Is capitalism or democracy more peaceful?

[pubmanager]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I do however feel that Steve addresses how our Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Republic is intrinsically tied to our form of free market capitalism, and they are mutually beneficial to each other, as well as somewhat reliant on one another.

You will get no disagreement from me on that one. The relationshp of the US system of government to a free market is symbiotic and synonomous in many ways.

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would tend to agree pub, that Capitalism, is not technically a form of governance as much as a economic system, as I have pointed this out several times in other threads. I do however feel that Steve addresses how our Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Republic is intrinsically tied to our form of free market capitalism, and they are mutually beneficial to each other, as well as somewhat reliant on one another.

First I want to commend everyone who is participating in this debate. You are true intellectuals. Particularly, Steve, Osborn, Bishop, Grandpa and Pubmanager. Well done gents. I Houdini on the weekends and it seems I miss some good entries. My apologies if I missed anyone.

My final thought here is that all economic systems are intrinsically tied to political systems in the modern world today. It is how they interact that makes for the interesting debate and society. As for peace, I am somewhat skeptical that the human race will ever acheive peace until perhaps a global threat forces them to come to terms with their own survival and they are forced to act with mutual respect for one another. Otherwise, I am not sure that human beings will ever give up attempting to dominate one another.

[Livemike]

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Protostar Not really. The people can force businesses to do their bidding by not patronizing them. Or they can not patronize a business because they the consumer's bidding. It simply could force someone out of business without changing anything outside of that particular collapse. For example, it would be particularly hard to effecively boycott Coca Cola, as the product is enormously popular for its taste. Equating things such as taste with democracy is simply not adequate.

Why would it be difficult? Sure a lot of people (myself included) like Coke, but that doesn't mean it's hard to get people to change their drinking habits if Coke does something bad. Hell it's easier because there are so many people that drink it that it's easy to find them so you can convince them to boycott.

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Protostar Regulations stifle competition (which is why huge corps adore them) and places them out of the accountability of the people. First off, the kinds of regulations I want primarily involve laws against businesss dealing with tyrannical governments, polluting in a wanton manner, etc.

So who defines which governments are "tyrannical" and what constitutes a "wanton
manner"?

Quote by: grandpa I am for laws eliminating or reducing coercion an corruption. So, as you should infer, I agree with Libertarians on many things, except for their lenience for banking and private coercion--and their basic denial that businesses are social institutions and therefore require some degree of accountability for legitimacy.

My family is a social institution does it need to be "accountable" to some outside
power to be legitimate? If a business is not violating anyone's rights it doesn't need
to be accountable. If it is then that's that's what courts are for. There is no need for
regulations other than natural law.

Quote by: grandpa And I remind you to look at history and consider why social welfare programs exist. Do they just come out of nowhere or is it because society's arranged to coerce people for arbitrary, financial reasons (which you support wholeheartedly and call "freedom").

Social welfare programs exist because Kaiser Willhelm wanted more control of his
subjects and people who wanted the same copied him.

[Livemike]

Quote by: brien Gramps: If people really understood how bad Coca Cola is for them, if it is indeed bad for them to consume, they would quit drinking it altogether. No boycott would be required! The truth just needs to be understood by the average American. Perhaps, they just aren't making informed decisions, but that is not to say these decisions should be made for them by government. Perhaps, if it is very dangerous to drink Coca Cola, then It may be government's responsibility to help inform the public of the dangers of drinking Coca Cola, but the government's responsibility ends there. Just like cigarettes, people should be free to pick their poison on an informed basis. Enviornmental impact has two liabilities. Once criminal and one civil, as you point out. Should ABC company pollute "Love Canal" then the company, and its management, should be held criminally and financially responsible. Enviornmental regulations, as long as they are logical, arrived at by general consensus, and are in the best interest of ALL citizens and businesses alike, ie society, are important to everyone in that society. Sometimes I wonder where this idea of a "free for all" society comes from here. I hope it isn't assumed that the Libertarians are responsible for this drivel. I am loathe to be confused with anarchists. :eek:

Well I am an anarchist and we're offended by being confused with nihilists, which is
what you just did. If you look at the source "free for all" chaos it's in fact the State that creates it and in the absence of the State it subsides. The myth is that if we get rid of the State there will be murder and rapine in the street. The truth is that the State causes murder and rapine in the Street. Absent the State there will be nothing to stop you forming businesses or cooperatives to protect you against murder and rapine or hiring/joining such. These will be about as much better at their job as FedEx is better than the post office.

[Livemike]

________

Quote by: Boetie Capitalism seeks to create economic inequality, in turn this creates a cabal of wealthy people controlling the government hence making a mockery of democracy.

No capitalism doesn't "seek" anything and the system you're describing is mercantilism which is very different.

Quote by: Boetie It shouldn't be a suprise that as corporations grew and became wealthier the country finds itself moving towards the right. The movement toward the right isn't a grassroot movement. The grassroot can go to hell as far as the members of our current three branches of government are concerned. In fact the current three branches of government is nothing more than a group of yes men to the top ten percent of the wealthiest people. You can thank capitalism for changing the three branches of government to nothing more than ass wipes. The rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer, hasn't anyone noticed?

What have noticed is that the present administration is one of the least capitalist
in decades. Probably nobody since Nixon has been enamoured of the free market. And so what happens? Surprise, surprise the gap between rich and poor gets bigger, just as it always does under non-capitalist economics. The big myth is that capitalism makes the poor poorer, but capitalism gave us Wal-Mart and the Model T, government gave us the F-22.

Quote by: Boetie By the way, Alito is a pro business butt kisser, because of that it should drop our government down to a groveling yes man to the top ten percent of the wealthiest members of our society. Embarassing, just embarrassing.

[Livemike]

Quote by: bishop if you actually read what i posted, i clearly stated that there is a remedy to corruption - the democratic process..

And how is that a remedy? The democratic process is the _cause_ of corruption not the solution. The fact that people have to persuade a lot of people to vote for them means they have to spend lots of money. The fact that they hold livelihoods of many in their hands furnishes them with a way to get it. These two things together aren't part of the democratic process, they are the democratic process. The fact that representatives change so often in a democracy also removes responsibility for results. In a feudal system if something bad happened in your fief because of what you or your dad did fifty years ago you lost money. In democracy the guys who did it are long retired.

[brien]

Quote by: Livemike Well I am an anarchist and we're offended by being confused with nihilists, which is what you just did. If you look at the source "free for all" chaos it's in fact the State that creates it and in the absence of the State it subsides. The myth is that if we get rid of the State there will be murder and rapine in the street. The truth is that the State causes murder and rapine in the Street. Absent the State there will be nothing to stop you forming businesses or cooperatives to protect you against murder and rapine or hiring/joining such. These will be about as much better at their job as FedEx is better than the post office.

Well the shit rolls downhill now, doesn't it?

[SteveA]

I've got say that at least Bush's view of democracy is obviously not peaceful because he sees it as something worthy of being inflicted forcibly on others. (That's probably neither here nor there on whether or not capitalism or democracy tends to be more peaceful though)

[snake]

democracy, capitolism is very competitve and will eventually always have to fight to keep the system going

[SteveA]

Quote by: snake democracy, capitolism is very competitve and will eventually always have to fight to keep the system going

Human nature is competitive and that's not all bad. The issue is to not reward those who let this go beyond healthy competition. Capitalism rewards healthy competition, while punishing things that cross the line into being intrusive or destructive to others.

If everyone simplified their views of what rights they have, and simplified society into simply individual interactions with people you meet, the picture becomes clear and easy to understand. Whether a group of people you've never even met before raid your home and claim to be seeking equal rights, or it's a construction company claiming to be authorized by government that comes and wants to tear it down, there's little difference in that neither of these incidents should be seen as just or legitimate in any fashion nor should people sit idly by and let these things continue. We use too complex a view of society that simply serves to paralyze people into inaction and confusion over what's right and wrong. I'm not saying all uses of force aren't justified but they should be done in some reasonable manner of defense and not be conducted simply by convoluted and manipulated social structures that simply serve to distract and enslave people in the confusion.

[deedee]

Quote by: SteveA Between capitalism (rights based and voluntary interactions/transactions) and democracy (laws and rights determined by popularity/majority rule), which form of government promotes peace in the world more?

Both do. Balance is key. I think that's what makes our country tick for the most part when you take a look at development countries.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Livemike Why would it be difficult? Sure a lot of people (myself included) like Coke, but that doesn't mean it's hard to get people to change their drinking habits if Coke does something bad. Hell it's easier because there are so many people that drink it that it's easy to find them so you can convince them to boycott.

But even if Coke was suiccessfully boycotted for its behavior in Colombia (which is unlikely to happen for obvious reasons), any other corporation can step in and do the same thing. That's why you wither make such practices illegal or continue to look the other way as this fascistic behavior takes place.
There is no rational argument as to why corporations should be above the laws the rest of us must follow, is there? You don't boycott criminals, you punish them.

Quote by: Livemike So who defines which governments are "tyrannical" and what constitutes a "wanton manner"?

I would say any body of people that routinely tyrannizes people. And clear standards can be set a sto how much pollution our lungs can take. Granted, there is no universal opinion on this, but attempts at a general consensus are reasonable.

Quote by: Livemike My family is a social institution does it need to be "accountable" to some outside power to be legitimate?

If it commits crimes, yes. And, on a more personal, practical level, a well-functioning family has members who are accountable to one another.

Quote by: Livemike If a business is not violating anyone's rights it doesn't need to be accountable. If it is then that's that's what courts are for. There is no need for regulations other than natural law.

I am not so sure of this. You fail, as do many others, to take into account that not everyone can afford a quality legal defense. And you also fail to see how pollution does not care about "natural law" or other such terms. It exists independent of our personal views, so it should be dealt with on a non-ideological level.

Quote by: Livemike Social welfare programs exist because Kaiser Willhelm wanted more control of his subjects and people who wanted the same copied him.

They exist not just because of one figure in human history, but because of the shortcomings of human history. There is a demand for it because it is simply practical.
Most people go through periods in their lives where they struggle to make ends meet, and that can even be without a family to feed and clothe. So when we are dealing with an "every man for himself" world, it simply makes sense some would need help coping with it.

Grandpa h.

[snake]

Quote by: SteveA Human nature is competitive and that's not all bad. The issue is to not reward those who let this go beyond healthy competition. Capitalism rewards healthy competition, while punishing things that cross the line into being intrusive or destructive to others.

I agree however my answer to the question is not based on the good nature of men because as we have seen in the rise of capitolism money has a tendency to make us ignore the good and embrace the gray. The time for limits has come and gone, and the corporations or the pictures of capitolism have already arose and I can assure you not the people or the govt. will do much to stop them. I mean in my opinion in modern america you can not reach the american dream without submitting to capitolism. It is important for me to say that I do not call for the destruction of the system but between it and democracy...and there are clear differences...capitolism will end up worse off.

[snake]

Quote by: deedee Both do. Balance is key. I think that's what makes our country tick for the most part when you take a look at development countries.

I couldnt agree more.