Liberal Forum

First of all...capitalism.

people will use that word in many ways, but I see it simply as the attitude that fair competition results in meritocracy...applied to economics.

this is a very Anglo attitude. 

Adam smith, an Anglo, was the 'father' of capitalism...and it is often considered merely an economic theory. But i would say it is more like a way of life...and it is an EVOLVED instinct based on certain conditions.

England had the remarkable circumstance that they lived in a sort of fortress...thanks to the Dover cliffs. Especially if they focused on some naval power, they never needed to fear invasion from the outside.

This gave the English the luxury of competing against each other...whereas more threatened people tend to need to focus on cooperation and not wasting energy fighting each other.

A side effect of this competitive environment is that the English were remarkable at developing new technology. Because creative genius is necessarily linked to antisocial behavior...and the English had a very high tolerance for antisocial behavior thanks to their internally competitive nature. Imagine not killing the annoying autistic nerd but instead actually assisting him in whatever stupid nerdy hobby he had.

it is of course no accident that the English also discovered evolution...because the struggle between life forms and survival of the fittest is perfectly intuitive to the Anglo spirit.

It is also no accident that the English therefore have a very dim concept of nationalism...because if your main adversary is internal then nationalism is of little use.

Liberalism is just capitalism applied to government and society. Everything is about internal competition and the only role of government is to try to keep the competition fair. Debates are supposed to determine everything. Prosecution and Defense in law, the winner of a political office, etc. 

liberalism and capitalism obviously fail to provide meritocracy if people cheat. For example if jews get involved in your system and act in an instinctive collective effort rather than competing against each other...a tribe will always defeat a bunch of isolated individuals, even if the tribe is not terribly clever...because they can pool resources. That is just a way to cheat and it breaks the whole game.

Socialism is basically the opposite of this...and tends to express itself the most among the most threatened people. Socialism focuses on cooperation and collaboration rather than competition. This dramatically increases power and security at the cost of some degree of meritocracy.

Socialism, therefore, i would argue is not even possible without nationalism. nationalism is the glue which causes people to feel they share a similar destiny whether they are rich or poor. 

in a socialist government, the state is more powerful than the merchant. The state is willing and able to exert its will upon the merchant, whenever necessary. IN a corrupted liberal government, however, the merchant own the politician. Because in an individualist liberal government a politician really has no reason to not be bribed.

I would argue that if anglos were able to say...colonize a planet...and have a homogeneous anglo population and not invite many foreign ethnocentric people to their planet...then they would probably follow their evolved nature and create a liberal sort of society and reproduce the explosion in technology and knowledge we saw from the 19th century.

but if anglos must live among an outgroup, then they will be forced to adjust their behavior and act in a collective manner. They have to be more cautious than it is their nature to be about the threat of infiltration.

FOS » 17 Jul 2022, 6:32 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 6:32 pm

First of all...capitalism.

people will use that word in many ways, but I see it simply as the attitude that fair competition results in meritocracy...applied to economics.

this is a very Anglo attitude. 

Adam smith, an Anglo, was the 'father' of capitalism...and it is often considered merely an economic theory. But i would say it is more like a way of life...and it is an EVOLVED instinct based on certain conditions.

The problem with your explanation of capitlism is that we are left to pretend - preposterously - that a fellow starting a carpet cleaning business is participting in the same economic paradigm as Microsoft and Boeing. Your definition is therefore entirely unservicable. Does that fellow have lawful access to anonymous millions? Is he a member of the club? Are senators thinking of HIM when they pass regulations (in a good way, I mean)?

Until you can unconflate a gyro-vender from proctor and gamble, you are rhetorcally helpless, and your definition helps no one except those who business is gaslighting.

We have a two teir economy that features free enterprise - which is under attack and losing ground - and capitalism, which is on the attack and gaining. One is a natural and inextinguishble aspect of our humanity: Even when outlawed, it perseveres in the form of black markets. The other requires state support.

If a government says, there shall be no capitalism between these rivers and those shores, you may be certain that capitalism dies that day in the area proscribed to it. Capitalist actions flow from articles of incorporation granted by the state - not from handshakes with neighbors. Capitalist funding comes from boards licensed and regulated and created by governments. No trading board, no capitalists and no capitalism. That's a fact.

Whatever adam smith's intentions, inventions or integrity, capitalism never has existed and never will exist absent action and protection and enforcement by a state. Free enterprise not only can exist WITHOUT a state, but is inextinguishble BY a state, as history bears witness. 

 
 

Cannonpointer » 17 Jul 2022, 9:32 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 9:32 pm

The problem with your explanation of capitlism is that we are left to pretend - preposterously - that a fellow starting a carpet cleaning business is participting in the same economic paradigm as Microsoft and Boeing. Your definition is therefore entirely unservicable. Does that fellow have lawful access to anonymous millions? Is he a member of the club? Are senators thinking of HIM when they pass regulations (in a good way, I mean)?

Until you can unconflate a gyro-vender from proctor and gamble, you are rhetorcally helpless, and your definition helps no one except those who business is gaslighting.

We have a two teir economy that features free enterprise - which is under attack and losing ground - and capitalism, which is on the attack and gaining. One is a natural and inextinguishble aspect of our humanity: Even when outlawed, it perseveres in the form of black markets.

The other requires state support. If a government says, there shall be no capitalism between these rivers and those shores, you may be certain that capitalism dies that day in the area proscribed to it. Capitalist actions flow from articles of incorportion granted by the state - not from handshakes with neighbors. Capitalist funding comes from boards licensed and regulated and created by governments. No trading board, no capitalists and no capitalism. That's a fact.

Whatever adam smith's intentions, inventions or integrity, capitalism never has existed and never will exist absent action and protection and enforcement by a state. Free enterprise not only can exist WITHOUT a state, but is inextinguishble BY a state, as history bears witness.

the flaw you have noticed with capitalism is that it ignores power.

major corporations obviously have power. and this interferes with genuine fair competition.

i am defining capitalism based on the intent of its founders. They ignored power. and yeah, that ruins the whole game

FOS » 17 Jul 2022, 9:38 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 9:38 pm

the flaw you have noticed with capitalism is that it ignores power.

major corporations obviously have power. and this interferes with genuine fair competition.

i am defining capitalism based on the intent of its founders. They ignored power. and yeah, that ruins the whole game

The important distinction I am attempting to make exists outside the parameters of the power that scale confers. That is certainly an important element - but it's a mere side issue and not the primary. A bigger duck is still a duck; A big duck and a little duck are two ducks. One may have this relative advantge and the other that - but they are two ducks. 

Capitalism and free enterprise are a duck and a chicken. So long as your definition fails to distinguish free enterprise from capitalism, it is groping about in the dark. Capitalism is a creature of the state and cannot exist without it. Free enterprise is a natural and irrepressible expression of humanity. 

 

Cannonpointer » 17 Jul 2022, 9:47 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 9:47 pm

The important distinction I am attempting to make exists outside the parameters of the power that scale confers. That is certainly an important element - but it's a mere side issue and not the primary. A bigger duck is still a duck; A big duck and a little duck are two ducks. One may have this relative advantge and the other that - but they are two ducks. 

Capitalism and free enterprise are a duck and a chicken. So long as your definition fails to distinguish free enterprise from capitalism, it is groping about in the dark. Capitalism is a creature of the state and cannot exist without it. Free enterprise is a natural and irrepressible expression of humanity.

well i must admit...i dont really understand the distinction here that you make.
 

FOS » 17 Jul 2022, 9:58 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 9:58 pm

well i must admit...i dont really understand the distinction here that you make.

Study on it. Sam's Burger Joint can't get anonymous monies collected from my paycheck by a government whose rules impel and reward me to participate in "the market." And why can he not?

BECAUSE SAM DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THAT MARKET.

Sam is not a capitalist - by definition, he is not. If he were, he would have access to my retirement savings. He doesn't - so he's not. 

And if Sam is not a capitalist, then he is not participting in capitalism. But he is participating in SOMETHING. I find it handy to call that something: "Free Enterprise." Well, mostly handy - with a fly in the ointment. Free Enterprise has been conflated by a gas-lit public with capitalism. 

If Sam's Burger Joint is capitalist, please explain why Sam cannot get access to monies from my retirement account? And if it is NOT capitalist, please suggest a nomenclature that allows poor Sam's efforts to have a definition, in the minds of men. 
 
It comes down to this: People who CAN get access to my retirement account and people who cannot are at different tables playing different games - and any definition which obscures that fact serves a lie. A definition broad enough to put my paperboy and my uber driver in the same category as pfizer is of little use to me. 

 
 

Cannonpointer » 17 Jul 2022, 10:07 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 10:07 pm

Study on it. Sam's Burger Joint can't get anonymous monies collected from my paycheck by a government whose rules impel and reward me to participate in "the market." And why can he not?

BECAUSE SAM DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THAT MARKET.

Sam is not a capitalist - by definition, he is not. If he were, he would have access to my retirement savings. He doesn't - so he's not. 

And if Sam is not a capitalist, then he is not participting in capitalism. But he is participating in SOMETHING. I find it handy to call that something: "Free Enterprise." Well, mostly handy - with a fly in the ointment. Free Enterprise has been conflated by a gas-lit public with capitalism. 

If Sam's Burger Joint is capitalist, please explain why Sam cannot get access to monies from my retirement account? And if it is NOT capitalist, please suggest a nomenclature that allows poor Sam's efforts to have a definition, in the minds of men. 
 
It comes down to this: People who CAN get access to my retirement account and people who cannot are at different tables playing different games - and any definition which obscures that fact serves a lie. A definition broad enough to put my paperboy and my uber driver in the same category as pfizer is of little use to me.

this still just seems like a natural outcome of regular capitalism when power corrupts it

Cannonpointer » 17 Jul 2022, 10:07 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 10:07 pm

Study on it. Sam's Burger Joint can't get anonymous monies collected from my paycheck by a government whose rules impel and reward me to participate in "the market." And why can he not?

BECAUSE SAM DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THAT MARKET.

Sam is not a capitalist - by definition, he is not. If he were, he would have access to my retirement savings. He doesn't - so he's not. 

And if Sam is not a capitalist, then he is not participting in capitalism. But he is participating in SOMETHING. I find it handy to call that something: "Free Enterprise." Well, mostly handy - with a fly in the ointment. Free Enterprise has been conflated by a gas-lit public with capitalism. 

If Sam's Burger Joint is capitalist, please explain why Sam cannot get access to monies from my retirement account? And if it is NOT capitalist, please suggest a nomenclature that allows poor Sam's efforts to have a definition, in the minds of men. 
 
It comes down to this: People who CAN get access to my retirement account and people who cannot are at different tables playing different games - and any definition which obscures that fact serves a lie. A definition broad enough to put my paperboy and my uber driver in the same category as pfizer is of little use to me.

Its like when Huey said “Nobody forces you to invest in anything!  You can choose what you invest in!”

well, as a worker in the US , if your employer matches your 401k contribution up to 6%, where exactly does that contribution go?  It obviously goes to build a portfolio composed of publicly traded companies on the NYSE.. Yum brands, google, Coca Cola, etc..

so if you want to invest and have a retirement, you DONT get a choice.  It’s not like you can choose to invest in mom and pops stores and expect that to be a retirement plan.  There is COERCION, as you tried to point out to that knucklehead in your other thread on capitalism.
 

 we are forced to invest through taxation. We must pay taxes, and have no control over who gets that money. Vanguard, Halliburton, Boeing are investments that we are FORCED TO MAKE, through no bid government contracts.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/05/ami ... roduction/

Exxon is a investment we are FORCED TO MAKE when we are taxed and they collect subsidies.

https://bulletin.represent.us/company-4 ... tax-break/

The list goes on. Taxes are in fact forced “investments”
 

This forced investment concept is all over the board. Even if I like the concept of my tax dollars killing Russians and putting me at risk of getting vaporized in a nuclear blast, I still subsidize things I HATE, like Obama phones which was a program that was recently revived with $14 billion in funding

https://www.fcc.gov/broadbandbenefit

Everything the government spends money on, is a FORCED INVESTMENT for the taxpayer, the CU ruling said those entities receiving the funding get a much bigger voice in government than I do as a individual taxpayer. I in fact get NO SAY in it.

Why does Huey want to strip all taxpayers of any power to decide what tax money is spent on? Not just him, but anybody who supports CU should chime in here. They wont
 
 

biggest form of capitalism in usa is the competitive christian churches. capitalism separation of church and state should be expanded to all forms of capitalism business in usa. no tax. right to keep out jews and nigglers.

FOS » 17 Jul 2022, 6:32 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 6:32 pm

First of all...capitalism.

people will use that word in many ways, but I see it simply as the attitude that fair competition results in meritocracy...applied to economics.

this is a very Anglo attitude. 

Adam smith, an Anglo, was the 'father' of capitalism...and it is often considered merely an economic theory. But i would say it is more like a way of life...and it is an EVOLVED instinct based on certain conditions.

England had the remarkable circumstance that they lived in a sort of fortress...thanks to the Dover cliffs. Especially if they focused on some naval power, they never needed to fear invasion from the outside.

This gave the English the luxury of competing against each other...whereas more threatened people tend to need to focus on cooperation and not wasting energy fighting each other.

A side effect of this competitive environment is that the English were remarkable at developing new technology. Because creative genius is necessarily linked to antisocial behavior...and the English had a very high tolerance for antisocial behavior thanks to their internally competitive nature. Imagine not killing the annoying autistic nerd but instead actually assisting him in whatever stupid nerdy hobby he had.

it is of course no accident that the English also discovered evolution...because the struggle between life forms and survival of the fittest is perfectly intuitive to the Anglo spirit.

It is also no accident that the English therefore have a very dim concept of nationalism...because if your main adversary is internal then nationalism is of little use.

Liberalism is just capitalism applied to government and society. Everything is about internal competition and the only role of government is to try to keep the competition fair. Debates are supposed to determine everything. Prosecution and Defense in law, the winner of a political office, etc. 

liberalism and capitalism obviously fail to provide meritocracy if people cheat. For example if jews get involved in your system and act in an instinctive collective effort rather than competing against each other...a tribe will always defeat a bunch of isolated individuals, even if the tribe is not terribly clever...because they can pool resources. That is just a way to cheat and it breaks the whole game.

Socialism is basically the opposite of this...and tends to express itself the most among the most threatened people. Socialism focuses on cooperation and collaboration rather than competition. This dramatically increases power and security at the cost of some degree of meritocracy.

Socialism, therefore, i would argue is not even possible without nationalism. nationalism is the glue which causes people to feel they share a similar destiny whether they are rich or poor. 

in a socialist government, the state is more powerful than the merchant. The state is willing and able to exert its will upon the merchant, whenever necessary. IN a corrupted liberal government, however, the merchant own the politician. Because in an individualist liberal government a politician really has no reason to not be bribed.

 Wonderful representation for the corporation commune, negative representation for the individual citizen (less than zero diplomatic representation).
  Democracy or democratic socialism, fascist-socialism and or said claimed communism tend to crash into various feudal-monarchical situations of feudal serf group subside disaster.. Small government with a non manipulated controlled non debt based money system  (you have real money, I have real money, goodby) and laws that protect individuals instead of laws that protect separated commune groups and large corporation groups that are controlled by billionaires. USA freedom works, feudal subsidies socialist classing and grouping destroys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1jpx5lhPEY

FOS » 17 Jul 2022, 6:32 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 6:32 pm

First of all...capitalism.

people will use that word in many ways, but I see it simply as the attitude that fair competition results in meritocracy...applied to economics.

this is a very Anglo attitude. 

Adam smith, an Anglo, was the 'father' of capitalism...and it is often considered merely an economic theory. But i would say it is more like a way of life...and it is an EVOLVED instinct based on certain conditions.

England had the remarkable circumstance that they lived in a sort of fortress...thanks to the Dover cliffs. Especially if they focused on some naval power, they never needed to fear invasion from the outside.

This gave the English the luxury of competing against each other...whereas more threatened people tend to need to focus on cooperation and not wasting energy fighting each other.

A side effect of this competitive environment is that the English were remarkable at developing new technology. Because creative genius is necessarily linked to antisocial behavior...and the English had a very high tolerance for antisocial behavior thanks to their internally competitive nature. Imagine not killing the annoying autistic nerd but instead actually assisting him in whatever stupid nerdy hobby he had.

it is of course no accident that the English also discovered evolution...because the struggle between life forms and survival of the fittest is perfectly intuitive to the Anglo spirit.

It is also no accident that the English therefore have a very dim concept of nationalism...because if your main adversary is internal then nationalism is of little use.

Liberalism is just capitalism applied to government and society. Everything is about internal competition and the only role of government is to try to keep the competition fair. Debates are supposed to determine everything. Prosecution and Defense in law, the winner of a political office, etc. 

liberalism and capitalism obviously fail to provide meritocracy if people cheat. For example if jews get involved in your system and act in an instinctive collective effort rather than competing against each other...a tribe will always defeat a bunch of isolated individuals, even if the tribe is not terribly clever...because they can pool resources. That is just a way to cheat and it breaks the whole game.

Socialism is basically the opposite of this...and tends to express itself the most among the most threatened people. Socialism focuses on cooperation and collaboration rather than competition. This dramatically increases power and security at the cost of some degree of meritocracy.

Socialism, therefore, i would argue is not even possible without nationalism. nationalism is the glue which causes people to feel they share a similar destiny whether they are rich or poor. 

in a socialist government, the state is more powerful than the merchant. The state is willing and able to exert its will upon the merchant, whenever necessary. IN a corrupted liberal government, however, the merchant own the politician. Because in an individualist liberal government a politician really has no reason to not be bribed.

those are man made definitions that came to exist when people are alive cradle to grave by consensus using a common language for social communication face to face, letter to letter, voice phone to phone, device to device. Things invented for the convenience to exist cradle to grave didn't come before inception of the species or last after extinction of the species that created it.

corruption is self inflicted defying natural way living occurs now.

FOS » 17 Jul 2022, 11:14 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 11:14 pm

this still just seems like a natural outcome of regular capitalism when power corrupts it

Well, let's just make this a syllogism, which will require you to dispute one of the propositions or accept the logical conclusion. Syllogisms leave no room for cloudy communications. 

1. Free enterprise is a function of humans being human and will always exist, even if the state outlaws it.

2. Capitalism is a function of the state, requiring trading boards, and cannot exist but by state patronage. If the state outlaws capitlism, it ceases to exist.

3. Free enterprise and capitalism are two different things by their nature.

Do you dispute either proposition?
 

SJConspirator » 17 Jul 2022, 11:21 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 11:21 pm

Its like when Huey said “Nobody forces you to invest in anything!  You can choose what you invest in!”

well, as a worker in the US , if your employer matches your 401k contribution up to 6%, where exactly does that contribution go?  It obviously goes to build a portfolio composed of publicly traded companies on the NYSE.. Yum brands, google, Coca Cola, etc..

so if you want to invest and have a retirement, you DONT get a choice.  It’s not like you can choose to invest in mom and pops stores and expect that to be a retirement plan.  There is COERCION, as you tried to point out to that knucklehead in your other thread on capitalism.

Giving my neighbor a tax break and withholding it from me is coercion, absolutely. The laws benefit wall street at the expense of main street - capitalism at the expense of free enterprise. But getting folks just to DISTINGUISH between the two appears quite the sisyphean challenge. I've been reduced to the hail mary of a syllogism just to get thru to FOS, whom I consider quite intelligent and kindred.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jul 2022, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

18 Jul 2022, 10:31 am

Giving my neighbor a tax break and withholding it from me is coercion, absolutely. The laws benefit wall street at the expense of main street - capitalism at the expense of free enterprise. But getting folks just to DISTINGUISH between the two appears quite the sisyphean challenge. I've been reduced to the hail mary of a syllogism just to get thru to FOS, whom I consider quite intelligent and kindred.

I don’t see a disagreement between you and FOS in this thread.  Maybe I’m dense too, but you both seem to be saying the same thing

SJConspirator » 18 Jul 2022, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

18 Jul 2022, 11:28 am

I don’t see a disagreement between you and FOS in this thread.  Maybe I’m dense too, but you both seem to be saying the same thing

He appears to be conflating capitalism with free enterprise. They are different economic models. 

Cannonpointer » 18 Jul 2022, 10:24 am » wrote: ↑

18 Jul 2022, 10:24 am

Well, let's just make this a syllogism, which will require you to dispute one of the propositions or accept the logical conclusion. Syllogisms leave no room for cloudy communications. 

1. Free enterprise is a function of humans being human and will always exist, even if the state outlaws it.

2. Capitalism is a function of the state, requiring trading boards, and cannot exist but by state patronage. If the state outlaws capitlism, it ceases to exist.

3. Free enterprise and capitalism are two different things by their nature.

Do you dispute either proposition?

They are not mutually exclusive within a given region.  capitalism does not outlaw free trade, but competes with it.  For example, let’s say I have $80k to invest.

I could invest in the stock market, or buy an annuity, both of which are highly regulated and overseen by the SEC

Or I could seek out a private seller of gems and rare gold, and commission a jeweler to craft a ring and necklace, which is free enterprise and requires no oversight from the state. The problem some have with socialist states per se, is that it has often punished free trade, even outlawed it, while capitalist states merely compete with it.
 

SJConspirator » 18 Jul 2022, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

18 Jul 2022, 11:50 am

They are not mutually exclusive within a given region.  capitalism does not outlaw free trade, but competes with it. 

My thesis. ^

Communism, capitlism, socialism, corporatism - none of these are mutually exclusive with free enterprise. And any of these economic models that BRAND themselves as free enterprise are lying - lying, as the Spanish put it, "con razon."