nick.cameo

Well, I'll applaud you for being able to actually identify my argument, which none of the others could grasp even though they were happy to tell ME to take a class. Yes, it's a small window. Yes, it hasn't ever happened so it is speculation. Just because this is hypothetical doesn't mean we can't infer general principles which can be applied to real life. But enough applause, your use of the slippery slope logical fallacy is completely wrong. My pure capitalism argument is the complete opposite of a slippery slope, or at best (for you) the very end of a slippery slope argument. And as the bible says the love of money is the root of evil, so I say that the love of money (desire to make money as a primary motivator) is a bad ecnonomic and political philosophy.

My point was that you randomly picked out articles that seemed to prove your point. When in fact, upon reading they don't support it very strongly. From the more recent article: "the Chinese government still controls major aspects of the economy and society. For example, just about every Chinese bank is state-owned, so the government decides which businesses and individuals will get the most favorable loans. The domestic media are entirely state-owned as well and offer uniformly favorable political coverage. Perhaps the biggest vestige of classical communism is the fact that every square inch of land in the country still belongs to the government. (People and businesses can own houses and other property.) Politically, China is as Communist as ever. The country operates under the highly centralized, single-party rule of the Communist Party. Every region, whether it's a province or a city, has two sets of leadership: local government functionaries and Communist Party officials. While there is overlap between the two groups—after all, government workers must be Communist Party members—the top local government leader must always answer to the top party leader. The governor of a province might make day-to-day decisions about filling potholes and snow removal, but the party official controls macro decisions like which businesses get state money and prime real estate. " That excerpt seems to say that China is still deserving of the communist name, regardless of the partial privatization.

That was never my premise. My premise was, for that particular point, that a national army is made up of national citizens. We supplement our forces with "mercenaries" as did the british with the hessians.

I think you missed my point. I said, in a a true capitalist society, national security would be privatized. And I don't like the idea of that. And again, MONEY AS CURRENCY = WIN. I don't think man is inherently greedy. I'd replace money as the primary incentive though. If money is all that drives us what are we but mercenaries? I'm not advocating the idea of "everyone equal" in a spread the wealth sort of way.. there are things not everyone can have. But I do think everyone is created equal and should have equal opportunities. Especially in terms of education. But yea, I think you just misunderstood an argument so I won't comment on that political spectrum deal.

As you put words in my mouth and build little arguments that just distract from my argument to counter it, you tell ME to go to school. Critical Thinking 101. But I'll play along. I insulted you for being from the south? I have no idea where you are from and I haven't personally attacked you at all, but I do wish I could say the same about you, Morton Please don't link random articles with titles like "Is china communist? NO" and ranging a half decade back. It doesn't do much for whatever argument you are making, morton. Using your definition of capitalism "A capitalist society is simply one where the means for production are privately owned. Rather than by a centralized government." what do you call a country that has a primarily (over 50%) centrally planned industry? That means the majority of a country's industry is NOT privately owned. I made the point before, but I'll make it again. Money as a currency isn't bad. The primary desire to make money is bad; for individuals, communities and society in general. Everyone here knows that true communism is silly and doesn't work, but it seems that some people may not know that pure capitalism can be worse.

Capitalism is both a system of economics and a philosophy. You refute the mercenary army with examples from around the time of christ. Study some history? REEEEEAAAALLLY???? Your straw men are burning. We saved Kuwait. yes i agree, what are you trying to prove? We can help a country defend itself. Doesn't change the fact that countries rely on their own citizens for their military.

You seemed to be the most vocal proponent of capitalism, so I drew the quick analogy.

Aw, you sound like Palin going all folksy on us. I'd advise keeping your grandma out of politics No one has said anything is perfect; political discussion fosters thoughts on improving what works. Could you elaborate "works better than any other economical system"? What do you think a capitalist society is? And what communists are going capitalist and by how much? The fastest growing economy in the world is china. still a communist country. China has expanded its private sector, but it is by no means a free market society. and if the US passes universal healthcare (and maybe take over a few more manufacturers), doesn't the government end up owning over half the industry in the US? Is that still capitalist?

I wasn't ignoring that fact. I barred it from a purely hypothetical point: a pure capitalist would go where the money is the best. And that is either ignoring other factors (like it's a great place to raise kids) or including them as their monetary value (I'm sure even your friend would take the DC job if they paid him enough). My point is that capitalism(basically the desire to make money) disassociates citizens from acting in their particular country's best interests. Your last point is probably more convoluted than you intended. The primary role of government is the protection of its citizens. I'm gonna go ahead and ignore the implications that the word protection can mean more than the physical safety from other nations (which the military is here for). A capitalist society could pay a security firm to protect its country. If we offered that security firm trillions of dollars a year to do that, I'd bet they'd do it more efficiently than our current military. Security corporations are made to make money, they would put their dollars to good use. Why don't we do that? The whole idea of conservatism is to limit the federal government. Abolishing the defense department would do that. However, I'm fairly certain that no conservative here would advocate that. Why? It isn't about protection. We could pay a company or several different ones to do the same job more efficiently. It's about nationalism. Not many would put the militaristic defense of their nation in any hand but their nation's. Nor their roads, their education, their emergency services, their infrastructure... the list can go on. Strict conservatism would advocate letting the private sector take care of all of these industries. The postal service is already on the chopping block. The point of this thread was basically that money is bad. Money as currency can't really be called bad. If it wasn't money it'd be something else, I think everyone jumped on that point right away. But money as a political movement.... more specifically the desire to make money... (do I have to say capitalism at this point?) that kind of money will turn our citizens against each other (when its profitable) and leave our country in shambles.

COMMUNISM! SOCIALISM! Ya'll are saying that this is such a terrible idea. You are saying we have to have money because its been around so long. The government handing you rewards for labor isn't such a crazy idea. I'd say everyone here supports the military. The military is a program that you pay for through your labor (the taxes). Everyone in this country enjoys the benefit of feeling protected by the best military in the world. Where am I going with this, you may be asking? The federal government can run national defense effectively. I don't think anyone here would be comfortable with a capitalist corporation taking care of our national defense needs. Sure, private security can be helpful and more efficient in terms of cost than our own military but their loyalty lies with the money. There are many federal programs (infrastucture, communications, utilities, emergency services) that we take for granted. These programs work. They might not be the most efficient monetarily, but we know they have our best interests at heart. Not to be offensive, but let's assume that Dr. Kirkendall is a practicing physician in the United States. He seems to be a happy capitalist. Where is he going to work? He gets an offer in Houston Texas to work at a clinic that deals with a lot of poor and possibly illegal immigrants. The pay isn't very good, but the demand for a physician is high. He also gets an offer to be a partner in a florida retirement community. The pay is substantially more, but that community has a high percentage of doctors. He will choose Florida (ignoring family, friends, climate preference etc.) because he's a capitalist. Most of you are probably thinking the same thing. But what if that better offer is in Germany or France? We lose a valuable resource overseas. If the respectable doctor knew that doing similar work in Houston or Florida would give him similar recompense, he wouldn't really have a preference. Ideally, our citizens would use their talents to the best of their abilities where they would do the most good. Kinda sound like the military doesn't it? You won't see a genius doing grunt work in the military for long. He'll be promoted and moved to where command thinks he does the best work. And he'll do it, under the penalty of court martial. Sure there are problems with the military, but if you move the focus from the amount of money you get for a task to the benefit to society, you become a compassionate patriot.