<p>I cant remember a time pure capitalism was tried.</p>
<p>Or pure communism, for that matter.</p>
<p>1800s America was very close to pure capitalism, and the Soviet Union was very close to pure communism. Neither worked very well.</p>
<p>@LogicWarrior</p>
<p>For someone with the name logic in your name, you really didn’t have much support for your statements.</p>
<p>1800s America had post office monopolies, defense monopolies, law monopolies, taxes, tariffs, etc. </p>
<p>Not even close to pure capitalism.</p>
<p>I’ll leave it to someone else to distinguish between pure communism and the Soviet Union as I still don’t fully understand communist/socialist reasoning since they argue that the Soviet Union was a form of state capitalism yet at the same time they advocate for the use of the state to protect interests of certain groups (e.g. “the workers”).</p>
<p>Pure capitalism leads to monopolies. It’s (gasp) government regulation that broke those up. Socialism is state-supported monopolies. There was no income tax, and 1800s America was protectionist (had tariffs) which isn’t even close to socialist. A lot of libertarians are protectionist.</p>
<p>The Soviet Union was the original communist country and was founded almost directly on the teachings of Karl Marx. “True” communism has never been tried because no one agrees on what that is, so I used the USSR because they were the first.</p>
<p>Logic you again point out your misunderstanding of capitalism. Monopolies are very rare in capitalism, though rarly they are possible. Now the reason why they are rare is that for a monopoly to form it really has to be doing the right thing for everybody(customers, workers, etc) if they don’t do things right then market forces will be against them and they will most likely loose to competition. In pure capitalism there is no suppression of competition, so if company A is a monopoly and they change there policy’s against what market forces dictate, then a infinite amount of other companies B-Z will show up delivery the product or service that the market(customers, workers) want. So it is really rare for a monopoly to exist in pure capitalism, but if one did we would want it and accept it, as they are really doing right by market standards.</p>
<p>You mention that government regulation is what breaks up monopolies, in which you are again mistaken. I guess you have forgotten about all of the Monopolies the governments have allowed, created and needed such AT&T. I use AT&T as a basic example though there are many more, like US Steel, MS, Joint Commission, NFL, MLB, etc. Now all of these are used or created by the government to control or enhance a sector. AT&T is a good example because in the earlty1900’s when the telecom networks were spreading across America, it was the US government whom increased regulation to curb competition which would then force AT&T to control all the networks and have only one network protocol/standard. The government didn’t want multiple networks going around the country, so they allowed , supported and needed monopoly. </p>
<p>In fact its actually government regulation that always keeps competition down, and this is a main reason why big companies lobby for regulation. When bigger companies merge, they ask for more regulation in the interest of the customer, but thats just BS, you need to see through it. </p>
<p>I can go forever about this stuff.</p>
<p>Actually Marx distinctly states what pure communism is in one of his books, I forget which. il have to look it up. It has to do with the absence of any capitalistic society’s and no money.</p>
<p>You don’t know what you’re talking about. If company A has the money to price goods and services against the market, they have the money to simply buy out Companies B-Z. Ever hear of “Hostile Takeover”? If Company A can get a hold of 51% of the share of Companies B-Z they can effectively force the dissolution of any company that would dare compete with them. You don’t think they’d do it? Well go look up “Standard Oil.” THAT’S the reason Antitrust laws were put in place. </p>
<p>These businesses are the same businesses that denies a customer’s insurance claim that so obviously should have been paid out, and had to be SUED into doing so. These are the same businesspeople that let Enron happen, and worse yet, RAN Enron. THAT’S why Sarbanes-Oxley was put in place. I don’t trust these idiots enough to leave them to their own devices.</p>
<p>Your theory assumes one thing that America so obviously doesn’t have: EDUCATED CONSUMERS. A vast majority of Americans are the types of consumers who would get repeatedly screwed by a business and repeatedly buy its product and services to save 1 cent. Your theory assumes that all consumers are looking out for their own interests: meaning, if they get screwed by a business once, enough consumers would boycott it that the business would go out of business. Not true. Last I looked, airlines are still in business.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Buying out companies is possible and fine, but the company to be bought has to agree to be sold(they choose to allow more than 50% of equity to be sold). Even if company A buys b-z, there is still a1-z1 and b1-z2. bn-zn. So even if A buys all of these, there will still be competition and even with the big buyout, nobody is forcing consumers to buy the products. So sorry but your wrong.</p>
<p>Trusting Corporate types should never be done, I surly don’t trust them. I would instead base by trust on the market and my opinion which may be based on the market. What you are not getting is that if people dont buy the product or services, the company cannot exist. .</p>
<p>You cant use peoples ignorance as a excuse, its peoples job to do whats best for themselves and their family’s. I hold a persons personal responsibility in the highest regard, and see absolutely zero excuse for lack of thereof. I find it foolish that you feel people need to somehow need to be protected from themselves. I mean who gives somebody else the right to tell somebody else how to live their lives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So when was the last time the government broke itself up? Government is the root of all monopolies. A monopoly is not defined by the fact that only one entity offers a service, but the fact that only one entity is allowed to offer a service. For example, would you call a booger taco stand a monopoly since it’s the only one of its kind? Government has a monopoly on the use of force within a given territory since if someone not sanctioned by the state attempts to use force, then they are quickly dealt with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then we are a socialist state (not that I disagree with that) since we have government-enforced monopolies on police, defense, courts, and restrict many other industries. But for some reason, you would likely disagree with my assertion (correct me if I’m wrong).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So? There were plenty of other taxes. Any form of taxes is not capitalism since capitalism is based on the system of mutually beneficial transactions. Taxes are not mutually beneficial; if they were, then the State would not need to use threats to get people to pay them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How are you judging America to be not close to socialism and close to capitalism? As I said before, something as fundamental as defense and justice was not allowed to be provided by non-governmentally-sanctioned organizations in the 1800’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the worst part of your post. Not only are the anarcho-capitalists (like myself) known for being against protectionism, but also the Libertarian political party and Ron Paul platform are anti-protectionist (not that I consider either of these two groups to be true libertarians, but I’m showing that you’re wrong using any definition of libertarian).</p>
<p>“So when was the last time the government broke itself up? Government is the root of all monopolies. A monopoly is not defined by the fact that only one entity offers a service, but the fact that only one entity is allowed to offer a service. For example, would you call a booger taco stand a monopoly since it’s the only one of its kind? Government has a monopoly on the use of force within a given territory since if someone not sanctioned by the state attempts to use force, then they are quickly dealt with.”</p>
<p>That’s a lot of words for something I wasn’t talking about.</p>
<p>“Then we are a socialist state (not that I disagree with that) since we have government-enforced monopolies on police, defense, courts, and restrict many other industries. But for some reason, you would likely disagree with my assertion (correct me if I’m wrong).”</p>
<p>We have elements of both. Some markets are government-controlled, and some markets are only regulated, which you may interpret as socialism. Most people don’t.</p>
<p>“So? There were plenty of other taxes. Any form of taxes is not capitalism since capitalism is based on the system of mutually beneficial transactions. Taxes are not mutually beneficial; if they were, then the State would not need to use threats to get people to pay them.”</p>
<p>I can order a hot dog and refuse to pay for it. That doesn’t mean that me buying a hot dog isn’t mutually beneficial. I think people who choose not to pay taxes should be put on a list of people who can’t call 911, can’t drive on publicly owned roads, and can’t send their kids to public schools. That would be a bit more effective than a fine.</p>
<p>“How are you judging America to be not close to socialism and close to capitalism? As I said before, something as fundamental as defense and justice was not allowed to be provided by non-governmentally-sanctioned organizations in the 1800’s.”</p>
<p>1800’s America was close to pure capitalism. Today we have a more equal mix.</p>
<p>“This is the worst part of your post. Not only are the anarcho-capitalists (like myself) known for being against protectionism, but also the Libertarian political party and Ron Paul platform are anti-protectionist (not that I consider either of these two groups to be true libertarians, but I’m showing that you’re wrong using any definition of libertarian).”</p>
<p>My bad. I was referring to the pre-Nixon Republican party, who are sometimes incorrectly defined as libertarian.</p>
<p>Roaring Heebijeebies @ the last n posts!</p>
<p>Capitalism and communism aren’t the only things around, y’know.</p>
<p><a href=“P”>quote</a>hilosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point however is to change it.
[/quote]
~KM</p>
<p>I stand by my idea, in part, that family is the epitomized hindrance or grace to the effectiveness of all economic factors. In particular I think that the modern world would be better off without the parent/biological-child model, as it is too inefficient.</p>
<p>That said, cultural inertia will probably keep certain forms of family afloat indefinitely, whether and wherever they are worth the cost. On the other hand, they has evolved quite a bit every few generations. It remains, as it has long been, an economic issue.</p>
<p>
…have… :Σ</p>