American Democracy and Capitalism

[OryHara]

I do understand capitalizm, I just dont agree with it, atleast the ideal of it. My problem is I have a little bit of socialism in me (not to be confused with communism, which is f***ed up too),

Hmm. You are a lot like me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

This should get you started.

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

 

Socialism is based on Karl Marx's ideas. You wrote above just about everything I believe in politically. Although, I'm not a fan of money at all, since it leads to the problems you described above. I'm a self working business person that does most / all the work myself. I think we should all have something to retire on. I have money, but I give most of it away to the church, friends, or people that need it. I have everything I want, and thats a good life.

 

Money causes people to be like Windows. They just become corrupt too easily.

[A Nonny Moose]

Not exactly. We are really an Fascist Republic. Democracy flew out the window over 100 years ago since the corps took over.

 

 

Actually, some historians point to the US Civil War as the end of American-style government. During that time, a state could have removed itself if it wanted to. This was what the southern states did (there was nothing to explicitly forbid it and the Tenth Amendment said any matter not forbiddden like that can be done by a state). Lincoln saw a land of cotton and we saw the civil war.

 

Did you also know Jefferson Davis sent peacekeepers to Washington and they were booted out by Lincoln?

[OryHara]

Did you also know Jefferson Davis sent peacekeepers to Washington and they were booted out by Lincoln?

I believe that as well. Although back in the late 1800s there was a battle between a worker's union, and a steel mill. The mill hired guards to kill the workers, and there a standoff for a while. Then Anarchy was born. The workers lost, and fascism was born. Thats when f*** 500 companies started to control the country. After that, Ford, GM, and others started to take control. Now its all out fascism. A commercialized government in bed with the banks, baby bells, and the big tech companies.

 

Most of the reps in Washington represent the f*** 500, and do everything to crush their own citizens if they don't lead 'consumer driven lives'. They want to crush small companies, and let the F500 reign. They want to send all of our jobs to foreign counties, and expect us to buy their overpriced {censored} with a %5 unemployment rate. Then the f*** 500 will gripe to Washington that the minimum wage is too high, while stuffing their CEO's pocket book so he can run out and escape like in 'Enron'. If they keep outsourcing, there will be nobody left to buy anything. Then they go under.

[Swad]

I'm actually working in a Senate office this summer, and while I can tell you that corporate interests are important (as they are everywhere... and as they should be... you wouldn't be living in a wealth nation if they weren't), they do actually care for the little guys. Most of what Senate offices do is help people get through the red tape to find things/people, etc. They do a lot of good work.

 

But that's also the beauty of representative gov't. If your people are crappy, or are too tied to corp. interests (and a lot are, you're right), then we can kick them out.

[killbot1000]

Hmm. You are a lot like me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

This should get you started.

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

 

Socialism is based on Karl Marx's ideas. You wrote above just about everything I believe in politically. Although, I'm not a fan of money at all, since it leads to the problems you described above. I'm a self working business person that does most / all the work myself. I think we should all have something to retire on. I have money, but I give most of it away to the church, friends, or people that need it. I have everything I want, and thats a good life.

 

Money causes people to be like Windows. They just become corrupt too easily.

 

I agree with that assesment as well, I have money, but its not the focus of my life, friends and family are, I find the notion of my whole life being about accumulating posession after posession on credit...disgusting. I too am a self working business man, I have my own computer business where I sell and build computers for people, and it works out pretty good, I dont quivel about dimes and nickels here and there, heheh. As long as I can afford to take my friends out to dinner every once in a while, or get something when I NEED it then im happy.

 

I really do agree with "democracy" or atleast represenative democracy, I think that part of our country is great, im not so hot on the capitalizm though, again, as soon as we stop pretending we have free trade (we dont) and start regulating the things that NEED to be regulated (nothing else) then our economy would be working better than it is right now.

 

A good example of this is pharmacudical companies, I mean, the amount of money that people have to pay for most drugs is absolutely ridiculous, and alot of that is due to capitalizm, I think that on things people NEED there should be restrictions on how much you can charge, I mean, it would be unethical to charge 22 dollars for a tomato, right? So regulate it, and tell them they cant!, the only problem with the way I think is that its all dependant on the integrety of the regulator, and I understand that heheh.

 

I pride myself on living in the most regulated state in the country, or atleast I think it is, washington. We have a lot of wierd socialist things here, like minimum wage being tied to the minimum standard of living, and companies REQUIRED to offer their employees some kind of healthcare? I mean, are these laws really that evil? In a traditionally capitalist system, it would have been "they give you the option of healthcare if they want to" or "they pay you whatever they want to" to me, thats a much greater evil, considering that most of the people in charge of these companies are greedy bastards and they need to be put in their place hehehe (ive been tainted by my experience, but ive seen it heheh)

 

Well, thats my rant heheh

 

Oh yeah, one last thing, the thing I do like about the american way though is that when youre company is small, the government doesnt really care about taxes, etc, and as you get bigger they care more and more, that I totally agree with, just thought id throw that out there

 

 

 

Also, I really liked the manna link, alot... hehe thanks

[AppleLegal]

Right now, i cant remember the proper term for it, but right now, what's going on in Politics - with the Republican majority in both houses, and the Executive branch, is a rare thing, that always sorts itself out in mid-year elections - the other party will take control of one, or both houses - and bring the system back to balance and stability. Right now is not the first time in American political history where something like this has occurred.

 

Yea you have an amazing democratic system, election in FLORIDA is one great example of your fine american democracy too. Also all presidential systems suck and us of a is just another example to it. I truly hope you understand now why nations like Iraq refuse your kind of "democracy"...

 

keep on deceiving yourselves that you have something reselmbling to a democracy, your country is ruled by rich, fat people and people who vote are too stupid to understand the actions of your government and who truly benefits from them at the end.

No No No - you dont understand the system, and have been subjected to to much media {censored} ranting on america cause it's the "in" thing to do. Florida wasnt messed up because one house prevented people from voting, but rather because the votes were done on an obsolete system - punch cards are old. Or if they were done on a new system, they were done on a buggy one that wasnt ready to be used.

 

In progress, errors are made. It sucks, the conequences were horrid, but if it didnt happen in 2000, it would have happened in 2004 or 2008, or some other time. And if it happened in 2008, then America would have been called "Lagging in technology .. the equivilant of a third world nation."

 

If you do not like a democracy, then what do you suggest instead? Would you rather an Aristocracy, a Plutocracy - which you seem to think that we have already, an Oligarchy, a Monarchy, or some other system? Go and find me a better system and I'll find you a bigger flaw.

 

Socialism, IF implemented in the right way, is a good idea - Sweden, Denmark, and a varity of other Nordic countrys have done this in a good way, but those country's are small - population of 9-10 million each. New York City & Long Island for example, have a population of over 25 million people - with NYC having 18.5 million people alone. It is unlikely that socialism will succeed in the US.

 

The population's to great for the government to sustain without taxes - the Nordic countries all have extraordinarily high taxes, whereas the US taxes are incredibly low in comparison. The Cold War has tainted America's view of socialism/communism - no one wants that to occur in the US, if only because it will bring back memories of the past decades, of a fear - of ideology and weapons systems - that people want to avoid.

 

Besides - you cant seriously believe that the entire country's stupid? there's over 300 million people living in the country, 110 million of which voted. Voting's not required by law - like it is in Australia. To judge an entire country based on what you hear in the media's wrong and only shows your short-sightedness by doing so.

 

For those who say this is a democracy... WE'RE NOT, and never were. The USA is a representative republic. sorry...

 

And I wouldn't say "modern democracy" has anything to do with the founding of America... but ancient Greece.

Your right in saying that the American system is not a direct democracy in all senses. We have a direct vote most positions on the Federal level - Senators, Representatives, the only major election that we do not have a direct vote for is the President. Instead, we have an electoral college system. The Electoral votes for each state - based on the population in relation to other states population - must go to the majority population in the state. Only 2 states have an exception to this one - the states instead divide their land into 4-5 sections each, giving 1 electoral vote to each section.

 

However, on the State level, and below, the election of pretty much every top ranking official (Excluding the official's staff members for obvious reasons..) is done by direct vote.

 

The concept of federalism is a good one to understand when discussing American politics (Not saying you dont, i dont know if you do or not from your post, just that it's a good concept to understand)

 

Ancient Greece was the first country to have a democracy of any sorts. But it was a very limited one. Only White free landholding men with a certain amount of money could vote - and even then, it was limited to 6000 people at a time. It was far from perfect, or from being modern in any sense. Sure, the american system was similar at it's start, but it quickly evolved into something completely different that only resembles Greece's democracy in vague respects.

 

Democracy is all about stupid voters. If the voters were responsible and informed, it would be a technocracy.

 

(I agreed with your middle statement so i took it out .. dont want it to look like im debating that point, though there's more to nazism then just that..)

 

While it is true that Karl Marx did not say that "Religion is the opiate of the masses", I'm sure he felt that it was.

Debates are televised, put on the radio, transcripts and recordings put on the internet and in the newspaper - all of which are avilable in one form or another to the masses in America. The only people that are uneducated and uninformed about the various issue's are the one's that choose not to care about politics, or to only care about one issue.

 

Pure Marxism doesnt say that religion is bad - http://www.marxist.com/Theory/marxism_and_religion.html - However when twisted by Lenin or Stalin into various forms of Soviet Communism, it proclaims that religion is bad.

 

Next issue: Literacy rate in america's higher then 25% - it's probably somewhere around 75-80%. Still horrible, but not bad compared to some nation's. Most of the people that i meet that cant read are immigrants that have been here for a few years and learned to speak the language, or just teenagers that never gave a {censored} about school & have parents that dont care either.

 

Not every job out there has a college degree - there's some jobs that dont require degree's simply because the equivilant degree doesnt exist.

 

I guess it's not so easy for the media when people want to NOT care.

Spot on. There's news channels - CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and others - dedicated to bringing news to people 24/7. Some of the most reputable newspapers in the world - NY Times, Wallstreet Journal, USA Today - are in the US and avilable most anywhere. If people dont care, then it can be avilable in as many ways possible and they wont watch/listen/absorb the information.

 

I agree. It's sensationalist television for a reason. The thing is, people think I'm the strange one. People think I'm unfeeling when I say "Oh, someone died in a mine. Big deal, people are dying all over the world from hunger" or "Columbia wasnt a tragedy. They got to space, that's pretty good. That's 7 people who died. How many people dont have food tonight?". It's not that I'm unfeeling or apathetic, it's that other people only know to feel something when they're TOLD to.

This is part of the attitude that's the problem. Saying one issue's more imporant then another. Let the viewer decide. Present plain facts, no bias either way. That's what the media SHOULD be doing. Instead, they're delving to much into what they think, into what everyday people think - sure its g reat for the ratings, and everyone should have an oppertunity to speak, but not when it gets in the way of allowing others to know the facts plain and simple.

 

Yeah, I dont know if america has the best system, capitalizm certainly isnt the best system, I agree with democracy, but free trade and capitalizm is absolutely crazy, if that was allowed to go on unchecked companies would still be paying their workers pennies in deplorable working conditions, the sooner we stop putting on the fake image of "absolutely free trade" and start regulating the things that NEED to be regulated, we'll be roaring!

 

Also I dont agree that our system of government works with a horrible leader, no system of government really does, I mean look in recent years, our rights can arbitrarily be taken away slowly so that we dont notice because it feels gradual. Everybody just watch out, every US president who has pledged smaller government has made considerable steps in making the government much bigger.

 

I do think the media needs to be changed, I dont think the probelm with it is that its liberal, I think the problem with it is a focus on ratings and entertainment and not enough focus on informing the public on what needs to be heard whether people want to hear it or not.

What do you suggest instead of capitalism? Things that need to be regulated ARE regulated. Medication is regulated so someone cant pick grass and call it a cure for cancer. Food is regulated so someone cant {censored} into a jar of milk and sell it still, or step on a hot dog and sell it as 'premium' meat.

 

And get a good leader and the problems get corrected - thats the beauty of the system, it fixes itself if given the chance.

 

Again - spot on for what you said about the media.

 

I do understand capitalizm, I just dont agree with it, atleast the ideal of it. My problem is I have a little bit of socialism in me (not to be confused with communism, which is f***ed up too), I think healthcare is a right, not a privilidge, I also believe that businesses have an obligation to help the community in which they do business, some companies would get away with murder if they could (wal mart for example). I just think unregulated business is a very bad thing. It just leads to the companies taking advantage of poor people, widening the gap in rich and poor. I agree with laws like in in my own state of washington in which minimum wage has to be eqivalant to the standard of living, I think those laws are good, alot of people dont agree with me, and think its unnecessary regulation, but if the government didnt force companies to be honest, few would be.

Your 'ideal' isnt necessarily the correct understanding of capitalism. That's like me saying i know basic addition, so i can claim im a rocket scientist instead. Again - with your statment of comunism being f***ed up, go understand the system, learn how it works, why it does so, before saying that.

 

Businesses are already regulated under American capitalism to prevent the very things your saying are bad. Minimum wage is being raised, But how would you determine the standard of living? For one person, they might just need food, clothes, and a place to live. Another might be addicted to cigarettes or something else and need money for that as well. The standard of living isnt a standard across the board.

 

Not exactly. We are really an Fascist Republic. Democracy flew out the window over 100 years ago since the corps took over.

 

 

Its not a democracy. Can you find someone in congress / the senate that represents you? Ive looked everywhere, I can't find one. They all seem to eager to help Bellsouth turn a profit, rather than the people that put their sorry asses there.

 

I actually exchanged words with Trent Lott when I met him in the local grocery store. (He is a complete dumbass) I asked him why he is representing Bellsouth instead of the people that voted him into office. He had no answer, and started acting nervous. He tried to use his fake 'senator' personality, and defend himself saying that it was better for the people. When confronted on censorship issues in the matter, he couldn't answer, and walked away nervous with people staring at him wondering why he couldn't answer the (net neutrality) questions. When in line at the checkout counter, a small child about 3 or 4, that was with a tattooed woman threw a cabbage at him.

Er.. what?

 

Im pretty sure that in the Senate, Hilary Clinton & Chuck Schumer represent me - i mean i know people who voted for them(i didnt vote - to young ) and i got in touch with Clinton when i called her up once. Just because your representative is a bad choice, doesnt mean that every senator is.

[killbot1000]

when I said that communism is f***ed up, i didnt mean real communism, I meant russian and chinese communism (which isnt really communism). Real communism is fine, but it would never happen so dont even bother trying heheh.

[gwprod12]

I'd like to make a point about elected representatives.

 

Just because people are too stupid to vote their interests vs their fears doesnt mean that we dont have a democratic system. We COULD get a Congress that we like. We're just too collectively lazy to care that much.

 

And inevitably, no matter who we choose for congress/president/mayor, the demands of their job will cause us to despise them.

 

What exactly do we want from our elected officials anyways?

[A Nonny Moose]

when I said that communism is f***ed up, i didnt mean real communism, I meant russian and chinese communism (which isnt really communism). Real communism is fine, but it would never happen so dont even bother trying heheh.

 

it's the same thinking that says ideal capitalism is fine. In practice, both methods have their faults.

[AppleLegal]

when I said that communism is f***ed up, i didnt mean real communism, I meant russian and chinese communism (which isnt really communism). Real communism is fine, but it would never happen so dont even bother trying heheh.

Again - your mixing Communism up with Socialism. Pure communism doesnt exist - that would be Socialism. Pure Socialism - has never implemented, despite the Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, and however many other attempts on a national scale - they've failed.

 

The Nordic countrys - they have a Democratic Socialist government. Vote for leaders, but the government takes care of the people. A system like that is the ideal one to have. But it's impractical on a large scale - in which case, a Democratic government with principles of Capitalism is best - like the US has.

 

You might want to look up some utopian society's in the US - Brook Farm, etc

 

I'd like to make a point about elected representatives.

 

Just because people are too stupid to vote their interests vs their fears doesnt mean that we dont have a democratic system. We COULD get a Congress that we like. We're just too collectively lazy to care that much.

 

And inevitably, no matter who we choose for congress/president/mayor, the demands of their job will cause us to despise them.

 

What exactly do we want from our elected officials anyways?

Er.. no. Poeple vote for who they want, but because not everyone wants the same thing - Core values of Democrats and Republicans change - Taxes, Abortion, Social Security, etc - these positions are different on Democratic and Republican side.

 

It's impossible to get a perfect government that everyone will like, simply because everyone is different.

 

It IS important to note, however, that the party's ideals change over time - Lincoln would have been a Democrat if he were alive today, however he was a Republican president.

 

I'd assume that most people would (if they realize it or not..) want their elected officials to represent them on a larger scale because they dont have time/patience/money/ability to do so themselves.

[gwprod12]

I was trying to make the point that you shouldnt complain about how your elected official represents you, if you cant be bothered to know what's actually going on in the political process.

[jgrimes80]

when I said that communism is f***ed up, i didnt mean real communism, I meant russian and chinese communism (which isnt really communism). Real communism is fine, but it would never happen so dont even bother trying heheh.

 

You need to read up on government/economics structures abroad. No offense, you either don't know what you're talking about, or you're simply having trouble putting your thoughts into words.

 

You definitely don't understand capitalism

You're wishy washy on socialism/communism

You think "Russian" and "Chinese" communism are "f**ked up"

And "real" communism is okay...

 

You think "real communism" isn't f**ked up? Please explain to me what "real" communism is...

 

You must be implying that there exists a group of people with a need to be governed that not only have the same values, but the same wants and desires. Unfortunately, no two people are that alike, so someone will ALWAYS be "f**ked."

 

Hell, you comparing a government structure to an economy... wtf?

 

BTW; China practices "enlightened" socialism... increasingly "enlightened" to accept the benefits of capitalism which grows on them year after year in their rapidly emerging economy...

[killbot1000]

You need to read up on government/economics structures abroad. No offense, you either don't know what you're talking about, or you're simply having trouble putting your thoughts into words.

 

You definitely don't understand capitalism

You're wishy washy on socialism/communism

You think "Russian" and "Chinese" communism are "f**ked up"

And "real" communism is okay...

 

You think "real communism" isn't f**ked up? Please explain to me what "real" communism is...

 

You must be implying that there exists a group of people with a need to be governed that not only have the same values, but the same wants and desires. Unfortunately, no two people are that alike, so someone will ALWAYS be "f**ked."

 

Hell, you comparing a government structure to an economy... wtf?

 

BTW; China practices "enlightened" socialism... increasingly "enlightened" to accept the benefits of capitalism which grows on them year after year in their rapidly emerging economy...

 

 

Basically the form of government that exists in china sickens me, not because of how they operate, but because of human rights issues, im worried about china because the people have no individual rights, which i know isnt as important to the chinese as it is to us, but its a little scary that people can be locked up just for speaking their mind.

 

I know the difference between communism and socialism. I define communism as karl marx described it which is totally different than the "communist" countries of the world in which they skipped a stage (capitalism) and then never got past the "proliteriate dictatorship phase". Ive read the communist manifesto, I know what its all about, I just am crappy at long winded things on forums.

 

Government structure has a lot to do with economy. Communism for example (russian) gets rid of all ownership, and gives it all to the government, and then eventually the government becomes the ONLY employer. Having the economic view of this form of communism greatly influences the form of government this country would have.

 

Real communism is when the NEED for ownership, personal property and money is gone. and the government isnt the SOLE employer, but there is no need for employment, the only way that real communism can exist is with the existance of robots, people wouldnt work, the robots would do ALL of the work, and the only cost of items would be the cost of the resources used in them, profit wouldnt be a motivating factor in human existance. I go back to the manna article I read (http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm). Famous Scientists didnt become scientists for financial gain, that was only a necessary evil from it. Even though karl marx thought of it a little bit differently with his 19th century upbringing, this is what I belive is communism. A future in which there is no personal property, there is no profit, etc.

 

I see socialism as just hyper-regulation, companies are highly regulated to make sure they dont do anything underhanded or evil, its a system that stresses cooperation rather than competition. Also people are taxed more but the money is used for real purposes (healthcare for example). Again, socialism is fine, except its only good if its got good leaders.

 

Capitalism in its most pure state (we dont have a capitalist government, despite what we might think[uS]) is just a laizze faire attitude toward economics, just leave companies alone, and they will flourish on their own. I mean correct me if im wrong, but this is capitalizm. This though I dont feel is the best system though, because companies rarely care about their employees, its 100% about money, which is not how companies should look at it at all, atleast I dont think so, thats why socialism seems to be the best choice. In pure capitalism you can have things like the stock market crash of 1929, and monopolies abound, what we have now isnt really capitalism, its regulated, but not enough to call it socialism, i dont really know what to call it, but its definately not capitalism.

 

Basically to make it simple I boil it down to two choices:

 

Capitalism: you have low regulation, but also little/no help from the government, take care of yourself in every aspect of life basically. Also with companies, they are allowed to do whatever they want, whether its good for the citizens or not.

 

Socialism: You have tight regulation, people have services such as free healthcare, and subsidized housing, but they pay for it in massive taxes, but they are taken care of. Competition still exists, but laws are in place to prevent one company from dominating to the extreme.

 

I know im probably off a little bit, but thats the general overview I have of the two, and I feel its mostly accurate.

 

Love ya all

 

Killbot1000

[AppleLegal]

Basically the form of government that exists in china sickens me, not because of how they operate, but because of human rights issues, im worried about china because the people have no individual rights, which i know isnt as important to the chinese as it is to us, but its a little scary that people can be locked up just for speaking their mind.

I somehow dont believe that people in china have no individual rights - they have compters, ergo freedom of speech, petition, press, and information in some form - limited, yes, but it still exists. Do they deserve more? yes. But right now, at this very moment, there's not much that can be done, unless starting a nuclear war counts. Is it a bit scary to think of? Yes, but it's reality of what happens there - not much that can be done.

 

I skimmed the rest, but from what i read, you have it all completely wrong. Communism is NOT Socialism. Karl Marx never described Communism - he described Socialism. Socialism's not some hyper-regulated state.

 

Specific forms of government are dependant on the economy - Russian Communism for example. But not all forms are. A US Democracy - not dependant on a good economy, sure it helps, but that's not necessary for a Democracy to work. The British system - a Monarch with little power & A two house legislature - that's not dependant on the economy.

 

"Pure" capitalism, socialism, or anything else will never exist. Whenever it's implemented, it will be changed around by those that implement it. They'll twist it to make it better for that particular country or their goal's.

[A Nonny Moose]

I somehow dont believe that people in china have no individual rights - they have compters, ergo freedom of speech, petition, press, and information in some form - limited, yes, but it still exists. Do they deserve more? yes. But right now, at this very moment, there's not much that can be done, unless starting a nuclear war counts. Is it a bit scary to think of? Yes, but it's reality of what happens there - not much that can be done.

 

I believe that freedom of speech/petition/press/information means freedom to also criticize and hear criticism of their government. They don't get that in China; instead they get happy froo froo China (and it's ven worse in North Korea) without hearing any opposing viewpoints. In fact, those opposing viewpoints are squashed via imprisonment or death.

 

How is that even limited freedom?

[killbot1000]

I somehow dont believe that people in china have no individual rights - they have compters, ergo freedom of speech, petition, press, and information in some form - limited, yes, but it still exists. Do they deserve more? yes. But right now, at this very moment, there's not much that can be done, unless starting a nuclear war counts. Is it a bit scary to think of? Yes, but it's reality of what happens there - not much that can be done.

 

I skimmed the rest, but from what i read, you have it all completely wrong. Communism is NOT Socialism. Karl Marx never described Communism - he described Socialism. Socialism's not some hyper-regulated state.

 

Specific forms of government are dependant on the economy - Russian Communism for example. But not all forms are. A US Democracy - not dependant on a good economy, sure it helps, but that's not necessary for a Democracy to work. The British system - a Monarch with little power & A two house legislature - that's not dependant on the economy.

 

"Pure" capitalism, socialism, or anything else will never exist. Whenever it's implemented, it will be changed around by those that implement it. They'll twist it to make it better for that particular country or their goal's.

 

I never said socialism was communism, I thought I made that clear, I guess not, I know they are totally different

 

Karl marx certainly did describe communism, THAT IS WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, which is why he called his book the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, russian communism isnt communism, its just a dictatorship, communism is what karl marx described. And I didnt mean to say socialism had hyper regulation, just more so than capitalism, so it seems hyper regulated in comparison.

 

 

But yes, karl marx was talking about communism, russia and china just dont have communism, despite the fact that we call it communism...

 

 

The problem with all of these terms is that they are used incorrectly across the world, and people dont understand the real definitions from the new definitions, very confusing indeed...

[AppleLegal]

I believe that freedom of speech/petition/press/information means freedom to also criticize and hear criticism of their government. They don't get that in China; instead they get happy froo froo China (and it's ven worse in North Korea) without hearing any opposing viewpoints. In fact, those opposing viewpoints are squashed via imprisonment or death.

 

How is that even limited freedom?

Internet - can avoid filters and say what you want. It's something. Something = a limited version of a full thing. Is it enough? No, of course not. But it is there.

 

I never said socialism was communism, I thought I made that clear, I guess not, I know they are totally different

 

Karl marx certainly did describe communism, THAT IS WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, which is why he called his book the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, russian communism isnt communism, its just a dictatorship, communism is what karl marx described. And I didnt mean to say socialism had hyper regulation, just more so than capitalism, so it seems hyper regulated in comparison.

But yes, karl marx was talking about communism, russia and china just dont have communism, despite the fact that we call it communism...

The problem with all of these terms is that they are used incorrectly across the world, and people dont understand the real definitions from the new definitions, very confusing indeed...

What Karl Marx described as Communism, is referred to as Socialism pretty much everywhere else - largely in part because of Russian, and Chinese Communism. They are NOT dictatorships. There's subtle differences that largely seperate Communism from a Dictatorship.

 

Your using the terms as incorrectly as anyone else that you claim is doing so.

[gwprod12]

People in china have one absolute freedom. The freedom to do exactly what central planning tells them.

 

Actually, AppleLegal is rightish. The people in china are well-taken care of, and for the most part, exist in the true spirit of Democracy with a big D. China is laid out as a communal organism. All parts have some say in how the organism is run, and all parts are taken care of to the best of the body's ability. Sometimes there are defective parts that need to be removed to keep the whole functioning well.

 

The US's democracy with a little d doesnt tolerate the idea of defective members of society that have to be excised.

 

In China, critizing the central authority is bad for your health. But how long will it continue to be "kosher" to criticize the US government?

[AppleLegal]

But how long will it continue to be "kosher" to criticize the US government?

Well - i cant see Bush, or any other president EVER being able to change the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights. So, i'd imagine that the freedom of speech would last until the US doesnt exist anymore.

[Swad]

AppleLegal, here's the response I promised you on IRC:

 

Right now, i cant remember the proper term for it, but right now, what's going on in Politics - with the Republican majority in both houses, and the Executive branch, is a rare thing, that always sorts itself out in mid-year elections - the other party will take control of one, or both houses - and bring the system back to balance and stability. Right now is not the first time in American political history where something like this has occurred.

 

It doesn't always sort itself out in the short term - during the 1800's there was a long time when there was really only one party. You're right, though, it is rare.

 

...good responses about the Florida thing...

 

Ancient Greece was the first country to have a democracy of any sorts. But it was a very limited one. Only White free landholding men with a certain amount of money could vote - and even then, it was limited to 6000 people at a time. It was far from perfect, or from being modern in any sense. Sure, the american system was similar at it's start, but it quickly evolved into something completely different that only resembles Greece's democracy in vague respects.

 

True, but America was essentially the same way for 100 years (only more White men could vote). That said, it's still the best system out there, and good job on pointing out the differences.

 

...and good responses to about everything else.

 

I was hoping to disagree with you a lot and catch all kinds of logical fallacies. But you're pretty sound. Good job.

[A Nonny Moose]

In China, critizing the central authority is bad for your health. But how long will it continue to be "kosher" to criticize the US government?

 

It will continue to happen on the front page of the New York Times so long as a Republican is alive, much less in a political office.

[AppleLegal]

It doesn't always sort itself out in the short term - during the 1800's there was a long time when there was really only one party. You're right, though, it is rare.

Wikipedia's got a list of the political parties in history of the US, and im guessing your referring to the Third Party Period? This era was dominated by the Republicans - who were the majority in the Northern and Western area's of the US, and not the Democrats - who were the southern majority.

 

I'd think that this is due to the Reconstruction Era, where the Northern states had near complete control over the Southern states after the Civil war - and kept control of it until 1888(iirc) where they agreed to remove the Northern army's from the Southern states in return for keeping the presidency for another 4 years.

 

True, but America was essentially the same way for 100 years (only more White men could vote).

America changed. Ancient Greece didnt.

[Languy]

One of the key "issues" with your statement over the Government giving out aid to other countries, is that you probably don't understand how the U.S twists this around to benefit themselves.

 

Most of the "aid" that the U.S gives out to countries is only considered "aid" by America.

alot of the stories and cases you can read regarding this topic is found on the Amnesty International Homepage. Americans tend to give aid, yes, this is true, but almost always aid that only benefits America, be it adding new computers or better working conditions for some over seas country, but the main export of said country is XXX item America needs.

 

Alot of the Cases by Amnesty and some other organisations over these are of a great read, and I personally found them quiet interesting.

 

I agree with you on this:

America's Government being one of the best-- this is true, no matter how you look at it, no matter what your opinion is on America, hate or love, this is just true. America is the most successful, the most defended, and the most welthy country be it government and citizen alike. This does not happen with a poor government system like say, China, where they actually make more money than America, but most of the citizens are fairly poor and live lifestyles which are much harder and stressful than the average americans.

 

One thing that has always gotten to me, personally as a Canadian, is that so many people seem to have something agaisnt Americans when really the Americans have done nothing to those people. America has flawed, but so has everyone.... America may have gone the wrong way about alot of things but they have done more for this world than anyone else has, and that is for sure, the destructive by-product of war and technology is un-avoidable, and we are ALL to blame, not just America. As a Canadian, I tend to dislike America on some points, one being that they seem to always under estimate us, and never respect the Canadians for who we are, Canada is, in my eyes, the very best Country in the world. You cannot beat the lifestyles we live, you cannot beat our air, our water, our citizen-security, our kindness or our beauty. The only thing Canada really lacks is War-Security, and in a way, we really don't need it, The only people who will ever consider invading or going to war with Canada is America over our water and land--and quiet frankly I doubt the world would ever let them get away with that.

 

 

--My thoughts

Lan