Posted on 10/24/2009 4:53:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
Any real desire for freedom must accept capitalism as essential; there is no other approach to economics that is compatible with freedom.
Pure capitalism, perhaps. But crony capitalism/corporate fascism takes its economic power and buys off government - so you get company towns and other abuses of corporate power.
Thomas Sowell rarely uses the term “capitalism”; instead, he says “a market economy.” It’s not unusual for people who say they don’t like “capitalism” to agree that they *do* like being able to buy or sell what they choose, work at the job they choose, have options for where to live, and so on.
Similarly, Dr. Sowell never uses “health care” to describe the relevant industry. He always says “medical treatment,” because that’s really what is being bought and sold.
It’s a weak cultural argument that can’t address the topic of “political correctness, “ as this writer does not. When certain ideas and cultural norms have been driven from the public square and forced to exist isolated and underground (none more so than 20 years ago “homosex caused the AIDS epidemic”), then you’re not taliking about a free market of ideas, no matter how much license is granted to the cultural leftists.
This is an argument between Libertarians and Conservatives. Conservatives pro capitalism have their limits. Once it goes against nationalism e.g protecting national businesses, they turn against capitalism, not realizing being pro-capitalism is pro-society
Guilty, but I don't really think I need to see "Brokeback Mountain", "Bowling for Columbine", "Sicko", "Farenheit 9/11", "An Inconvenient Truth" and so forth to know they're crap.
I agree. The only reason we need for *not* seeing a movie (tv show, play, comedian) is that we don’t want to. The free market at work!
WRONG
You drank the liberal kool-aid.
There is only one reason capitalists engage in government influence and payoffs, etc......that is because the gov't can affect their business.
If government would keep its nose out from regulating, preferences, etc, business would have no need to try and influence that government.
McCain and others laments the large sums of money in politics. That money would not be there unless there was a potential return on that money via favors, contracts, regulations, etc.
Don't accept the liberal, large-government that can make or break an industry and then hate the corporations that pay protection money to that liberal, large-government in order to survive.
I agree 100 percent with you
Oh, horsecrap. Try reading both past history and current events. Folks like you who think corporations can do no wrong are useful idiots for those corporations, quite frankly.
A agree with the general premise but we have to be careful. When government grows under GWB/Obama and you have huge government contracts, and bank bailouts , and monopolies many caused by government, some not, the concept of freedom breaks down. In those case the high salaries and bonuses are hardly freedom because the government is taxing it, or creating it.
bookmark
Got that backwards. Politicians use their power to create crony capitalism. This is the inherent myth manufactured about Capitalism by the Left that really needs to be debunked. Capitalist do not manufacture fascism, fascism corrupts capitalism to it's own ends.
Wrong. The process is symbiotic.
I never said corporations can do not wrong.
Don't lie about me because you are a big-gov't, pro-regulation closet liberal.
Don't like it when I put words in your mouth, do you?
The fact remains that you cannot refute the premise that corporations would not care as much about government if government could not affect their bottom line.
Strictly, what you are describing is Corporatism, not capitalism. It was described by an Italian economist named Gramsci but it’s full implementation awaited another Italian named Benito Mussolini
At some point, whoever is in power will abuse it. The difference is that when corporations abuse power, there's usually a check and balance, whether it be lawyers, govt, or media, to rectify the situation.
The problem with a govt with too much power is that it has limited check and balances, especially if the govt controls the media and individual liberties such as gun ownership.
I think the article misses the important concept of a middle ground. A strict moral authoritarian govt is as undesirable as a strict amoral unauthoritarian govt. On one hand you have the Taliban, and on the other hand you have hedonistic Europe. Both will fail.
I think America is unique in that it had (maybe still has) found the perfect balance between a culture of individual freedoms and a culture of Christian morality. The Christian work ethic was a perfect fit for capitalism and the antidote for the resultant "pursuit of luxuries."
I do not believe that capitalism can survive without this unwritten Christian ethic. Without this ethic, morality is replaced with a written set of "thou shalt nots" that codifies the behavior of every minutia of our lives. As a result, no longer can business transactions be trusted with a handshake or a mutual understanding. Instead lawyers and juries decide who wins and loses.
This realization is why I switched from being a libertarian to a conservative.
No what is pure horse crap is this notion that their is this evil capitalist cabal out there manipulating everything to the determent of the "little guy" That is total Marxist manufactured myth. Corporations are nothing but collections of stock holders. They exist to maximize profits. Since Das Capital the Marxists have manufactured this myth of "evil capitalism" that has been successful exploited by the Leftist politicians ever since as their fraudulent threat they are defending the "little guy" from. All the corporations are doing is paying the Big Government thugs protection money to be left alone
I'm not. I stand by my comments that folks like you are a useful idiot for corporate fascism by your pretending that it's all the fault of government. We saw the practical limits of anti-regulation dogma reached last year - for example, the exemption of credit default swaps from regulation and the lack of regulation of ratings agencies. But some folks refuse to learn from both history and current events.
The fact remains that you cannot refute the premise that corporations would not care as much about government if government could not affect their bottom line.
Google Archer-Daniels Midland and Enron and get back to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.