• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?


  • Total voters
    56
What I'm getting is that there is no evidence that collectively owned property is superior than individually owned property. If you want productive well maintained property the one thing you don't want to do is to allow the collective to own it. The fact of the matter is that societies built on collective ownership will never be as prosperous as societies built on individual ownership.
What society are you basing this off of? A society where the state collectivized everything, and not the people? You keep making assumptions, well, we both do, anarcho capitalism/communism have never existed.
 
Singapore has 5.5 million people, and if that's your only example, then that's embarrassing, considering all of the capitalist countries without regulations that **** everyone.

Like which nation
 
wanting capitalism is hardly intelligent, and it's true, capitalism is the religion of blood suckers and those who want to oppress others. See how this leads us no where? :roll:
and you said before you would be ok with killing people to achieve your goal of communism..
you may not do it yourself, but you have no problem with it taking place.
oh, i'd oppose it, violence is not the way to go, but i wouldn't go out and fight against them.
if people were having an actual violent revolution against the state, i wouldn't try to stop them.

all this time you and i have been talking about your brand of government, and no other.
 
What society are you basing this off of? A society where the state collectivized everything, and not the people? You keep making assumptions, well, we both do, anarcho capitalism/communism have never existed.

No, I'm looking at the same societies that Marx looked at and instead of saying they were great like he did I'm saying they were stagnant ****holes that were never going to move forward.
 
I don't see what you're talking about.

yeah sure... play the haymarket game.....

you are for force, and killing people to reserve a system you desire.......you may not want to physically kill people yourself, but you will support the action to keep and preserve communism.
 
It's simple supply and demand theory. If the producers charge too high people won't buy, if their price of input is too low the domestic population will not expand profit for the company. The only way a firm can actually pay less on Input of production is either by new technology which is a good thing for the global economy, or create trade protectionist policy through government to expand export sectors. This is what is happening in china right now, the domestic population can not afford most of the products because china has huge export subsidies and the central gov. Devalues the yuan to such levels most of the Chinese population live in tremendous real world poverty. This is a direct cause of the central planning of the economy, not free marketism.

However, fords quote is a direct relation to any healthy sustainable free market society. Any economist would agree the idea that paying domestic and focusing a majority of production on domestic stability is a much more stable long term growth, however in infant stages of a nation you can argue for trade policy to in a sense shock the economy to a massive growth, after that you need to stabilize that growth by advancing your domestic infrastructure and the most efficient and stable way to do so is through the free market
Then explain why the majority of the world only makes enough for clothing, shelter, and food/water, while working for sweatshops making fancy clothing they can never afford, etc... Producers don't want to charge low, it's why millions starve to death every year, it's not practicial to distribute/sell food to them where we're in the first world gobbling that **** down and wasting 50% of it. New technology is good for taking away jobs, at least in terms of what is happening today, eventually, it will get to a point where technology will take a majority of jobs. China was only planned until 1978, genius. It's the core idea of capitalism, don't sugarcoat it, capitalism relies on exploiting cheap labor/resources in under-developed countries to resell it at a profit to other countries, capitalism thrives on poverty. Many other countries other then China, you've only stated one example of a capitalist country without a minimum wage doing good, and even then: List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paying domestic in America for production in regards to factory isn't as profitable as exploiting labor in another country.
 
Like which nation
Honduras
Somalia - I'd argue this is the closest we have to anarcho capitalism.
The democratic republic of the congo
Haiti
Most of the third world.
 
No, I'm looking at the same societies that Marx looked at and instead of saying they were great like he did I'm saying they were stagnant ****holes that were never going to move forward.

What societies?
 
What societies?

Marx's stupid idea of primitive communism. Marx's and Engels admiration of hunter and gather societies was ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?
They definitely have more purchasing power in the market. But no, not under the conditions that you present.
A person isn't going to be elected simply because they are well financed.
 
You keep making assumptions, much like Henrin, despite the fact that he follows anarcho capitalism, which has never existed. Really now? More baseless bull****? Stalins method isn't the way to do it, you make more assumptions.

yes, they are assumptions... though none of them are baseless.

when dealing in fanciful utopias, assumptions is all we have... yourself included.

anarcho-capitalism has never existed, that's correct.... it's a far more realistic utopia than communism, but still a utopia.
 
Also, for POS or something: Poverty Facts and Stats

A blog? Youre gonna need to come up with more mainstream citations than that. Plus poverty is a relative term, being poor in the US is very different than being poor in the 3rd world.
 
If a small group control the mass amount of wealth,
OMG, the wealth! :doh

Control the wealth?
What the **** are you talking about?

That wealth is earned money that has already had it's taxes paid. As such that wealth is theirs to control as they see fit and is none of your damn business.

Your whole position is based on envy and jealousy of something that is none of your business.





That's the problem with capitalism, it relies on exploitation of what one's labor is worth for profit.
Paying a person for what their services are worth is not exploitation.





My dad is on disability, is he a parasite?
Why the **** are you taking this into the personal realm?
That is inappropriate.
The only reason I can see for that is you already know your position is not reasonable or logical so you have to rely on an emotional appeal.
And not just any emotional appeal, but a personal one at that.
:doh





I guess I'm a ****ing failure.
Well said. :applaud

And only you can change that.





People want a minority who control most wealth to contribute to the government, if you don't like it, go fund your own damn country.
Wrong.
The greedy jealous and envious that cannot (or choose not to) compete want such nonsense.
Furthermore the wealthy already contribute far more than their fare share, which those who want such nonsense fail to recognize.
 
OMG, the wealth! :doh

Control the wealth?
What the **** are you talking about?

That wealth is earned money that has already had it's taxes paid. As such that wealth is theirs to control as they see fit and is none of your damn business.

Your whole position is based on envy and jealousy of something that is none of your business.






Paying a person for what their services are worth is not exploitation.





Why the **** are you taking this into the personal realm?
That is inappropriate.
The only reason I can see for that is you already know your position is not reasonable or logical so you have to rely on an emotional appeal.
And not just any emotional appeal, but a personal one at that.
:doh





Well said. :applaud

And only you can change that.





Wrong.
The greedy jealous and envious that cannot (or choose not to) compete want such nonsense.
Furthermore the wealthy already contribute far more than their fare share, which those who want such nonsense fail to recognize.

Ah, you mean to tell me paying sweat shop workers/other workers less then a dollar a day is what they're worth? A $1.25 a day? $2.50?
I'm sorry if I'm concerned that a tiny group of people control massive amounts of money they aren't even using, while millions suffer from malnutrition in exploited capitalist countries. You honestly think they're more hard working then the construction worker? The miner in africa?
Emotional appeal? So you do think people on welfare are parasites? Interesting.
Ah, good news for applauding me for being a failure, as if you somehow define that for the billions of people who are also "failures" under your ****ing definition.
The greedy jealous and envious
- Unbelievable, so, billions of people are greedy when they're happy to just have food and shelter. Nonsense? Yeah, **** albert einstein, martin luther king junior, both socialists. Obvious envious and jealous idiots, am I right? The wealthy contribute more then their fair share? Are you delusional?
 
Last edited:
yes, they are assumptions... though none of them are baseless.

when dealing in fanciful utopias, assumptions is all we have... yourself included.

anarcho-capitalism has never existed, that's correct.... it's a far more realistic utopia than communism, but still a utopia.

You assume it's more realistic, which may be, but we all know what would happen.
 
A blog? Youre gonna need to come up with more mainstream citations than that. Plus poverty is a relative term, being poor in the US is very different than being poor in the 3rd world.

Dollar a day revisited
Not sure about the current rates, feel free to find them for me.
 
Marx's stupid idea of primitive communism. Marx's and Engels admiration of hunter and gather societies was ridiculous.

Hunter and gathering societies deserve to be admired.
 
You assume it's more realistic, which may be, but we all know what would happen.

no, we don't all know what would happen....anarcho-capitalism allows for so much liberty that we really can't even make an informed assumption... far too many societal factors come into play.
it is that very allowance for liberties that make it more realistic than Communism, though.

true Communism cannot exist in an environment of liberty... it's far too rigid, far too demanding, and far too restrictive.
 
Hunter and gathering societies deserve to be admired.

Yes, I imagine you're one of those people that think they represent the most affluent of societies. You're talking about societies that didn't advance at all throughout the entire time they existed and somehow people like Engels wanted to model his ideas around their principles. The principles of a people that created a society where they were fighting for their survival throughout the entire time the system existed. No one worth respecting can actually think it is a good idea to recreate the most stagnated society that ever existed.
 
no, we don't all know what would happen....anarcho-capitalism allows for so much liberty that we really can't even make an informed assumption... far too many societal factors come into play.
it is that very allowance for liberties that make it more realistic than Communism, though.

true Communism cannot exist in an environment of liberty... it's far too rigid, far too demanding, and far too restrictive.

Who would be in control in a stateless society?
 
Yes, I imagine you're one of those people that think they represent the most affluent of societies. You're talking about societies that didn't advance at all throughout the entire time they existed and somehow people like Engels wanted to model his ideas around their principles. The principles of a people that created a society that didn't move forward at all. The very idea that you would want to recreate what basically amounted to society where people were fighting for their survival throughout the entire time the system existed is beyond all known reason. No one can actually think it is a good idea to recreate the most stagnated society that ever existed.

I never said I want to create it, I think the societies are a great example of how human beings can work together and provide for each other without the supposed "human nature" I keep hearing about, which is only observed under capitalism.
 
Back
Top Bottom