and socialist.

The third world isn't the cause of "free-market reforms" (mind you, the United States hasn't been truly capitalist since before the 1880's, and even during the 1800's it wasn't REALLY capitalist, though capitalism was the ultimate goal, as can be seen by the intention of eventually eliminating slavery, a collectivist policy, and the intention of eliminating taxation once the national debt was paid).

While the 'poor' will always exist (just as a rich will, and the middle class- which was created by 1800's capitalism- will), abject poverty is the result of controlled-economies. The poorest nations of the world with the lowest standards of living are some of the most controlled economies. Freedom entails a higher standard of living, as well as a higher overall economic output. China, for example, has some economic freedom, but the economy is still, for the most part, reliant on the state: consequently, the standard of living remains rather low, while China is becoming an economic power to be reckoned with. European banks are unregulated in comparison to American ones: consequently, European banks are stronger.

The third world consists of impoverished totalitarian states. And, while this is, in many, but not all, cases, the cause of imperialism on the part of wealthier states, this imperialism is only justified by collective interest, rather than individual interest. A capitalist state is completely isolationist; its military is used defensively and, when it is deployed to a foreign battlefield, that war must be morally justifiable in defense of human rights. A (quasi)"free" nation has a moral right, but not necessarily obligation, to overthrow a totalitarian state (the United States had a moral right to overthrow Nazi Germany, yet not an obligation to do so. In fact, it would have been best to allow Nazi Germany and the USSR, as well as China and Japan, to fight, weakening the greatest slave-states of their era and not allowing future genocides to occur, then overthrowing their governments with a stronger military; capitalist states could be established, as a lack of military capabilities in foreign states would entail the inability of a tyrannical government to seize power).

Capitalism is isolationist, not imperialist (another reason why the United States is not capitalist).

The third world, when it is the consequence of another nation's actions at all, and not its own totalitarianism, is the consequence of imperialism, not the wealth and success of another state. Guatemala's horrid standard of living and genocidal history is the consequence of the United States' imperialistic policies, caused by corporatist collectivism, (along with Guatemala's own backward system of governance); Guatemala is not the consequence of some wealthy European bank or American car company.

[Jervak]

I never said it was authoritarian. That would just be stupid of me. I was saying that it's not freedom FOR those dying on the street.

While unemployment is the consequence of government, one has a right to not hire individuals.

That is what should be changed.

To: Jervak


The United States isn't capitalist. I've stated this over and over again.

No, America is capitalist. The thing is, however, that America - like all capitalist states - is not your so-called "pure" capitalism (for, pure capitalism is a purely ideological concept: it can not manifest itself). Some prefer the term "Market economy". It doesn't really matter. Though, to suggest it isn't capitalist or that it's Socialist indicates that you are ignorant of the way Modern Capitalism works, as well as how the American economy actually works. So I wouldn't be too worried about such a statement. Go to Somalia or Haiti for the best of what "Pure Capitalism" has to offer.

Capitalism IS individualism.

I see capitalism as collectivist. Corporations are collectivist in nature, and they succeed by appealing to the greatest number of people in certain sectors. Usually, this is done only for profit. Of course, they never justly acquired the property in the first place, the property was most likely handed down in land grabs or even given to them by the government. Microsoft, GE, and so on, have all had help from the government. So capitalism is inherently collectivist, and relies upon the collectivist government to protect itself. Thus, capitalist is anti-individualist anarchist.

Capitalists' version of taxation is rent; corporations become governments in and of themselves because they control so much of the resources; they acquire power and profit through property and prestige because this is supposedly a "natural right." Thus everybody else has to pay the corporate taxation in order to survive and get goods, and the "change" in government only comes when another corporate elite figures out how to compete effectively. But people are never equal enough to compete with the corporations. Thus, capitalism is anti-collectivist anarchist. (Contradiction? Yes. But the whole of Capitalism has contradictions)

Capitalism is also inherently statist, because it says that everybody must agree with THEIR definition of property (this concept is collectivist too btw...), and if anybody violates it, they're in the wrong. So they need some higher order (usually the govt.) to protect themselves. Thus, capitalism is anti-collectivist anarchist. Thus, capitalism is anti-anarchist altogether.

This is just stupid, no system can be right on everything or as pure as you make it out to be. That's why anarchists believe you should let the people themselves figure things out, probably through democracy (yes there will be mistakes at times, but no system can be perfect). So, capitalism is inherently collectivist, statist, tyrannical, and elitist, and the more you "privatize" things, the worse they seem to get. This is why many anarchists said that capitalism is one of the worst tyrannies imaginable. It's no surprise capitalism has only succeeded with the government's help and has failed miserably on its own.

Capitalism is derived from the state, and past tyrannical systems like feudalism, and it is derived from tyrants like Ludwig von Mises who are inherently statist idiots.

It is a fact that all individualist anarchists, as well as collectivist anarchists, opposed capitalism. That is the definition they have come up with.

You merely claim to be an individualist even though Spooner etc. would have seen you as a collectivist.

So you have come up with your own system that is out of line with the individualists considering you support collectivist institutions like corporations and so on.

Collectivism has proven useful in the sciences and so on, so I don't see why you'd oppose it. It's like not giving engineers the same set of measuring standards to build their building. It seems to me that some common agreement and so on can be a good thing, and you'd reject anything that doesn't make sense.

I am opposed to bad collectivism, though, make no mistake. Corporations, businesses capitalistic governments, etc., are all bad forms of collectivism, forcing people to accept outcomes that they probably wouldn't otherwise accept if they were free.

The role of the state is to defend the right to self-sovereignty.

The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class (Not the government, since both are controlled by the elite that you trust so much) of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule (Capitalism). Thus, it is only in a society which is divided between hostile social classes that the state exists.

In an individualist system, rights are guaranteed. They are not subject to the will of any entity.

Individualism is a buzzword. Humans are individuals, in the sense that we all have different preferences, favorite colors, and shit like that, and that's grand- nothing communists disagree with, but we're intrinsically collective animals- We enjoy being part of a group, both for the sense of belonging, and because working together vastly increases our productive power.

The reason 'individualism' gets tossed around so much in American political discourse is because it's an excuse for the decadence and vanities of the wealthy, because, as property owners, they are the only ones who really have the freedom to be individualistic.
Think about it. Us, as workers, have to wear their uniform 40 hours a week, and follow all their orders, lest we be fired. What little 'freedom' we have only exists off the clock, and even then, it largely depends on how threatened the government and big business feel (they're one and the same, after all). If you're a communist, you're going to be called 'anti-individualistic' because you disagree with one's right to do whatever they want at the expense of others, just because their wealth gives them a natural advantage over everyone else- their right to spend money on cosmetic surgery while the poor die of preventable diseases, to own multiple houses while the homeless sleep in cardboard boxes, and so on and so on...

As for free speech, it's not exactly something that you either 'have' or 'don't have'. It has to be viewed from a class perspective. I've been meaning to write a long diatribe about it, but I think this quote from Lenin should explain it pretty well

The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists. Even in the most democratic bourgeois republic 'freedom of assembly' is a hollow phrase, for the rich have the best public and private buildings at their disposal, and enough leisure to assemble at meetings, which are protected by the bourgeois machine of power. The rural and urban workers and small peasants -- the overwhelming majority of the population -- are denied all these things. As long as that state of affairs prevails, 'equality', i.e., 'pure democracy', is a fraud. 'Freedom of the press' is another of the principal slogans of 'pure democracy'. And here, too, the workers know -- and Socialists everywhere have explained millions of times -- that this freedom is a deception because the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists, and while capitalist rule over the press remains -- a rule that is manifested throughout the whole world all the more strikingly, sharply and cynically -- the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example... The capitalists have always use the term 'freedom' to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of 'pure democracy' prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement. .................................... V.I. Lenin, First Congress of the Communist International, 4th March 1919.

"Free speech" and such are only the rights people have fought for and won over time. Here's a concrete example: we have free speech until you go to a street corner near a Walmart to talk to workers there about forming a union - when the cops arrive suddenly you will find out that you actually don't have "free speech" in the abstract.

The third world isn't the cause of "free-market reforms" (mind you, the United States hasn't been truly capitalist since before the 1880's, and even during the 1800's it wasn't REALLY capitalist, though capitalism was the ultimate goal, as can be seen by the intention of eventually eliminating slavery, a collectivist policy, and the intention of eliminating taxation once the national debt was paid).

I think slavery in the Americas constituted a mode of production seperate from the capitalist sections. In terms of how labor was exploited, slavery as a system is very much distinct from capitalism.

While the 'poor' will always exist (just as a rich will, and the middle class- which was created by 1800's capitalism- will), abject poverty is the result of controlled-economies.

The poorest nations of the world with the lowest standards of living are some of the most controlled economies.[/quote]
Examples? But I worry that if I start correctly saying they are Capitalist you would just boast about your purely theoetical system that is really just Capitalism done the way that only you and Ron Paul want.

Freedom entails a higher standard of living, as well as a higher overall economic output.

Look: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Both unfree, but enormous economic successes.

China, for example, has some economic freedom, but the economy is still, for the most part, reliant on the state: consequently, the standard of living remains rather low, while China is becoming an economic power to be reckoned with. European banks are unregulated in comparison to American ones: consequently, European banks are stronger.

China is "State" Capitalist these days. By the way, regulated or not, Capitalism will fail millions of workers like it does every couple years or so.

The third world consists of impoverished totalitarian states.

Capitalist too though. Capitalism doesn't go hand in hand with democracy, quite the opposite. Capitalism is dictatorship of the workplace, socialism is democracy in the workplace.

Capitalism is isolationist, not imperialist (another reason why the United States is not capitalist).

Since WW2, the dominant foreign policy of the USA (WHICH IS CAPITALIST. I have to remind you every paragraph it seems) has always been to attack and pressure countries that for any reason were not open to free exploitation of their workers and resources by foreign capital coming into that country. The whole WTO-neoliberal regime expresses this approach. But it also works to the advantage of other advanced capitalist countries as well, as American butt-kicking enforces a world wide regime of open exploitation by capitals from the advanced capitalist countries. This is why the other major capitalist powers are sort of junior partners of the US.

Imperialism has basically two forms, economic and military. The economic form is where the dominant owners of capital are able to use that dominance to extort higher interest, have their big companies dominate or seize markets from smaller producers in the 3rd world, and so on. So there is an unequal exchange between core and peripheral countries, not only the military dominance of USA, which now is having a harder and harder time affording its role as supreme enforcer for the first world capitalists.

But the US was imperialist from the beginning. On that point I am in agreement. That's because the territorial states of the world vary in their power...in their ability to militarily and economically dominate others. The greater power of the US elite's state at the beginning of the 19th century was shown in their conquest of the lands of the Indian nations, their defeat of Mexico and seizure of its lands.

Even today there are smaller countries that nonethless dominate weaker neighbours and are a form of mini-imperialism...such as Israel in relation to Lebanon, or Vietnam in relation to Cambodia.

Imperialism is not just a product of capitalism but is created by the competitive struggle between territorial states, and thus existed before capitalism, though capitalism has greatly altered its character.

The third world, when it is the consequence of another nation's actions at all, and not its own totalitarianism, is the consequence of imperialism, not the wealth and success of another state. Guatemala's horrid standard of living and genocidal history is the consequence of the United States' imperialistic policies, caused by corporatist collectivism, (along with Guatemala's own backward system of governance); Guatemala is not the consequence of some wealthy European bank or American car company.

[/quote]
Are you blind to the fact that the policies of the United States are shaped by the companies? That the government is the right hand of these companies to tell the pawns they call the "Executive" and the "Legislative" what to do and make it beneficial to them.

[Sucrati]

I never said it was authoritarian. That would just be stupid of me. I was saying that it's not freedom FOR those dying on the street.

While unemployment is the consequence of government, one has a right to not hire individuals.

That is what should be changed.

So you would force a business owner to employ anyone and everyone in sight?

Fascist.


---


To: Jervak


The United States isn't capitalist. I've stated this over and over again.

Capitalism IS individualism.

To understand capitalism, one must understand INDIVIDUALISM.

Individualism is the idea that one man is entitled to himself and his property, and never subject to the will of another. This right to self and property is inviolable. It is the only philosophy that respects the dignity of a human person, and his ability to rule himself. As my self-created propaganda poster states, I am no slave.

The role of the state is to defend the right to self-sovereignty. Violence against women, blacks, or any other group is anti-capitalist: that is, it is anti-individualist. It violates individual rights, and is justified based on the collective will of a few individuals. These individuals' decisions are illogical, violent, and disregard individual rights. The right of all individuals to vote is also a capitalist one: it is anti-democratic. Democracy would entail the will of the majority of the voting block to disallow the rest the opportunity to vote. The dictatorship of the majority (sometimes known as the dictatorship of the proletariat) disregards the individual right to vote, which is based on the idea of the right to self-sovereignty and inherent rights, instead opting for the 'will of the majority' idea of oppression.

In an individualist system, rights are guaranteed. They are not subject to the will of any entity.

One should consider the fact, also, that the IDEA of labor unions are not intrinsically anti-capitalist. Bargaining is quite capitalist: the idea that individuals should gather and protest, thus exercising their individual rights to self-sovereignty, by not working is capitalist: it forces the employer, if he wants his business to succeed, to find a mid-ground with his employees.

There are cases, of course, in which unions have been anti-capitalist; that is, when they gain government influence. No entity, business, union, or individual, should have the ability to buy out the state.

Unions, in fact, were often built in order to establish white supremacist causes, by establishing collectivist legal policy that discriminated against certain groups. Many early labor unions were founded on ideals of racism and democratic oppression. While the idea of labor unions isn't anti-capitalist (that is, bargaining is quite capitalist), the ability of a union to hold special influence in state-affairs, thus allowing it to gain authority, is syndicalist and socialist.

The third world isn't the cause of "free-market reforms" (mind you, the United States hasn't been truly capitalist since before the 1880's, and even during the 1800's it wasn't REALLY capitalist, though capitalism was the ultimate goal, as can be seen by the intention of eventually eliminating slavery, a collectivist policy, and the intention of eliminating taxation once the national debt was paid).

While the 'poor' will always exist (just as a rich will, and the middle class- which was created by 1800's capitalism- will), abject poverty is the result of controlled-economies. The poorest nations of the world with the lowest standards of living are some of the most controlled economies. Freedom entails a higher standard of living, as well as a higher overall economic output. China, for example, has some economic freedom, but the economy is still, for the most part, reliant on the state: consequently, the standard of living remains rather low, while China is becoming an economic power to be reckoned with. European banks are unregulated in comparison to American ones: consequently, European banks are stronger.

The third world consists of impoverished totalitarian states. And, while this is, in many, but not all, cases, the cause of imperialism on the part of wealthier states, this imperialism is only justified by collective interest, rather than individual interest. A capitalist state is completely isolationist; its military is used defensively and, when it is deployed to a foreign battlefield, that war must be morally justifiable in defense of human rights. A (quasi)"free" nation has a moral right, but not necessarily obligation, to overthrow a totalitarian state (the United States had a moral right to overthrow Nazi Germany, yet not an obligation to do so. In fact, it would have been best to allow Nazi Germany and the USSR, as well as China and Japan, to fight, weakening the greatest slave-states of their era and not allowing future genocides to occur, then overthrowing their governments with a stronger military; capitalist states could be established, as a lack of military capabilities in foreign states would entail the inability of a tyrannical government to seize power).

Capitalism is isolationist, not imperialist (another reason why the United States is not capitalist).

The third world, when it is the consequence of another nation's actions at all, and not its own totalitarianism, is the consequence of imperialism, not the wealth and success of another state. Guatemala's horrid standard of living and genocidal history is the consequence of the United States' imperialistic policies, caused by corporatist collectivism, (along with Guatemala's own backward system of governance); Guatemala is not the consequence of some wealthy European bank or American car company.

Well Said

[Old Erisia]

I never said it was authoritarian. That would just be stupid of me. I was saying that it's not freedom FOR those dying on the street.

While unemployment is the consequence of government, one has a right to not hire individuals.

That is what should be changed.

So you would force a business owner to employ anyone and everyone in sight?

Fascist.


---


To: Jervak


The United States isn't capitalist. I've stated this over and over again.

Capitalism IS individualism.

To understand capitalism, one must understand INDIVIDUALISM.

Individualism is the idea that one man is entitled to himself and his property, and never subject to the will of another. This right to self and property is inviolable. It is the only philosophy that respects the dignity of a human person, and his ability to rule himself. As my self-created propaganda poster states, I am no slave.

The role of the state is to defend the right to self-sovereignty. Violence against women, blacks, or any other group is anti-capitalist: that is, it is anti-individualist. It violates individual rights, and is justified based on the collective will of a few individuals. These individuals' decisions are illogical, violent, and disregard individual rights. The right of all individuals to vote is also a capitalist one: it is anti-democratic. Democracy would entail the will of the majority of the voting block to disallow the rest the opportunity to vote. The dictatorship of the majority (sometimes known as the dictatorship of the proletariat) disregards the individual right to vote, which is based on the idea of the right to self-sovereignty and inherent rights, instead opting for the 'will of the majority' idea of oppression.

In an individualist system, rights are guaranteed. They are not subject to the will of any entity.

One should consider the fact, also, that the IDEA of labor unions are not intrinsically anti-capitalist. Bargaining is quite capitalist: the idea that individuals should gather and protest, thus exercising their individual rights to self-sovereignty, by not working is capitalist: it forces the employer, if he wants his business to succeed, to find a mid-ground with his employees.

There are cases, of course, in which unions have been anti-capitalist; that is, when they gain government influence. No entity, business, union, or individual, should have the ability to buy out the state.

Unions, in fact, were often built in order to establish white supremacist causes, by establishing collectivist legal policy that discriminated against certain groups. Many early labor unions were founded on ideals of racism and democratic oppression. While the idea of labor unions isn't anti-capitalist (that is, bargaining is quite capitalist), the ability of a union to hold special influence in state-affairs, thus allowing it to gain authority, is syndicalist and socialist.

The third world isn't the cause of "free-market reforms" (mind you, the United States hasn't been truly capitalist since before the 1880's, and even during the 1800's it wasn't REALLY capitalist, though capitalism was the ultimate goal, as can be seen by the intention of eventually eliminating slavery, a collectivist policy, and the intention of eliminating taxation once the national debt was paid).

While the 'poor' will always exist (just as a rich will, and the middle class- which was created by 1800's capitalism- will), abject poverty is the result of controlled-economies. The poorest nations of the world with the lowest standards of living are some of the most controlled economies. Freedom entails a higher standard of living, as well as a higher overall economic output. China, for example, has some economic freedom, but the economy is still, for the most part, reliant on the state: consequently, the standard of living remains rather low, while China is becoming an economic power to be reckoned with. European banks are unregulated in comparison to American ones: consequently, European banks are stronger.

The third world consists of impoverished totalitarian states. And, while this is, in many, but not all, cases, the cause of imperialism on the part of wealthier states, this imperialism is only justified by collective interest, rather than individual interest. A capitalist state is completely isolationist; its military is used defensively and, when it is deployed to a foreign battlefield, that war must be morally justifiable in defense of human rights. A (quasi)"free" nation has a moral right, but not necessarily obligation, to overthrow a totalitarian state (the United States had a moral right to overthrow Nazi Germany, yet not an obligation to do so. In fact, it would have been best to allow Nazi Germany and the USSR, as well as China and Japan, to fight, weakening the greatest slave-states of their era and not allowing future genocides to occur, then overthrowing their governments with a stronger military; capitalist states could be established, as a lack of military capabilities in foreign states would entail the inability of a tyrannical government to seize power).

Capitalism is isolationist, not imperialist (another reason why the United States is not capitalist).

The third world, when it is the consequence of another nation's actions at all, and not its own totalitarianism, is the consequence of imperialism, not the wealth and success of another state. Guatemala's horrid standard of living and genocidal history is the consequence of the United States' imperialistic policies, caused by corporatist collectivism, (along with Guatemala's own backward system of governance); Guatemala is not the consequence of some wealthy European bank or American car company.

Well Said

Way to ignore Jervak's equally well thought out rebuttal...

[Karsol]

Social libertarian, liberty extends further than mere economics.

[Abdju]

Neither left nor right really describe my politics very well. C'est la vie...

[West Germanic Nations]

I place myself outside of the classical spectrum, because I really have a hard time fitting in most parts.

Otherwise signature.

[New Wroclaw]

Centre-left...Social democracy.

[Sucrati]

I never said it was authoritarian. That would just be stupid of me. I was saying that it's not freedom FOR those dying on the street.

While unemployment is the consequence of government, one has a right to not hire individuals.

That is what should be changed.

So you would force a business owner to employ anyone and everyone in sight?

Fascist.


---


To: Jervak


The United States isn't capitalist. I've stated this over and over again.

Capitalism IS individualism.

To understand capitalism, one must understand INDIVIDUALISM.

Individualism is the idea that one man is entitled to himself and his property, and never subject to the will of another. This right to self and property is inviolable. It is the only philosophy that respects the dignity of a human person, and his ability to rule himself. As my self-created propaganda poster states, I am no slave.

The role of the state is to defend the right to self-sovereignty. Violence against women, blacks, or any other group is anti-capitalist: that is, it is anti-individualist. It violates individual rights, and is justified based on the collective will of a few individuals. These individuals' decisions are illogical, violent, and disregard individual rights. The right of all individuals to vote is also a capitalist one: it is anti-democratic. Democracy would entail the will of the majority of the voting block to disallow the rest the opportunity to vote. The dictatorship of the majority (sometimes known as the dictatorship of the proletariat) disregards the individual right to vote, which is based on the idea of the right to self-sovereignty and inherent rights, instead opting for the 'will of the majority' idea of oppression.

In an individualist system, rights are guaranteed. They are not subject to the will of any entity.

One should consider the fact, also, that the IDEA of labor unions are not intrinsically anti-capitalist. Bargaining is quite capitalist: the idea that individuals should gather and protest, thus exercising their individual rights to self-sovereignty, by not working is capitalist: it forces the employer, if he wants his business to succeed, to find a mid-ground with his employees.

There are cases, of course, in which unions have been anti-capitalist; that is, when they gain government influence. No entity, business, union, or individual, should have the ability to buy out the state.

Unions, in fact, were often built in order to establish white supremacist causes, by establishing collectivist legal policy that discriminated against certain groups. Many early labor unions were founded on ideals of racism and democratic oppression. While the idea of labor unions isn't anti-capitalist (that is, bargaining is quite capitalist), the ability of a union to hold special influence in state-affairs, thus allowing it to gain authority, is syndicalist and socialist.

The third world isn't the cause of "free-market reforms" (mind you, the United States hasn't been truly capitalist since before the 1880's, and even during the 1800's it wasn't REALLY capitalist, though capitalism was the ultimate goal, as can be seen by the intention of eventually eliminating slavery, a collectivist policy, and the intention of eliminating taxation once the national debt was paid).

While the 'poor' will always exist (just as a rich will, and the middle class- which was created by 1800's capitalism- will), abject poverty is the result of controlled-economies. The poorest nations of the world with the lowest standards of living are some of the most controlled economies. Freedom entails a higher standard of living, as well as a higher overall economic output. China, for example, has some economic freedom, but the economy is still, for the most part, reliant on the state: consequently, the standard of living remains rather low, while China is becoming an economic power to be reckoned with. European banks are unregulated in comparison to American ones: consequently, European banks are stronger.

The third world consists of impoverished totalitarian states. And, while this is, in many, but not all, cases, the cause of imperialism on the part of wealthier states, this imperialism is only justified by collective interest, rather than individual interest. A capitalist state is completely isolationist; its military is used defensively and, when it is deployed to a foreign battlefield, that war must be morally justifiable in defense of human rights. A (quasi)"free" nation has a moral right, but not necessarily obligation, to overthrow a totalitarian state (the United States had a moral right to overthrow Nazi Germany, yet not an obligation to do so. In fact, it would have been best to allow Nazi Germany and the USSR, as well as China and Japan, to fight, weakening the greatest slave-states of their era and not allowing future genocides to occur, then overthrowing their governments with a stronger military; capitalist states could be established, as a lack of military capabilities in foreign states would entail the inability of a tyrannical government to seize power).

Capitalism is isolationist, not imperialist (another reason why the United States is not capitalist).

The third world, when it is the consequence of another nation's actions at all, and not its own totalitarianism, is the consequence of imperialism, not the wealth and success of another state. Guatemala's horrid standard of living and genocidal history is the consequence of the United States' imperialistic policies, caused by corporatist collectivism, (along with Guatemala's own backward system of governance); Guatemala is not the consequence of some wealthy European bank or American car company.

Well Said

Way to ignore Jervak's equally well thought out rebuttal...

Yes, because his rebuttal describes a version of social justice and collectivism, not what the founding fathers of the USA wanted, they believed in individual rights and equal justice under the law, I didn't ignore it, I agreed with the original from Augarundus, I read the rebuttal, but didn't want to say anything against it, people have the right to choose what they want to be, they don't always have to agree with each other.

Although he is correct about the companies having hold of Washington, Freddie and Fannie are the biggest culprits, hence they weren't even touched in the 'financial reform' bill.

[Jervak]

Yes, because his rebuttal describes a version of social justice and collectivism, not what the founding fathers of the USA wanted, they believed in individual rights and equal justice under the law,

Yeah, the founding fathers were great. Wiped out the indigenous peoples, stole their land and then got a bunch of peasant farmers and workers convinced to fight for freedom, when what it really was about was freedom from any taxation, and the right to grab land and resources.

After defeating England, what did the peasant farmers, workers, indigenous Indians, and women actually get? A new boss...same as the old boss that's what.

Jefferson at one point owned about 300 slaves. In the day, when a "master" died, sometimes, they would free their slaves. Jefferson freed one on his death. He passed the rest on like equity. Truly a great deed for a man that believed all men were created equal eh?

[Vandengaarde]

Yes, because his rebuttal describes a version of social justice and collectivism, not what the founding fathers of the USA wanted, they believed in individual rights and equal justice under the law,

Yeah, the founding fathers were great. Wiped out the indigenous peoples, stole their land and then got a bunch of peasant farmers and workers convinced to fight for freedom, when what it really was about was freedom from any taxation, and the right to grab land and resources.

After defeating England, what did the peasant farmers, workers, indigenous Indians, and women actually get? A new boss...same as the old boss that's what.

Jefferson at one point owned about 300 slaves. In the day, when a "master" died, sometimes, they would free their slaves. Jefferson freed one on his death. He passed the rest on like equity. Truly a great deed for a man that believed all men were created equal eh?

No, most of them passed their slaves on to their sons.
Washington told his slaves they would be free when his wife died, but she let them go because they scared her. That's one of the only exceptions I have ever heard of.

[Vervaria]

Yes, because his rebuttal describes a version of social justice and collectivism, not what the founding fathers of the USA wanted, they believed in individual rights and equal justice under the law,

Yeah, the founding fathers were great. Wiped out the indigenous peoples, stole their land and then got a bunch of peasant farmers and workers convinced to fight for freedom, when what it really was about was freedom from any taxation, and the right to grab land and resources.

After defeating England, what did the peasant farmers, workers, indigenous Indians, and women actually get? A new boss...same as the old boss that's what.

Jefferson at one point owned about 300 slaves. In the day, when a "master" died, sometimes, they would free their slaves. Jefferson freed one on his death. He passed the rest on like equity. Truly a great deed for a man that believed all men were created equal eh?

No, most of them passed their slaves on to their sons.
Washington told his slaves they would be free when his wife died, but she let them go because they scared her. That's one of the only exceptions I have ever heard of.

Adams was a abolitionist, and I think Hamilton was too.

[Vandengaarde]

Yes, because his rebuttal describes a version of social justice and collectivism, not what the founding fathers of the USA wanted, they believed in individual rights and equal justice under the law,

Yeah, the founding fathers were great. Wiped out the indigenous peoples, stole their land and then got a bunch of peasant farmers and workers convinced to fight for freedom, when what it really was about was freedom from any taxation, and the right to grab land and resources.

After defeating England, what did the peasant farmers, workers, indigenous Indians, and women actually get? A new boss...same as the old boss that's what.

Jefferson at one point owned about 300 slaves. In the day, when a "master" died, sometimes, they would free their slaves. Jefferson freed one on his death. He passed the rest on like equity. Truly a great deed for a man that believed all men were created equal eh?

No, most of them passed their slaves on to their sons.
Washington told his slaves they would be free when his wife died, but she let them go because they scared her. That's one of the only exceptions I have ever heard of.

Adams was a abolitionist, and I think Hamilton was too.

You misread me, I meant most slave-owners passed slaves down through their family after death.

[The Grand World Order]

Far right, technically.

Economically, Italian Fascism is centrist.

[Wolffbaden]

Center Right, very much Authoritarian.

[Sucrati]

Yes, because his rebuttal describes a version of social justice and collectivism, not what the founding fathers of the USA wanted, they believed in individual rights and equal justice under the law,

Yeah, the founding fathers were great. Wiped out the indigenous peoples, stole their land and then got a bunch of peasant farmers and workers convinced to fight for freedom, when what it really was about was freedom from any taxation, and the right to grab land and resources.

After defeating England, what did the peasant farmers, workers, indigenous Indians, and women actually get? A new boss...same as the old boss that's what.

Jefferson at one point owned about 300 slaves. In the day, when a "master" died, sometimes, they would free their slaves. Jefferson freed one on his death. He passed the rest on like equity. Truly a great deed for a man that believed all men were created equal eh?

Why don't people know the truth...

Most of the founding fathers didn't have slaves
Most weren't even rich
Washington Didn't even want to be President, he wanted to stay home, but the American people wanted him as their leader, he even told them he didn't want to be a king.
We always focus on the bad, you do know that the reason why slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person so the slave states would get less representatives, and the actual people fighting for equal rights could get rid of slavery?
The topic of ending slavery was brought up time and time again, but the government had to allow the slave states to keep slaves so they would join the Union, the topic of ending slavery was discussed since this country was founded!
No, the freedom was from taxation without representation (Boston Tea Party), not taxation in general, also Great Britain set a boundary in 1763 (If I remember it correctly) that no white settler could move past it.

I admit that people aren't perfect, but what was in the past shouldn't be changed, however we have learned that the founding fathers were considered bad people or 'evil' in a sense, most of that are lies!

I would suggest you watch the 'Founding Fridays' series by Glenn beck, however most people think he's loony, even if he has been correct (along with others) about what has happened in government.

The history rewritten the Progressive Era (Wilson) was to tear apart our founding principles, establish social justice, destroy the essentials of faith, morals, and charity.

Yes, I watch Glenn Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly, I listen to the Right-Wing Radio shows, so what? Everyone has their own points and if they find something they agree upon with someone else, they'll listen to that side more than the other.

The founding principles that were forged from people who wanted no tyranny in our society, Faith, Charity, Honor, Integrity, and everything that the founding fathers established years ago upon signing the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, have been perverted by people who want to destroy this country from the inside out!

We need to go back to that time, why do you think that people immigrated here, sure, life wasn't great but it was better here in the USA, back then when things were about individual rights and being someone.

We need to go back on what the basis of the country was founded upon, equality under the law, equal justice under the law, and individual rights!

[New Huxlian Orwell]

Yes, because his rebuttal describes a version of social justice and collectivism, not what the founding fathers of the USA wanted, they believed in individual rights and equal justice under the law, I didn't ignore it, I agreed with the original from Augarundus, I read the rebuttal, but didn't want to say anything against it, people have the right to choose what they want to be, they don't always have to agree with each other.

Although he is correct about the companies having hold of Washington, Freddie and Fannie are the biggest culprits, hence they weren't even touched in the 'financial reform' bill.

Ridiculous. I laugh every time a rightist tries to fall back "on what the founders wanted". What a load of bullshit. The founders weren't into groupthink. They were intellectually diverse, and were of many many differing opinions on matters of government and economy. Thomas Paine, one of the most prolific members of that group known as the founders, was quite leftist in his thinking. Read his pamphlet "Agrarian Justice" if you don't believe me. If you are going to argue a point, argue the damn point from a rational argument, do not use the argument from antiquity fallacy, and most important, stop besmirching the names of the founders with your self righteous drivel.

[Georgism]

Why don't people know the truth...

Most of the founding fathers didn't have slaves
Most weren't even rich
Washington Didn't even want to be President, he wanted to stay home, but the American people wanted him as their leader, he even told them he didn't want to be a king.
We always focus on the bad, you do know that the reason why slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person so the slave states would get less representatives, and the actual people fighting for equal rights could get rid of slavery?
The topic of ending slavery was brought up time and time again, but the government had to allow the slave states to keep slaves so they would join the Union, the topic of ending slavery was discussed since this country was founded!
No, the freedom was from taxation without representation (Boston Tea Party), not taxation in general, also Great Britain set a boundary in 1763 (If I remember it correctly) that no white settler could move past it.

I admit that people aren't perfect, but what was in the past shouldn't be changed, however we have learned that the founding fathers were considered bad people or 'evil' in a sense, most of that are lies!

I would suggest you watch the 'Founding Fridays' series by Glenn beck, however most people think he's loony, even if he has been correct (along with others) about what has happened in government.

The history rewritten the Progressive Era (Wilson) was to tear apart our founding principles, establish social justice, destroy the essentials of faith, morals, and charity.

Yes, I watch Glenn Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly, I listen to the Right-Wing Radio shows, so what? Everyone has their own points and if they find something they agree upon with someone else, they'll listen to that side more than the other.

The founding principles that were forged from people who wanted no tyranny in our society, Faith, Charity, Honor, Integrity, and everything that the founding fathers established years ago upon signing the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, have been perverted by people who want to destroy this country from the inside out!

We need to go back to that time, why do you think that people immigrated here, sure, life wasn't great but it was better here in the USA, back then when things were about individual rights and being someone.

We need to go back on what the basis of the country was founded upon, equality under the law, equal justice under the law, and individual rights!

[Wolffbaden]

Yes, because his rebuttal describes a version of social justice and collectivism, not what the founding fathers of the USA wanted, they believed in individual rights and equal justice under the law,

Yeah, the founding fathers were great. Wiped out the indigenous peoples, stole their land and then got a bunch of peasant farmers and workers convinced to fight for freedom, when what it really was about was freedom from any taxation, and the right to grab land and resources.

After defeating England, what did the peasant farmers, workers, indigenous Indians, and women actually get? A new boss...same as the old boss that's what.

Jefferson at one point owned about 300 slaves. In the day, when a "master" died, sometimes, they would free their slaves. Jefferson freed one on his death. He passed the rest on like equity. Truly a great deed for a man that believed all men were created equal eh?

Why don't people know the truth...

Most of the founding fathers didn't have slaves
Most weren't even rich
Washington Didn't even want to be President, he wanted to stay home, but the American people wanted him as their leader, he even told them he didn't want to be a king.
We always focus on the bad, you do know that the reason why slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person so the slave states would get less representatives, and the actual people fighting for equal rights could get rid of slavery?
The topic of ending slavery was brought up time and time again, but the government had to allow the slave states to keep slaves so they would join the Union, the topic of ending slavery was discussed since this country was founded!
No, the freedom was from taxation without representation (Boston Tea Party), not taxation in general, also Great Britain set a boundary in 1763 (If I remember it correctly) that no white settler could move past it.

I admit that people aren't perfect, but what was in the past shouldn't be changed, however we have learned that the founding fathers were considered bad people or 'evil' in a sense, most of that are lies!

I would suggest you watch the 'Founding Fridays' series by Glenn beck, however most people think he's loony, even if he has been correct (along with others) about what has happened in government.

The history rewritten the Progressive Era (Wilson) was to tear apart our founding principles, establish social justice, destroy the essentials of faith, morals, and charity.

Yes, I watch Glenn Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly, I listen to the Right-Wing Radio shows, so what? Everyone has their own points and if they find something they agree upon with someone else, they'll listen to that side more than the other.

The founding principles that were forged from people who wanted no tyranny in our society, Faith, Charity, Honor, Integrity, and everything that the founding fathers established years ago upon signing the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, have been perverted by people who want to destroy this country from the inside out!

We need to go back to that time, why do you think that people immigrated here, sure, life wasn't great but it was better here in the USA, back then when things were about individual rights and being someone.

We need to go back on what the basis of the country was founded upon, equality under the law, equal justice under the law, and individual rights!

[Vervaria]

Why don't people know the truth...

Most of the founding fathers didn't have slaves
Most weren't even rich
Washington Didn't even want to be President, he wanted to stay home, but the American people wanted him as their leader, he even told them he didn't want to be a king.
We always focus on the bad, you do know that the reason why slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person so the slave states would get less representatives, and the actual people fighting for equal rights could get rid of slavery?
The topic of ending slavery was brought up time and time again, but the government had to allow the slave states to keep slaves so they would join the Union, the topic of ending slavery was discussed since this country was founded!
No, the freedom was from taxation without representation (Boston Tea Party), not taxation in general, also Great Britain set a boundary in 1763 (If I remember it correctly) that no white settler could move past it.

I admit that people aren't perfect, but what was in the past shouldn't be changed, however we have learned that the founding fathers were considered bad people or 'evil' in a sense, most of that are lies!

I would suggest you watch the 'Founding Fridays' series by Glenn beck, however most people think he's loony, even if he has been correct (along with others) about what has happened in government.

The history rewritten the Progressive Era (Wilson) was to tear apart our founding principles, establish social justice, destroy the essentials of faith, morals, and charity.

Yes, I watch Glenn Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly, I listen to the Right-Wing Radio shows, so what? Everyone has their own points and if they find something they agree upon with someone else, they'll listen to that side more than the other.

The founding principles that were forged from people who wanted no tyranny in our society, Faith, Charity, Honor, Integrity, and everything that the founding fathers established years ago upon signing the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, have been perverted by people who want to destroy this country from the inside out!

We need to go back to that time, why do you think that people immigrated here, sure, life wasn't great but it was better here in the USA, back then when things were about individual rights and being someone.

We need to go back on what the basis of the country was founded upon, equality under the law, equal justice under the law, and individual rights!

If I could sig that, I would. It's hilarious.

[Wolffbaden]

Why don't people know the truth...

Most of the founding fathers didn't have slaves
Most weren't even rich
Washington Didn't even want to be President, he wanted to stay home, but the American people wanted him as their leader, he even told them he didn't want to be a king.
We always focus on the bad, you do know that the reason why slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person so the slave states would get less representatives, and the actual people fighting for equal rights could get rid of slavery?
The topic of ending slavery was brought up time and time again, but the government had to allow the slave states to keep slaves so they would join the Union, the topic of ending slavery was discussed since this country was founded!
No, the freedom was from taxation without representation (Boston Tea Party), not taxation in general, also Great Britain set a boundary in 1763 (If I remember it correctly) that no white settler could move past it.

I admit that people aren't perfect, but what was in the past shouldn't be changed, however we have learned that the founding fathers were considered bad people or 'evil' in a sense, most of that are lies!

I would suggest you watch the 'Founding Fridays' series by Glenn beck, however most people think he's loony, even if he has been correct (along with others) about what has happened in government.

The history rewritten the Progressive Era (Wilson) was to tear apart our founding principles, establish social justice, destroy the essentials of faith, morals, and charity.

Yes, I watch Glenn Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly, I listen to the Right-Wing Radio shows, so what? Everyone has their own points and if they find something they agree upon with someone else, they'll listen to that side more than the other.

The founding principles that were forged from people who wanted no tyranny in our society, Faith, Charity, Honor, Integrity, and everything that the founding fathers established years ago upon signing the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, have been perverted by people who want to destroy this country from the inside out!

We need to go back to that time, why do you think that people immigrated here, sure, life wasn't great but it was better here in the USA, back then when things were about individual rights and being someone.

We need to go back on what the basis of the country was founded upon, equality under the law, equal justice under the law, and individual rights!

If I could sig that, I would. It's hilarious.

Sig a link to it.

[Jervak]

Yes, I watch Glenn Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly, I listen to the Right-Wing Radio shows, so what?

Yes what. Argument over, Mr. true Amurikan.