Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Slavery & Capitalism

In response to Right of Ownership posted by pink101:

Very good point, Pink. But the price of abolishing slavery isn't to overturn the free market system upon which the United States was founded.

To overturn slavery, the American people had to agree - and they did (after a war and amending the Constitution) - that human beings can't be considered property.

The American people did NOT agree to throw out the entire concept of property - or, more to the point, the individual or corporate ownership of property. That has not been jettisoned - and it shouldn't be.

» pink101 - The FAINTEST Idea

In response to Slavery & Capitalism posted by BrianTubbs:
.
The American people did NOT agree to throw out the entire concept of property - or, more to the point, the individual or corporate ownership of property. That has not been jettisoned - and it shouldn't be..
.
Well, I guess what should or shouldn't be in a democracy depends on the will of the people if they are able to get representatives in government to create the proper legislation.
.
We have evolved to the place where our representatives are shamelessly offeriog themselves up for grabs to the highest bidders. The military industrial complex has morphed into the corporate political complex and America is steadily being given over to the multinationals.
.
Do you have the FAINTEST idea how much money the United States taxpayers are going to be paying in interest alone on the war debt that is being incurred by the Republican shenanigans under the leadership of Georgie Porgie Puddn and Pie? Who will be collecting that interest money? Can you answer that question?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - The FAINTEST Idea

In response to The FAINTEST Idea posted by pink101:

You're switching subjects to the war in Iraq once again. It seems that all these discussions end up bashing George Bush and our war policy. Can we keep this one on track?

With respect to a democracy....yes, the people have the right to choose via elections the system they want. However, the United States is a nation of LAWS - founded on the Rule of Law tradition. That puts our democracy in a box - namely the US Constitution, which is the Supreme Law in the Land.

Since the Constitution respects property rights (the basis of capitalism), you would have to change the Constitution in order to replace our capitalist system with socialism.

» pink101 - At Issue Here

In response to The FAINTEST Idea posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You have provided a couple of subsumptions in your statements.
.
I haven't changed the subject to the war--I was merely pointing out the way America's treasury is being used to funnel profits into the pockets of the multinational corporations--all at the expense of We the People of America.
.
There are NO laws that protect capitalism per se any more than they would protect public ownership of industry or commodities per se.
.
And, I have made the point that I support some a blend of the two economic types which--in fact--we already have to a small degree. I think we should expand it to included 1. Health-care, 2. Education, 3. Energy, 4. Mass Transportation, 5. Communications. By no means do I contend that private capital should not be able to compete in each of these fields just like our U.S.P.O. has private competition with U.P.S., Fed-Ex, and others. If getting the mail is important, the five I've mentioned are more so.
.
That's what I see at issue here.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - You're wrong, Pink

In response to At Issue Here posted by pink101:

There are NO laws that protect capitalism per se any more than they would protect public ownership of industry or commodities per se.

You couldn't be MORE wrong. There are all kinds of laws on the books - starting with our U.S. Constitution and extending down to the local and municipal levels - that safeguard property rights. And property rights are the basis of capitalism.

Not only tangible property, but intellectual property as well. See Article I, Sec 7 for starters, where Congress is charged "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

There's the Bill of Rights too, which is replete with references to property rights - Amendment 3, Amendment 4, Amendments 9 and 10 (by clear implication), Amendment 14, Amendment 16 (giving the govt the power to tax income), and Amendment 21 (repealing Prohibition).

And then there are the state constitutions and then all the laws on the books at the federal, state, and local level.

Property rights are all through our laws, Pink. And THAT is the basis of capitalism.

Government ownership of public commodities would require the government SEIZURE of private or corporate assets - UNLESS it was a brand new technology pioneered by the govt itself.

For the govt to seize (wholesale and across the board) individual or corporate assets would almost certainly involve a violation of the US Constitution and/or several state constitutions and/or several laws on the books.

» pink101 - You're wrong, Pink

In response to You're wrong, Pink posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Somehow, you have the idea that I am contending the Government should sieze private property.
.
Go back and reread my last post that speaks of competition.
.
I think you're arguing against a position that I do not take.
.
There are no laws that protect Capitalism per se, Did I fail to add that qualifier before? I thought I included it.
.
Sorry for my mistake.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Follow up

You listed the following areas where the govt should play an active role...

1. Health-care, 2. Education, 3. Energy, 4. Mass Transportation, 5. Communications

Okay...

I would argue that the government already plays a very active role in all of these areas, especially education. You obviously think it needs to play a BIGGER role. For that to happen....

The government has three choices:

1) Increase regulation to where it increasingly takes control over the industries, without claiming ownership of them

2) Direct takeover of the industry, claiming public ownership

3) Enter the marketplace as a player in those industries - in other words, like the Post Office (but allowing private companies to compete)

I am 100% opposed to Option 2 and supportive of Option #1 in only emergency and TEMPORARY situations. (Example would be World War II, where the US government pretty much did take over domestic manufacturing of vehicles).

I am actually open to Option #3. I think the US government should enter the marketplace, providing products and services to people whose needs are not being met by the existing marketplace. But....

The government has to be careful and watch the bottom line. The government can't see itself as an ever-growing Money Tree. There are financial limitations that it has to work within.

I am totally against the simple "Tax-and-Spend" mindset that so many liberals have when it comes to the government. They see a need and call on the govt to raise taxes and throw money at the problem. The government can't always do that. Nor should it.

» pink101 - Follow up

In response to Follow up posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Once again; but, this time in bold type. Here is my statement: By no means do I contend that private capital should not be able to compete in each of these fields just like our U.S.P.O. has private competition with U.P.S., Fed-Ex, and others. If getting the mail is important, the five I've mentioned are more so.
.
I think government should hire the best qualified industry leaders to head up each of the five agencies. I think that each of the agencies should be profit oriented in the same way that private industry is profit oriented.
.
Brian wrote, I am totally against the simple "Tax-and-Spend" mindset that so many liberals have when it comes to the government. They see a need and call on the govt to raise taxes and throw money at the problem. The government can't always do that. Nor should it.
.
But, I don't hear you complaining about the way the government throws money into the pockets of private industry through so many subsidies. Taxes should be seen as being similar to mark-up. For some reason, dumbo supporters of Capitalism have no problem with the profits being made by the multinationals; but, have heart attacks when it comes to seeing their taxes raised.
.
Tell me straight out, do you believe government has a right to make a profit?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Socializing Banking

.
"At the time of Spitzer's resignation, I blogged that something about the investigation didn't pass the smell test, the Don Siegelman case foremost on my mind. But journalist Greg Palast has made a compelling case tying the Spitzer investigation to a different top story.
.
"While New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was paying an bescort' $4,300 in a hotel room in Washington, just down the road, George Bush's new Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was secretly handing over $200 billion in a tryst with mortgage bank industry speculators.
.
"Both acts were wanton, wicked and lewd. But there's a BIG difference. The Governor was using his own checkbook. Bush's man Bernanke was using ours.
.
"This week, Bernanke's Fed, for the first time in its history, loaned a selected coterie of banks one-fifth of a trillion dollars to guarantee these banks' mortgage-backed junk bonds. The deluge of public loot was an eye-popping windfall to the very banking predators who have brought two million families to the brink of foreclosure.
.
"Up until Wednesday, there was one single, lonely politician who stood in the way of this creepy little assignation at the bankers' bordello: Eliot Spitzer.
.
"Who are they kidding? Spitzer's lynching and the bankers' enriching are intimately tied.
.
"How? Follow the money. Read on...
.
"The whole Bear Stearns bail out is hilarious when you consider how horrified these 'free market' proponents are at the thought of say, socialized medicine, but barely bat an eye at socialized banking. Privatize profits and nationalize losses, anyone? Meanwhile, decades of Republican economic strategy has brought us to a recession, if not teetering on the edge of a depression (The similarities in the economy of the 1920s and today are there for the finding). What will be telling is what kind of bonuses will be handed out to Bear Stearns executives in light of this massive failure of management." **

-----------------------------------
.
** Crooks & Liars March 16, 2008

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Defense of Capitalism

Interesting YouTube video excerpting Milton Friedman on capitalism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8Vh...