Is capitalism or democracy more peaceful?

[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?

[SteveA]

For example, if we wanted to encourage the emergence of a peaceful government in Iraq, would this be more likely to emerge from a government that promoted individual rights and capitalism or a government based upon typical democratic governments utilizing majority rule?

(A federal system with regional diversity might be better in order to let temperments cool.)

I don't know if others have noticed it but Bush has began to drop the idea of spreading freedom around the world. He used to speak of freedom and democracy. Now he simply speaks of democracy and seems less concerned about protected rights and more on majority rule. Protected rights in the U.S. seem to be causing him grief in his policies and this might be why he's taken more with the idea of having a "mandate" from the people that means he doesn't need to remain limited by the Constitution or pay attention to individual rights. It seems as though democracy is inherently based upon political oppression/intimidation and detracts from maintaining peace, or at least doesn't serve keeping the peace much.

[Samildanach]

I wouldn't say either for Iraq. I would be trying to do what Chavez is doing in Venezuela which is more a socialist policy if anything. Iraq has the oil resources to feed clothe and house everyone in the country in luxury especially now the numbers in the population have declined a bit since you americans showed up

[Osborn F Enready]

capitalism, as YOU explained it Steve, since it would promote both individual rights, as well as individual economic freedom.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready capitalism, as YOU explained it Steve, since it would promote both individual rights, as well as individual economic freedom.

As he explained it, sure. But capitalism is easily perverted into something far more meaningless. I'm afraid too many "capitalists" are perhaps too into their beliefs, forgetting that businesses are instruments of social control interacting with people and therefore deserve some level of accountability.

Grandpa h.

[brien]

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?

Since Capitalism is an Economic system, and Democracy a poltical one, I think the two compliment each other. As for peace, this is dependent upon too many extraneous forces brought to bear upon these systems, thus perhaps, it is fruitless to speculate on peace.

[Protostar]

Quote by: grandpa As he explained it, sure. But capitalism is easily perverted into something far more meaningless. I'm afraid too many "capitalists" are perhaps too into their beliefs, forgetting that businesses are instruments of social control interacting with people and therefore deserve some level of accountability. Grandpa h.

Not really. The people can force businesses to do their bidding by not patronizing them. Regulations stifle competition (which is why huge corps adore them) and places them out of the accountability of the people.

[Protostar]

Quote by: brien Since Capitalism is an Economic system, and Democracy a poltical one, I think the two compliment each other. As for peace, this is dependent upon too many extraneous forces brought to bear upon these systems, thus perhaps, it is fruitless to speculate on peace.

Democracy must have some restraints though, because if it doesn't then 51% could strip the remaining 49% of their rights if it so choose. There must be ground rules in place that the majority no matter how large can override.

[Samildanach]

Democracy and capitalism...compliment each other...I suppose they do in a way but the problem is when capitalism begins to subvert democracy through money, you need to put some serious restrictions in place to stop that from happening because currently capitalism controls democracy whereas for the relationship to be a healthy one it should be the other way around.

Its like a normal relationship, the man should be in control...if you let the woman get in control all hell breaks loose and the relationship becomes dysfunctional...hence America

[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.

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. 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.

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").

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Samildanach Its like a normal relationship, the man should be in control...if you let the woman get in control all hell breaks loose and the relationship becomes dysfunctional...

That's generally called spousal abuse, isn't it?

Grandpa h.

[Zealot]

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?

There can be no peace in any form of government when you allow greedy old men like Biden the "mouth" and the stuttering Teddy to be in charge.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zealot There can be no peace in any form of government when you allow greedy old men like Biden the "mouth" and the stuttering Teddy to be in charge.

Is there any peace in Bush's form of government, Zealot? Take, for example, the war. And how about the fact that many people, not just "Biden the mouth," have a extreme hatred for Bush? It seems there can be no peace in Bush's government and that greedy old men dominate in both parties. Your partisanship is prominent.

Grandpa h.

[Zealot]

Quote by: grandpa Is there any peace in Bush's form of government, Zealot? Take, for example, the war. And how about the fact that many people, not just "Biden the mouth," have a extreme hatred for Bush? It seems there can be no peace in Bush's government and that greedy old men dominate in both parties. Your partisanship is prominent. Grandpa h.

Are you saying there was peace during the Clinton presidency? My partisanship is prominent, so what, so is yours. Is there anything wrong with that? Was there peace in the 20th century with all the Democratic rulership? Wake up young man. Let's damn the whole damn sham man!

[Protostar]

Quote by: grandpa 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.

How is it hard? If the product is inferior, then it will be boycotted.

Quote by: grandpa First off, the kinds of regulations I want primarily involve laws against businesss dealing with tyrannical governments, polluting in a wanton manner, etc. 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.

So you would restrict capitalism because of OTHER countries problems? Makes no sense to me. Companies that pollute would be driven out of business by lawsuits from the people affected. The Federal Reserve puts banks out of the accountability of the American people. That and our reliance on fiat currency rather than a silver/gold back standard. get rid of the regulations and businesses can accountable to the people instead of the government.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa As he explained it, sure. But capitalism is easily perverted into something far more meaningless. I'm afraid too many "capitalists" are perhaps too into their beliefs, forgetting that businesses are instruments of social control interacting with people and therefore deserve some level of accountability.

Which is why capitalism is the best. The accountability is a de facto part of the system. If a business does something that no one likes, no one shops there and the business goes out of business.

Simple.

[brien]

Quote by: Samildanach Democracy and capitalism...compliment each other...I suppose they do in a way but the problem is when capitalism begins to subvert democracy through money, you need to put some serious restrictions in place to stop that from happening because currently capitalism controls democracy whereas for the relationship to be a healthy one it should be the other way around. Its like a normal relationship, the man should be in control...if you let the woman get in control all hell breaks loose and the relationship becomes dysfunctional...hence America

Melvin, the writer in " As Good As It Gets", said to the Ditzy gloating Secretary at his publisher's office when she asked how he can do such a good job when writing women's thoughts: " When I think like a woman,.... I think of a man, and then I take away all reason and acountability."

Just kidding all of you women. :)

Neither system is perfect, and I agree with built in corrections and restraints, but I favor ones that are rooted in the private sector as opposed to the government sector.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zealot Are you saying there was peace during the Clinton presidency? My partisanship is prominent, so what, so is yours. Is there anything wrong with that? Was there peace in the 20th century with all the Democratic rulership? Wake up young man. Let's damn the whole damn sham man!

I just got done saying there wasn't, Zealot. READ WHAT I'VE WRITTEN.

Grandp ah.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Protostar How is it hard? If the product is inferior, then it will be boycotted.

I just said how it is difficult, how boycot's of something like Coke would fail because people like how Coke tastes.

Quote by: Protostar So you would restrict capitalism because of OTHER countries problems? Makes no sense to me.

Those other countries problems which would be benefitting US companies.

Quote by: Protostar Companies that pollute would be driven out of business by lawsuits from the people affected.

Environmental impact should depend on science, not who can afford the best lawyer and ideology. I think people's lungs are far more important than ideology. Laws have a chance of preventing environmental abuse instead of having a new lawsuit pop up when its already too late. People may sue for damages, but they'd already have a foot in the grave.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Which is why capitalism is the best. The accountability is a de facto part of the system. If a business does something that no one likes, no one shops there and the business goes out of business. Simple.

It isn't that simple. Accountability cannot be reasonably equated with someone craving candy bars. As I've sai before here, I should be able to drink a Coke (or whatever) without supporting some third world tyrant. Or if I wanted, I could adopt Protosar's view of "that's their problem" and magically the problem is solved.

No, as I said, it's be extremely hard to effectively boycott Coke, or any other popular product. So it hardly even matters, ultimately.

Grandpa h.