German voters are set to lose their fleece this Sunday

[Skybird]

Free choice for everybody!

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2749/301517m1t1w620q75s1v446.jpg (http://img80.imageshack.us/i/301517m1t1w620q75s1v446.jpg/)
(original by Der Tagesspiegel, text changes by me)

[FIREWALL]

Welcome to Democracy. :DL

[Platapus]

The idea of democracy only involves the concept of choice, it does not address whether those choices are any good. :D

[Stealth Hunter]

SPD. It's clearly a caricature of Jimbuna.

[Letum]

If you don't like the choices; be the alternative or stay quiet.

[Platapus]

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate?

Or something like that, :haha:

[Skybird]

If you don't like the choices; be the alternative or stay quiet.
If you took any of the choices and see them doing what you should have known they would do, don't criticise them then. You enabled them to powers to do what they do.

If you legitimise the system, you have given up the legitimacy to criticise it if it just does what you had to expect it would do. You are an accomplice, then.

And if you expected it to do something else, than you cannot be helped, and maybe you should not legitimise it. EVERYbody today could and should know what to expect of politicians.

Interesting demoscopic finding first published around two weeks ago: the structure of non-voters has changed, and now include more private businessmen and more self-employed members of the middle class then ever before. Reasons given: a growing disillusionising about lacking abilities and freedoms of politics to act on behalf of the people. A growing number of people think poltiicians do not act on their behalf, but in explicit violation of people'S will (which is fact, btw.). A general feeling of uneasiness about the political going is wide-spread and growing and includes practically all social classes, but the educated middle class and the independent small business class grow faster in size than the other groups. Before the elections started, demoscopes expected the highest number of non-voters ever. It has constantly grown over the past elections.

People learn. Slowly, but they do.

[Letum]

So why not be the alternative?

If no one is voting because they don't like the choice, then stand up and
be an alternative choice. If you are right in what you say about the will of
the country, then you will be successful.

Or alternatively, just complain about it here and do nothing.

[Jimbuna]

SPD. It's clearly a caricature of Jimbuna.

Hey!!...I resemble that remark!! http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1853/angry8ro5.gif

Looking at that sheep I'm bloody glad you made no reference to Grune http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6324/uowyaydh5wc2zm2.gif

[Shearwater]

Given how close both sides are to each other, voting this time really makes a difference.
On the other hand, this campaign has certainly been one of the most boring I've ever seen. The parties really seemed like they don't care. They just complain afterwards when people don't cast their vote and say it is hurting democracy.



And SPD ain't jimbuna - too slim, too much hair :O:

[FIREWALL]

God help me but, for once I agree with Letum. :damn: :cry:

[OneToughHerring]

Yes they lost their fleece alright...again. Merkel is the fleecer, and she might bring the extreme right wing to help her in fleecing the German people.

[Skybird]

So why not be the alternative?

If no one is voting because they don't like the choice, then stand up and
be an alternative choice. If you are right in what you say about the will of
the country, then you will be successful.

Or alternatively, just complain about it here and do nothing.

If you can tell how to be an alternative system instead of being a non-alternative inside the system, I as well as many others may consider that.
but what you really want is that we just submit to the system itself, becoming just another party amongst several, following the system mechanisms and keeping it alive that way. But right that is the very problem. In the assessement of people like me the system itself is the problem, and thus cannot generate any solutions anymore. You cannot revolutionise the system from within. It is designed to prevent exactly that - because the lobbying parties constituting it wants to stay in control. But people like me do not want that. We want it being destroyed alltogether, because we have understood that it is not forming solutions for our survival in the future, but is helping in preventing that.

As a matter of fact in the past years we see a tendency for a raise in local "Bürgerinitiativen" (grasroot movements, civil rights movements) here in Germany, and soemtimes these have been powerful enough to break through the blockade of regional government, economy lobbies and parties. I have been engaged in one such movement myself, as I have explained in the past.

I do not want another party. I want civil disobedience on a scale that deadlocks the state and chases the established party system away, breaking up the destructive alliance between policy and economy. I want this on an international level, since a change in just one country means nothing, and cannot survive anyhow. The whole world order we have allowed to form up is against the future of man. That may sound pathetic, but unfortunately nothing less than this is true.

You think this view of things is capable of winning a majority? :hmmm: You underestimate the laziness and phlegmatism of the majority of people, then. I do not - and that is the reason why I am so extremely pessimistic about the future of man. even more so soince i know that already repeatedly societies of the past have killed themselves for these very same reasons.


The will of the country, you said. Well, obviously the will of the country still is such that it keeps the existing system alive, although the number of non-voters has reached a new record-high. This keeping-the-system is the problem. Obviously "will of the majority" and "being right" are not the same (one of the big mistakes in democratic thinking). Maybe that's why they say that numerical majorities are just numerical majorities - no statements about who is right and who is wrong. many socieites in the past have broken down with a majority of the population tolerating the processes leading to these falls for too long, until it was too late. I have just finished a second comprehensive reading ijn just some weeks about right this phenomenon, so don't try me, or I ripple-fire a whole list of failed socieites with stunning parallels to the modern present. Have these people of the past been right, just because they formed majorities "majorities"? Obviously not. Many saw their societies desintegrating in social rebellion, civil war and cannibalism, because the dissent led to rebellion to suicidal structures and processes just too late. Historic parallels to the events unfolding in the present count by the dozens, from the drama of the Pitcairn Island over the Anazasi and the Easter Islanders and the Maya to the Vikings . We could learn from these warning examples, if only we would want to. But, like you, the majority prefers to unknowingly repeat the very same mistakes many other people before us have fallen for in the past 1000 years, and probably also before these 1000 years.

And finally, many germans say that much of what the CDU does is more SPD-like than the SPD, and that the SPD has become greener than the Grteens, and some aspects of Green policies have become more conservative than the CDU. The last four years of grand coaltition did not help to keep the alternatives more ovbviously separate. there is no sense in having the choice if the difference between alternatives to chose from disappears.

It seems the CDU has won and will be able to form a coalition with the FDP. But they will face the same finacial misery like any other possible government, anf they will face the same prblems and will be hit by the same counterproductive variable. I tell you: the changes there will be, will be cosmetic only. the basic problems remain. The basic way of dealing with them will remain the same.

And in four years the number of non-voters will have grown again. Maybe hsitory will not remeber them as great geroes. But their decision not to vote will make sure they have become a little bit less guilty, than others - than that majority of yours, for example.

[Letum]

You cannot revolutionise the system from within.

Of course you can.

There is no limit on the ability of a majority government to change the system.
All constitutions can, and have, been changed or scrapped.


You think this view of things is capable of winning a majority?

Certainly not.
It would take a mass outbreak of stupidity before a majority voted for any of your ideas.


Obviously "will of the majority" and "being right" are not the same (one of the big mistakes in democratic thinking).The will of the majority has a far, far better history than the will of
individuals and oligarchs. You don't need me to give examples!
That aside, it's not about if the majority are right or wrong, it's about
the majority being free to chose or be an alternative. As opposed to
being opressed under the will of the few or an individual.

[Tribesman]

So skybird is a revolutionary anarchist who can't be arsed with reolutionary anarchism...no wonder he sounds so pissed off all the time.
Its funny how in one breath he says he says the system can't be changed let alone from within and in the next he is on about how the system is being changed by those who have got within.
I do wish he would make his mind up, it is far more challenging to argue against someone whose views hold some sort of consistancy or at least make some sort of sense

[Lurchi]

It would take a mass outbreak of stupidity before a majority voted for any of your ideas.
:up: Agreed!
I hope this country will never ever be run (again) by a creature with a negative attitude towards life ... trying to destroy everything just to make his own failure more bearable.
If you don't like the choices; be the alternative or stay quiet.
Well said!

[Onkel Neal]

The will of the majority has a far, far better history than the will of
individuals and oligarchs. You don't need me to give examples!
That aside, it's not about if the majority are right or wrong, it's about
the majority being free to chose or be an alternative. As opposed to
being opressed under the will of the few or an individual.



Oh so true. :yep:

[Hakahura]

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried"

[Hakahura]

Oh for those unfamiliar with those words they were spoken by none other than.....


Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC

[Respenus]

I do not want another party. I want civil disobedience on a scale that deadlocks the state and chases the established party system away, breaking up the destructive alliance between policy and economy. I want this on an international level, since a change in just one country means nothing, and cannot survive anyhow. The whole world order we have allowed to form up is against the future of man. That may sound pathetic, but unfortunately nothing less than this is true.

:up::salute::yeah:

I couldn't find a clapping one. Doesn't really matter. What matters is that Sky or me for that matter aren't anarchist, that is, we both (at least me) see society as a lawful one, where everyone is equal before the law and no-one is in any regard above it. The problem is that corruption has been around since the dawn of time and ever a true government by/of/for the people couldn't get rid of this, as individuals who seek power above anything else usually find willing accomplices in people who surround them or are "in power".

I would listen to Sky if I were anyone. His thinking and that of others might just save us from our destructive selves.

[Skybird]

I started a reply, and stopped it, for nobody wants to hear it anyway. the problem of some of you guys is that you mistake the ideal utopia of how things were meant to be on paper some time in the past, with the way they actually have run to their current state in reality. As long as you cannot fully comprehend that difference and realise how far dream and reality already are apart, you will carry on to actively assist the way we arrange our own civilisational fall - by processes and procedures that are nothing new in human history, and have led many civilisations before us to their self-made extinction, thinking until it was too late that if only they would follow the habits and old ways they were familiar with even harder, that this would save them. In fact it accelerated their extinction, because it strengthened their resistance to adaptation as long as they still had time. The final phase of collapse then often took just a second in history's time, and often it was no peaceful retreat, but chaos and despair.

And like they did, so do many of you. In good intentions, of course - but your good intentions will not save us if you do not realise the needs dictated by tough realities that we have, for the most, created ourselves. I am not talking about ideology and philosophy, like my quarrel with Islam, or freedom and peace. I am talking about elemental things like food. Water. Shelter. Medicine. Warmth. If you think i am crazy when putting these in doubt in the future, then you simply do not look far enough. you dream of emocracy worldwide in the future. I see revolution, civil war, government's authority collapsing, nations desintegrating - not about ideals and religions, but food. Water. Shelter. Medicine. Warmth.

These realities you ignore will reach you, sooner or later, you or your children. For more and more people not only in the third world, but already in the West, the lack of these qualities already are a fact today.

[Tribesman]

Originally posted by Randy Weaver
I am talking about elemental things like food. Water. Shelter. Medicine. Warmth. If you think i am crazy when putting these in doubt in the future, then you simply do not look far enough. you dream of emocracy worldwide in the future. I see revolution, civil war, government's authority collapsing, nations desintegrating - not about ideals and religions, but food. Water. Shelter. Medicine. Warmth.

[Shearwater]

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried"

And in Germany they have been.
I would say: We cannot tell whether democracy always leads to the best results. But we can tell that it is the most legitimate one.

[Skybird]

And in Germany they have been.
I would say: We cannot tell whether democracy always leads to the best results. But we can tell that it is the most legitimate one.
A wise man explained to me once, a long time ago, that "legitimate" and "competent" (or adequate, if you want) unfortunately are not the same, and can appear at the same time if you're lucky, but most often do not coexist. He also said that where we know the legitimised quality does not do the job it is intended to do, it may somewhat lose if not the formal but then at least the moral legitimation. that man was my grandfather. He had seen the rise of Hitler as a juvenile and young man, he needed to fight in the war, he got his brother courtmartialed and executed for what he indicated to be disobedience to orders having to do with these special operations behind the front, and having seen the rise of the federal republic, and the Brandt era. and no, he was no Nazi. He was disgusted by them, and by socialists as well. He used to think of both as offsprings of the same mindset. And in a way, I agree with that.

He was the one who for the first time ever raised doubts in me that it is always so wise to think in absolutes about what is good and what not in politics and governing a nation. As I have explained in long in a discussion with Lance some months agi, I today think that democracy can only show its merits in small communal contexts, and is to be considered as a solution to formalise and legitimate adminstration only on the local level, whereas it becomes the more inefficent und prone to corruption and - in Aristoteles' prediction - distorted by self-emerging oligarchic structures the more democracy attempts to govern not only local communities of limited size, but turns to the regional and national and international and supranational level. The bigger the community system that is to be adminitred, the less good a choice democracy is, and the more inefficient and vulnerable it becomes - best example is the UN, which got highly abused, corrupted, infiltrated distorted while operating as a supranational entity by rules focussing on equality of all, and democracy. It simply does not work, and it never will. I therefore think that the more distanced from the local level a community is (the bigger and more far-reaching it is), the less adequate democratic governing is and the more we need to consider alternative forms of government. and that may be the reason why democratic structures get the easier corrupted the bigger the context is in which they are embedded. And transparency is the first victim of growth of political structures.

Because the one big problem the past systems of feudalism our democracy has not solved: how to make sure that those being in power are a.) competent and b.) not corrupt and not selfish to abuse their power for egoist motives. A struggle you can see in almost all eras of the roman empire, from the republic to the empire. Linked to it is the confrontation between the social power of the rich (thew noble), and the poor (the workers, farmers, slaves). In modern democracies, both issues a.) and b.) are extremely big problems, obviously. and here the circle closes back to my grandfather who questioned that legitimation (by being elected) automatically translates into competence (in skill, knowledge, character, trustworthiness, altruism for the sake of the "whole"). we see it in western politics day in, day out, that this simply is not the case. And that is to the disadvantage of most, but to the advanatge of only a very few who have private profits at stake when trying to ensure that the system itself does not get touched.

In the end, the longer I live the more I understand that all and everything never stays static, never remains to be only good or only bad, and that everything by its simple existence already gives birth to the forming of it's antagonist, and bears the seed of it's own self destruction inside itself from it'S very beginning on. In our world, things are not meant to last, but to chnage and to transform. We either adapt to that, and may live and find a relative ammount of happiness while riding on the waves, or we try to resist to that, and sink like a stone while standing in the water. To me, democracy is no golden cow that is untouchable and unavailable for being put into doubt. It had its value in the past, but also sometimes failed miserably and caused destruiction, and civilisational suicide. If it will serve human interests of survival for the same ammount of time again in the future, I have my doubts. Because I do not see any democracy in the West anymore, only corrupted oligarchic regimes that dot not allow democracy beyond a ritualised context that helps to keep the crowds pleased. Due to elections, names may come and go, but the basic powerstructures that run the world remain the same.

[OneToughHerring]

Finally a right-wing Germany. I've waited 65 years for this. :woot:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I do not want another party. I want civil disobedience on a scale that deadlocks the state and chases the established party system away, breaking up the destructive alliance between policy and economy.

Bravo, Sky! I like seeing common ground between us.....

I want this on an international level, since a change in just one country means nothing, and cannot survive anyhow. The whole world order we have allowed to form up is against the future of man. That may sound pathetic, but unfortunately nothing less than this is true.

.....and then you go and say something like this.

As the old military axiom goes: "Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics." The sheer logistics of some kind of worldwide revolution of thought concerning the proper course of action for the "future of man" are so mind-boggling that they might as well be impossible. There is only one force that transcends virtually all national/cultural/and political boundaries on a daily basis by virtue of its' very nature. Can you guess what it is?:DL

For those who don't know, it is capitalism; the exchange of goods and services with a real or perceived (caveat emptor) mutual benefit to all parties involved.

Given this, in addition to your continual prophesizing of environmental and social catastrophe, I would think that the most efficient and successful course for the "future of man" would be readily apparent. The nations that achieve the best ratios of pollution to prosperity to birth rate are all the ones that have had relatively lassiez-faire capitalist systems in place the longest. Those same nations are the ones that continually embrace newer, cleaner, more efficient technologies, even in the absence of state compulsion. Negative birth rates coupled with more highly advanced industry is a recipe for the success of mankind. Even better, such developed nations attract immigrants from poorer nations, who then, through capitalism, eventually lift themselves out of poverty and also demonstrate lower birth rates. Furthermore, such nations eventually break the economic backs and political systems of centralist nations through economic competition, leading to more, beneficial, capitalist reform. All that is needed is a limited government that cannot easily form plutocratic structures but is given the power to punish fraud.

I realize that you think the planet is running out of time, and that the "slow" nature of this kind of reform (assuming you see it as feasible) may be too slow; but consider just how quickly lightly-reined capitalism has changed the fate of nations. If Deng Xiaoping or Adam Smith or Milton Friedman are not evidence enough of the success of the economically free nation, then you surely must be aware of the significance of the Wirtschaftswunder and Ludwig Erhard. That one man is principally responsible for affording Germany the luxury of contemplating the implication of far-reaching socioeconomic policy, and the reason that some there have the luxury of having trillions of dollars(US) to spend on failed socialist initiatives.

Perhaps you continue to disagree Sky, but your apparent disdain for the limited choices amongst government indicates to me that you should not. If the state has little power to introduce new and usually harmful legislation, there is little reason to be concerned with which particular party holds the majority in a democratic system. If individual freedoms are prized even above the rule of the majority, there is little reason to fear the loss of freedom or the pursut of destructive policies. There is only the truth of the market. Supply and demand. The market will force us to ultimately adapt a sustainable system, or go from one unsustainable system to another until a sustainable one is found. Until you can show me, or even yourself, a suitable system that offers more benefits, I cannot understand why you are unwilling to adopt some version of lassiez-faire capitalism.

You think this view of things is capable of winning a majority? :hmmm: You underestimate the laziness and phlegmatism of the majority of people, then. I do not - and that is the reason why I am so extremely pessimistic about the future of man. even more so soince i know that already repeatedly societies of the past have killed themselves for these very same reasons.

Going O/T for a moment, I have a question for you. If you do not believe in a God, and you are aware of the machinations of genes, and you are already unhappy with humanity, why do you care about the future of mankind?



My apologies for intruding on your discussion with Letum, but I do enjoy getting your perspective, even if you haven't convinced me yet.

[Skybird]

Going O/T for a moment, I have a question for you. If you do not believe in a God, and you are aware of the machinations of genes, and you are already unhappy with humanity, why do you care about the future of mankind?

Because I wish it to be different. Because I am part of that humanity.

On capitalism we could not be any more different, but we both know that by now, don't we. For you, it is the motor of human society and the holy grail in general. To me it is context-sensitive, and thus can be serving good in some social models, while causing havoc in others, since it offers potentials, but also enormous risks. But being that uncritical of it like you are, does not do any good, I would even say beign that uncritical topwards anything, no mattere what, always means greater risks than gains in the long run, since no situational conditions ever stay the same, everything is changing, and thus any solutions tried must be constantly checked, put in question, and either verified another time for the forseeable near future, or replaced with something different. For you, capitalism is the meaning. For me, it is a tool, and it is eclectically (?) to be used where helpful, and is pragmatically to be limited or abandoned where doing damage. For me it is no self-purpose, never, especially not in a situation as critical and dangerous as the one that human civilisation is in right now. It is not vulnerable to corruption and distortion like democracies are if growing into too big communal systems, but capitalism is the very cause and origin of corrupting democracies. Because being like that is it's very program and nature.

There is much much more than just the market, Lance, there are factors that have nothign to do with it, but still deciding the fate of human societies. I would recommend you read the first chapter in David Jared's "Collapse. How Societies Chose to Fail or Succeed", which deals on 60 pages entirely with the changes in the economic structure of the state of Montana, and describes how just your market philosophy and the freedom of people has helped to cause friction that has mounted big internal problems there and keeps Montana to be one of the poorest states in the union, despite it's great attractiveness due to its described beautiful landscape making it attractive for foreigners - which has proven to be part of the problem. It is written by an American with a great deal of love for the place, btw, so accusing the author of blackpainting or wishing the place any bad, is very absurd.

You simplify things too much, keeping them on the naive level of explanations that had been assumed by the founders of economic theory traditions in the following of the early Adam Smith. This materialistic, capitalistic mindset is a very typical symptom for the Anglosaxon culture that to these excessive ammounts never has been followed or accepted as valid anywhere outside the Anglosaxon world, but still effects most of the planet - and lets critical conditions climax pretty dangerously in many places.

With 7 billion+ people living on planet Earth, we simply cannot afford unregulated capitalism of the old school. It is suicide.

On your celebrating of perosnal freedom, if that freedom is interpreted by people in a way that maximises their personal profits/gains, then it defends the excessive spending and wasting and consuming we see in the Western world, and imagining that to be standard for 7 billion people (becasue the freedom you claim for yourself you cannot deny to the others) means the life-thretaening shortatge of global ressources even within our own lifespans, yours and mine, followed by global collapse and utmost desaster to gloal civilisation, which will leave no civilisational structure whatever unshattered. the Wetsenr lifestyle simply cannot be the standard for the world to follow. It could be that if we were only 500 million or at most 1 billion people living on all the globe and no population growth and stable birth rates that do not increase population but only replaced the losses from people who died. But for ongoing, generations-lasting "Nachhaltigkeit" (sustainability) in our economic system, I more and more get the impression that even 1 billion would be too much if modern Western consummation standards are becoming the standards for all the world. And this problem of suicidal rises in population sizes has been the reason for the fall of many civilisations of the past, all over the world. We couild learn from that - but for some reasopn that may have to do with our genes we refuse to do so, and instead do not look beyond the current day.

Who cares for the great flood tomorrow if there is sun today. Why thinking about sustainability and stockpiling reserves for bad days ahead, if one could party or have another baby today. the results coming from this irresponsible attitude are predetermined and home-made, and will not be avoided.

[Skybird]

Very good analysis on the phenomenon of growing numbers of non-voters, unfortunately it is only available in German.

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/31/31205/1.html

I knew that "tyranny" back in ancient Greece was not associated with a quality of evil and being bad in general like the term is being used today, but was considered as a neutral description only. But I did not know that in Athens free elections as we hold them today were seen as oligarchic (and thus reprehensive), but as democratic they considered to distribute offices by drawing lots.

:DL Hehe.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Because I wish it to be different. Because I am part of that humanity.

That is both very noble and potenially very ignoble of you at the same time, Sky. To care for humanity simply because you are a part of it is a laudible thing, almost approaching altruism; but to desire to change it(what I define as the basic nature of humanity) is a road fraught with peril.

On capitalism we could not be any more different, but we both know that by now, don't we.
Of course, but that doesn't mean that we have nothing to gain through continued dialouge. I don't know if our continued debates have done anything for you, but I have found many of your points to be very interesting, and they have further shaped my definition of plutocracy and forced me to reconsider the role of the state in some things.
Given that, I'd be a fool to refrain from engaging in discourse with you; it is inclined to my own benefit, at least. Ah, capitalism:DL

For you, it is the motor of human society and the holy grail in general. To me it is context-sensitive, and thus can be serving good in some social models, while causing havoc in others, since it offers potentials, but also enormous risks
Well, it is the motor of human society, Sky. Mankind is powered by self-interest and I know you can't disprove that, or even argue against it.
The same self-interest that you disapprove of on many occassions is the very impetus for the progress of society. Mutual benefit and advancement is the very nature of capitalism, whereas the nature of humanity is simply to take advantage via forced compliance.

Admittedly, I do treat it as a "holy grail", as you put it, but why shouldn't I? Capitalism is the best way to make use of mankind's inherently selfish nature for the purposes of promoting order, and the empyrical evidence shows this. No country ever collapsed because of capitalist policy, only because of state policy. No populace has ever endured more suffering from capitalism than it did from statism. No person has ever suffered more from choice than they have from doctrine.

But being that uncritical of it like you are, does not do any good, I would even say beign that uncritical topwards anything, no mattere what, always means greater risks than gains in the long run, since no situational conditions ever stay the same, everything is changing, and thus any solutions tried must be constantly checked, put in question, and either verified another time for the forseeable near future, or replaced with something different.
Oh, but I am critical of it, just as everyone else should be. I am highly critical of persons or companies or entities that claim to offer me something for nothing, which is what capitalist and statist entities alike do. Capitalism gives us the choice of acting upon those criticisms, however. The state does not.

What you fail to realize is that capitalism, more than any other system in existence, encourages people to continually monitor and adapt to changing conditions. They are motivated to do so because their decisions directly affect their pocketbooks (i.e. their accumulated wealth and progress). If you want a system that is continually checked and monitored, you need look no further than capitalism. This is even true when it comes to the environment and natural resources. Scarcity breeds demand, my friend, and demand begets increased prices. Increased prices demand supply alternatives, with predictable results. Capitalism is meritocracy in its' purest and only form.

For you, capitalism is the meaning. For me, it is a tool, and it is eclectically (?) to be used where helpful, and is pragmatically to be limited or abandoned where doing damage. For me it is no self-purpose, never, especially not in a situation as critical and dangerous as the one that human civilisation is in right now. It is not vulnerable to corruption and distortion like democracies are if growing into too big communal systems, but capitalism is the very cause and origin of corrupting democracies. Because being like that is it's very program and nature.

Democracies? What democracies? I don't know of a single democratic nation on this planet, and even if I did, I would never support it. Democracy is state-endorsed tyranny of the masses.
However, you are right about capitalism being a form of democracy(not everyone is represented equally,however), though you make an error my equating it with state (i.e fiat) democracy. I'm not totally sure what you mean by that statement.

I will tell you this, though; capitalism is not a tool, nor is it a means to an end. It is the end. It is perpetual (if cyclical) order. Until you show me a societal organization that matches or even approaches the record of capitalism on a large scale, I'll remain skeptical as to the harms of it.


There is much much more than just the market, Lance, there are factors that have nothign to do with it, but still deciding the fate of human societies. I would recommend you read the first chapter in David Jared's "Collapse. How Societies Chose to Fail or Succeed", which deals on 60 pages entirely with the changes in the economic structure of the state of Montana, and describes how just your market philosophy and the freedom of people has helped to cause friction that has mounted big internal problems there and keeps Montana to be one of the poorest states in the union, despite it's great attractiveness due to its described beautiful landscape making it attractive for foreigners - which has proven to be part of the problem. It is written by an American with a great deal of love for the place, btw, so accusing the author of blackpainting or wishing the place any bad, is very absurd.


I'll read that book, thanks for the reference. Perhaps it will change my perpective to some degree, but don't count on it. My experience with Montana has been that it is devoid of develoment for the same reason that Siberia is; no one wants to live or work in that vast expanse of inaccessible land. Wyoming suffers a similar fate, despite its' wealth of coal and minerals. The only development there is because of capitalist structures developing exactly what was needed to support the extraction of those resources. No more, no less, same as Montana. Economically, both are unenviable locations because of their reliance upon inefficent land-based transport, remoteness, and the non-uniqueness of the goods they offer(though Wyoming does a good amount of trade because of it's coal resources, but the communities that support that trade are limited to a small area)
I'll posit nothing further until I've had a chance to read the book. It may address factors I haven't considered and prove to be enlightening.


You simplify things too much, keeping them on the naive level of explanations that had been assumed by the founders of economic theory traditions in the following of the early Adam Smith. This materialistic, capitalistic mindset is a very typical symptom for the Anglosaxon culture that to these excessive ammounts never has been followed or accepted as valid anywhere outside the Anglosaxon world, but still effects most of the planet - and lets critical conditions climax pretty dangerously in many places.

And why do you suppose that this belief has never been followed or accepted outside the anglosaxon world (Though it has. Need I mention the tiger markets or the Chinese SEZ resurgence ?)

In my humble opinion, you complicate things too much. For all our complexity, we, as humans, are fairly simple creatures. We are simply vessels for genetic propogation. I'll be happy to discuss that idea with you via PM or in this thread, if you wish.


With 7 billion+ people living on planet Earth, we simply cannot afford unregulated capitalism of the old school. It is suicide.

No....we simply cannot afford the high birth rates and technology lag that non-capitalist societies breed.


On your celebrating of perosnal freedom, if that freedom is interpreted by people in a way that maximises their personal profits/gains, then it defends the excessive spending and wasting and consuming we see in the Western world, and imagining that to be standard for 7 billion people (becasue the freedom you claim for yourself you cannot deny to the others) means the life-thretaening shortatge of global ressources even within our own lifespans, yours and mine, followed by global collapse and utmost desaster to gloal civilisation, which will leave no civilisational structure whatever unshattered. the Wetsenr lifestyle simply cannot be the standard for the world to follow. It could be that if we were only 500 million or at most 1 billion people living on all the globe and no population growth and stable birth rates that do not increase population but only replaced the losses from people who died. But for ongoing, generations-lasting "Nachhaltigkeit" (sustainability) in our economic system, I more and more get the impression that even 1 billion would be too much if modern Western consummation standards are becoming the standards for all the world. And this problem of suicidal rises in population sizes has been the reason for the fall of many civilisations of the past, all over the world.
Really? The only civilizations I know of that collapsed due to population growth were Mesoamerican, and the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of those peoples are still not clear. All of the world's truly great empires; China, Egypt, Baylon, Assyria, Greece, Rome, Britain, to name a few) were destroyed from within by their own states before they suffered their fates, which usually involved being sacked by marauding barbarians or empires that hadn't bankrupted themselves yet. I'd like to know more of your thoughts on the matter, however.

In any case, the only reason that the earth can support the billions it does now, and the only reason that we have the concept of a negative birth rate, is because of capitalism. The prosperity, education, and responsibility that capitalism breeds creates a kind of supply-and-demand system out of human reproduction. The most capitalist countries all have low or negative birth rates, whereas countries that are more restrictive of market economics have the highest.

Perhaps there is a better way to reduce population stress and simultaneously better the human condition, but I don't know of one and you haven't shown me one yet. In fact, many of the economic reforms you seem to favor will only make the market function less efficiently and give more power to the state, thus ensuring a repeat of history. People will fight and die for limited resources, rather than homeostasize, if the state is given power. How many times must history teach us this lesson?

We couild learn from that - but for some reasopn that may have to do with our genes we refuse to do so, and instead do not look beyond the current day.

For some reason that may have to do with our genes? Please, my friend, let us not mince words on this. The influence of genes upon the human desire to grow, expand, and conquer, is quite clear. Like any animal, we are encouraged to propogate our genes by biological mechanisms. Perhaps you have not yet considered the idea that our bodies are merely vessels whose sole purpose is to ensure the replication of genes? Biologically speaking, genes are the masters and we are the slaves. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that idea, via pm should you so desire, as I am drifting off-topic.

Who cares for the great flood tomorrow if there is sun today. Why thinking about sustainability and stockpiling reserves for bad days ahead, if one could party or have another baby today. the results coming from this irresponsible attitude are predetermined and home-made, and will not be avoided.
I certainly don't disagree on the point that you make here. Humanity, and the genes that power it, naturally combat the circumstances you describe with sheer numbers. However, we are k-strategists, and the numbers approach towards survival is rather unsuitable for us.

Enter capitalism, the human system that does more with less on a regular basis. The idea of voluntary exchange is uniquely human and enlightened, but it is powered by our genetic predisposition towards self-interest. It certainly isn't perfect, but it's a lot more acceptable than giving a few humans and their genetic predispositions the power to dictate the affairs of nations!

Your solution to humanity's problems thus far has simply been to suggest that regulation or state intervention is necessary. It is easy to say that this or that should be different, or that something could be made better, but it is quite another to legalize and enforce those ideas in an effective fashion.
I realize that you haven't yet perfected whatever system it is that you believe to be required, but I know that system relies upon the state. With a feudalistic theme, how could it be otherwise? We've trod this ground before, but my ultimate question still stands; Why on Earth would you trust an institution, a very human institution, with fiat power, ever?
You simply cannot use the state in that manner and expect satisfactory results.

The simple truth my friend, is that we are not a perfect species. We are driven by evolutionary mechanisms that are far older and more successful than we are, as is the state, which is comprised of people like us. We cannot become a perfect, or even sustainable species, until we embrace the idea of voluntary exchange and abandon the philosophy of coercion.