419,214 Registered Players
Back to post list
Back a step
Add reply:
Back a step
| Eddie_the_Kid
Posts: 2,545 Status: Lord Karma: +377 [+1] [-1]   |
Subject: Well | |||||
| I disagree with your definition of capitalism, that if anything is as I said a qualification of capitalism, proletarian capitalism, of which corporate capitalism is a part. But the situation you describe is not in any way part of the defintion of capitalism. As I said capitalism is all about the free market and theorehtical equality among autonomous individuals to increase mutual wealth. These aspects have been lost and therefore what you see and what you described are not capitalism at all. Capitalism and Socialism are not opposites on the same scale. Capitalism and Communism are opposite ends and Socialism itself is already somewhere in the middle. However, I do agree that golden mean is somewhere between pure Capitalism and Pure Socialism, more or less discounting Communism (which has many of its own problems and I think Socialism and Capitalism work together better then if you where to use Communism). In fact, when I was first developing my original argument here through discussions with other people, I got ambitious and labeled the new qualification of capitalism I was hinting at to replace corporate capitalism as social capitalism. You cannot have laws here bounding employees to employers as that messes with the rights of both parties. However, there should be strong protections in place for both parties that allow them to keep working when they want to without infringing on the rights of the employer. I dont think that the government should have its hand in production. That distracts them from there other duties of making sure society is functioning. The government I think should be limited to making regulations, but staying out of the production itself. The only time that perhaps the government should step in is in such situation where limited natural resources are concerned and the private sector just sucks them dry. Also, the government spending funds on production will result in one of two things I think. Either social programs will wain and be less effective or be removed altogether while the goverment focuses its funding towards production, or there is an increase in taxes to pay for the social programs AND production. Essentially it results in the same problem as now only the state is the one doing the damage instead of the private sector. All that being said, I do believe in private property, and dont like the idea of the government confiscating 'non productive land'. The goal is to not maximize production, the goal is sustainabiltiy... changing to a comforitable level of production (performed by the private sector) that allows for continued use instead of getting as much as you can as fast as you can, the world and the people be damned. In terms of roads... the are most deff productive. They may not produce concrete goods, but not all production does; it provides a service. Roads are an integeral part of other production process. Without the ability to create distribution channels then you can produce all you want, but it isnt going to go anywhere. Also, do not thing of the jobs as being temporary at all. The initial construction may be only short term, but road upkeep is a never ending process or else they deteriate. A country with a massive road system like the of the US or Canada will always have road work to be done, simply from upkeep if not from making new roads or improving existing ones. Just ask people that do a lot of driving in Canada or the US, the construction never ends, and never will... it is a continual upkeep system. |
||||||
|
||||||
Add reply: