America practices FALSE Capitalism.

[Meldread]

I hate it when people call the United States a capitalist nation. It isn't. Not if you define Capitalism as having free and open markets. What we have in the United States is not capitalism as I'd describe it, instead we have technically what is known as a "mixed" economy. However, that economy has evolved into something horrible: Corporatism.

I understand the hate and anger that many have for the way things operate in the United States. I count myself among that number. However, I do not consider myself a socialist or a communist as some do, I consider myself a TRUE Capitalist.

In my view here is 1/3rd of the problem with our nation summed up neatly here.

- The government has granted corporations personhood. This is entirely a government construct, and without government intervention granting this privilege the leaders of many businesses would be held accountable for their actions. The government intervention in this area takes away personal responsibility, and when you take away personal responsibility, the only thing that can result is irresponsibility.

- The government protects so-called intellectual property through copyrights, patents, and trademarks. This has the side effect of creating monopolies. Why should a business be able to patent genes that exist in nature? Why should a musician be able to copyright their songs? When you sing that song for someone else, you're sharing it. When you sell a CD you no longer hold the rights to it. Once you sell something, it no longer belongs to you, and unless you had a contractual agreement before the sale the buyer is free to do as they wish.

- The government protects and rewards business. Because businesses know they can receive rewards and benefits from the government, they turn to the government for assistance and aid. A business should fail or succeed on its own merits; not on the aid it is able to enlist from the government. This all creates politicians who are bought and sold, and creates a system in which lobbyists thrive.

These three things are the source of much of the issues in our system surrounding business. Each of them are created by the government. There are times when government is needed, but in my view when government intervenes it is almost ALWAYS on the side of business.

We see clear evidence of this during the healthcare debates. Healthcare is one area where some government is needed in the marketplace. Yet, they've tried to reconcile the need to aid American's with healthcare, with allowing Health Insurance Companies to suckle at the government teat. And boy, are they suckling away. There are so many backwards laws that protect health insurance companies, that I'm willing to bet if there was simply a bill that removed the majority of the laws favoring these companies that we'd see a massive drop in insurance cost.

In almost every case in which the government injects itself into the market, it's to give an advantage to one business or another (knowingly or unknowingly; intentionally or unintentionally).

I am, and will forever be, against government providing any aid to business. In my eyes, the major difference between communism and corporatism is where the power rests. In corporatism it rests in the hands of semi-private, governmentally protected business. In communism it rests in the hands of the government. Both lead (in my view) to the same ends, even if they take different routes.

If someone thinks I'm wrong in my view, I'm happy to listen and debate the issue.

[TwixVoy]

1. You are totally right

[KT2000]

2. My friend from China

thinks the US is very hypocritical in its subsidizing of corporations.
She actually thinks it is funny and disingenuous considering the myth the US attempts to sell to the world.
I agree with her. It is a sham.

[girl gone mad]

7. For all its faults, China does have real capitalism.

Their government is totalitarian, but at the street level, China the most capitalistic place I've ever been to. People are free to sell almost anything (that's legal), anytime. Buyers can haggle down the price of everything. If you want to set up shop, there is usually little bureaucracy standing in your way. The government does prop up certain businesses, but generally not at the expense of competition. Ironically, I think that because some government officials take bribes under the table rather than through the convoluted legalized "lobbying" scheme we have here, it's a more open playing field.

It's kind of like the wild west was, I imagine.

[JDPriestly]

12. An environmental catastrophe.

Many of our regulations are there to protect individuals from lying salesmen, to protect the health and safety of employees and to protect the environment. The free market did not meet these needs. That is why regulation was begun.

Unfortunately, businesses buy the regulations they want in some case and thus thwart the purpose of the regulations.

[Meldread]

15. Which is exactly why it should be left to the hands of individuals.

To give an example:

If a company spills a toxic chemical in your yard, you should be able to sue them for any damages and however much would be required to clean up or relocate. This should be based on facts in a court of law.

However, in some cases, if a toxic chemical is dumped in your yard, the company can then proclaim that they were following government regulation. It can even go as far as to claim that the toxic chemical is not as bad as it's made out to be, because the government says this or that about it. All the while, of course, this company has paid politicians to pass those favorable regulations and to maintain that stance regarding the chemical. As a result, your chances of victory in a court of law are DRAMATICALLY reduced.

In my view, things like handling CO2 aren't handled by politicians; they're handled by judges. If evidence is brought forth that proves CO2 is dangerous, that it has a negative impact on a person and their property then that individual deserves to be compensated. This effectively means if you emit large amounts of CO2 you're going to be paying lots of people, and the prices of your product is going to rise dramatically.

This in turn has the beneficial effect of making renewable energy sources more attractive and affordable by comparison. It also means that in order to lower their costs to be competitive, the businesses emitting the CO2 would have to find a way to reduce their emissions dramatically.

This type of system solves all of our regulatory needs when it comes to the environment, except against the government (the biggest polluter). Government officials are granted sovereign immunity, and suing the government is somewhat counter productive because you fund the government with taxes. So in essence, you'd be suing yourself. One way to handle aspects of the government that pollute heavily is to privatize them, so we can then go after them as we would any other business. Forcing competition will spur innovation and price reduction, ultimately benefiting us all around by not only reducing pollution, but by costing us less in the long run via taxes.

There are some cases I believe that government intervention and regulation is needed. Healthcare is one such area, but I support something similar to the French model rather than a Canadian or British model. The French have heavily incorporated market forces within their healthcare system, and they have perhaps the best healthcare anywhere in the world. I think it would be better to create an exchange of non-profit (but private) groups, all in competition with one another, with the government providing a framework to share burden across the private groups. There is more to how I would like to see healthcare reformed, but that would solve a large chunk of it.

[gmoney]

44. They're also free to sell stuff that is illegal...

Bootleg software and entertainment, counterfeit brand name products of all descriptions, food with non-food ingredients, fake pharmaceuticals, toxic drywall, toys and jewelry with toxic components, the list goes on and on. Largely manufactured by workers receiving slave wages in hazardous working environments with virtually no environmental restraint.

China's "capitalism" seems to be largely the product of sociopaths. No wonder American corporations love sending US factories and jobs over there.

[Warpy]

3. I'm in sort of a mushy middle here

because I supported the bank and auto industry bailouts. I just thought they needed to come with strings the size of suspension bridge cables, especially the former.

The bailouts were loans. They were given to industries that would damage the country terribly if they failed.

The banking bailouts have got to be the end for them. Since they can't be trusted to act responsibly, they need re regulation, strict re regulation, starting with the passage of a new Glass-Steagall bill to separate banking from the riskier investment industry and end that particular conflict of interest.

Antitrust laws need to be invoked to break up the megabanks. Too big to fail means too big to exist.

A Federal Reserve in private hands and with little oversight is a bad idea. We need a full audit of that institution and nationalization if necessary.

The auto industry was another matter. Clearly the management at GM needed to have the fear of governmental retribution put into them and having the CEO dumped as a prerequisite for that loan was a good start.

The natural processes of capitalism lead to wealth concentration and monopoly and that is exactly what has happened. We need to scrape money off the plutocrats, invoke antitrust laws to break up monopolistic businesses in banking and insurance, and invest where they won't, in the USA.

Only then can we get away from corporatism and into a more healthy mixed economy with all of us sharing the wealth we produce.

[Meldread]

5. I agree and dissagree on some points.

It was actually the bank and auto bailouts that really got me to examine my political views on economics. In the past, I was sort of a drifting capitalist / semi-socialist. Most of my political attention was focused upon social issues.

Ultimately, I suppose it was inevitable for my view of social issues to ultimately influence my view on economics. On social issues I'm staunchly against government meddling, and I am a strong defender of civil liberties (and the expansion of them).

When I attempted to educate myself on economic matters, one thing kept coming back again and again: the government was the source of 98% or more of the problem. For example, it could easily be argued that the banking system NEEDED to be bailed out. Yet, at the same time too big to fail ONLY existed in the first place because of the government and its policies.

When we bailed out the banks, did we solve the problem of too big to fail? No. We actually caused some of these banks to get BIGGER.

My concern when it came to banking bail outs was not for the mega banks. It's how their fall would have impacted the smaller banks and large businesses (who employ millions). Yet, at the same time I think by not allowing these banks to fail it is perhaps the source of the lagging unemployment. In order for these huge giant banks to pay back the bail outs, they had to recapitalize with private money. This effectively sucked billions upon billions of dollars out of the private market. Because these banks still hold their toxic assets, they can't and won't lend. ...and they shouldn't! Because if they began lending they'd end up right back where they started when we had to bail them out.

I think the best way to have handled the situation would have been to try and liquidate these banks in some type of specially structured bankruptcy. Then money could have been used to shore up deposits that people had in these banks (so people didn't lose money), and money could have been used to shore up smaller banks to prevent some type of domino effect. This would have ended too big to fail, and would have in turn freed up the private money that is flowing into these mega banks to keep them floating, to instead flow back into the market.

Things would have hurt more in the beginning, but I think the economy would have eventually bounced back and we wouldn't see this lag in job creation.

The auto-bail outs are tougher, but I think structured bankruptcy was the way out for them as well. It would have been bad, and might have led to the virtual end of American designed cars... but we have to keep in mind that in some places in this country foreign companies DO have people working to make new cars. I don't think we'll ever get the money back from the auto-bail outs.

Ultimately, where I think we have the most disagreement is when it comes to our view of monopolies. If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe that monopolies occur naturally. I don't view that as the case. I view monopolies as occurring as a result of government intervention. Something as simple as creating a false class of ownership such as "intellectual property" virtually ensures it. It may be hard to imagine an economy without such things, but it would function better than most think. In the long view of our worlds history, intellectual property is a recent invention. People won't stop making or creating things. I'm even willing to bend somewhat on the issue, and support some type of interim system which allows businesses to adjust their business models before pulling the plug entirely.

For example, rather than giving exclusive monopoly rights to a drug company, we'd instead guarantee payback and something like 5% interest based upon their investment in creating a drug. This would mean that any drug created would automatically become generic, but would also ensure that a drug company could recover the losses and make a profit as the drugs are sold. However, the greatest benefit would be the insanely cheap prices consumers would be able to get.

In the end, I don't think "modern socialism" works very well because it still relies heavily on markets. It's very hard to control markets, because they are dynamic, complex, and always changing. The laws you create will almost always have unintended consequences, and more often than not will be more destructive than productive. When the government must intervene in the market, it should always be on the side of the consumer, and only then when absolutely necessary.

[newspeak]

58. regulations should be in place to protect the public

Yeah, a neighbor dumps toxic chemicals in your yard and you sue--but the damage is done. How about when corporations are irresponsible and produce shoddy products that kill hundreds of people? It is through regulations that keeps that from happening--when you have a government that weakens those regulations, that's when we have people harmed in the public. During the Spanish-American war when the robber barons ruled--more of our soldiers died from contaminated meat and bad weapons. The company knew they sold contaminated meat to our troops--what did they get for killing some of our soldiers? A fine. It was premeditated-they should have been sent to prison. I do not agree with you about regulation--the S&L debacle was because we had the foxes guarding the henhouse--we had de-regulation. The banking turmoil today is because of de-regulation. You have this "buyer beware" type thought and I totally disagree. It is our government that is SUPPOSED to protect us from some of the worst greedy, sociopathic corporations.

I do agree, however, that corporations should have never received personhood. And since they have it, then they should suffer the consequences. If the auto industry finds a flaw in their vehicles and determines how much it would cost to fix it over how many people will die and they use it for their basis to not fix the problem, then I consider it premeditated murder. To me, it is no different than someone taking shots at the public, randomly killing people they do not know. They are estimating how many people may die from their defective product. If they know their product is defective or poisoned, and do nothing, then they should be tried for murder.

[Meldread]

59. I think we agree, but are coming at it from two different angles.

I absolutely agree that a company's product that kills people should have managers, CEO's and Boards of Directors (and anyone else who knew but did nothing to stop it) on trial for murder. Hell! Do you remember the baby milk powder contaminated with chemicals sold in China? It resulted in the deaths of some children, and China just EXECUTED two of the heads of that business. They EXECUTED them. In the United States, they would have been able to hide behind corporate personhood. Remember when we had the contaminated peanut butter? Did anyone even go to jail over that? I don't think so. More on the China story http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8375638.stm">here.

However, I think we're coming at this from two different angles. We're in total agreement that this type of behavior is unacceptable. But I'm coming at it from this point of view:

Businesses lobby to set regulations favorable to them. Regulations that are favorable to business almost certainly are not favorable to consumers. In the case of dangerous products, especially products that kill, if a business is following these regulations and people die the families will have a difficult time getting any restitution from either the heads of the business or the business itself. Why? Because the business can hide behind the government regulations, claiming that they were fully compliant.

What I am advocating is not the abandonment of regulation, but rather crafting a system that empowers consumers and victims to obtain restitution from business and business leaders who cause harm. This means if you're product kills someone, you can find yourself going to prison if you were negligent, and at the very least, you'll be paying the families something to make restitution for the loss.

When you empower individuals to handle it, and businesses KNOW that they'll be LEGALLY held accountable it'll actually function BETTER (in my view) than the way we currently handle regulation. Instead of a business going down a government check list, attempting to achieve what is minimally required of them - a race to the bottom if you will - they'll actually go FURTHER to cover their own asses. It's in their self-interest to do so.

So I am not advocating a lack of responsibility, but rather support empowering individuals to hold businesses accountable.

[newspeak]

60. we need agencies to test and protect the population from tainted products

it is too late if the product is already distributed to the public--thus, we cannot depend on corporations to police themselves. What you are saying is those agencies would be at the hands of a consumer group. Would the government allow a consumer group to have the power to test products before they are distributed or to go into a facility to inspect it?

[Meldread]

61. That's different than regulation as I'd define it.

When I say regulation, I'm defining it as: You are only allowed to emit X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.

However, you're correct in that regulation extends beyond that as well.

Even so, dangerous products still appear on the market everyday.

I think something that would be more effective would be this:

Require all companies to purchase insurance on their products. This insurance company is also somewhat similar to a consumer group. Because they are financially liable for dangerous products produced, they will most likely be more attentive than the government. Failure to do their job ensures that they go out of business. This is in contrast to the FDA which is subject to lobbying and corruption. They face no responsibility for allowing dangerous products on the market, and thus have no serious accountability. They've also been lobbied to keep certain products off the market to favor existing businesses.

A private group would not have any of the above power, thus limiting corruption, and ideally functioning even more effectively because it holds them financially accountable.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. So you are saying artists, musicians, writers, poets has not right to profit from his creations...

- The government protects so-called intellectual property through copyrights, patents, and trademarks. This has the side effect of creating monopolies. Why should a business be able to patent genes that exist in nature? Why should a musician be able to copyright their songs? When you sing that song for someone else, you're sharing it. When you sell a CD you no longer hold the rights to it. Once you sell something, it no longer belongs to you, and unless you had a contractual agreement before the sale the buyer is free to do as they wish.

That is abhorant, and utterly wrong. Artists have the right to profit from their creations.

[Meldread]

9. They have a right to profit from their creations.

They do not have a right to have the government protect their creations.

To give an example of how a musician might work without a copyright:

Instead of selling their songs, they make their money from concerts. They give their songs away for free in order to grow their fan base, thus ensuring more people attend their concerts.

A musician might try and sell CD's but with each CD there could be a coupon that could be used to purchase tickets to their concerts.

A musician might give away one version of their song for free, but have an extended, enhanced, or modified version for sale on something like ITunes.

Ultimately, the removal of copyright is not to deny an artist profit. It's to deny them monopoly rights on what they've shared; the same way you'd want to deny monopoly rights to a pharmaceutical company for the medicines they produce. I am unsure where you stand on that issue, but if you support eventually removing monopoly rights from big pharma how can you stand for monopoly rights for big music?

It is ultimately the recording industry that decides what type of music is widely distributed and what is not. They make it difficult for new artists to break into the market, and use their monopoly powers to suppress independent musicians that might try and sing one of their copyrighted songs.

It ultimately comes down to a system of common sense (in my view at least): When you share something, you no longer own it exclusively. Therefore, you cannot exclusively dictate how it is used.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. Then who would?

I've published short stories. If someone wanted to put their name on my stories and claim them as there own, I would have no recourse without the support of government. Copyright laws are important to protect the artist from outright theft.

And appropriateing someones work, without attribution, and without payment is theft.

Sharing a work is the same as sharing a ham sandwitch. An artist does not surrender his rights to own or profit from a work simply because it has been published.

[Hannah Bell]

14. for how long? copyright law was changed (i believe under clinton, though i can't remember exactly)

to extend & expand many protections -- as were intellectual property defs/regs & patent laws.

personally, i think the changes were extremely pernicious, & amounted to a taking of public property.

the effect will be less, rather than more, creativity. at least in the mainstream market.

[Meldread]

16. I understand your concern.

However, I think you are making an incorrect assumption.

First of all, I would argue that someone who would copy your work wholesale and then put their name on it is committing fraud. They are claiming to create something they didn't.

The issue is not necessarily one of ownership but one of distribution. For example, if you write a book and then give me a copy, I don't think you'd be overly upset if I decided to lend the book to a friend. OBVIOUSLY, you'd much prefer the friend to buy their own copy (more profit to you), but in most cases sensible people don't have a problem with such an action. After all, there is the possibility that my friend might like your work and then decide to buy their own copy, or go out and by the copy of your next book, or one of your previously published books.

However, let's say I decide to make a copy of your book. I then share that with ten of my friends, because I think the book is awesome and is a must read (for whatever reason). Suddenly, although it's exactly as what happened above, it's less acceptable.

So it's a question of where your ownership rights to a product end and the consumers rights begin. Ultimately, I believe that when you share your work with others there is an implicit agreement that the other individual also has the right to share your work. The exception to this rule would be an agreement made before the transfer.

So if you told me, that you wrote a really awesome book, and you'd show it to me on the condition that I wouldn't show anyone else; then that's acceptable. Showing someone else would be a breach of contract.

Does that make sense? I understand where you're coming from, though, however I don't think people will stop writing or producing works of art as a result. Keep in mind people were writing and producing works of art before copyright was even conceived of in the beginning. The issue at hand here is people's conception has been molded around the idea of copyright and entire industries have been built around it as well.

However, I also think it's important to keep in mind that copyright has greatly expanded over the years. Even books once in the public domain have now been moved back into the private domain as a result of ever expanding copyright laws.

[metalbot]

21. Let's look at the book topic more deeply

Very few authors actually publish and print their own works. More likely, the author submits a work to a publishing house, the publishing house then markets the book, prints the book, and tries to sell the book.

If there were no copyright laws, and anyone with a printing press could publish any book, then why would any publishing house agree to publish a book? They'll take all the initial risks of working with the author on editing, marketing the book, setting up the initial proof runs, etc. If the book turns out to be good, then immediately anyone with a printing press can print the book and try to sell it for whatever they want. These printers would have no obligation whatsoever to pay the author. Even Stephen King would have to get a day job under this model.

"I believe that when you share your work with others there is an implicit agreement that the other individual also has the right to share your work."

You can believe whatever you want, but the courts have ruled fairly extensively on this. You do have a right to share work that you've purchased, but the sharing is not unlimited. For example, if I buy a book that I like, and decide it's so great that I want to share it with a friend, then I'm free to hand them the book and let them read it. However, while they are reading it, I won't be able to read it at the same time (unless I want to stare over their shoulder). If I want the ability for multiple people to read the book at the same time, I'm going to have to buy multiple copies of the book. The same generally applies to most copyrighted media. I can buy a DVD watch it, then loan it to a friend. I can't buy it, copy it, and then give copies to all my friends.

I don't see how you could possibly consider such a system unfair to the consumer of copyrighted works.

"So if you told me, that you wrote a really awesome book, and you'd show it to me on the condition that I wouldn't show anyone else; then that's acceptable. Showing someone else would be a breach of contract."

So which would be simpler? Having a copyright law, or requiring you to sign a contract every time you buy a book or a DVD or a CD or a birthday card or a magazine or a newspaper or a piece of software.

And your example is a little contrived. Almost NO author would say "You can't show anyone else the book", but almost every author who lives on their writing would insist that you can't make a copy to give to someone else.

[Meldread]

23. I think the issue at hand here...

...is how copyright has warped how people view the market of such materials. I'm not against, for example, prohibiting someone from taking an authors work and trying to resell it for a profit. I could feasibly support such an action, however I am weary of it because it lends credence to the idea of intellectual property. You cannot own an idea. You can think it up, you can market it, you can profit from it, you can even claim it is original, but you cannot 'own' it. It is not a tangible thing.

Do I think the loss of copyright would have a HUGE impact on the publishing industry? Absolutely. It could very well shut it down. However, it is a mistake to believe that the way the publishing industry currently functions is the ONLY way such an industry could function. Someone, somewhere, will innovate and come up with a new way of making selling books profitable. Hell, that way may actually be MORE profitable to authors than the method that currently exists. We just don't know.

What we do know is that before copyright existed people wrote books. People sold books. People grew very wealthy selling books. We also know that people won't stop writing books simply because they can no longer copyright their work.

Just because we struggle to imagine such a world in which copyright does not exist, does not mean such a world would be bad for authors.

In any event, I think intellectual property is a good example of how the United States is not a true capitalist nation. It creates an artificial monopoly, which is the primary reason it shouldn't be supported from an economic perspective. From a philosophical perspective you cannot 'own' an idea; you can only 'own' material objects.

[Heywood J]

34. The form of copyright you're talking about is one thing.

When it morphs into the "Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act" and brings the RIAA/MPAA into the living rooms of the nation, it's another. Copyright has been used to justify HDCP and other horrific practices that limit the choice on the market, make consumers pay extra beyond the value of the work itself, and restrict the ability of consumers to enjoy their legal purchases. It also brought the Sony rootkit and other malware into existence.

Clearly, some balance needs to be struck and we're not there yet.

[Meldread]

35. Exactly.

The issue with copyright / patents / trademarks / intellectual property is the monopoly advantage it gives to business. They can then exploit this advantage in ways most people don't understand, as well as abuse the advantage in some cases. I was looking for a specific case I remember hearing about several years ago, but my Google-Fu appears weak at the moment. (It involved an elderly woman making blankets, then being sued by Disney because she was using fabric with their characters that they sold.) Instead I've found these examples by accident:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6240547.html">Sony, EA, Ubisoft, Disney named in patent suit

In the above link, you'll read a story about the aforementioned companies being sued for patent infringement by a small company known as Bareis Technologies. They claim they own the exclusive right "to optical disks with speech recognition templates used to access information." They are suing the aforementioned companies for "royalties, negotiated at a reasonable rate, as well as interest on said royalties, attorney fees, and other relief as deemed by the court." They waited a number of years before coming forward, thus ensuring that they could make even more money by making their claim. The longer they would have waited, the more money they would have made in the lawsuit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aODSWyQ0OcQ0&refer=home">Disney Loses Court Ruling Over Winnie the Pooh Rights

Okay, here is the back story on the above link. Disney is well known for, as the post above pointed out, supporting the expansion of the copyright to support their fictional characters.

Disney has a history of taking derivative works in the public domain, and then appropriating and copyrighting them. For example, Mickey Mouse's first movie, Steamboat Willie, was actually a take-off on Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill, which was created just a year earlier.

In this particular suit Disney is suing Stephen Slesinger Inc. to void their rights to the Winnie the Pooh character. They won the rights to Winnie the Pooh in 1930, and then negotiated a number of license agreements with Disney. Their attempt failed.

However, the story doesn't end there. Stephen Slesinger Inc. is going after Disney "for damages, trademark and copyright infringement, breach of contract, and fraudulently underpaying royalties, and seeking in excess of $2 billion in compensatory and general damages."

Let that sink in for a moment. They're claiming they are owed more than $2,000,000,000 dollars over a fictional character. Without copyright none of this would have happened in the first place, but it shows the absurdity of it.

http://www.9to5mac.com/apple_against_woolies?page=1">Apple legal preps trademark case against Woolworths

In this story Apple is going after an Australian retailer known as Woolworths. They are making the claim that their logo, which is a stylized W, is too similar to their own. Of course, it does look somewhat apple shaped... but... wait for it... they appear to sell food! *GASP* Below is the logo:



Basically, in a nutshell, Apple is suing Woolworths because of the vague and non-existent potential that Woolworths, in trademarking their logo, could potentially someday in the future might expand outward into selling stuff in their domain (computers and electronic products). The downside to all of this is the fact that because of Trademark laws and the legal system, if Apple did not aggressively protect their trademark of anything even remotely shaped like an apple, they could lose a court battle against someone actually trying to use their logo AND effectively pretend to be Apple. You know, that new great company... Apple One.... whose logo happens to be an apple that looks just like Apple's apple, except it's blue instead of gray.

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2008/07/can-the-rnc-for.html">Can the RNC forbid the use of an elephant or "GOP" to identify Republicans?
Here is an ironic one. A few years back, the Republican National Committee trademarked its elephant logo, along with "GOP", "Grand Old Party", and "Republican National Committee."

Well, back in 2008 during the election year, some Republican supporters got a big surprise. They had used CafePress to create shirts that included the trademarked terms IN SUPPORT OF REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. As a result, the RNC decided to sue CafePress.

All of these are just the tip of the iceberg, and I found each of these totally by accident while searching for something else. This type of stuff happens all the time, and while these stories deal with rather large institutions or businesses, the real issue here is how they threaten small businesses. What small business, for example, stands a chance against Disney should they decide one of their fictional characters is too similar to one of their own? They could sue, and the legal fees alone could put them out of business.

The issue here at the heart was not created by the market or business, but rather by government granted privileges that wouldn't otherwise exist in the marketplace.

[cark]

39. What if they don't want to do concerts?

What if they have stage freight or don't like to travel?

What if you work your whole life on some neat invention and as soon as you unveil it some larger and better capitalized company comes in and copies your product and sells it cheaper than you would need to make a profit? That is a big disinsentive. Why wouldn't there just be companies that sit around waiting to do exactly this? Same thing for pharmaceutical companies, why spend all that money on R&D when some generic producer will instantly grab most of their market share?

[Meldread]

42. I understand that argument completely.

To be perfectly honest, I can't alleviate the concerns. On a purely emotional level I want to do everything I can to support the little guy. In a perfect world, we could have patents and copyrights, people would respect them, they'd be limited, big businesses wouldn't try and abuse the power, and everything would be fine.

But we don't live in that world. It's hard to tell the small time inventor, for example, that he can patent his invention, but the big business who spent $1 billion or more on R&D cannot... simply for the curse of being big... well, that doesn't seem fair, either.

Look at it this way: Tylenol is a generic drug. There are many different companies that manufacture this drug, and all of them presumably make a profit off of it.

If the ideal system proved to be bad, I wouldn't be against going back, and trying to find a middle road. Perhaps, instead of being granted monopoly rights, you're instead legally guaranteed compensation for your labor. That is something I could conceivably support.

We would certainly need a transition period to remove intellectual property monopolies. Businesses that depend upon them would have to rethink their business models, and would have to be given time to do so.

However, at the same time, I do believe that things would not be as bad as we might envision them to be... I think we're probably in the same seat Bill Gates was in when he believed the Internet was a fad. We lack a crystal ball to see into the future, and therefore it's hard to envision how the market and world would work after a major paradigm shift. We are so used to the things the way they are, it is difficult to envision them working differently. But at the same time, that doesn't mean that things can't work differently, or that they would be worse under a different system. We simply don't know for certain, which is why I cannot alleviate your concerns.

[cark]

45. IP

You inspired me to do a little more reading on the subject of the case against IP. This paper does a good job of laying out the different arguements for and against IP, albiet from the libertarian point of view. http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

Thanks for your contribution.

[wolfgangmo]

48. IF this idea came to pass then the only thing on the radio would be

Rush Limpballs.

No copyright, not chance of making money on selling music. No money = no music eventually.

"Man cannot live on pussy alone." - Screamin' Jay Hawkins.

[readmoreoften]

6. Capitalists eventually buy themselves a government. That IS "true" capitalism.

I mean, that's if the capitalists didn't start out owning the government to begin with. What you're talking about isn't TRUE capitalism, it's IDEALIST capitalism.

What we have is PURE capitalism: those who own the capital either merge with the state (Italy) or invent a state (the US) or destroy a state and take it over (Somalia).

How can you stop the state from supporting capital? Through a people's revolution-- i.e. socialism.

Capitalism is as it does.

[Meldread]

10. How is that anything but a transfer of power?

I think the issue with modern socialism is that it assumes that a market can be controlled. However, in reality markets are dynamic, complex, and constantly changing. When laws are created they are generally one-size-fit all schemes. They ultimately suppress competition, and thus lead to the growth of business, which then leads to a system in which they effectively control the government through vast amounts of wealth.

HOWEVER, I also think you're making a mistake. I think you're looking at the government as a representative of the people; or at least an extension of their will. I do not see government that way at all, and this may be the heart of our difference in viewpoint. Governments are made up of individuals, and each individual possesses some measure of self-interest. I've never met a person in my life who was 100% altruistic. Yes, I've met people willing to put others needs before their own, but very few willing to go to extreme lengths to do so.

I think capitalism largely works because it is a system of self-interest. When capitalism is working effectively, jobs are plentiful, and that allows individuals to vote with their feet and bargain for better pay. Additionally, it allows consumers low and affordable prices, which in turn helps the poor obtain higher standards of living. When you scale down to the most individual part of the system, a business or a product, it is very simple. Yet, moving outward and looking at the system as a whole it becomes very complex.... and it's complex because it's millions or billions of people making individual choices based upon their self-interest.

Perhaps it is idealistic in many respects. However, in my view it is equally idealistic to view the government as some benevolent force for good. If we look at the history of our world in its entirety, it has been the rare occasion where government has EVER been on the side of the individual or the people. Politician's are self-interested just like everyone else, and will act on that self-interest even if it goes against what is best for the people as a whole.

[WT Fuheck]

8. corporatism is the inevitable result of capitalism

capitalism works fine if you regulate to the point that it isn't capitalism anymore.

[Meldread]

11. I disagree because corporations are government created.

A corporation, as we'd define it today, is entirely a government created construct.

In my view, it's against the fundamental principles of capitalism to allow something like corporate personhood. One of the reasons capitalism works is how it punishes and rewards failure. The head(s) of a business should not be shielded from the law. If they break the law, then they should be held accountable. When an individual knows they are shielded from the law, they are more likely to commit acts that they might not otherwise commit.

The government itself is largely responsible for the growth of certain businesses, which can use their massive wealth to influence politicians.

In my mind, true capitalism puts power into the hands of individuals. Most other economic systems inevitably weaken the power of individuals and move it to another source. This is typically either the government or semi-private businesses.

[Meldread]

17. kick

:kick:

[Skidmore]

18. AND the "free market" is a colossal lie.

How Rs are allowed to throw that term around unchallenged is beyond me. No one EVER challenges them on this.

[Meldread]

22. Because they are liars.

The Republican Party is not for free markets, not in the literal sense. They use the word in the same way some Democrats might use the word Moderate (Ben Nelson a Moderate... really? Ha.). It's all an attempt to score votes.

The truth is this: The Republican Party is in the tank for Big Business and are the kings of Corporatism.

The downside to this truth is that the Democratic Party is also in the tank for Big Business and are the princes of Corporatism.

The difference between the two parties is merely a matter of degrees. The Democratic Party favors a "friendly" type of Corporatism, which in reality is about as effective as Bushes "Compassionate Conservatism." The Republican Party cloaks their Corporatism by pretending to be for "Small Business." However, Corporatism is the antithesis of business because it favors a chosen few rather than creating a fair and equal playing field.

[blindpig]

19. Wrong. America practices state of the art Capitalism.

It is Capitalism's natural tendency to move towards monopoly and imperialism, the only way to maintain growth after the domestic market is saturated.Your "True Capitalism' is a 'just so' story told to children at bedtime so they won't have nightmares.

[Meldread]

24. I disagree: It's governments natural tendency to move toward monopoly and imperialism.

For one, a business cannot be imperialistic. In order to actually -BE- imperialist the business would have to be the government. That doesn't preclude a business profiting from (and therefore supporting) imperialism, but in order to profit there must be a market, and that market obviously would be a government.

Monopolies can only exist with government aid. Without government intervention a monopoly is only temporary.


im⋅pe⋅ri⋅al⋅ism
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

[blindpig]

26. Governments do what their owners demand.

Business essentially controls government whenever it needs to. Imperialism provides both resources(natural and labor) and/or markets. Is business not trending towards monopoly and is the government not smoothing the way?

It's that old golden rule, he with the gold makes the rules.

[Meldread]

27. We can agree on one overall point.

Governments obey their owners, and all governments, democratic or dictatorial, are upheld by the people. The only difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is the ability for the people to remove their elected government from power. Therefore, in the United States I would place the blame on the shoulders of the people. Why? Because they continuously support and advocate for people that actively work against their own interests. I blame those who refuse to participate in the process for whatever reason, typically the fact that they don't like the two major parties.

I've come to the conclusion that things aren't going to change dramatically unless one of two things happens. The first hope is a charismatic individual that is able to woo over the people. With popular support and a ruthless attitude, they'll have the ability to ram through major reforms meanwhile crushing any political opponents. Our second hope is that things just get so bad that people revolt and then overthrow the government.

I'd like to believe that we could change things more incrementally overtime, but unfortunately every step forward will take us two steps back. Once government has begun to consolidate power, it's very difficult to reverse the trend.

I also agree that those with the gold have a tendency to make the rules. That's why in post #25 I outline the only solution that I see... which is effectively ensuring that there is no way rules can be made favorable to big business in the first place.

[blindpig]

28. How do you get them to change the rules?

Given that they own the legislature they will not vote their own demise. Nope, can't possibly work. They will not concede control, it must be taken.

Can't blame the people, they are trapped even as the capitalist is trapped on his own hamster wheel, it is the system of social production which must be drastically altered.

[Meldread]

31. We agree AND dissagree at the same time.

I don't agree that it is the fault of capitalism. However, I think we are defining capitalism differently. I believe capitalism can exist free and independent from and even in the absence of a government. In my mind that is "pure" capitalism; which is basically just the ability for a single individual trying to empower themselves economically. It's best illustrated in an immigrant who might come to the United States, and then establish a business on the side of the street selling something they make to tourists. The immigrant is empowering themselves and is free to do as he chooses. This in my mind, is the good side of capitalism, and it is the aspect that allows people to literally claw their way out of poverty. It empowers people to make a better life for themselves.

When government mixes with capitalism, you have corporatism. Government is sometimes needed, but it should always be restrained and used only when absolutely necessary. When you open the flood gates and allow government and business to mix freely, you've essentially allowed the public and the private to merge together. These two things, when joined together, will ultimately work against the interest of the individual person. Anything good in capitalism then becomes destroyed, and individuals like the immigrant example above are shut out and denied entry into the market. The immigrant is accused of any number of things, the government paints their actions "for the good of the people", but in reality it was merely the more powerful and well established businesses on the street who didn't want the competition the immigrant brought.

In the end, government is like the drug pusher for business and business the addict. Without government to enable them, they would face competition, and individuals would decide their fate. The immigrant could not be forced to remove his stall from public property. He has every right to be there just the same as anyone else.

----------

Where we do agree is that until things are drastically altered things will not change. I think we desire similar things, and share a similar outlook on where we'd like to see the world, but may have a different way of getting to it. However, I do not think there is a better system that empowers individuals to make a better life for themselves. Absent a charismatic leader who can get people to support him or her, empowering them to bring about sweeping and dramatic reforms, we're just going to keep on the same path. The only other option is the type of revolution Thomas Jefferson foresaw as necessary for true liberty and freedom to prosper:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

I would like to think that things would never grow as bad as to come to that... I do not like the idea of anarchy. But as the gap between rich and poor grows, it is inevitable that someday people will reach a breaking point. The only question is: can we try and reverse the trend BEFORE such an event takes place? We've reached a point where people have become apathetic, and we're seeing the results that Thomas Jefferson foresaw. What I hope will come is a leader who can put the "spirit of resistance" back into the hearts of the people. Give them a reason to fight; but rather than taking arms they take the fight to the ballot box.

Inevitably, one of these two things will happen. Change is INEVITABLE. People do have a breaking point; at which point they have nothing left to lose. That's very dangerous for a government. I think we're a long way off to reaching that point here in the United States (not so much in other nations), which gives me hope that a charismatic leader will sweep in and bring the change required to reverse the trend.

[blindpig]

32. You are making this way too complicated

Capitalism is capitalism, the requirement of continued growth does not change, the necessity of exploiting workers does not change. Anything that gets in the way is chewed up and spit out.

Your immigrant has nothing to do with capitalism, is he exploiting workers? Though he is a victim of capitalism, capitalists alway try to establish monopolies, the best return is there.

Co-opting government is business as usual for capitalism and as long as capitalism exists it will continue to do so. Nothing short of tearing it down, drastically changing the social organization of production, will do.

Waiting around for a charismatic leader is crap, how well did that work this time?

[Meldread]

33. To address your points one by one:

"Capitalism is capitalism, the requirement of continued growth does not change, the necessity of exploiting workers does not change. Anything that gets in the way is chewed up and spit out."

We have a fundamental disagreement there. Capitalism does not ***require*** continued growth in order to exist. In fact, the market itself establishes LIMITS to growth through competition, supply and demand, etc. There are inherent limits to growth created by the market. However, it is desirable for maximum growth potential. The distinction is important because it separates what you defined as ***required*** with what I call ***desirable***. Just because something is desirable, does not make it required.

Your argument then seems to be, because a business desires growth it will therefore inherently be corrupt. I do not believe that is the case. You may also be arguing that it is business that corrupts government and not the other way around. However, in order to believe that you'd have to believe that government is somehow benevolent. Have you ever heard the saying, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

Government is the ultimate source of power. It is what ENABLES many of the things you HATE about business.

As to worker exploitation, this is not unique to business. A government can exploit people even more easily. The difference that I draw is: on one hand you have a government that protects workers, and on the other you have a government that protects business. The former is more desirable, it is true, but what type of government do we currently have and what type of government do you believe will arise over time? So long as a worker is free he or she can leave a job and move on. Labor functions like any other market, and if a system of competition exists then the worker has choice. That choice gives him leverage. Furthermore, there is nothing in capitalism that prevents, restrains, or otherwise stops workers from organizing to protest exploitation. ONLY the government can create or enable a system which HARMS workers by preventing their right to organize.

"Your immigrant has nothing to do with capitalism, is he exploiting workers? Though he is a victim of capitalism, capitalists alway try to establish monopolies, the best return is there."

He is a victim, in that we agree. Again, you make the mistake of believing capitalism equals worker exploitation. I will repeat myself again: ONLY the government can create or enable a system which HARMS workers by preventing their right to organize. Furthermore, to add to that, ONLY the government can ESTABLISH monopolies. There is virtually no market that I'm aware of that creates a natural monopoly. All monopolies that I'm aware of exist because of the direct or indirect influence of the government.

"Co-opting government is business as usual for capitalism and as long as capitalism exists it will continue to do so. Nothing short of tearing it down, drastically changing the social organization of production, will do."

I do not see business as co-opting government, but rather government ENABLING business. What you seem to be suggesting is some form of communism, because so long as markets exist there will be business. Therefore, what you are actually arguing is for the destruction of all market systems - at least that is the way I am interpreting your argument.

"Waiting around for a charismatic leader is crap, how well did that work this time?"

As I said that's one of two options. I don't intend to just wait around, though. My entire reason for creating this thread and continuing this debate is an attempt to educate people. I want people to realize the real source of the problems, and then work together to solve it.

"You are making this way too complicated."

I actually see it as pretty simple. Restrain government as much as humanly possible, and allow it to intervene only when absolutely necessary. This means a massive rollback of all government protection of business, which would in turn allow the market to flourish and function naturally. This in turn leads to greater freedom and happiness for all individuals, and helps fight poverty by providing a road out.

[blindpig]

37. So, libertarian then?

Your understanding of capitalism is cracked. Capitalism must grow or the whole system breaks down, profits must be reinvested, limits are antithetical.

You totally misunderstand the role of government, it is the servant, not the master of capitalism, does not this health care debacle illustrate this? This viewpoint is thoroughly libertarian and has been championed by Republicans for decades.

Capitalism does not restrain the organization of labor? You are so funny. Are you completely ignorant of labor history?

Money is the ultimate source of power and that is derived from control of the means of production.

We do not agree on anything, libertarianism is the opposite of socialism.

[Odin2005]

41. Us Left-Libertarians are suprised to hear that we don't exist.

"libertarianism is the opposite of socialism."

Only in the mind of a doctrinaire authoritarian Marxist like yourself.

[blindpig]

46. You're an oxymoran

The Left, in any historical analysis since 1848, is opposed to Capitalism. Don't see how anyone calling themselves a 'socialists' could get in bed with the capitalists.....oh wait, national socialists

Only in the mind of a doctrinaire authoritarian Marxist like yourself.

Oh yeah, good to know.

If acceptance of Marx's analysis of capitalism makes me that, so be it.

Libertarianism, a bunch bullshit custom made for rich guys to excuse capitalism, can only have something to do with socialism in the mind of the self deluded, they are diametrically opposed. I believe this is the result of squishy good intention along with a fear of losing privilege and fear of the 'great unwashed'.

[Odin2005]

50. I am opposed to capitalism in the strict sense. I am however, for a free enterprise...

... market economy. I want an economy based on co-ops in a normal liberal-democratic political system. I am equally suspicious of the corporation and the state.

Your ideology only leads to totalitarianism, gulags, re-education camps, and killing fields.

[Meldread]

43. You fundamentally do not understand my point of view.

Capitalism cannot "grow". Capitalism does not "grow". Capitalism is an economic philosophy. It is not an amorphous entity that lurks in the shadows waiting to snatch some hapless poor person and devour their soul.

The only thing that can grow in capitalism is business, but that growth is constrained by the market itself, UNLESS government intervenes on behalf of business to grant benefits such as monopoly rights.

I'm not saying a business does not use government for its own ends. Of course it does. A business is amoral. It is like an individual: it is self-interested. It is interested in getting ahead. However, amorality is different than immorality.

Likewise, government is amoral. It is like an individual: it is self-interested. It's interested in getting ahead.

When the two get together, it forms a deadly relationship. On this, we seem to agree. But of the two only government's power can be absolute. Only government has the ability to grant business the advantages it needs to do all the things that you hate. With out government, business would be no where near as bad as it currently is... would it be benevolent? No. Of course not. It is amoral and will always be amoral; neither benevolent nor immoral.

Both government and business are self-interested because they are made up of self-interested people. Humans by their very nature are self-interested creatures. Therefore, when a business is getting ahead, the human sees themselves getting ahead. When government gains an advantage, those in the government view themselves as getting ahead.

You completely and totally neglect to look at what capitalism has achieved. More than any other system of economics, it is single handedly responsible – even in a corrupted form – for lifting more people out of poverty and into prosperity than any other system.

I have, again and again, attempted to define what and how I see capitalism. Yet, not once have you defined how you see communism. You have not defined why it would be better, nor have you given examples of where it has actually worked. I can point to examples where capitalism has worked and is working, even in a corrupted form. How many people in China and India right now are pulling themselves out of poverty and into the developed world thanks to a capitalistic economy?

I don't deny that there are some places in the world, and once upon a time, even here in the United States, where working conditions were awful by our modern standards. Yet, that is what they are: modern standards. That's like trying to apply our modern morality to people who lived 200 years ago, and condemning each and every one of them for not living up to those standards.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in capitalism that prevents workers from organizing against unjust employers. Absolutely nothing. The only thing that can squash unions is the government. An employer may attempt to bully their employees, but at the end of the day it takes guts and courage to do what you think is right. If you allow people to step on you, crush you, drive you beneath their heel then that's exactly what they will do.

If an employer is genuinely treating his employees badly, then his employees can and should walk out in protest. Maybe the employer fires each and every one of them. Yet, he'll lose more money by doing that than negotiating with his employees... and ultimately that's bad for business. Business is amoral, but it isn't stupid.

As for Republican's supporting my point of view for decades... hardly. They make lip service toward limited government, but the truth of the matter is they only want to limit aspects of the government they don't like. Furthermore, your typical Republican would be absolutely appalled at my assault against moneyed interests. Republicans EXIST to protect, defend, expand, and promote big business. The downside is so do Democrats. That is why we have the health care bill we have today.

What I fundamentally do not understand is why you believe that if business failed to exist, that government would somehow become pure and cleansed of all corruption. What I don't think you understand, and this is the source of my consternation, is the fact that government is JUST AS BAD as business when it comes to amorality. Government is not a benevolent force that has become sadly corrupted by moneyed interests. If government was benevolent in the first place then it wouldn't have been corrupted. The logic that government will somehow be better is fundamentally flawed. All it would be is more powerful.

The reason I am so passionate about this is because I genuinely feel that it will hurt you. It will hurt me. It will hurt EVERYONE. You point to how business has treated workers.... I will point to how government has treated citizens throughout history. There is no reason to believe that the nature of the beast will suddenly change.

[blindpig]

47. Capital grows,

what do you think profits are?

You are spouting pure libertarianism, "evil, evil government" without even recognizing the influence that moneyed interests have upon government. That is willfully blind.

You point to India and China as examples of capitalism working, maybe it is for a tiny percentage of the population but for the majority life is getting worse as people are driven of the land into the shanty towns to be starvation-wage slaves. That what capitalism does, guess it's who one identifies with.

Sure, government is bad, but ya can't get rid of it until the power of money is broken, permanently.

[Meldread]

55. Here is why what you're saying doesn't make sense.

First of all, profits are limited by the market. Do you think the guys who make and sell rubber vomit and other gag items, have unlimited capital growth? Do you think even a massive business giant like McDonald's has unlimited capital growth? There are -limits- imposed by the market.

On the other hand, if the government decided McDonald's deserved to be the only fast food restaurant in the United States, giving them a monopoly on all fast food, their growth potential (while STILL limited by the market) grows exponentially. This is something McDonald's could NEVER accomplish on their own. Even though they could grow and become influential, only the government could shut out their competition. That is the important distinction that needs to be made between government and business.

If you attempted to move from a market economy to a government controlled economy (Communism) all you are doing is transferring power from business to government. All of the things you'd hate would STILL exist, but the only difference would be that the government commits the atrocities. All you have done is rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic. However, the larger distinction that MUST be made to understand my point of view is that when a government is given power their power will far exceed anything a single individual business could have ever achieved on their own. This is for two reasons. First, because a government has the power to make law, and second because a government has the power to enforce that law through violent force if necessary.

We do not disagree that money influences government, and we are in total agreement that this is a bad thing. We both want to end that.

Our disagreement is this: In order for a government to be corrupted by moneyed interests it must ALREADY be corrupt before the business makes the offer. There must already be a preexisting moral failing on behalf of the government. Therefore, business is not the cause of government corruption, it is the beneficiary of it. This means if a government is already corrupt, putting more power into its hands is a bad idea, because it will not use it for things that neither you nor I would approve of... so what is the logical solution?

The only logical solution that I can see is to constrain government, thereby putting it in check, and preventing it from providing protection and benefits to business in the first place, meanwhile rolling back the protections and benefits it gave to business to begin with.

Your solution appears to be to end the market economy and empower the government further. However, if the government is already corrupt - already broken - why would the moneyed interests matter? If they are merely beneficiaries of government corruption, what then is the result of your method? I believe it would lead to an autocratic society, in effect you've created a government bourgeoisie, and two separate classes: those of government (the patricians / bourgeoisie) and those not of government (the plebeians / surfs ).

This is worse than the current system because of the power that government has to make laws and then enforce those laws through violent force if necessary.

[blindpig]

56. What you advocate is pure laissez-faire economics

which has only existed, if it existed at all, at an early stage of capitalism, and is impossible given the growth of capital. The capitalist requires government help in gaining access to markets and resources else he cannot expand, necessary to provide the profits that shareholders require. The capitalists will always subborn government, in a capitalist economy that is what government is for.

Yours is a perverse pipe dream, give society directly over to capitalist control, something not even capitalists would go for, they like having government carrying the expenses, doing their dirty work.

Perhaps you have heard the phrase, "withering away of the state". That is the purpose of communism but first capitalism must be eliminated, insuring that is the purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the control of the government by the working class. True, this has yet to happen, but this is due to the overt hostility of the capitalists, socialist societies have always been on the defensive, consider Cuba today.

As I stated in an earlier post, libertarianism is a bunch of made up crap devised solely for the benefit of the ruling class. I'd suggest that you closely read the OP of this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1989989

[Odin2005]

40. That poster is a Marxist ideologue, you won't get far with him.

[reformist]

20. Real Campaign Finance Reform is Needed.

But instead of imposing limits on donations, I would have Congress mandate that TV/radio stations grant candidates a minimum amount of free airtime.
This approach avoids the constitutional problems previous reforms have run into.

[Meldread]

25. Campaign Finance Reform is not enough.

I'm afraid that Campaign Finance Reform is not enough. In fact, it's largely a ruse because there are more insidious things at work than where a politician gets his or her campaign money.

For one there are private "gifts" to politicians from big business. These gifts may take the form of objects, actual cash, but more often than not they come in the form of promises.

"If you vote against this bill, I will give your wife a job. She'll make good money with me. Think of how this could help your family."

"I heard your son is getting married. Congratulations. You know, I have a friend selling a nice big piece of land with a house on it... I've been there, it's wonderful, and I think it'd be a great way to start a marriage. I could put in a good word for him if you're interested. By the way, what is your opinion on this recent legislation coming up for a vote...?"

Then there are threats.

"You do realize that if you vote for this piece of legislation it will cost your state several thousand jobs. It would be unfortunate to lose you as a Senator. You've done great things for your State, but I think it might be hard to overlook this...."

"If you don't support this legislation, you know we'll be able to find someone else. We'll get what we want sooner or later, and there is no need for this confrontation."

So on and so forth.

This is the -REAL- heart of the problem. And frankly, I've only found one solution to it, and that solution is to constrain government itself. By constraining it, you're constraining it's power, you're empowering individuals instead; and you're limiting the influence the government can wield in favor of big business. That is the only way that I can imagine actually fighting back, and I've thought hard about it. If their power is constrained, curtailed, limited, and removed the politician is not in a position to be bullied by the threats nor is he in the position to accept the bribes.

[FormerDittoHead]

29. You forgot that gov't keeps many businesses going from the stuff and services they buy from them.

Many large corporations only customer is the gov't. I'm just throwing that in...

[Meldread]

36. So true, I haven't forgotten.

That should disturb a large number of people. It is worthy of it's own thread.

[Odin2005]

30. K&R from a fellow Left-Libertarian.

:hi:

[cark]

38. K&R - love your posts. n/t

[chrisa]

49. Big government is needed to police corporations.

You can't have it any other way. That's true capitalism. Corporatism emerges when the government stops policing, and becomes corrupt (our present state).

[Odin2005]

51. Corproatism needs Big Government to protect it's monopolist racket.

What do you think these BS mandates that make us serfs of the insurance companies are?

[Meldread]

52. Corporations cannot (in their present form) exist without government.

Personhood, legal protections, etc. All of these exist BECAUSE OF government and are protected and upheld BY THE government. Without the government, the corporation as we know it wouldn't even exist.

You're asking for the government to police something it created. You're asking the government to work against something that it has crafted laws actively to protect.

Does it not make more sense to demand that the government simply end the protection and benefits (such as personhood) it gives to corporations?

[phasma ex machina]

53. Small biz "gets" to do pure capitalism.

Big biz uses government as an enforcer to whack small biz competition.

[Kablooie]

54. You're right. America practices Capitulism, not Capitalism

[kenny blankenship]

57. Same old capitalism as ever.

In some periods, it has completely purchased the government, in other periods it only owns a majority stake.