How do we reform the US political system to put leaders in office

[Skyhunter]

And beneath this problem is another (sort-of the root cause of the kind of problem pointed out in the above quote). Greed would still be the motivation. There are all kinds of greed, and the lust for money is only one kind. The lust for power is just as rpevalent, and just as dangerous, if not more so. This system merely replaces the method by which power is obtained, it does not change the motivation. It also intruduces a strong reason for people with ulterior motives to get involved in charity and community service organizations, which can be big trouble.

On the plus side, it does at least assure some community service out of those who wish to be in power. So it may provide a lesson in the concept of the "servant/leader" to those on their way to power.

I know people who are generous in spirit, kind and giving in their community. They tell me how when they first started volunteering in their community it was for personal greed. It was a way to network into the community for business opportunities. The experience changed their outlook on life and now that they are retired they can devote a great deal of their life to volunteerism. in fact for a great many of them it is now one of their greatest passions and pleasures in life.

I believe that everyone has this innate ability to find pleasure in service to others. If this trait could be cultivated and harnessed, the way that the competitive nature that was once used for war has been harnessed for business. Imagine if people were competing with one another to be of greater service to their community.

I realize that those with lots of money can easily buy suffrage, and since they have more invested, I have no problem with this. I am searching for the mechanism in which society will take the next leap forward. We are perched on the edge. It is time to leap for the next level or lose our grip and fall.

 

[Smurf]

I believe that everyone has this innate ability to find pleasure in service to others. If this trait could be cultivated and harnessed, the way that the competitive nature that was once used for war has been harnessed for business. Imagine if people were competing with one another to be of greater service to their community.

Indeed, one of the most fundamental part of the human psych is that we like to help other people. Surely anyone can draw up examples of this in their lifetime (unless you're still in grade 10 and the only people you talk to are dumb kids, your parents and the principle who hates you)

 

[Skyhunter]

I have seen "The Corporation". It is a must see for anyone wanting to understand my concern about corporatism.

I am much more of an optimist than you I guess. I believe that we have the tools (computers and the internet) to transform the world into something wonderful. We just need motivation to do so. I also have faith in human nature.

We have come so far, why would we stop here?

There was a time in our history when slavery was an advanced institution. If you consider that before that when one people conquered another they would slaughter all survivors. Slavery enabled people the leisure to create art, and philosophy and finally realize that slavery was wrong. That only happened 150 years ago. And look where we are now.

Without capitalism and free enterprise we would still have slavery as a social institution. We cannot discard it, because it is essential at this stage to maintain the wealth and productivity of the first world. What is needed is for the first world to realize that there is enough, and it is OK to share.

 

[alexandra]

I have seen "The Corporation". It is a must see for anyone wanting to understand my concern about corporatism.

My thoughts too.

I am much more of an optimist than you I guess. I believe that we have the tools (computers and the internet) to transform the world into something wonderful. We just need motivation to do so. I also have faith in human nature.

I wouldn't say I'm a complete pessimist (not all the time, in any case ) But I can't find any reasons for being optimistic about capitalism because it is based on greed. That cannot be changed - how can there be a capitalism based on concern for human beings and/or the environment when (as the DVD shows again and again) 'the bottom line' is all that counts for these most powerful 'corporate citizens' who now roam the planet at will, seeking ever-better ways to exploit resources and labour so that they can increase their shareholders' dividends (their primary and overriding concern by law, as the DVD points out)? "Change the laws?" But how? Who makes the laws?

We have come so far, why would we stop here?

Yes, exactly. Human societies have changed over time: people lived in nomadic tribes, then settled and became agriculturalists; feudalism was superceded by capitalism (a better system of social organisation)... Now why is capitalism necessarily 'the end of the road'? This is what I don't get. Why is capitalism the 'natural best' we can achieve as human beings? Can we not evolve our social institutions to go beyond individualistic greed?

There was a time in our history when slavery was an advanced institution. If you consider that before that when one people conquered another they would slaughter all survivors. Slavery enabled people the leisure to create art, and philosophy and finally realize that slavery was wrong. That only happened 150 years ago. And look where we are now.

Without capitalism and free enterprise we would still have slavery as a social institution. We cannot discard it, because it is essential at this stage to maintain the wealth and productivity of the first world. What is needed is for the first world to realize that there is enough, and it is OK to share.

I agree that capitalism was an advance on feudalism. But it is possible that there are inherent limitations on how much 'good' capitalism can do: it is a system that takes a very short-term view: its major players (the corporations) are bound by the rules of survival in the market place. To survive and succeed in this highly competitive global capitalist environment, corporations have to be ruthless when cutting down their costs, so they invest in places where, even if slavery does not officially exist, people are literally paid slave-wages - just enough to stay alive to work another day. They also invest and build their factories in poor third world countries whose governments have no option but to let them pollute the environment. All this is in the DVD. You can try telling these corporations to 'be nice', I guess. I just don't think they'll listen

 

[vanesch]

I agree that capitalism was an advance on feudalism.

I think capitalism existed far before feudalism, only it didn't have a name. Capitalist effects certainly played a big role in the rise and fall of Rome.

But it is possible that there are inherent limitations on how much 'good' capitalism can do: it is a system that takes a very short-term view: its major players (the corporations) are bound by the rules of survival in the market place.

I think that relative short term view is indeed the main problem with capitalism. Things you know you have to do in order not to have a serious problem 50 or 100 years from now cannot be dealt with by pure capitalism. Profits are maximized over the duration of the term of a CEO.

The other problem I see with capitalism is the feedback that you get between big corporations and politics: politics give "legal advantages" to their buddy corporations, and corporations "buy" votes for their buddy politicians.

But small scale capitalism works really well.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think capitalism existed far before feudalism, only it didn't have a name. Capitalist effects certainly played a big role in the rise and fall of Rome.

I think that relative short term view is indeed the main problem with capitalism. Things you know you have to do in order not to have a serious problem 50 or 100 years from now cannot be dealt with by pure capitalism. Profits are maximized over the duration of the term of a CEO.

The other problem I see with capitalism is the feedback that you get between big corporations and politics: politics give "legal advantages" to their buddy corporations, and corporations "buy" votes for their buddy politicians.

But small scale capitalism works really well.

As it is now the corporate capitalist are the government. It was obvious from the first secret energy task force meeting, the Bush/Cheney administration was not going to allow any view but their own. Regulators are all from the industries they are now in charge regulating.

This is why I think we need a secondary premise for corporations to exist. If along with making a profit, they also need to demonstrate a positive contribution to society I think that would help change the companies goals and policies.

To a large extent, as consumers we can regulate corporations. The American revolution began as a consumer movement. The colonies were a huge market for English trade goods. The Boston Tea Party is the most famous story relating to this, but the movement started almost 100 years before that, if my memory of history is accurate.

 

[Smurf]

The corporation has outlived it's benefit to humanity in it's current form.

 

[outsider]

I know people who are generous in spirit, kind and giving in their community. They tell me how when they first started volunteering in their community it was for personal greed. It was a way to network into the community for business opportunities. The experience changed their outlook on life and now that they are retired they can devote a great deal of their life to volunteerism. in fact for a great many of them it is now one of their greatest passions and pleasures in life.

I believe that everyone has this innate ability to find pleasure in service to others. If this trait could be cultivated and harnessed, the way that the competitive nature that was once used for war has been harnessed for business. Imagine if people were competing with one another to be of greater service to their community.

I realize that those with lots of money can easily buy suffrage, and since they have more invested, I have no problem with this. I am searching for the mechanism in which society will take the next leap forward. We are perched on the edge. It is time to leap for the next level or lose our grip and fall.

Skyhunter... I cannot agree with you more. I've been a community volunteer for a few years now. Yes, my original intent was to get in with networking and seeking the opportunities abound in community efforts (also I have a passion for helping others), but it was a manyfold agenda that I originally had. In helping people and seeing the less fortunate, I've found a greater grace. As I said before, I am an outsider by choice... the ugliness of the corporate world is just not for me. And I found that people do gain a greater sense of self when they do for others. You are definitely on to something. How does the system get changed? I guess the government would have to buy into it, but I doubt any government would consider this as it makes winnign a race that much harder. Perhaps it should start in a small abandoned godforsaken town of 100 people who decide to break away? I just came back from a wedding and had a few, so I don't even know if I'm being coherent... good luck to anyone who just read this.

 

[Smurf]

The government it's self in it's current form is incapable of creating such a change. Probably the biggest thing we could do to move in that direction would be to implement a time limit on how many terms a person can hold an office for. (I don't know what it's like in the US, but in Canada there are no term limits in almost any positions) That would get rid of these career politicians that are plaguing us today.

 

[BobG]

How will good samaritans gain these extra votes? Will community members elect to give them extra votes, or what?

Here's an idea for suffrage:

Give everyone one vote and the ability to sign their vote over to someone else. This way, your vote is counted regardless of who wins in your local race. People who aid their community might be likely recipients of extra voting power.

Also, the effects of voting apathy and political ignorance become negligible. If the person you gave your vote to votes differently from how you would in issues, you can just use your own vote or give it to someone else.

There are plenty of problems with this idea, but there are plenty of problems with our current system, as well. Ultimately an educated, informed populace is necessary for a successful democracy. This system just allows a better median.

This is interesting. It pretty much describes the way democracy existed when the Constitution was first approved.

Local voters voted for the House Representatives and state legislators. The state legislators picked the state's Senators.

The voters also voted to choose people to get together and pick a President. That system still exists as the Electoral College, even though now the decision that the selected electors will make are pretty much automatically assigned to a given candidate.

Keeping a separation between the voters and some of the key politicians allowed the government to tackle long term problems with a little consistency vs. policies swinging wildly back and forth based on the current mood of the general public. Of course, making it difficult for the federal government to do anything fast was also seen as a positive, since the states didn't trust the idea of giving up sovereignty to a central government.

 

[Skyhunter]

There are plenty of problems with this idea, but there are plenty of problems with our current system, as well. Ultimately an educated, informed populace is necessary for a successful democracy. This system just allows a better median.

I believe that Thomas Jefferson expressed similar sentiments.

I don't think we can go backward. But there is a lot to be learned by looking at the history of our nations founding.

The founding fathers did not have the information network (internet) that we have today. We can communicate complex issues and all be able to voice our opinions and cast our votes. I know this is over simplification, but like I said , I am a simple carpenter.

The New Orleans disaster has exposed the ineptness of our leaders and even more than the leaders it has exposed the flaws in our ideologies

 

[Smurf]

Capitalism didn't exist until Adam Smith. Saying "capitalist effects" existed before in ancient rome is like saying socialism existed because a monarch once gave a copper to a homeless man. It's silly.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Capitalism didn't exist until Adam Smith. Saying "capitalist effects" existed before in ancient rome is like saying socialism existed because a monarch once gave a copper to a homeless man. It's silly.

Smith based his theory on the existing practice, somewhat idealized. Saying a social practice doesn't exist until some intellectual writes about it is what's silly.

 

[Smurf]

Smith based his theory on the existing practice, somewhat idealized. Saying a social practice doesn't exist until some intellectual writes about it is what's silly.

Capitalism is an economic theory, it's not a few "social practices". Just because there are some similarities between historical cultures and what Adam Smith (and others) ideolized doesn't mean a thing.

 

[vanesch]

Capitalism didn't exist until Adam Smith. Saying "capitalist effects" existed before in ancient rome is like saying socialism existed because a monarch once gave a copper to a homeless man. It's silly.

Under capitalism, you can understand two things: one is an ideology, and that didn't exist of course until it was explicitly written down. It is the belief that when you let the market do everything, everything will be for the best. But it can also be a practice: You LET the market do everything (simply because you do not do anything else!). Now you may not have the *belief* that this will do things for the best, but nevertheless it is capitalism, no ?

There's not much of a system to capitalism for it to be a practice: all you need is the idea of ownership and exchange. You do not even need money to exist ! Capitalism is the next thing you have when nothing is instored, after the law of the jungle (where ownership is NOT recognized). Hunters-gatherers in a clan even "did capitalism" (as long as they didn't get out their clubs to take the stuff of the neighbour).
So when someone writes that capitalism is the greatest institution man ever invented... that's like saying that walking is the greatest invention of locomotion man ever did

 

[alexandra]

Under capitalism, you can understand two things: one is an ideology, and that didn't exist of course until it was explicitly written down. It is the belief that when you let the market do everything, everything will be for the best. But it can also be a practice: You LET the market do everything (simply because you do not do anything else!). Now you may not have the *belief* that this will do things for the best, but nevertheless it is capitalism, no ?

There's not much of a system to capitalism for it to be a practice: all you need is the idea of ownership and exchange. You do not even need money to exist ! Capitalism is the next thing you have when nothing is instored, after the law of the jungle (where ownership is NOT recognized). Hunters-gatherers in a clan even "did capitalism" (as long as they didn't get out their clubs to take the stuff of the neighbour).
So when someone writes that capitalism is the greatest institution man ever invented... that's like saying that walking is the greatest invention of locomotion man ever did

So we obviously have to define 'capitalism' if we are going to discuss it (or its origins). When I speak of capitalism, I mean the economic and social system that superceded feudalism - after the French Revolution (when the previous ruling class: the monarchy and landowning class, was overthrown by the newly rising ruling class of capitalists) and during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, during the Enlightenment. To me, capitalism involved the formation of the two major economic classes of capitalists (who owned capital) and working class (who owned nothing but their labour power), and did not exist when there was no money (capital) - so barter exchange of goods is not, but my understanding/definition, a feature of capitalism.

And no way is capitalism the greatest system of social organisation ever invented - at this point in time, it may turn out to be the absolutely most destructive. This depends on what people decide to do about regaining control of their lives - if capitalism is allowed to work itself out to its logical conclusion, the environment will be destroyed and... well, no sense in an 'and', is there?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

if capitalism is allowed to work itself out to its logical conclusion, the environment will be destroyed and... well, no sense in an 'and', is there?

You perception of capitalism it seems is actually based on an illogical application of capitalism. Logically if one wishes to make money as a capitalist then one needs to take care of it's customers, workers, and environment. If you don't then eventually your business will go under.
So it's not the logical conclusion of capitalism that you speak of it is the logical conclusion of greedy people exploiting capitalism that you are referring to.

 

[Informal Logic]

You perception of capitalism it seems is actually based on an illogical application of capitalism. Logically if one wishes to make money as a capitalist then one needs to take care of it's customers, workers, and environment. If you don't then eventually your business will go under.
So it's not the logical conclusion of capitalism that you speak of it is the logical conclusion of greedy people exploiting capitalism that you are referring to.

Correct, and as another member posted, this is why capitalism is viewed to be the most feasible system (but not best IMO). Because it is human nature to be greedy and exploit resources even with knowledge of contributing in damaging ways. And it is nearly impossible to change human nature. With this said, how do you separate the two?

 

[Smurf]

Under capitalism, you can understand two things: one is an ideology, and that didn't exist of course until it was explicitly written down. It is the belief that when you let the market do everything, everything will be for the best. But it can also be a practice: You LET the market do everything (simply because you do not do anything else!). Now you may not have the *belief* that this will do things for the best, but nevertheless it is capitalism, no ?

Fine but then true capitalism has never actually been practiced. Also, every intellectual ideology/theory/idea that has ever been written down and ever will be has been, to a degree, practiced as well. Therefor it is a moot point as it is applicable to everything. Mine as well say your tea cup is made up of atoms.

There's not much of a system to capitalism for it to be a practice: all you need is the idea of ownership and exchange. You do not even need money to exist !

No, you need private ownership and non-regulated exchange.

Capitalism is the next thing you have when nothing is instored, after the law of the jungle (where ownership is NOT recognized). Hunters-gatherers in a clan even "did capitalism" (as long as they didn't get out their clubs to take the stuff of the neighbour).

Fine, but when the cave men drew animals on the cave walls, that was impressionism. And when the cave men gave meat to the cave women, that was socialism, also (equally important) the meat that was given was... DUM DUM DUM... made of atoms.

So when someone writes that capitalism is the greatest institution man ever invented... that's like saying that walking is the greatest invention of locomotion man ever did

It's also like saying Brad Pitt was the cutest guy ever in a hollywood film.

 

[Smurf]

You perception of capitalism it seems is actually based on an illogical application of capitalism. Logically if one wishes to make money as a capitalist then one needs to take care of it's customers, workers, and environment. If you don't then eventually your business will go under.
So it's not the logical conclusion of capitalism that you speak of it is the logical conclusion of greedy people exploiting capitalism that you are referring to.

I don't think it's illogical at all. The unique thing about corporatism is that they will sell Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky and Che Guevara to make a buck. Sell sell sell. It's like the rich man that will sell himself the rope to hang him with if he thinks he'll make a buck out of it.

Besides, such a claim is based on blind faith in the system since the evidence clearly points to awsome destruction of the environment and no real slowing so far. If you have a reason (other than faith) to believe it'll all suddenly stop, please share it, because we would all like to stop worrying too.

 

[Smurf]

Correct, and as another member posted, this is why capitalism is viewed to be the most feasible system (but not best IMO). Because it is human nature to be greedy and exploit resources even with knowledge of contributing in damaging ways. And it is nearly impossible to change human nature. With this said, how do you separate the two?

Nonsense. You have no way to prove that it is human nature to be greedy. An example given of universal human behavior has an equal counter example. The Cave men fight for resources.. and then give them to the women and children. This is not greed, this is social responsibility. If we expand that to a global social responsibility (as opposed to tribal, or nationalist.. or economic) it'll be far better, and just as feasible, as your beloved capitalism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't think it's illogical at all. The unique thing about corporatism is that they will sell Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky and Che Guevara to make a buck. Sell sell sell. It's like the rich man that will sell himself the rope to hang him with if he thinks he'll make a buck out of it.

Besides, such a claim is based on blind faith in the system since the evidence clearly points to awsome destruction of the environment and no real slowing so far. If you have a reason (other than faith) to believe it'll all suddenly stop, please share it, because we would all like to stop worrying too.

Are there no capitalist societies that are environmentally aware and curtailing their damage to their environment? Companies that cut down trees and then plant more? Companies that set up operations in other countries and build schools and hospitals for the people who live there? These are the logical steps to take to ensure the continuation of the system are they not?
Motives are not part of the capitalist system. Technically a company could run without any intention making profit and still be capitalist in nature. A system could be run that is communist or socialist and still be filled with greedy people exploiting the working class and damaging the environment. These are not prerequisites of either system though. The thing that needs to be worked on are the people not the systems. The one unique advantage that capitalism has is that it takes advatage of the (sometimes) human traits of greed and competition.
I don't think the problem will be fixed over night. That would be impossible. If you got rid of capitalism and replaced it with another system the same or similar problems will still exist due to the flaws and motives of the individual people involved.

 

[Smurf]

Are there no capitalist societies that are environmentally aware and curtailing their damage to their environment? Companies that cut down trees and then plant more? Companies that set up operations in other countries and build schools and hospitals for the people who live there?

Yes there are. But these are the small guys struggling to hold on. All the well established corporations don't do it. They didn't doing when they were rising, they won't do it now that they're at the top because in the system you don't get powerfull and nice at the same time. It's an economy based on self service at all costs. How anyone can think that leads to ethical events is beyond me completely. It's amazing what telling a person over and over again can do, because obviously a lot of people do believe it.

These are the logical steps to take to ensure the continuation of the system are they not?

Yeah, exactly. And what part of this corporatist/capitalist... What part of what we have now is advocating that, exactly? Anything mildly significant has nothing to do with the economy, it's Charity groups mostly.

Frankly is sounds to me like you want to refine our system away from capitalism to something else because you recognize the problem. If that's so then we agree, more or less, is that true?

Motives are not part of the capitalist system. Technically a company could run without any intention making profit and still be capitalist in nature. A system could be run that is communist or socialist and still be filled with greedy people exploiting the working class and damaging the environment.

These are not prerequisites of either system though. The thing that needs to be worked on are the people not the systems. The one unique advantage that capitalism has is that it takes advatage of the (sometimes) human traits of greed and competition.

I don't think the problem will be fixed over night. That would be impossible. If you got rid of capitalism and replaced it with another system the same or similar problems will still exist due to the flaws and motives of the individual people involved.

Why not? If you suddenly stop producing horrible chemicals there will be no more production of horrible chemicals... How is that not solving a problem?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yeah, exactly. And what part of this corporatist/capitalist... What part of what we have now is advocating that, exactly? Anything mildly significant has nothing to do with the economy, it's Charity groups mostly.

It's only logical as I said. There are people and organizations doing and advocating these things as well...

Schultz has received a number of prestigious awards in recognition of his achievements and his commitment to community service and to partners. In 1996, Schultz was the recipient of the International Humanitarian Award from CARE for his vision and leadership in developing an innovative partnership between Starbucks and CARE to support people in coffee origin countries. In August 1998, Schultz was honored by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah for individuals making significant contributions toward improving the lives of people around the world. Schultz was named Executive of the Year in the July 1, 2000 issue of Restaurants and Institutions magazine. In September 2000, Schultz was honored by the Columbia University School of Business with the Botwinick Prize in Business Ethics. In January 2002, Schultz was named one of top 25 Managers of the Year by Business Week magazine. In April 2004, Schultz was named one of Time magazine's "100 Most Influential Business Leaders."

In spring 1997, Schultz created The Starbucks Foundation to raise awareness for literacy causes and to give grants to organizations that promote literacy. The foundation was initially funded by Schultz's profits from his best-selling book, "Pour Your Heart Into It: How Starbucks Built a Company One Cup at a Time." Since its creation, the Foundation has contributed millions of dollars to literacy programs throughout North America.
http://wpcarey.asu.edu/community/dc100/exe_year_starbucks.cfm

While I don't care for Starbucks they do seem to do quite a bit both for people here and the people where their beans are grown. Yet they still get blasted for selling other than fair trade product. Why? Because they're a big corperation and it's easy for people to see them as nothing but money grubbing basterds.

Frankly is sounds to me like you want to refine our system away from capitalism to something else because you recognize the problem. If that's so then we agree, more or less, is that true?

More or less. I think that our governments should advocate, reward, and enforce ethical business practices. I'm sure that they do but they probably don't do to great a job of it, especially when it comes to over seas facilities. At least mine doesn't, I'm not sure about yours.

Why not? If you suddenly stop producing horrible chemicals there will be no more production of horrible chemicals... How is that not solving a problem?

That doesn't require changing the system, just the change of practices within the system. My point was that the system itself doesn't matter, it's some of those persons involved in it that are the problem.

 

[Skyhunter]

And no way is capitalism the greatest system of social organisation ever invented - at this point in time, it may turn out to be the absolutely most destructive. This depends on what people decide to do about regaining control of their lives - if capitalism is allowed to work itself out to its logical conclusion, the environment will be destroyed and... well, no sense in an 'and', is there?

Capitalism has made it possible for people like you and me to have the wealth and leisure to spend time contemplating the evils of capitalism. Institutions are neither good or evil. Institutions drive social evolution until society evolves beyond the values that the institution upholds. Society outgrows it's institutions, that is where we are now.

I agree that the excesses of capitalism are destructive. That is why I started this thread. I want to hear comments on my idea of suffrage reform. And I want to hear the ideas of others for advancing society.

 

[Skyhunter]

Correct, and as another member posted, this is why capitalism is viewed to be the most feasible system (but not best IMO). Because it is human nature to be greedy and exploit resources even with knowledge of contributing in damaging ways. And it is nearly impossible to change human nature. With this said, how do you separate the two?

As Smurf has pointed out, Human nature is also social.

What do we do with the money we make?

We share it with our family, we entertain our friends, and we also use it for self gratification. I believe we need to encourage the nobler aspects of human nature. I suggest we do this through the system of democratic suffrage.

Even if I wanted to replace capitalism it just is not going to happen. And as long as there are capitalist nations, socialism, Utopian communism or rational anarchism will not be tolerated. The obvious solution in my mind is to embrace capitalism and transform it into a higher institution.

 

[vanesch]

No, you need private ownership and non-regulated exchange.

I think the trade between city-states in antiquity came close to that (when they didn't go at war). The trades between the cities in Mesopotamia and ancient Greece were very much totally unregulated. Ok, sometimes the local king asked for taxes, but that was only to make himself rich, not to redistribute it in society (socialism style). The markets were real markets with offer and demand.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't think it's illogical at all. The unique thing about corporatism is that they will sell Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky and Che Guevara to make a buck. Sell sell sell. It's like the rich man that will sell himself the rope to hang him with if he thinks he'll make a buck out of it.

Exactly, capitalism will exploit any profitable idea. We just need to come up with the right ideas to affect a change and the system will do the rest for us.

 

[Smurf]

I think the trade between city-states in antiquity came close to that (when they didn't go at war). The trades between the cities in Mesopotamia and ancient Greece were very much totally unregulated.

Okay. Personally I don't care about ancient greece that much when talking about modern economics.

Ok, sometimes the local king asked for taxes, but that was only to make himself rich, not to redistribute it in society (socialism style). The markets were real markets with offer and demand.

You know just because something's not socialism doesn't automatically make it capitalism.
Tariffs are uncapitalist (adam smith capitalist) no matter what the use.

 

[Smurf]

Exactly, capitalism will exploit any profitable idea. We just need to come up with the right ideas to affect a change and the system will do the rest for us.

Here's an idea that might work with that: Anarchism!

 

[Smurf]

Capitalism has made it possible for people like you and me to have the wealth and leisure to spend time contemplating the evils of capitalism. Institutions are neither good or evil. Institutions drive social evolution until society evolves beyond the values that the institution upholds. Society outgrows it's institutions, that is where we are now.

Even if that were true, then still yet, without it we wouldn't need to contemplate those evils. Those kids in Kenya might be able to read too.

But it's not true. You're argument is fallible, and I'll show you why: You use the premise that we live in capitalism, and that we have the leisure to contemplate the evils of capitalism. Both are true, but there is no connection between them and your conclusion that capitalism caused such things, let alone the implication that nothing but capitalism could give us that leisure. You also imply by the word 'leisure' it's self that everyone who complains about is hypocritical because it has brought them leisure. Again, untrue.

Stop trying to appeal to the right by giving ground, you know free trade is unfair Sky. I've heard you say it before, so say it again!

 

[Skyhunter]

While I don't care for Starbucks they do seem to do quite a bit both for people here and the people where their beans are grown. Yet they still get blasted for selling other than fair trade product. Why? Because they're a big corperation and it's easy for people to see them as nothing but money grubbing basterds.

I pay the same for fair trade coffee at a 100% green certified cafe that I would at Starbucks. I also get a 10% discount because I use my own cup, so I actually pay less. IMO Schultz could make a huge difference in the lives of coffee growers if he would support fair trade. Starbucks could still make a profit with fair trade coffee.

More or less. I think that our governments should advocate, reward, and enforce ethical business practices. I'm sure that they do but they probably don't do to great a job of it, especially when it comes to over seas facilities. At least mine doesn't, I'm not sure about yours.

The US government serves capital interests.

Example:

Studies show that the Standard American Diet (SAD) is the cause of the obesity epidemic in the US.

What is the congressional response?

Pass legislation to prevent people from suing restaurants because they are fat.

Not that I think people should sue McDonalds because they ate to many Big Macs, but my point is that McDonalds capital interests are protected first. The people dying from all the diseases associated with a diet that is made convenient and continually pushed on them from childhood through advertising are told they should be more personally responsible.

That doesn't require changing the system, just the change of practices within the system. My point was that the system itself doesn't matter, it's some of those persons involved in it that are the problem.

How do you propose changing the practices within the system?

 

[Smurf]

It's only logical as I said. There are people and organizations doing and advocating these things as well...

There are people advocating cracking the pyramids open because they contain secret alien technology too. My point? There will always be minorities who disagree, it doesn't make it OK. Just because there are a few good apples in a batch, you still send it back if the rest is rotten.

While I don't care for Starbucks they do seem to do quite a bit both for people here and the people where their beans are grown. Yet they still get blasted for selling other than fair trade product. Why? Because they're a big corperation and it's easy for people to see them as nothing but money grubbing basterds.

Duh... If not all their products are fair trade, (hell it's starbucks, most of their products arn't) then they're still exploiting someone arn't they? Just because McDonalds commits genocide doesn't mean Starbuck's murder is OK.

More or less. I think that our governments should advocate, reward, and enforce ethical business practices.

So do I.

I'm sure that they do but they probably don't do to great a job of it, especially when it comes to over seas facilities. At least mine doesn't, I'm not sure about yours.

My government doesn't have any over seas facilities to regulate, we sold them all to the US because of the Free Trade Agreement. So they pretty much stick to exploiting us and let's the US exploit the rest of the world.

That doesn't require changing the system, just the change of practices within the system. My point was that the system itself doesn't matter, it's some of those persons involved in it that are the problem.

What is changing the system if not the practices within it? If you restrict trade and enforce ethics, you're not advocating free trade, your advocating fair trade... you're changing the system. If you give healthcare and free education on all levels and provide full retirement fund for everyone over 70, and make sure everyone has an internet connection in their house. You're not advocating private enterprise and ownership... you're changing the system. What do you think the Social Democratic parties have been advocating all this time, no peanut butter in M&Ms?

 

[Smurf]

Even if I wanted to replace capitalism it just is not going to happen. And as long as there are capitalist nations, socialism, Utopian communism or rational anarchism will not be tolerated. The obvious solution in my mind is to embrace capitalism and transform it into a higher institution.

Once again people are getting confused for some reason. If you change capitalism, you're changing capitalism. You have to change it into something. It's either socialism, anarchism, marxism, technocracy, or whatever new fangled Idea you come up with, Change is Change.

Capitalism will be replaced when we can confidently say it no longer resembles what it was supposed to do, hopefully for the better (since you havn't stated what you want to change it into). Just because it changes slowly be legislature doesn't mean it's not changing.

 

[Smurf]

I pay the same for fair trade coffee at a 100% green certified cafe that I would at Starbucks. I also get a 10% discount because I use my own cup, so I actually pay less. IMO Schultz could make a huge difference in the lives of coffee growers if he would support fair trade. Starbucks could still make a profit with fair trade coffee.

I don't know what starbucks has done that's good, it still buys coffee from plantations that pay workers 3$ an hour.

The US government serves capital interests.

Example:

Studies show that the Standard American Diet (SAD) is the cause of the obesity epidemic in the US.

What is the congressional response?

Pass legislation to prevent people from suing restaurants because they are fat.

I got a better one than that. In 1951 Guatemala instated an agrarian reform law. At the time 2% of the farmers owned 70% of arable land, this was going to change all that. That 2% was mostly UFC (united fruit company) which monopolized 2 industries, the banana production and the telephone/telegraph system. The law forced the UFC to give up thousands of acres of land, and was compensated for the land.

This allowed guatemalan companies to compete with UFC.

3 years alter Eisenhower declared Guatemala a "Communist threat" and sent land forces as well as the airforce to overthrow the government.

I'll skip the details of what happened and sum up, a lot of innocent people were killed and US companies regained monopoly on Guatemalan agriculture.

How do you propose changing the practices within the system?

Change the system. You can't change the system without changing the system.