Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The side-effects of liberalism

  1. #1 The side-effects of liberalism 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    Liberalism is allowing producer evolution but it doesn't mean that the consumer will profit it.

    The ones that makes a reasonable profit from his/her's investments win, that's all. It doesn't mean that it will benefit the costumer as it's originally thought it should be.

    To make a product to sell well doesn't mean it has to be good for the consumer, but it needs to raise the consumers attention enough so that he/she will buy it. If I am smart, I also make the consumer addicted so that he/she returns often. Why is people fat today, because of this (thanks to McDonalds).

    So we consumers are nothing more than cattles and the producer are competing about who will owns as many cattles as possible.

    Mayby, this liberal capitalistic evolution has gotten too far, what do you think?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    It appears you're talking more about capitalism and not liberalism.

    Here in America if someone believes that big businesses should be held accountable when they hurt people he is called a liberal. Liberals are generally tolerant people, and are offensive to intolerant people. Liberals also fight for minority rights and try to let people live a free and happy life and try to not fight unneccessary wars. It seems as though your post is trying to defend communism, which is what extreme liberalism would lead
    to, and oddly enough would also be a utopia (if restrictions (on travel, expression, etc) placed by paranoid communist regimes would not be put into place). This of course is the downfall of liberalism in America, because while every rational person in America is a liberal, the liberals have trouble keeping power because they actually believe in paying for their programs now instead of just going further in debt. That means taxes and tax breaks will always win over progress in a democracy.

    Please don't think I'm promoting them. I think making decisions based on an ideology proves that you are not qualified to make decisions. To be fair, an example of a liberal going too far is when one started a campaign to make school teachers use purple ink instead of red because red ink freaks out children.

    Conservatives on the other hand believe in aristocracies and divine right and believe in creating as many poor people as possible in hopes of some sort of open hunting season eventually placed on them. They fake the morals of the liberals but really are simply a facist culture that uses marketing against the ignorant in order to obtain their power to impose their will. They don't believe in making businesses pay when they hurt people because they value their money more than they do human life.

    Please don't think I'm criticizing them, if you're into facism, they have their charm. An example of a conservative going to far is through incompetence allowing the worst event in the nation's history to take place and then using the public outrage to start a racist and ignorant war against a nation that had no involvement whatsoever, killing 100s of thousands of people who would be alive otherwise, but not caring about this massive loss of life at their hands while at the same time trying to ban abortion and preventing homosexuals from being allowed to feel like normal people.

    Very little of any of that has to do with economic theories. I was just trying to iron out the terminology.

    What I think is that money is fictional and it is unfortunate we have to share a world with it. If we lived in a world where accomplishment and health were valued more than a stupid paycheck and a weekly trip to Wal-Mart, or whatever your local do-dad place is there, we'd be a lot further advanced and generally a lot healthier. I can't hack it as a 9-to-5er because I don't believe in stressing myself out for something with fictional, faithbased, value in exchange for something with true value, my own life, and it's a shock to me how many people do. Life is too valuable to work it away for imaginary things. I would be a communist and live in a communist country (Venezuela) if I was free to travel and express myself, but you never know where the regime is going to go.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    It appears you're talking more about capitalism and not liberalism.
    He seems to be talking about laissez faire capitalism, where the corporations are wholly unregulated. Such is not the case in the Western World where we have what may be described as a mixed economy.
    The question then revolves around how much regulation is the right amount. And is the regulation correctly targeted. You give a good example of poor targeting later.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    an example of a liberal going too far is when one started a campaign to make school teachers use purple ink instead of red because red ink freaks out children.
    This was not a liberal. This was a nutter.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    It seems as though your post is trying to defend communism, which is what extreme liberalism would lead
    to, and oddly enough would also be a utopia (if restrictions (on travel, expression, etc) placed by paranoid communist regimes would not be put into place). .
    It may be worth noting that there has never been a communist government on this planet. Marx believed societies made a transition from capitalism to communism through the medium of socialism. No marxist based government had ever made that transistion. Recall that it was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    What I think is that money is fictional and it is unfortunate we have to share a world with it. If we lived in a world where accomplishment and health were valued more than a stupid paycheck and a weekly trip to Wal-Mart, or whatever your local do-dad place is there, we'd be a lot further advanced and generally a lot healthier.
    Speaking as a died in the wool liberal, I think you are mistaken. Money is a very valuable concept. It just cannot be the only concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    This was not a liberal. This was a nutter.
    What do you mean? That sounds European. You know where I'm from and you know what we know about that kind of sling. That's why we think English comedies are so funny, we have no idea what they're saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    It may be worth noting that there has never been a communist government on this planet. Marx believed societies made a transition from capitalism to communism through the medium of socialism. No marxist based government had ever made that transistion. Recall that it was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    While I do agree with what you're saying here in principle, it may not be entirely accurate. It appears that the majority of native american governments were communist. Not only that, if any one of the native american cultures would have figured out you can transport things with a wheel, their governments seemed to work well enough (judging by the empires) that they'd still be around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Speaking as a died in the wool liberal, I think you are mistaken. Money is a very valuable concept. It just cannot be the only concept.
    I guess you're talking about it as a motivational tool, and I'm pretty sure it can be weeded out with culture. If you're talking about it as a compensation for work done, it doesn't work like that. You can do meaningless work aimed at large groups of people and make millions and do incredibly meaningful work aimed at no one in particular and starve to death. It's a horrible system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    This was not a liberal. This was a nutter.
    What do you mean? .
    A nutter. A nutcase. A lunatic. An insane person.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    It appears that the majority of native american governments were communist.
    I didn't know that. I was thinking, though, of those governments that arose out of Marxist dogma.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    I guess you're talking about money as a motivational tool, and I'm pretty sure it can be weeded out with culture. If you're talking about it as a compensation for work done, it doesn't work like that. You can do meaningless work aimed at large groups of people and make millions and do incredibly meaningful work aimed at no one in particular and starve to death. It's a horrible system.
    You have chosen the extremities of the bell curve. For most people, most of the time, the system works well. Is it ideal? Of course not, but I am unaware of anything better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    I do not know the definition of liberalism in America but I can’t believe that extreme liberalism leads to communism.
    But to stay on the topic, indeed the laissez faire capitalism doesn’t help society and it only helps the top-few. I am pretty sure everybody agrees that a free market must be corrected (even in America). I think modern socialism is telling this tail. How much correction and redistribution of wealth is needed is an endless discussion. But its necessity is settled case.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Certainly capitalism needs to be "corrected" as it evolves and needs change. Economic systems are not static. Also, the system needs to be monitored and regulated. Unfortunately, business is not able to regulate itself; and when it does, self-interest intrudes and corruption results.

    On the other hand, when government does it, we find out that government can be bought. We find out that Concress is afloat with lobbyists who lavish benefits on our legislators and buy special privelages for them and their businesses---special subsidies.

    Does all this mean that both capitalism and government are "bad" and that we need to change economic system and do away with govetrnment? Of course not! The problem is not with either but with a general decline in moral standards in our whole world system. Because of it, all systems become less efficient and, as well, the whole outlook for our society darkens.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: The side-effects of liberalism 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by latehorn
    Mayby, this liberal capitalistic evolution has gotten too far, what do you think?
    You are confused. Allowing corporations to act freely is more of a right wing thing. Liberals are quite the opposite, trying to look at people's needs more than the entrepreneur's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    just to avoid the general confusion, I want to point out that some words have different meanings in different locations, liberal is one such word. In the US it means something like progressive while in oher parts of the world it can mean something like free-for-all enterprise (in a capitalist context).

    While clearing things I'd like to point out that Communism is in no way related to totalitarian regime just like Capitalism is in no way related to democracy. You can have a Communist democracy(in theory) and have a Capitalist Dictatorship(banana republic, future China). Although in the US Communism as been made synonymous with dictatorship and police state because of the cold war and witch-hunt paranoia.

    I think both capitalism and communism are disfuctional ideologies based on wishfull thinking and although each ideology has very good parts in them they lead to aberations and are doomed to fail eventually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore wretched's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    BakomGaller
    Posts
    108
    Well they think they can "export" democracy and turn the whole planet into the biggest market place ever.. Liberals suck, nazi people, can't stand them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •