Summit of the Americas

[aramike]

quote:

---

umm.. the point of 'American free-trade' is that everyone can participate and share in the success. They just have to have to tenacity and gumption to go out and make it happen!

---

Exactly. Free trade gives everyone the OPPORTUNITY to share in success, not the RIGHT to do so. They need to work for it.

Besides, that wasn't the point that I was making. I was responding to the assertions that other nations should be allowed to share in the US' success, which is just ridiculous.

[ 04-24-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

If Mexicans and Canadians want a larger piece of the pie, then they should PRODUCE for it.

---

How the local industry is supposed to devellop itself, if there is a multi-billionaire industry already around? That's what customs are for : to protect the local industry. If the big industries are big enough to ship over the borders, then they can pay those customs, while the local industry, smaller, has a chance at competing.

I'll tell you a bit of the story of Canada (althought I can't remember the years): Around ~1800, the prime minister of Canada at that time, John Mackenzie King (not sure, but anyway), put the customs so high that the american industry could not export it's products anymore in Canada. That way, we had a major industrial revolution here and our economy was greatly boosted.

I think that free trade in all america will only increase the huge gap between the rich people and the poor people.

[aramike]

quote:

---

How the local industry is supposed to devellop itself, if there is a multi-billionaire industry already around? That's what customs are for : to protect the local industry. If the big industries are big enough to ship over the borders, then they can pay those customs, while the local industry, smaller, has a chance at competing.

---

This is one sided. Think: the big industries can ALREADY ship over the borders - for a COST. Take away that cost, than SMALLER industry can ship to a LARGER consumer base than they could previously afford.

By keeping your nation's products within and keeping the others' out, you're only limiting the consumership of your OWN nation.

[Guest Shingen]

I think some people have the mistaken assumption that wealth is limited and must be reallocated in order to make it more equal for those 'less fortunate'. Wealth is not limited it is created. Wealth is generated by markets that are also created. If you have no free-trade, how do you create new markets to generate new wealth?? If you restrict your imports/exports, how do you get the new products that supply a new market??

Also, where do these people get the idea that big businesses are the only ones that benefit from NAFTA? If you look a most big businesses, they sub-contract most of their logistical supply and production from small-businesses. Very few large corporations own ALL aspects of thier supply/production chains. It's cheaper to contract to smaller privately owned companies that can produce specific to their demands. If a new market is created, then new companies are also created, thus new wealth is created. Why is this so hard for some to comprehend??

Most new markets aren't created by 'big-business, they are created by individuals who have a good idea, lots of intestinal fortitude, and who aren't afraid of hard work.

Most of all of the larger corporations were started by poor people with lots of drive and imagination! So, how can an open market through-out continental North America possibly hurt 'poor' people???

[ 04-24-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[Guest Shingen]

hehehe aramike, I guess we won this debate..

[Guest]

Democracy: Rule of the Many, Benefits of the Few.

It beats communism and monarchy though, so I guess its good until the revolution comes

[Menchise]

Here are some economic facts that you may find interesting.

1. The Ups and Downs of Competition.

Competition does provide lower prices, but it does not improve quality and does not benefit the consumer.

Why?

Because the only way that companies can afford to decrease prices in order to remain competitive is to decrease the cost of making their products in the first place.

Ever wondered why cars are not built to last anymore? It's because the car companies are using cheaper parts that wear out sooner.

When a company starts running out of ways to make the parts cheaper, they start decreasing the wages. As a result, any consumer who works for that car company is unable to afford one of the hundreds of cars that he or she helps to assemble per day, making millions of dollars in profit per week for that company.

When price goes down, the wage goes down with it. That's hardly beneficial.

2. The Ups and Downs of Free Trade.

Free Trade does increase the variety of products in the global market, provides benefits to competitive businesses, and increase opportunities for some poor people to become successful. However, it also increases the extent of poverty for the billions of poor people who are unable to take those opportunities.

A basic definition of Free Trade is the importing and exporting of products between economies with minimal Protectionism (tariffs and quotas are the main examples of Trade Protectionism). In other words, a big company on one side of a border can flood the market on the other side of the border with cheaper products without paying taxes.

The result is that the more competitive economy screws the less competitive economy, and because the country with the less competitive economy is receiving little or no tax revenue from the imports, it can no longer afford to pay for the social welfare packages required to keep the poor people in their country from: a) Turning to a life of crime to feed themselves, or Starving to death.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

However, it also increases the extent of poverty for the billions of poor people who are unable to take those opportunities.

---

Unable or unwilling?? It's one thing to support disabled people you can't work, it's quite another to give out hard-earned cash to those who won't work! (but this is covered in another thread.) And why, exactly, are they unable to capitalize on every opportunity that presents itself?? When immigrants started coming over to America at the start of the industrial revolution, they faced far worse adversity then people today, yet most of those people found a way to use every opportunity to advance their economic situation.

[ 04-25-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[aramike]

[Guest]

for the record, most car companies build their vehicles with lightweight materials instead of good old iron.

Also, cars today are DESIGNED to be expendable. Why? Take a 1960 chevy and a 2001 chevy. Crash them at 30mph against a wall. The 1960 car may bump, bounce off and be almost unharmed (may need a bit of paint and some bumps removed). The 2001 chevy will collapse like an acordeon and become a mess.

Did I forgot to mention the driver of the 1960 car wouldve died while the 2001 driver would emerge unscathed? Guess I didnt

Today cars are built so the CAR , not the driver absorbs the impact.

Many people include "impact resistance" into their "car built to last" equation.

The main source of "wear" in a vehicle is its owner.

[Steve Schacher]

An interesting column by Michael Kelly: Unrest In Quebec

[ 04-25-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[Guest]

ROFLMAO!!! Menchise, You should know better.

Aramike and Shindgen just chewed that argument up and spit it out.

I would comment, but, they said it SOO WELL!!!

Also, notice where the liberals are, Canada and Australia, or at least most, what does that tell you?

Menchise, the reasons your arguments are so easily disputed is because they are based on emotion and not facts, when faced with the facts, you either A: come off with MORE emotional and nonsensical nonsense, or B: run and hide. You need to realize that when you spout off with liberal propaganda here, one of us is gonna jump on you, and probably more then one!! lol

[Guest Shingen]

Hey Jaguar,

I just noticed that you're in Forest Grove. I used to live in Hillsboro and Portland. How's the weather up there?

[Guest Hyperion]

The difference between Canada and the US are pretty obvious to everyone. We're much more social minded as a nation than i thikk the US. Some of the more obvious ones are gun control and medicare. We simply believe different thigs about these two issues

In Canada once must take a course for your FAC (Fire arms cerificate). then the RCMP does a background check on you and you must wait 6 months for the background check to clear, while supplying information as to why you want a firearm (Be it collector or what ever). If you have any sort of criminal record (no matter what) your request is denied.

In the US if im not mistaken the wait is generally six days for handguns and none for rifles stc...etc.. (The "Brady" bill) and is conducted by the local police force (if they have the time). At that point if nothing comes up your entitled to buy as many weapons at all.

Medicae in Canada is a right enshrined in our laws. Anyone no matter what thier financial background is entitled to the best care. Also there are no private hospitals for profit that allow the welathy to "jump the line". The point being is that it prevents a "Two-Tier" system which allows the welathy to have acces to better care than the poor.

The reason i bring these up is that is shows the differences between the two nations. and that economic "might" does not make "right" in all cases. Also people seem to be under the mis-apprehension the NAFTA and NTAA are simply going to "open" the boarders to duty-free products from both sides. Nothing is farther from the truth. the process is that the tarrifs are still thier and are allowed but are based on each nations individual circumstances subject to a seprate tribunal whose members are represented not by business or politicians. but by goverment officials who base thier rulings on the current agreement.

an example at the moment is the "softwood" controversy. In the southern US logging and pulp & paper mills are attempting to put pressure on thier repspective Congressprssons and Senators to revise the agreement now that it is soon set to expire. To this point a great deal of canadian lumber is being used in construction in the US and those companies are concerned that canadian lumber is being subsidized far to much and are demanding more tarrifs on Canadian softwood products.

What the previous poster said about "Resources" is quite correct. Nafta and the new agreement will simply be a mechanism for judging what tarrifs go where and how much.

Its natural that the US goverment is pressing not only for more access to forien markets but access to the resources of those foriegn nations. The problem is that many dont believe that these nations are getting "Bang for thier buck" for access to these resources and have looked upon these "Summits" as simply another form of economic imperialsim benefitting a few very greatly and the rest of the populatinons of those nations very little.

As for our case in Canada were are quite wealthy in terms of natural resources, be it oil, lumber, gas, or hydro electric power and water. As we speak the US is attempting to gain more & more access to these resources because of thier own shortfall. What this acces means is that essentially US companies could come to this country set up shop and begins to take these same resources and ship them out of canada

Not a bad thing at all on the surface. The issue rises that in our system of government these resources quite literlally belong the the citizens of Canada and as esponsible citizens of our nation we must extract as much as possible for these same resources or if they should have access at all. And instead should Canada continue to sell to the US the resources at the going market rates?

there's no question that the US is the sole economic superpower of the world. As a result there are really 3 options

A.) Have foriegn companies (Mainly US but there are others)pay highly for the priviledge of entering these nations and devloping what they need.

B.) Denying access to foriegn companies and developing resources themselves.

C.) allowing unfettered access to foriegn companies and hoping that the hosting nations can get some sort of benefit out of the deal.

There are many advantages to the last example but in the long run (especially for canada) the second option is best. Other nations will likely take other routes. Not so much in Canada but in other countries there is a high level of distrust (Or in some cases dislike of foriegn companies and foriegners period, again the US is usualy seen in this light quite a bit).

The US is putting forth the agruement that by being allowed to send thier companies into other soveriegn nations, that the economies of those nations will benefit. In some cases that is true, however in Canada that it is not the case. With a high proportion of resources to citizens were uniquely capable of developing the resources (Albeit over a much longer period of time).

What the US is doing is attemtpting to do is strong arm Canada and other nations into beneficial agrements for the US by holding over thier heads the possibility of denying US markets to other nations.

What will eventually happen is anyones guess. However and this is just my own feelings on this is follows. The US has provided a valuable lesson to those countries whose resources do not (at this time) outpace thier ability to process those resources into the final product. The marketplace is open to anyone

As a result the best option for those countries is to take either the first or second options i listed. Foremost because it would provide a better long term economic asset to the country involved and in time a better one than if a foriegn compnay controlled those resources. Should the US attempt to bring embargoes of resources against other nations, it would simply be making its own situation worse. The lack of those same imports would have a disastrous effect on thier economy and have a driect effect on US citizens (Keep in mind that California aquires 30% of its power from strictly canadian sources).

This may to some sound as "anti-american" and i dont want this interpreted as such. However In order for emerging nations to continue thier own development it is in thier best interest to develop thier own resources with little or no outside help and them sell them at the market rate to whoever may want them. I've always seen this this to be the "american way". Be efficent as possible taking into account other social considerations and then try to make a profit on your product. That this may tend have US citizens pay more for a gallon of gas or to keep thier hot-tubs runnin 24/7 maybe the price for real "Free trade"

[Menchise]

Here is some more "emotional" stuff for you to chew on, if you dare.

First of all, you need to learn a few things about political alignments. Economic liberals are supporters of free trade and competition, so don't call me a liberal when we're discussing economic issues.

The Republican and Democratic parties in the USA are both aligned with Liberalism. The Republicans tend to be Classical Liberals (supporters of free trade, laissez faire capitalism etc.) while the Democrats tend to be a mixture of Classical and Modern Liberals (supporters of Keynesian economics and social welfare). Start reading a textbook or two on the subject of ideologies.

Secondly, your economic facts are not facts at all, they are paradigms and theories illustrated by pretty graphs such as the Phillips Curve, the Price Elasticity line, the Demand/Supply Curve and so on. Yes, I did learn Economics in high school, and one of the first things I learned in University as a student of Politics and Government is that all of the stuff you learn in high school about Economics is crap, and any Economics course that teaches the same old theories in University is even crappier.

Sometimes I make the mistake of trying to use my Economics knowledge to argue facts about how bad the system really is, but that's impossible because my Economics knowledge (the stuff I learned in school) is biased toward the system, and thus always contradicts with the facts. That's why my previous arguments have been chewed up so easily: I've been trying to discredit theories using the same theories.

In order to criticize the system one must learn to avoid the pretty graphs and established theories about Economics, because they were all written by supporters of the current system.

There are many left wing people out there who can give much better arguments using graphs, theories and facts than I can. These are the people who are experts in critical analysis and have read books by Smith and Friedman (Capitalists) as well as Marx and Engels (Communists). I prefer to be an emotional philosopher rather than an economist.

My posts are particularly emotional because I'm angry at a society that recites the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with pride while at the same time supports an economic system that forces people to compete for the goods and services required to sustain life.

When you have competition on a grand scale like a capitalist economy, there are bound to be people who lose the competition, even after they take all the opportunities that are offered to them. When you have a minority that has a headstart in the competition for life, such as a billion dollar bank account, a huge number of people lose no matter how successful the economy becomes.

These people, most of which have worked harder to stay alive than anyone who owns a mansion, will become homeless and, depending on the current state of social welfare, turn to a life of crime.

When many people in society who are relatively comfortable financially hear about the existence of poverty, they choose to label it as a result of lazy people unwilling to "make it happen". This is because they don't want to believe that after years of hard work, you can still end up starving to death (this happens more often than not).

Despite the fact that the USA is the most powerful economy in the world, more than ten million Americans live in poverty. That doesn't include the millions more who live on minimum wage which is on the brink of the poverty line despite the efforts of unions.

Want to know the real reason why cities such as Chicago have laws against loitering? To keep the homeless people in the dark alleys where they can't be seen!

I have much more to say soon.

[Eclipse]

Ok, glad you posted that, now your argument is?

Question.

What is "poverty" in America considered whne compared to poverty in the rest of the world?

I know several people that live below the poverty line in the USA. they have 2 fairly new cars, TV's, Own their own home, run their own business, send their kids through college, and have enough left for vacations. Sure this might not be the case will every person below the poverty line, but then again poverty in America for the most part is wealth in the eyes of countries with real poverty.

[Menchise]

When I said that ten million Americans live in poverty, I was referring to real poverty (homeless, struggling to stay alive every day, by illegal means if necessary), and ten million is a generous approximation of a larger number (the exact figure could be twice the size).

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[aramike]

[Guest Shingen]

Let me put it this way. The only right guaranteed in life is the right to choose. Example:

If you strip away all aspects of society, government and economics, and you are left with the cold reality of nature, you will find very little actual rights! If you were to sit around (in this scenario) and demand your rights, instead of capitalizing on every possible opportunity, you'd soon starve and the wolves would feed on your useless corpse because they (the wolves) capitalized on the opportunity that your stupidity presented. I didn't make these laws, but I have had to learn to live within them. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there... it's been that way for centuries and will remain that way for many more... people have been rising out of poverty since civilization started, and they didn't get it done by relying on 'social programs'.

I admit that this a rather simplistic example, and it doesn't cover all circumstances, but it is a truth none-the-less.

..and are you saying that wealth is not created by markets??? How else it is created??? Where does new wealth come from?? How are new jobs created?? If you look at how many 'wealthy' people were in the world before the capitalistic system, and the number of wealthy people now, you'll find that your ideas of economics are indeed, very flawed.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

My posts are particularly emotional because I'm angry at a society that recites the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with pride while at the same time supports an economic system that forces people to compete for the goods and services required to sustain life.

---

I'm angry, too, but I believe the problem here is that we Americans are overtaxed by our Federal government that has grown beyond what the Constitution intended it to be (see the Taxes thread). If our government didn't drain away 50% of a person's earnings, there would be more money for them to acquire the basic necessities of life.

I'm not saying that this is the solution, but I do believe that it can be a mitigating factor for many people.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

I don't know about you, but buying booze with free money doesn't seem to be a very efficient way of "getting ahead". It also seems to indicate a lack of trial in getting ahead.

---

What do you expect them to buy? A stock portfolio? The homeless who drink didn't always drink. They tried harder than you can imagine, and were put down even harder. They drink to escape the harsh reality of a system that doesn't care about people, only money. It's bad enough when you have to depend on a government that treats you like an inconvenience for survival. It's a lot worse when people who don't have to depend on anyone treat you like a worthless human being. If they didn't drink, they would kill themselves.

Capitalism in very inhuman, no matter how small the percentage of poverty is. I don't care about the benefits of the system, only the people who suffer in expense, and there are many more than you think, not necessarily in America, but caused by the self-interests of the industrialized Western World (that includes America and Australia, but you knew that).

Try going to Africa someday, specifically the remote areas of Nigeria. Try telling the homeless, starving people in those areas to work harder and be efficient in "getting ahead". Before they skinned you alive in disgust, they would tell you about the mercenaries who forced them off their land because they lived on top of an oil deposit that Shell wanted to drill.

Try going to some of the gold mines in Central and South America, many of which are owned by citizens of the USA working hard to "make it happen", and you'll see workers and their families dying by the hundreds each year. Why? Because the gold mining companies use Cyanide compounds to separate the gold from the rock. The workers are exposed to the toxic fumes without protective clothing, and eventually their bodies become incapable of respiration (Cyanide kills the enzymes that carry oxygen). The toxic chemicals used on the rocks sink into the soil and pollute nearby rivers which nearby communities depend on for their water supply.

These corporations are never prosecuted for their crimes against humanity despite the fact that they violate human rights every day, because the countries that they pillage have no laws against their practices. Why? Because the governments of those countries depend on the corporations for economic survival (thanks to free trade).

If the leader of a country is brave enough to go against the "Blue Tide" of private interests, you can always count on the corporations, or even the US government, to provide military aid to pro-capitalist guerrillas. The best example of this occurred in Chile in the early 1970s, where Salvador Allende, the first democratically elected Socialist leader, went against the interests of the big corporations. In 1973, Allende was overthrown and killed in a coup led by Augusto Pinochet, thanks to military aid from the US government. Pinochet became a fascist dictator and ruled Chile for over sixteen years.

Now you understand why I'm so angry, and shame on you if you're not as angered by the evil as I am.

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Guest Hyperion]

If were still talking about the Summit of the Americas and including the sideline about rights...well.

It seems that a few folks have a rather Nietschean view of what is a "right" and what is not. Pavlov's hierarchy describes this rahter well in ascending order going from food and shelter to self realization. Regretabbly many on the extreme sides (Both left &right) tend to use this arguement when trying to deal with the social problems that face both the States and Canada (setting aside for the moment that he was a virulent Anti-semeitc).

Nietsche essentially said that life is an etenal struggle against everything else be it nature, man or yourself. And that only the strong survive. It may serve to remeber that this world view was not only popular during the era of Nazi Germany but was one of the key ingredients that led Hitler to arrouse the German people of the time to do the things that they did.

The point is that a measure of a nation is based upon how it treats its citizens in all walks of life, be they welathy or poor. The idea that the poor are not just an eceonomic underclass (Which they are) but a social one although common, is wrong. These are not people who should be desribed as "Weak" and therefore not only disregarded but disposed of as many of the economic upperclass would like.

The reason that democratic goverments exist is not so that corpoarations can have the unlimited ability to do business. But to ensure that the "rights" enshrined in various constitutions and charters are carried out to the full. It is the citizens of those countries duty to ensure that thier goverments carry out that role to the fullest ability.

What that means of course is that those same goverments must impose both personal and corpoarte income taxes in order to do this. Right now in the States is a movement whose main thought is that less government is better. That may be true. Unfortunatley the definition of what part of the bueracray is not neccesary varies as you go not only from race to race but from one economic level to another.

With regards to taxation at the 50% level it seems that this is a propsal for the "flat" tax syndrome which is often thrown out by republicans as not only a way of reducing government but reducing taxes. With the added carrot of allowing more capital to be put into the hands of the poor. However at the same time the wealthy (And for this purpose ill make a level of 50,000$) having this sort of taxaation is worth far more to them than a person making 15,000$.

While this is happening the services the government offers is going to deteriorate now due the lower tax base and it may in fact farm out these services to private companies. (A classic case is the HMO business in America). OF course with our two examples the person who makes 50,000$ has far more options as to choosing a superior level of service that she or he wants simply because of the extra income than the person who makes 15,000$

What this is a case of economic Darwinism where those who are "Have nots" are forced more and more into situations where there needs cannot be met for the reason that the new funds that they now have cannot get them the services that they would have under a goverment operated systtem.

Captalism at its extreme as we have now has been in existance for less than 200 hundred years. However it should never be forgotten that capatilism has flourished BECAUSE of democracy in all its forms. The moment that we forget that when one person in a democracy is discrminated agaisnt in anyway because of their economic or social station. IS the moment when rights and freedoms that have been fought and died for become meaningless.

Ultimatley when decisions are made with regards to decisons about the involvement of goverments; it must be made on how it affects an average person. Not as to whether a corporation can increase its profit margin by cutting its staff or benefits.

[Guest Shingen]

Just a few thoughts:

Menchise wrote:

quote:

---

What do you expect them to buy? A stock portfolio? The homeless who drink didn't always drink. They tried harder than you can imagine, and were put down even harder. They drink to escape the harsh reality of a system that doesn't care about people, only money. It's bad enough when you have to depend on a government that treats you like an inconvenience for survival. It's a lot worse when people who don't have to depend on anyone treat you like a worthless human being. If they didn't drink, they would kill themselves.

---

First off, you seriously have no idea of the homeless situation in America. I've been homeless, so I have first hand knowledge, and what you say in pure liberal media B.S.! You know how long I was acually homeless?? 6 days! You know why? Cause I had a JOB and earned my way out!

Secondly, there are hundreds of programs for the homeless in America! Temporary shelters, jobs programs, drug re-hab, and yes, I've been in the shelters and yes, they suck! But, I've also slept on the streets, and sometimes the shelters are better then sleeping in the rain. My point is, that anyone who is homeless CAN get off the streets and into housing if they WORK at it! It's been my experience that MOST people here only discriminate against behavior not necassarily homlessness! Since you have no first hand knowledge of the America homeless experience, you comments are merely more socilaist propoganda! Learn the facts!

quote:

---

Capitalism in very inhuman, no matter how small the percentage of poverty is. I don't care about the benefits of the system, only the people who suffer in expense, and there are many more than you think, not necessarily in America, but caused by the self-interests of the industrialized Western World (that includes America and Australia, but you knew that).

---

Capitalism is a system! It is neither humane or inhumane! Ever heard the saying: 'Guns don't kill people, People kill people.' Well the same applies to the capitalistic system. There are as many examples of philantropy(?), as there are abuses! Again, your comments are not based on anything concrete.

quote:

---

Try going to Africa someday, specifically the remote areas of Nigeria. Try telling the homeless, starving people in those areas to work harder and be efficient in "getting ahead". Before they skinned you alive in disgust, they would tell you about the mercenaries who forced them off their land because they lived on top of an oil deposit that Shell wanted to drill.

---

Prehaps these people should rise up against their oppressors! We did!

Let me say it again, so that I may be veryclear Capitalism is a system! It's only as good or as bad as people make it. It is, however, the best system that humanity has found to maintain an extensive population! Show me one other economic system that has brought more wealth to people, provided more jobs, research, advances, technology, ect.ect.ect!!

It sound like you are qouting pure communist rhedoric(?)..and liberal bias, The fact is, the capitalistic system has brought more and better human rights to the world then any other known system in recorded history!

[Menchise]

Here are some big excerpts from an essay I wrote last year as a University student in the course of Politics and Government about the relationship between Economic Liberalism and Capitalism and the negative effect that Capitalism has on Democracy:

The Second Revision of the Macquarie Dictionary (1987;289) defines Capitalism as "a system under which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are in large measure privately owned or directed." It can also be defined, especially in the case of Laissez Faire Capitalism, as the economic 'state of nature', where the economy is powered by the human drive or 'natural passion' to compete with other individuals for power...the individuals which possess the financial 'strength and art' (mostly strength), i.e. the owners of the means of production, compete with each other for financial domination of the market and higher profits through the recruitment and use of individuals who lack the financial 'strength and art' (again, mostly strength), i.e. the labour force, within their organization.

...In the context of the New Right, Economic Liberalism is a branch of economic thought which generally follows the paradigm of the Neoclassical Era of Economics, which pre-dated and declined during the Great Depression of the 1930s. It was resurrected during the mid 1970s to early 1980s, and remains today as the paradigm of most countries of the industrialized West. Economic Liberals, or Rationalists as they are known in Australia, are supporters of Laissez Faire Capitalism, believing that the market left on its own is the most efficient distributor of goods and services, at least according to the Economic Liberal interpretation of efficiency: maximum production at minimum cost. This belief makes Economic Liberalism a very accommodating branch of economic thought for business interests in a Capitalist system.

...the state of nature previously described occurs when there is no legitimate power (or 'commonwealth' [Hobbesian term]) capable of providing order and security for the consenting masses. Capitalism on its own has no legitimacy, being an economic state of nature. However, when Capitalism is combined with the ideological rhetoric of Economic Liberalism as a paradigm, which has no power on its own, it achieves the guise of a legitimate power, without which the labour force would be less likely to consent willingly to the owners of the means of production. Therefore, the symbiosis of Economic Liberalism and Capitalism creates a state of nature disguised as a legitimate power which appears to provide an economy with order and security for the consenting masses. In reality, it provides an economy with no security or order, not even for the businesses that dominate the market (recessions tend to make sure of that).

...In a state of nature, those who are strong and artful dominate, while the rest tend to be subjugated, just like in war, where the nation which has more military power and more cunning military leaders are more likely to defeat their opponents. In a Democracy, which literally means 'people rule' (from the Greek words 'demos' and 'kratos'), the consenting masses of a 'commonwealth' are the decision makers, either through direct participation, or through the election of representatives who theoretically rule at the request of the people for the common interests of the people. However, when the source of the majority of resources required to serve such interests, the economy, resides in a state of nature where a strong minority dominate, the decision making power of the people is compromised to the point where any decisions that reduce the power of the dominating minority in the economy can not be carried out.

...In conclusion, Democracy is challenged by a symbiosis of Economic Liberalism and Capitalism, due to its state of nature where a strong minority dominates the distribution of the majority of resources essential for living.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Prehaps these people should rise up against their oppressors! We did!

---

How can these people rise up against fully armed mercenaries who have the financial support of one of the Big Three oil companies?

quote:

---

The fact is, the capitalistic system has brought more and better human rights to the world then any other known system in recorded history!

---

Read the rest of the post that you were responding to, specifically the stuff about the gold mines, the lack of prosecution of oppressive corporations, and the death of a democratically elected President who resisted those corporations, then try to say the same thing again.