00:00
00:00

Our goal is for Newgrounds to be ad free for everyone! Become a Supporter today and help make this dream a reality!

Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state.

644 Views | 39 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic

A lot of the worlds problems are laid at the feet of capitalism, but when you look at if governments did not distort markets so much we might have more of a healthy equilibrium.


People blame capitalism for how we are living beyond our means both by over-reliance on debt and over-use of natural resources.

But who is really the one constantly pushing for endless growth?

The state.


Why do we have constant inflation that punishes businesses and individuals who choose to save,

thus incentivising higher risk behaiviour and increasing the amount of shareholders who just want money for nothing and damn everything else?


Because governments are always borrowing.


What does globalism rely on more than anything else?

Supply chains.

What do supply chains rely on?

Infrastructure.

Who builds the infrastructure?

The state.


Where do people get the money to spend on things they don`t need?

In a great deal of cases at least partly from the state.


The technology that made smartphones possible was developed by the US government.


The internet still relies on the US millitary to function as does GPS.


Large corperations can only exist in the way they do because international pressure means they are not required to pay much real tax while smaller firms do.


Why do people have confidence in the current system?

Because the government always uses taxpayers money to shore up the rotting facade when it breaks and regulates to wall-paper over the cracks.


Who makes overly cautious food standards that means perfectly good food is thrown away?


Who subsidies fossil fuels and airlines?


Who designs infrastructure largely for cars and often makes walking/cycling/riding incovienient, unpleasant or dangerous?


Those that rule us often have vested interests and give unfair advantages to certain companies.


State run education systems don`t tend to give a shit about the pursuit of knowledge only turning the pupils into good economically productive citizens and ticking boxes.


The state run eduation system means anyone not intent on following a highly consumerist lifestyle is going to be an outcast while they are at a highly impressionable age.


Forigen policy is highly inluenced by commercial interests meaning taxpayers money is used to distort markets in other countries.


Very few countries if any really have that much of a free market system.


I`m just tired of people of saying capitalism has failed when much of what they identify as capitalism relies so much on the state.


Curtains for joe

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-10 23:14:27


This is a common problem. Government interferes in the markets, charity, private morality, etc, and creates unexpected consequences. Rather than blaming the intervention that caused the problems, the underlying structure which was tampered with is blamed. This flaw is then used to justify more government intervention, which creates more problems. Rinse lather, repeat.


It is a shame that the government breaks the law more than the criminals it punishes.

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 09:11:36


At 5/7/20 12:13 PM, curtainsjoe wrote: A lot of the worlds problems are laid at the feet of capitalism, but when you look at if governments did not distort markets so much we might have more of a healthy equilibrium.

People blame capitalism for how we are living beyond our means both by over-reliance on debt and over-use of natural resources.
But who is really the one constantly pushing for endless growth?
The state.

Why do we have constant inflation that punishes businesses and individuals who choose to save,
thus incentivising higher risk behaiviour and increasing the amount of shareholders who just want money for nothing and damn everything else?

Because governments are always borrowing.

What does globalism rely on more than anything else?
Supply chains.
What do supply chains rely on?
Infrastructure.
Who builds the infrastructure?
The state.

Where do people get the money to spend on things they don`t need?
In a great deal of cases at least partly from the state.

The technology that made smartphones possible was developed by the US government.

The internet still relies on the US millitary to function as does GPS.

Large corperations can only exist in the way they do because international pressure means they are not required to pay much real tax while smaller firms do.

Why do people have confidence in the current system?
Because the government always uses taxpayers money to shore up the rotting facade when it breaks and regulates to wall-paper over the cracks.

Who makes overly cautious food standards that means perfectly good food is thrown away?

Who subsidies fossil fuels and airlines?

Who designs infrastructure largely for cars and often makes walking/cycling/riding incovienient, unpleasant or dangerous?

Those that rule us often have vested interests and give unfair advantages to certain companies.

State run education systems don`t tend to give a shit about the pursuit of knowledge only turning the pupils into good economically productive citizens and ticking boxes.

The state run eduation system means anyone not intent on following a highly consumerist lifestyle is going to be an outcast while they are at a highly impressionable age.

Forigen policy is highly inluenced by commercial interests meaning taxpayers money is used to distort markets in other countries.

Very few countries if any really have that much of a free market system.

I`m just tired of people of saying capitalism has failed when much of what they identify as capitalism relies so much on the state.


How DARE you! (Greta Thunberg voice)


Two selected things as there’s a lot of separate items in this list:

At 5/7/20 12:13 PM, curtainsjoe wrote: Where do people get the money to spend on things they don`t need?
In a great deal of cases at least partly from the state.

Is that true?

If you’re talking about purchasing frivolous items, that sounds like pay-day loans. Are you sure public banks allow people to make poor decisions with their loans?


Who designs infrastructure largely for cars and often makes walking/cycling/riding incovienient, unpleasant or dangerous?

I think that’s more of an oversight in design or differing design practises on items that are intended to last for decades. The state isn’t looking to actively discourage you from riding a bike to work.


EDIT: also it’s not the state who designs infrastructure; they’re the client who pays a private company to design it for them. Poor practise does come from the clients choosing the cheapest bid possible for a poorly understood scope of works.


BBS Signature

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 10:05:22


At 5/11/20 09:26 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: Two selected things as there’s a lot of separate items in this list:
At 5/7/20 12:13 PM, curtainsjoe wrote: Where do people get the money to spend on things they don`t need?
In a great deal of cases at least partly from the state.
Is that true?


I`m talking largely about benefits and all that.

I`m sure there are plenty of people relying on benfits and struggling to feed and clothe themselves but there are many who recive some form of welfare they could easily get by without.


The state isn’t looking to actively discourage you from riding a bike to work.


With the execptiom of some local governments.


Curtains for joe

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 10:12:27


At 5/11/20 10:05 AM, curtainsjoe wrote:
At 5/11/20 09:26 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: The state isn’t looking to actively discourage you from riding a bike to work.
With the execptiom of some local governments.

Still no, sorry. There’s nothing substantial to gain from having a lot of people using cars on highways infrastructure as it’s an expensive burden for maintenance and delays for people getting to work on time.


BBS Signature

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 10:19:29


At 5/11/20 10:12 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:
At 5/11/20 10:05 AM, curtainsjoe wrote:
At 5/11/20 09:26 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: The state isn’t looking to actively discourage you from riding a bike to work.
With the execptiom of some local governments.
Still no, sorry. There’s nothing substantial to gain from having a lot of people using cars on highways infrastructure as it’s an expensive burden for maintenance and delays for people getting to work on time.


Yeah but local government is a bit of a cesspit.


Curtains for joe

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 12:12:17


But the states are run by the people, the people who are essentially bought by capitalism through campaign donations (and other means) - and like an investment, are expected to give back returns to those who gave them money.


If corporation, banks, and business, are considered people, according to the US Supreme Court's "Citizen United" decision, where they can openly give million under free speech to buy off politicians, guaranteeing that those with the most money can control the direction of the country, while also safe-guarding their own social status, even if it comes to the detriment of millions of people.


While states do oversee infrastructure, they don't build them. They subcontract private construction companies to do that and to maintain them. While there is a bid system that the state supposedly goes by it's often mired in corruption where the state goes with the higher price for this stuff. So, again, capitalism is at play here.

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 12:23:42


At 5/11/20 12:12 PM, EdyKel wrote: again, capitalism is at play here.


Capitalism is just an economic system where the means of production is privately owned, it`s not capitalisms fault that people are courupt and inept, you just have to look at the Soviet Union to realise that.


Curtains for joe

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 14:35:06


At 5/11/20 12:23 PM, curtainsjoe wrote:
At 5/11/20 12:12 PM, EdyKel wrote: again, capitalism is at play here.
Capitalism is just an economic system where the means of production is privately owned, it`s not capitalisms fault that people are courupt and inept, you just have to look at the Soviet Union to realise that.


Capitalism is very much a political system as it is an economic one, both being very intertwined with each other, with capitalism often taking lead with the state supporting it - it would be more socialism if it was opposite.


Corruption doesn't discriminate, but it is mostly associated with capitalism. It's why private owners of industry in capitalist countries often control the state through buying them off, to give themselves competitive advantage over others.


Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 14:56:54


There's an old Winston Churchill quote that goes something like "Capitalism, that's the worst system of them all! Except all those other ones, those are even worse!"

I agree with this a lot. I don't think it's that Capitalism is this great system, rather it's just the least of many evils compared to what else is out there. I'd much rather live under the possibility of poverty than have a gun to my head. Because, to get topical here, in the same sense that this Quarantine works in theory, but it's in human nature to need/want to go out and do things; I think that socialism couldn't work in the long run, and keep working, without holding a gun to everyone's head.


If I'm online, I'm probably procrastinating something...

BBS Signature

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 15:19:27


At 5/11/20 02:35 PM, EdyKel wrote:
Capitalism is very much a political system as it is an economic one, both being very intertwined with each other, with capitalism often taking lead with the state supporting it - it would be more socialism if it was opposite.


Well politics and economics are so highly intertwined that you can`t eaisly seperate one from the other.


Corruption doesn't discriminate, but it is mostly associated with capitalism.


Wrongly imo


It`s true that in more authoritarian countries the rich don`t need to buy power so much because the rich are the powerfu who use their power to get rich.



It's why private owners of industry in capitalist countries often control the state through buying them off, to give themselves competitive advantage over others.


That`s surely a failure of the state though, capitalism does not prohibit proper anti-conflict of interest legislation.


Curtains for joe

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 19:45:40


At 5/11/20 03:19 PM, curtainsjoe wrote:
At 5/11/20 02:35 PM, EdyKel wrote:
Capitalism is very much a political system as it is an economic one, both being very intertwined with each other, with capitalism often taking lead with the state supporting it - it would be more socialism if it was opposite.
Well politics and economics are so highly intertwined that you can`t eaisly seperate one from the other.

Corruption doesn't discriminate, but it is mostly associated with capitalism.
Wrongly imo

It`s true that in more authoritarian countries the rich don`t need to buy power so much because the rich are the powerfu who use their power to get rich.


In the US, we control 40% of the world's wealth, with 5% of the population controlling 60% of it. Corruption in this country is practically legal, because it's so widely accepted to the point it is considered normal. Billions are spent on financing political campaigns in each election cycle. Politicians after serving in office are often hired by companies, get cushy office jobs, or become their lobbyists because they know how the system works and have connections (aka, the swamp). In authoritarian countries, I believe it's bit more publicly limited, but just as rampant.


Hell, we have politicians dolling out generous contracts (no-bid), or bailing out companies, all because they helped fund their campaign, or were offered a job afterwards. It's like the Republicans giving out generous government subsidies to the the billion dollar fossil fuel industry, while lambasting Democrats for renewable energy subsidies. Both sides do it. This is just the way things are, because it's so ingrained. And most of this shit just helps out the party being funded by those companies or industries.


It's why private owners of industry in capitalist countries often control the state through buying them off, to give themselves competitive advantage over others.
That`s surely a failure of the state though, capitalism does not prohibit proper anti-conflict of interest legislation.


But it also encourages that anti-conflict of interest legislation. After the 2008 financial crises, there were a few anti-pork barrel policies put in place in state spending, to settle down the public, but it didn't do much and didn't last long - eventually it was gotten rid of, because of lobbyist pressure.


The problem here is that it's difficult to separate the state from capitalism (at least in the US), not when they are so intertwined with each other to the point you can't claim that one is more blameless than the other.

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 21:34:41


If capitalism were pure and originally as Adam Smith had espoused it to be, maybe this would be true. Unfortunately, as intricacies arise, it is no longer the case.

The strongest example I can think of is during the eras where government regulation was so horrid that human greed ran amuck and put many people in harm's way. This was the Industrial Revolution. You may argue that it was the state's negligence in that case, but I would say the state was keeping out of commerce and eventually had to step in because private interests could not hold themselves accountable for their own customers.

I guess today those sorts of issues are much more concealed or grey? In my opinion, it's still far from only the state's fault. The private companies who have profited from capitalism ... I'm not sure I trust them either.


If capitalism were the ideal that it was supposed to be, then it would have less culpability. But it influences people in a certain way, in my humble opinion.


There is always time for... you guessed it, Dungeons and Dragons.

BBS Signature

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 21:44:27


Whatever it is that might be your political alignement, everything always comes to the same converging point. ALWAYS. The source problem of all problems beneath it - or uppon it, depending on your point of view. If you see the source problem as a root from which the other problems grow up, then the source problem is beneath, with all of those other problems - that come from it (the source) - are it's branches and leaves uppon it. In the end, though, one might notice that it doesn't matter if you cut the branches, for the root is kept safe inside the earth, away from any harm or danger, and the branches shall grow back again, and again and again, being a hundred percent irrelevant the number of times the branches are prune. But there is another way to see all of that. If you imagine the source problem as being an entity, a god, so to speak, you might think of it high up in the cosmos, creating it's minion problems with it's overhuman capabilities, throwing those fallen angels uppon us in it's wrath, showing no mercy uppon our mere mortal souls. This supernatural being has no more then one single objective, which is to fuck the ass of who is reading this.


Just like every other cute anime girl on the internet, i'm a dude. Btw you can fuck my profile pic here.

BBS Signature

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 22:03:12


i swore i was in general, sorry dudes


Just like every other cute anime girl on the internet, i'm a dude. Btw you can fuck my profile pic here.

BBS Signature

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-11 23:44:59


At 5/11/20 12:12 PM, EdyKel wrote: If corporation, banks, and business, are considered people, according to the US Supreme Court's "Citizen United" decision, where they can openly give million under free speech to buy off politicians, guaranteeing that those with the most money can control the direction of the country, while also safe-guarding their own social status, even if it comes to the detriment of millions of people.


Corporations are groups of people. And people do not give up their right to speak when they join a group. So, I don't understand how anyone can debate that part of the argument. Further, the First Amendment was an absolute that prohibited the state from interfering with speech at all. Here, you have incumbents protecting their status by silencing dissenting speech. Not only is this a textbook First Amendment violation, it is clearly against the interests of society as a whole. Citizens United was a correct decision.


While states do oversee infrastructure, they don't build them. They subcontract private construction companies to do that and to maintain them. While there is a bid system that the state supposedly goes by it's often mired in corruption where the state goes with the higher price for this stuff. So, again, capitalism is at play here.


Many states do, in fact, build infrastructure. Nevertheless, crony capitalism is still state action, hardly "capitalism".


Capitalism is very much a political system as it is an economic one, both being very intertwined with each other, with capitalism often taking lead with the state supporting it - it would be more socialism if it was opposite.

Corruption doesn't discriminate, but it is mostly associated with capitalism. It's why private owners of industry in capitalist countries often control the state through buying them off, to give themselves competitive advantage over others.


Corruption is systematic in socialism as well. Fascism was private ownership with governmental control, socialism pretending to be capitalism, in other terms. No matter who it looked like had control, the state did.


It is a shame that the government breaks the law more than the criminals it punishes.

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-12 01:01:28


At 5/11/20 11:44 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
At 5/11/20 12:12 PM, EdyKel wrote: If corporation, banks, and business, are considered people, according to the US Supreme Court's "Citizen United" decision, where they can openly give million under free speech to buy off politicians, guaranteeing that those with the most money can control the direction of the country, while also safe-guarding their own social status, even if it comes to the detriment of millions of people.
Corporations are groups of people. And people do not give up their right to speak when they join a group. So, I don't understand how anyone can debate that part of the argument. Further, the First Amendment was an absolute that prohibited the state from interfering with speech at all. Here, you have incumbents protecting their status by silencing dissenting speech. Not only is this a textbook First Amendment violation, it is clearly against the interests of society as a whole. Citizens United was a correct decision.


I think the point in bringing up that case was that, if you accept corporations and capitalistic entities as people who have a say in the state, then it is impossible to fully separate the two. You can't blame the whole without finding fault in its parts.


There is always time for... you guessed it, Dungeons and Dragons.

BBS Signature

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-12 11:47:11


At 5/11/20 11:44 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
At 5/11/20 12:12 PM, EdyKel wrote: If corporation, banks, and business, are considered people, according to the US Supreme Court's "Citizen United" decision, where they can openly give million under free speech to buy off politicians, guaranteeing that those with the most money can control the direction of the country, while also safe-guarding their own social status, even if it comes to the detriment of millions of people.
Corporations are groups of people. And people do not give up their right to speak when they join a group. So, I don't understand how anyone can debate that part of the argument. Further, the First Amendment was an absolute that prohibited the state from interfering with speech at all. Here, you have incumbents protecting their status by silencing dissenting speech. Not only is this a textbook First Amendment violation, it is clearly against the interests of society as a whole. Citizens United was a correct decision.


No, they are private entities. The people aspect can make individual contributions (which should be limited), not use their combined might through some privatized entity to bulldoze the rights of others by buying off politicians to only listen to them. That just leads to corruption at the expense of the masses.


While states do oversee infrastructure, they don't build them. They subcontract private construction companies to do that and to maintain them. While there is a bid system that the state supposedly goes by it's often mired in corruption where the state goes with the higher price for this stuff. So, again, capitalism is at play here.
Many states do, in fact, build infrastructure. Nevertheless, crony capitalism is still state action, hardly "capitalism".


In very few cases, but most they subcontract out. And crony capitalism is very much a part of capitalism.


Capitalism is very much a political system as it is an economic one, both being very intertwined with each other, with capitalism often taking lead with the state supporting it - it would be more socialism if it was opposite.

Corruption doesn't discriminate, but it is mostly associated with capitalism. It's why private owners of industry in capitalist countries often control the state through buying them off, to give themselves competitive advantage over others.
Corruption is systematic in socialism as well. Fascism was private ownership with governmental control, socialism pretending to be capitalism, in other terms. No matter who it looked like had control, the state did.


I never disputed that corruption is a problem in other systems, but most of those systems are based on some degree of capitalism (except for true communism). At this point, all you are doing is trying to argue the offending word away, because it offends your sensibilities over something, but it won't change that corruption is very intertwined in the nature of capitalism.


Also, I find interesting that you accept the idea that something that isn't mentioned in the 1st amendment is considered free speech, while arguing that corruption isn't apart of capitalism but you can't find anything to acual show it isn't.

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-12 18:47:09


At 5/12/20 11:47 AM, EdyKel wrote: No, they are private entities. The people aspect can make individual contributions (which should be limited), not use their combined might through some privatized entity to bulldoze the rights of others by buying off politicians to only listen to them. That just leads to corruption at the expense of the masses.


They are private entities composed of people. The government really has no right to limit political speech, individual or group.


To say that people combine "to bulldoze the rights of others" is silly. How does combining to put out ads affect others rights? It doesn't. It simply allows people to be heard who otherwise wouldn't. It certainly doesn't lead to corruption any more than any other kind of speech.


In very few cases, but most they subcontract out. And crony capitalism is very much a part of capitalism.


Actually, in most cases. Every state has a Department of Transportation that handles road and bridge projects. 9/10 times, if you see people with hardhats and orange vests fixing the roads, its the DOT.


Regardless, crony capitalism is a feature of government, as it is just a flavor of government doling out favors to its people at the expense of others, something that happens in every form of government. To say that a feature which allows businesses to opt out of the system, and avoid the risks of the system, by appealing to politics. is part of the system they opt out of is interesting...to say the least.


I never disputed that corruption is a problem in other systems, but most of those systems are based on some degree of capitalism (except for true communism). At this point, all you are doing is trying to argue the offending word away, because it offends your sensibilities over something, but it won't change that corruption is very intertwined in the nature of capitalism.


Corruption is a part of POLITICS. This is part of the problem with those who wish to excuse political problems. As argued above, the state creates a problem, and then uses that problem it created to justify futher meddling, which creates further problems. Pointing to the businessman who takes advantage of the system that politicians created, which is not a feature of economics, but politics, to say that ANY economic system has failed, is dishonest.


Also, I find interesting that you accept the idea that something that isn't mentioned in the 1st amendment is considered free speech, while arguing that corruption isn't apart of capitalism but you can't find anything to acual show it isn't.


"Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech". If something is speech, Congress shall make no law. Pretty simple actually. As advertisements are clearly political speech, they are protected by the 1st Amendment, Arguing otherwise is reading something into the Amendment that isn't there. Again, since capitalism CAN'T produce crony capitalism, and crony projects are inherent in non-capitalist systems, I believe the case is pretty self evident that it is a political, not economic, problem.


It is a shame that the government breaks the law more than the criminals it punishes.

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-12 19:17:06


At 5/12/20 01:01 AM, Riveet099 wrote: I think the point in bringing up that case was that, if you accept corporations and capitalistic entities as people who have a say in the state, then it is impossible to fully separate the two. You can't blame the whole without finding fault in its parts.


Do the individuals have rights? If so, why should they give up their rights just because they form or participate in a corporation? Why should we draw a line between, say, Exxon Mobile and the ACLU or the Boy Scouts of America? What gives the government, who is prohibited not just from infringing speech, but also association and ssembly, be permitted to do this?


The converse is true. If the government can attack the whole can it not also attack its parts?


It is a shame that the government breaks the law more than the criminals it punishes.

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-12 20:21:50


At 5/7/20 12:13 PM, curtainsjoe wrote: A lot of the worlds problems are laid at the feet of capitalism, but when you look at if governments did not distort markets so much we might have more of a healthy equilibrium.

People blame capitalism for how we are living beyond our means both by over-reliance on debt and over-use of natural resources.
But who is really the one constantly pushing for endless growth?
The state.

Why do we have constant inflation that punishes businesses and individuals who choose to save,
thus incentivising higher risk behaiviour and increasing the amount of shareholders who just want money for nothing and damn everything else?


I`m just tired of people of saying capitalism has failed when much of what they identify as capitalism relies so much on the state.

Makes sense i guess


peace was never an option

-the goose

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-12 20:32:14


At 5/12/20 07:17 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
At 5/12/20 01:01 AM, Riveet099 wrote: I think the point in bringing up that case was that, if you accept corporations and capitalistic entities as people who have a say in the state, then it is impossible to fully separate the two. You can't blame the whole without finding fault in its parts.
Do the individuals have rights? If so, why should they give up their rights just because they form or participate in a corporation? Why should we draw a line between, say, Exxon Mobile and the ACLU or the Boy Scouts of America? What gives the government, who is prohibited not just from infringing speech, but also association and ssembly, be permitted to do this?

The converse is true. If the government can attack the whole can it not also attack its parts?


To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, so I'll try my best to answer in increments.


"Do the individuals have rights?" - I'm assuming you mean the employees in the corporation. Yeah, they still vote. And sometimes different from how their corporation votes with their dollars and lobby powers.


"If so, why should they give up their rights just because they form or participate in a corporation?" - I wouldn't say they do, but I also cannot say they fully do not. This is in my own experience and some anecdotes I have heard, but joining a corporation sometimes is similar to joining something like a state. I also buy into the Hobbesian model in this case, that for safety, we willingly forfeit rights. This is perhaps more true in a corporation than a state, because we can be born into it without any say. But anyway, we give up rights willingly in order to participate sometimes because it is the "law" of the corporation. There are people unfairly bound to jobs that pay them crap, which they cannot afford to lose sometimes. They lose their voice to complain against the corporation because they depend on it for sustenance. I'm not sure this fully answers your question, as I may have digressed.


"Why should we draw a line between, say, Exxon Mobile and the ACLU or the Boy Scouts of America?" - I don't know the nitty gritty of either entity honestly. I know the latter is a non-profit and the former is a private entity.


" What gives the government, who is prohibited not just from infringing speech, but also association and ssembly, be permitted to do this?" - Be permitted to issue a shutdown you mean? I assume that's what you mean from association and assembly. Eminent domain is nothing compared to a pandemic shutdown, but it is something done for the "greater good." It is a similar case to now, where the government calls the shot that to stop association is safer than to let people roam freely and risk infection. It is true that the rights you speak of are unalienable. If you were not a hazard to society, maybe shutdowns would not be necessary. Maybe if we were a high-trust society like Sweden. But other countries can be a different case. There are people in Tennessee literally with signs saying that the weak dying is fine. We have different values as people whether our rights or life trump. While the country was founded on the premise that freedom beats over life, I can't speak for everyone. I'm assuming the government's priority in the shut down is to mitigate the cases in a ham-handed way rather than risk it with some irresponsible people messing everyone up. Again, sorry if I didn't answer your question at all.


"The converse is true. If the government can attack the whole can it not also attack its parts?" - Government can single people or entities out, sure? But corporations do the same within their own walls, don't they? And in both cases, it's not like the whole does not suffer as a result in some way. To target the companies is to make the government seem anti-corporate, and to target individual workers is to cause dissent in a company.


My original statement was "You can't blame the whole without finding fault in its parts." I'm still not sure as I write this what your "converse" means in relation to it. I mean that since capitalist entities have a hand in government affairs, they, like the populace, are similarly culpable, at least partially.


Again, sorry if I missed your entire statement.


There is always time for... you guessed it, Dungeons and Dragons.

BBS Signature

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-12 21:46:23


At 5/12/20 08:21 PM, Samuka31 wrote:
At 5/7/20 12:13 PM, curtainsjoe wrote: A lot of the worlds problems are laid at the feet of capitalism, but when you look at if governments did not distort markets so much we might have more of a healthy equilibrium.

People blame capitalism for how we are living beyond our means both by over-reliance on debt and over-use of natural resources.
But who is really the one constantly pushing for endless growth?
The state.

Why do we have constant inflation that punishes businesses and individuals who choose to save,
thus incentivising higher risk behaiviour and increasing the amount of shareholders who just want money for nothing and damn everything else?
I`m just tired of people of saying capitalism has failed when much of what they identify as capitalism relies so much on the state.
Makes sense i guess


Yes, but everything has different points of views eitherway

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-13 01:00:14


At 5/12/20 06:47 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
At 5/12/20 11:47 AM, EdyKel wrote: In very few cases, but most they subcontract out. And crony capitalism is very much a part of capitalism.
Actually, in most cases. Every state has a Department of Transportation that handles road and bridge projects. 9/10 times, if you see people with hardhats and orange vests fixing the roads, its the DOT.

Where on earth do you get your information from?

That’s just not true. The people you see on site are Contractors and subcontractors.



BBS Signature

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-13 11:45:53


At 5/12/20 08:32 PM, Riveet099 wrote: To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, so I'll try my best to answer in increments.


That's fair, I wasn't quite sure what your point was either, so we kinda both missed here, I guess.


"Do the individuals have rights?" - I'm assuming you mean the employees in the corporation. Yeah, they still vote. And sometimes different from how their corporation votes with their dollars and lobby powers.


Well, I'm speaking more of the individuals who incorporate. The corporate owners/shareholders. The corporation may vote differently than the employee, but not from the head people.


"If so, why should they give up their rights just because they form or participate in a corporation?" - I wouldn't say they do, but I also cannot say they fully do not. This is in my own experience and some anecdotes I have heard, but joining a corporation sometimes is similar to joining something like a state. I also buy into the Hobbesian model in this case, that for safety, we willingly forfeit rights. This is perhaps more true in a corporation than a state, because we can be born into it without any say. But anyway, we give up rights willingly in order to participate sometimes because it is the "law" of the corporation. There are people unfairly bound to jobs that pay them crap, which they cannot afford to lose sometimes. They lose their voice to complain against the corporation because they depend on it for sustenance. I'm not sure this fully answers your question, as I may have digressed.


Well, the individual employee doesn't lose their rights at all. They may choose not to exercise their rights through self interest, but that is always true. We're talking here about the right of the corporation to speak, which is being infringed by the government.


" What gives the government, who is prohibited not just from infringing speech, but also association and ssembly, be permitted to do this?" - Be permitted to issue a shutdown you mean?


No, we're speaking in the case of speech. Corporate speech is just associative speech. I think most of the rest of your response is off topic mainly because we got our wires crossed with what we were talking about. So, I don't think you're talking corporate speech in the rest (if you are, I apologize), and I'll leave the rest be.


It is a shame that the government breaks the law more than the criminals it punishes.

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-13 11:51:14


At 5/12/20 06:47 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
At 5/12/20 11:47 AM, EdyKel wrote: No, they are private entities. The people aspect can make individual contributions (which should be limited), not use their combined might through some privatized entity to bulldoze the rights of others by buying off politicians to only listen to them. That just leads to corruption at the expense of the masses.
They are private entities composed of people. The government really has no right to limit political speech, individual or group.

To say that people combine "to bulldoze the rights of others" is silly. How does combining to put out ads affect others rights? It doesn't. It simply allows people to be heard who otherwise wouldn't. It certainly doesn't lead to corruption any more than any other kind of speech.


Sure, because that is what it comes down to, with certain people/groups buying off politicians under the guise that it 's free speech when it only drowns out the free speech of the masses in the country. At least, the minority in the Supreme Court saw that in their dissent in Citizen United ( an organization funded by a group of billionaires and millionaires).


In very few cases, but most they subcontract out. And crony capitalism is very much a part of capitalism.
Actually, in most cases. Every state has a Department of Transportation that handles road and bridge projects. 9/10 times, if you see people with hardhats and orange vests fixing the roads, its the DOT.


There is more than the road system, you know. A lot of things fall under infrastructure. There is various levels, among states, over this. There is also a lot of privatizing going on. I know, I have been watching it in my area. It's always under the argument of saving taxpayer money, when the tax payer is paying more for less and for cheaper labor - the story of why businesses outsource to other countries. But this doesn't change the fact that a lot of it is done with no-bid contracts, and that there is a lot of corruption in that process.


Regardless, crony capitalism is a feature of government, as it is just a flavor of government doling out favors to its people at the expense of others, something that happens in every form of government. To say that a feature which allows businesses to opt out of the system, and avoid the risks of the system, by appealing to politics. is part of the system they opt out of is interesting...to say the least.


"Cronyism is the practice of partiality in awarding jobs and other advantages to friends or trusted colleagues"


While cronyism is often associated with connections to the state, it is also very rampant in private business.

None of this changes the fact that much of the cronyism is instigated from private individuals/businesses to the state. So, cronyism is often already apart of business, and most of it is instigated from them to the state - in part, in the form of campaign donations and other means.


I never disputed that corruption is a problem in other systems, but most of those systems are based on some degree of capitalism (except for true communism). At this point, all you are doing is trying to argue the offending word away, because it offends your sensibilities over something, but it won't change that corruption is very intertwined in the nature of capitalism.
Corruption is a part of POLITICS. This is part of the problem with those who wish to excuse political problems. As argued above, the state creates a problem, and then uses that problem it created to justify futher meddling, which creates further problems. Pointing to the businessman who takes advantage of the system that politicians created, which is not a feature of economics, but politics, to say that ANY economic system has failed, is dishonest.


And in business. You are placing all the blame on the state, none from private business and people, because your whole political philosophy revolves around this belief - it depends on having one side to blame, in one of your cartooney over-generalizations, when multiple sides are involved and creating that problem. This argument of yours isn't just naive but dishonest.


Also, I find interesting that you accept the idea that something that isn't mentioned in the 1st amendment is considered free speech, while arguing that corruption isn't apart of capitalism but you can't find anything to acual show it isn't.
"Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech". If something is speech, Congress shall make no law. Pretty simple actually. As advertisements are clearly political speech, they are protected by the 1st Amendment, Arguing otherwise is reading something into the Amendment that isn't there. Again, since capitalism CAN'T produce crony capitalism, and crony projects are inherent in non-capitalist systems, I believe the case is pretty self evident that it is a political, not economic, problem.


So, you support cronyism through corporation buying off politicians and placing them in positions of power in the state, while calling it freedom of speech. Gotcha.


iu_121000_3128420.gif

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-13 15:02:02


At 5/13/20 01:00 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: Where on earth do you get your information from?
That’s just not true. The people you see on site are Contractors and subcontractors.


I may be misreading this. I always hold for the possibility that I am wrong, but according to https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes474051.htm the majority of those who work on highways are government workers. I assume when I see people with "Missouri Department of Transportation" vehicles and outfits that they work for MoDOT. Admittedly, that is an assumption, but it seems a safe one.

Some states use private contractors more than others:https://www.governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/Who-Should-Fix-the.html but that site makes them sound like they are the minority in that.


If you have different information, by all means please share.


It is a shame that the government breaks the law more than the criminals it punishes.

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-13 15:14:25


At 5/13/20 11:45 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
At 5/12/20 08:32 PM, Riveet099 wrote: To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, so I'll try my best to answer in increments.
That's fair, I wasn't quite sure what your point was either, so we kinda both missed here, I guess.

"Do the individuals have rights?" - I'm assuming you mean the employees in the corporation. Yeah, they still vote. And sometimes different from how their corporation votes with their dollars and lobby powers.
Well, I'm speaking more of the individuals who incorporate. The corporate owners/shareholders. The corporation may vote differently than the employee, but not from the head people.

"If so, why should they give up their rights just because they form or participate in a corporation?" - I wouldn't say they do, but I also cannot say they fully do not. This is in my own experience and some anecdotes I have heard, but joining a corporation sometimes is similar to joining something like a state. I also buy into the Hobbesian model in this case, that for safety, we willingly forfeit rights. This is perhaps more true in a corporation than a state, because we can be born into it without any say. But anyway, we give up rights willingly in order to participate sometimes because it is the "law" of the corporation. There are people unfairly bound to jobs that pay them crap, which they cannot afford to lose sometimes. They lose their voice to complain against the corporation because they depend on it for sustenance. I'm not sure this fully answers your question, as I may have digressed.
Well, the individual employee doesn't lose their rights at all. They may choose not to exercise their rights through self interest, but that is always true. We're talking here about the right of the corporation to speak, which is being infringed by the government.

" What gives the government, who is prohibited not just from infringing speech, but also association and ssembly, be permitted to do this?" - Be permitted to issue a shutdown you mean?
No, we're speaking in the case of speech. Corporate speech is just associative speech. I think most of the rest of your response is off topic mainly because we got our wires crossed with what we were talking about. So, I don't think you're talking corporate speech in the rest (if you are, I apologize), and I'll leave the rest be.


Ohh, ok, corporate speech. Yeah, I missed that part. Assembly and association might have tripped me up for the most of it. I think there was one bit that might have gone through a little at least.


"Well, the individual employee doesn't lose their rights at all. They may choose not to exercise their rights through self interest, but that is always true."


It is true that a person can choose not to speak out about workplace abuses for their own good. Probably because they do not want to lose the benefits they have. But it isn't much different, being trapped between a rock and a hard place. Where governments can threaten your life, capitalist governments can threaten your livelihood. But in a capitalist society, the trick is that you actively believe it is your choice (or even no choice sometimes) to defend your right to life.


This part is mainly my humble opinion but both capitalism and the state can induce frighteningly similar dismal situations for people.


I guess my main draw is from historic instances where too little regulation has allowed companies to do as they please with their employees as well as customers, like making sweatshops and sacrificing safety for profit. Employees "choose" to stay with even abusive employers because there really isn't much of a choice for them. It's a false choice, I guess.


There is always time for... you guessed it, Dungeons and Dragons.

BBS Signature

Response to Don`t blame capitalism, blame the state. 2020-05-13 15:16:49


At 5/13/20 11:51 AM, EdyKel wrote: Sure, because that is what it comes down to, with certain people/groups buying off politicians under the guise that it 's free speech when it only drowns out the free speech of the masses in the country. At least, the minority in the Supreme Court saw that in their dissent in Citizen United ( an organization funded by a group of billionaires and millionaires).


Again, this assumes that it dilutes the views of others. This pretends that everyone has an equal voice until a group comes along. That's simply not the way it works. Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, and the like have more influence than you and I because they have backing. Al Gore has a bigger pulpit than them because of his previous position. It's not like 50,000 voices that otherwise would've been heard no longer are.


There is more than the road system, you know. A lot of things fall under infrastructure. There is various levels, among states, over this. There is also a lot of privatizing going on. I know, I have been watching it in my area. It's always under the argument of saving taxpayer money, when the tax payer is paying more for less and for cheaper labor - the story of why businesses outsource to other countries. But this doesn't change the fact that a lot of it is done with no-bid contracts, and that there is a lot of corruption in that process.


Right, no bid contracts are absolutely a source of corruption. You scratch my back and all that.


While cronyism is often associated with connections to the state, it is also very rampant in private business.
None of this changes the fact that much of the cronyism is instigated from private individuals/businesses to the state. So, cronyism is often already apart of business, and most of it is instigated from them to the state - in part, in the form of campaign donations and other means.


It occurs in private business, of course, but to a lesser degree. My son gets the job because he's my son, even though I have three more qualified applicants. Sometimes its simply inertia. I have worked with X company for twenty years, why start a new relationship, even if it will save me a little money. it occurs, but not on the scale or scope of government. It makes businesses less competitive, which drives them out of the market. So that limits its scope. Government need not compete and thus contractor business can be no bid and corrupt more often and on a broader scale.


As to it always, or primarily, being instigated by business, not really. Often it starts because a politician curries favors, or because they threaten businesses by regulatory means. It is no surprise that the more heavily regulated a business, the more collusion there is between that business and government. It is in industries best interest to lobby to protect themselves. This is a feature of government, still.


I never disputed that corruption is a problem in other systems, but most of those systems are based on some degree of capitalism (except for true communism). At this point, all you are doing is trying to argue the offending word away, because it offends your sensibilities over something, but it won't change that corruption is very intertwined in the nature of capitalism.


And in business. You are placing all the blame on the state, none from private business and people, because your whole political philosophy revolves around this belief - it depends on having one side to blame, in one of your cartooney over-generalizations, when multiple sides are involved and creating that problem. This argument of yours isn't just naive but dishonest.


Where is the cartoony vision? This is an interplay between state and citizen. To say that something which couldn't exist without the state is somehow unconnected to the state is bizarre. To say that it is MORE the fault of the individual or business than the state is merely a watered down version of not blaming the state at all. To say that the individual is illicitly using a feature of government still blames the corrupt individual, while recognizing that the lion share of the blame still lies with the POLITICAL system that he uses. Going the other way is like saying that the little guy who uses the mob for protection is responsible for criminality more than the mob.


So, you support cronyism through corporation buying off politicians and placing them in positions of power in the state, while calling it freedom of speech. Gotcha.


I love how you always leap to a cartoony extreme and jump to it, then ascribe that to your opponent, when that is not what they said. That corporate speech is speech is undeniable, so you jump to stupid strawmen, because your original point is indefensible.


It is a shame that the government breaks the law more than the criminals it punishes.