Print

[bertfallen]

bertfallen

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

I don't blindly accept it. I just know for a fact that governments couldn't really give a !@#$% about people in a caring way. They care about our money.

Law enforcement aren't just there to enforce the law; they're there to protect people. When they use a potentially lethal weapon on someone who is clearly non-dangerous in the first place and already restrained, then I think there's a problem; they're clearly not protecting anyone, only causing harm.

7 try 3. Secondly you make it sound like police officers are 'big blue bastards*' I got news for you, they're not. He resisted arrest, and therfor must pay that consequence.

So, let me ask you. If this guy wasn't tasered and if it was only one cop, Should the police of let him go? And if he was let go, and consequences inside the hall got worse, and led to riots or something. Then I bet you'd be bitching that the cops should of done more to stop him. Because everyone that bitches about the way police do things seem to be hypocrites when the police decide not to do something

Jesus Christ. There is NEVER pleasing people. Police Apprehend a suspect. People !@#$% OMG U DID IT RONG!!!111!
Police cant apprenhend someone because they got away. OMG WTF DO U TINK UR FUKIN DOIN?
Police try to Apprehend someone but they retaliate, so police you force. OMFG AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL LOLOLOLOLOL

You were pleased to see a guy pinned to the floor then tazered?

No I was pleased to see a dickhead get tasered. I was also pleased to see the law being enforced. Lemme guess. You'd prefer a free country? Where your free to kill people and rape and murder? Wow. And, you claim to not blindly accept conspiricywhores, yet, you know for a fact that the bases of all conspiricies is true? So basically Yes. You do blindly accept conspiricies...

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I just said governments don't have the people's interests at heart, and then you go off on one saying I'd prefer rape and murder to grow rife? WTF? "Oh, if you don't think like 7 cops against one guy is a good thing then u support rape n murder olo!" Wow. Look at it, though. He should have been prosecuted for trespassing, yes, but not ganged up on, pinned to the floor then tazered. There should have been less cops going after him. That just made the police look cowardly and oppressive. How many times did they tazer him?

The country I prefer would be a socialist one, btw.

7? Try 3. At the end of the day. This !@#$% of a human being decided to cause a problem in a conference hall, he decided he was going to be "funny". People didn't like it, so they complained, police went to remove him, he resisted. So according to your logic, he should of been left alone... solving what? If he had murdered someone, and then resisted arrest, would you say that he should be left alone aswell? Oh wait no thats right, because hes broken the law Anyway, he resisted and so the police tried to subdue him, and he carried on, meaning much more force was required to the point he was tasered. See? He was tasered because he was resisting arrest. Not because the Government is corrupt or because police officers are power hungry like you seem to dream about.

[TheDarkJay]

TheDarkJay

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

Sorry, I just had to post this. I love lots of Richard Dawkins quotes

The population of the US is nearly 300 million, including many of the best educated, most talented, most resourceful, humane people on earth. By almost any measure of civilised attainment, from Nobel prize-counts on down, the US leads the world by miles. You would think that a country with such resources, and such a field of talent, would be able to elect a leader of the highest quality. Yet, what has happened? At the end of all the primaries and party caucuses, the speeches and the televised debates, after a year or more of non-stop electioneering bustle, who, out of that entire population of 300 million, emerges at the top of the heap? George Bush.

[Kyubi]

Kyubi

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

I don't blindly accept it. I just know for a fact that governments couldn't really give a !@#$% about people in a caring way. They care about our money.

Law enforcement aren't just there to enforce the law; they're there to protect people. When they use a potentially lethal weapon on someone who is clearly non-dangerous in the first place and already restrained, then I think there's a problem; they're clearly not protecting anyone, only causing harm.

7 try 3. Secondly you make it sound like police officers are 'big blue bastards*' I got news for you, they're not. He resisted arrest, and therfor must pay that consequence.

So, let me ask you. If this guy wasn't tasered and if it was only one cop, Should the police of let him go? And if he was let go, and consequences inside the hall got worse, and led to riots or something. Then I bet you'd be bitching that the cops should of done more to stop him. Because everyone that bitches about the way police do things seem to be hypocrites when the police decide not to do something

Jesus Christ. There is NEVER pleasing people. Police Apprehend a suspect. People !@#$% OMG U DID IT RONG!!!111!
Police cant apprenhend someone because they got away. OMG WTF DO U TINK UR FUKIN DOIN?
Police try to Apprehend someone but they retaliate, so police you force. OMFG AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL LOLOLOLOLOL

You were pleased to see a guy pinned to the floor then tazered?

No I was pleased to see a dickhead get tasered. I was also pleased to see the law being enforced. Lemme guess. You'd prefer a free country? Where your free to kill people and rape and murder? Wow. And, you claim to not blindly accept conspiricywhores, yet, you know for a fact that the bases of all conspiricies is true? So basically Yes. You do blindly accept conspiricies...

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I just said governments don't have the people's interests at heart, and then you go off on one saying I'd prefer rape and murder to grow rife? WTF? "Oh, if you don't think like 7 cops against one guy is a good thing then u support rape n murder olo!" Wow. Look at it, though. He should have been prosecuted for trespassing, yes, but not ganged up on, pinned to the floor then tazered. There should have been less cops going after him. That just made the police look cowardly and oppressive. How many times did they tazer him?

The country I prefer would be a socialist one, btw.

7? Try 3. At the end of the day. This !@#$% of a human being decided to cause a problem in a conference hall, he decided he was going to be "funny". People didn't like it, so they complained, police went to remove him, he resisted. So according to your logic, he should of been left alone... solving what? If he had murdered someone, and then resisted arrest, would you say that he should be left alone aswell? Oh wait no thats right, because hes broken the law Anyway, he resisted and so the police tried to subdue him, and he carried on, meaning much more force was required to the point he was tasered. See? He was tasered because he was resisting arrest. Not because the Government is corrupt or because police officers are power hungry like you seem to dream about.

Well by your logic, petty theft is just as bad as genocide. According to my logic, the police should weigh up the situation, and how to enact upon it. The guy was a total ass-hat, but shouldn't they have just dragged him out? I mean, they had him pinned to the floor- they could have cuffed him. But nope- they had to try and look all tough, because they're police and can do what they want to you. I suppose they were trying to look intimidating and make an example out of him. If Pyru is trying to make them look like "Big blue bastards", you're trying to make them look like "Gods in blue". The police force in America has too much power.

The governement is corrupt. All government systems can be corrupted. Communism was corrupted, and Captialism is now. Look at NAFTA, and you'll see what I mean. On Youtube just look up "Noam Chomsky Zack de la Rocha", it's very interesting and taught me a lot about how it works. It's basically Zack interviewing Noam about the NAFTA.

The police should use fair judgement, that's my view.

Gannon-banned brother.

[bertfallen]

bertfallen

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

I don't blindly accept it. I just know for a fact that governments couldn't really give a !@#$% about people in a caring way. They care about our money.

Law enforcement aren't just there to enforce the law; they're there to protect people. When they use a potentially lethal weapon on someone who is clearly non-dangerous in the first place and already restrained, then I think there's a problem; they're clearly not protecting anyone, only causing harm.

7 try 3. Secondly you make it sound like police officers are 'big blue bastards*' I got news for you, they're not. He resisted arrest, and therfor must pay that consequence.

So, let me ask you. If this guy wasn't tasered and if it was only one cop, Should the police of let him go? And if he was let go, and consequences inside the hall got worse, and led to riots or something. Then I bet you'd be bitching that the cops should of done more to stop him. Because everyone that bitches about the way police do things seem to be hypocrites when the police decide not to do something

Jesus Christ. There is NEVER pleasing people. Police Apprehend a suspect. People !@#$% OMG U DID IT RONG!!!111!
Police cant apprenhend someone because they got away. OMG WTF DO U TINK UR FUKIN DOIN?
Police try to Apprehend someone but they retaliate, so police you force. OMFG AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL LOLOLOLOLOL

You were pleased to see a guy pinned to the floor then tazered?

No I was pleased to see a dickhead get tasered. I was also pleased to see the law being enforced. Lemme guess. You'd prefer a free country? Where your free to kill people and rape and murder? Wow. And, you claim to not blindly accept conspiricywhores, yet, you know for a fact that the bases of all conspiricies is true? So basically Yes. You do blindly accept conspiricies...

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I just said governments don't have the people's interests at heart, and then you go off on one saying I'd prefer rape and murder to grow rife? WTF? "Oh, if you don't think like 7 cops against one guy is a good thing then u support rape n murder olo!" Wow. Look at it, though. He should have been prosecuted for trespassing, yes, but not ganged up on, pinned to the floor then tazered. There should have been less cops going after him. That just made the police look cowardly and oppressive. How many times did they tazer him?

The country I prefer would be a socialist one, btw.

7? Try 3. At the end of the day. This !@#$% of a human being decided to cause a problem in a conference hall, he decided he was going to be "funny". People didn't like it, so they complained, police went to remove him, he resisted. So according to your logic, he should of been left alone... solving what? If he had murdered someone, and then resisted arrest, would you say that he should be left alone aswell? Oh wait no thats right, because hes broken the law Anyway, he resisted and so the police tried to subdue him, and he carried on, meaning much more force was required to the point he was tasered. See? He was tasered because he was resisting arrest. Not because the Government is corrupt or because police officers are power hungry like you seem to dream about.

Well by your logic, petty theft is just as bad as genocide. According to my logic, the police should weigh up the situation, and how to enact upon it. The guy was a total ass-hat, but shouldn't they have just dragged him out? I mean, they had him pinned to the floor- they could have cuffed him. But nope- they had to try and look all tough, because they're police and can do what they want to you. I suppose they were trying to look intimidating and make an example out of him. If Pyru is trying to make them look like "Big blue bastards", you're trying to make them look like "Gods in blue". The police force in America has too much power.

The governement is corrupt. All government systems can be corrupted. Communism was corrupted, and Captialism is now. Look at NAFTA, and you'll see what I mean. On Youtube just look up "Noam Chomsky Zack de la Rocha", it's very interesting and taught me a lot about how it works. It's basically Zack interviewing Noam about the NAFTA.

The police should use fair judgement, that's my view.

Breaking the law, is breaking the law. I gotta ask have you ever tried to cuff someone when they flailing around like a baby? And no I meant 'Big Blue Bastards*' (referring to Half Life, you know... them... big... blue... well bastards. The ones you cant kill without blowing them the !@#$% up.) The Police force arn't indestruble. They arn't super super strong.

[Kyubi]

Kyubi

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

I haven't played Half Life- so you lost me on that one, lol.

Yes, the police aren't super strong, but they try to make themselves look big. Well from what I hear, anyway.

Gannon-banned brother.

[bertfallen]

bertfallen

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

I haven't played Half Life- so you lost me on that one, lol.

Yes, the police aren't super strong, but they try to make themselves look big. Well from what I hear, anyway.

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

Sorry, I just had to post this. I love lots of Richard Dawkins quotes

The population of the US is nearly 300 million, including many of the best educated, most talented, most resourceful, humane people on earth. By almost any measure of civilised attainment, from Nobel prize-counts on down, the US leads the world by miles. You would think that a country with such resources, and such a field of talent, would be able to elect a leader of the highest quality. Yet, what has happened? At the end of all the primaries and party caucuses, the speeches and the televised debates, after a year or more of non-stop electioneering bustle, who, out of that entire population of 300 million, emerges at the top of the heap? George Bush.

I think it just shows that no matter how many intelligent people there are out of those 300 million, the rest of the 300 million will never trust a smart man.

The governement is corrupt. All government systems can be corrupted. Communism was corrupted, and Captialism is now. Look at NAFTA, and you'll see what I mean. On Youtube just look up "Noam Chomsky Zack de la Rocha", it's very interesting and taught me a lot about how it works. It's basically Zack interviewing Noam about the NAFTA.

The police should use fair judgement, that's my view.

Capitalism is based on corruption. It's an entire system which says "Hey, guess what - everyone's out for number one, and only willing to help anyone else out only if it helps THEM out more."

Breaking the law, is breaking the law. I gotta ask have you ever tried to cuff someone when they flailing around like a baby? And no I meant 'Big Blue Bastards*' (referring to Half Life, you know... them... big... blue... well bastards. The ones you cant kill without blowing them the !@#$% up.) The Police force arn't indestruble. They arn't super super strong.

To be honest, I would rather have a police officer get slapped when they're trying to cuff someone who doesn't really need arresting, than for a (relatively) innocent man to be forced to the floor and tasered. If he'd had a heart condition (which, of course, the police wouldn't have known about) that very well could've been fatal.

[bertfallen]

bertfallen

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

Breaking the law, is breaking the law. I gotta ask have you ever tried to cuff someone when they flailing around like a baby? And no I meant 'Big Blue Bastards*' (referring to Half Life, you know... them... big... blue... well bastards. The ones you cant kill without blowing them the !@#$% up.) The Police force arn't indestruble. They arn't super super strong.

To be honest, I would rather have a police officer get slapped when they're trying to cuff someone who doesn't really need arresting, than for a (relatively) innocent man to be forced to the floor and tasered. If he'd had a heart condition (which, of course, the police wouldn't have known about) that very well could've been fatal.

If a cop is arresting you for no reason. Dont argue UNTIL your being questioned. Cos if you resist then the police will use excessive force. The whole idea of excessive force is to intimidate crinimals. Lets face who wants to be tasered? Do as your old and it wont happen

[Venus]

Venus

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

The governement is corrupt. All government systems can be corrupted. Communism was corrupted, and Captialism is now. Look at NAFTA, and you'll see what I mean. On Youtube just look up "Noam Chomsky Zack de la Rocha", it's very interesting and taught me a lot about how it works. It's basically Zack interviewing Noam about the NAFTA.

The police should use fair judgement, that's my view.

Capitalism is based on corruption. It's an entire system which says "Hey, guess what - everyone's out for number one, and only willing to help anyone else out only if it helps THEM out more."

Arguably people think that way after capitalism gives them an excuse for their actions; "I make these cheap burgers for consumers by collecting dead pets and underpaying my staff. My benefit is their benefits, amirite!? Oh and better yet, I've already bought out all competition and I own all patents on burger-grills! More power for me is also a benefit for them, yes yes yes I love this system!". Of course he does not mention the dead pets or the underpaying staff parts or most of anything of that (except that the burgers are cheap), so the "consumers" will stay ignorant and buy his damn cheap burgers, because... well... they are cheap (dammit, gotta love "consumers" logic). Situations like those just means the state needs to sue the company in question which arguably gives one the conclusion that capitalism does not solve the corruption it claims to remove, or maybe at least it potentially creates new corruption.

What I also mean is; let people be raised in a social society and they will generally learn to think socially, just like people raised in a capitalist society will generally learn to think anti-socially. It just happens to be that today people think anti-socially because we live in a capitalist society, and for obvious reasons (for them) that's the correct way of a society. I personally believe a social society would work just as good if not better, because I don't even believe that what capitalism says "that people are inherently power-hungry and everyone can benefit from that" is true (like I said, I think it's just made as an excuse). Instead I believe not everyone is designed the same; some might be power-hungry, but there's also loads of people that have other wishes (and capitalism fails at least when it does not recognize that); a good society would take all diversity into account (note however that that does not necessarily mean it has to be a social one though).

My signature is empty.

[Kyubi]

Kyubi

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

The governement is corrupt. All government systems can be corrupted. Communism was corrupted, and Captialism is now. Look at NAFTA, and you'll see what I mean. On Youtube just look up "Noam Chomsky Zack de la Rocha", it's very interesting and taught me a lot about how it works. It's basically Zack interviewing Noam about the NAFTA.

The police should use fair judgement, that's my view.

Capitalism is based on corruption. It's an entire system which says "Hey, guess what - everyone's out for number one, and only willing to help anyone else out only if it helps THEM out more."

Arguably people think that way after capitalism gives them an excuse for their actions; "I make these cheap burgers for consumers by collecting dead pets and underpaying my staff. My benefit is their benefits, amirite!? Oh and better yet, I've already bought out all competition and I own all patents on burger-grills! More power for me is also a benefit for them, yes yes yes I love this system!". Of course he does not mention the dead pets or the underpaying staff parts or most of anything of that (except that the burgers are cheap), so the "consumers" will stay ignorant and buy his damn cheap burgers, because... well... they are cheap (dammit, gotta love "consumers" logic). Situations like those just means the state needs to sue the company in question which arguably gives one the conclusion that capitalism does not solve the corruption it claims to remove, or maybe at least it potentially creates new corruption.

What I also mean is; let people be raised in a social society and they will generally learn to think socially, just like people raised in a capitalist society will generally learn to think anti-socially. It just happens to be that today people think anti-socially because we live in a capitalist society, and for obvious reasons (for them) that's the correct way of a society. I personally believe a social society would work just as good if not better, because I don't even believe that what capitalism says "that people are inherently power-hungry and everyone can benefit from that" is true (like I said, I think it's just made as an excuse). Instead I believe not everyone is designed the same; some might be power-hungry, but there's also loads of people that have other wishes (and capitalism fails at least when it does not recognize that); a good society would take all diversity into account (note however that that does not necessarily mean it has to be a social one though).

Venus let's have babies. You basically said my entire logic (mostly). Except for the part that I believe Socialism is the only way for a country to be good. Or a derivative of it.

Gannon-banned brother.

[Swoftu]

Swoftu

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

Venus let's have babies. You basically said my entire logic (mostly). Except for the part that I believe Socialism is the only way for a country to be good. Or a derivative of it.

ITT: people who know nothing about economics.

Capitalism is based on corruption. It's an entire system which says "Hey, guess what - everyone's out for number one, and only willing to help anyone else out only if it helps THEM out more."

Nope. Capitalism is based on maximizing profits; Corruption is a byproduct.

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

Capitalism is based on corruption. It's an entire system which says "Hey, guess what - everyone's out for number one, and only willing to help anyone else out only if it helps THEM out more."

Nope. Capitalism is based on maximizing profits; Corruption is a byproduct.

Not maximising profits; each individual maximising personal welfare with no consideration as to the welfare of others. In the purist sense of capitalism, this amounts to doing anything at all necessary to improve things for oneself. Helping anyone else is incidental and only a means to an end.

And that is corruption in its very purest state; seeking only one end, serving oneself, and seeing all others as tools to be used as much as possible.

[Swoftu]

Swoftu

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

Capitalism is based on corruption. It's an entire system which says "Hey, guess what - everyone's out for number one, and only willing to help anyone else out only if it helps THEM out more."

Nope. Capitalism is based on maximizing profits; Corruption is a byproduct.

Not maximising profits; each individual maximising personal welfare with no consideration as to the welfare of others. In the purist sense of capitalism, this amounts to doing anything at all necessary to improve things for oneself. Helping anyone else is incidental and only a means to an end.

And that is corruption in its very purest state; seeking only one end, serving oneself, and seeing all others as tools to be used as much as possible.

No. In the most general sense, Capitalism is defined as an economic system where business is owned by private individuals and corporations looking to maximize profits. There is no "ZOMG LOOK OUT FOR Y'SELF YO", the corruption is a !@#$% byproduct.

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

No. In the most general sense, Capitalism is defined as an economic system where business is owned by private individuals and corporations looking to maximize profits. There is no "ZOMG LOOK OUT FOR Y'SELF YO", the corruption is a !@#$% byproduct.

The "general sense" never adequately describes any economic system.

Even when first described by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations", capitalism was characterised by "the invisible hand" - supposed balanced forces of self-interest between producers and consumers. The concept being that as both producers and consumers are motivated to maximising personal welfare - producers aim to maximise profits, while consumers seek to minimise cost and maximise utility - that both come to a "compromise", marked by an equilibrium price that is mutually acceptable to both producers and consumers.

These assumptions most of the time turn out to be incorrect; in the real world, there are not balanced forces between consumers and producers. Under capitalism, due to economies of scale, often a single firm or small number of firms will come to dominate a market (real-world examples include Microsoft in OSes, Apple in personal music players, WalMart in retailing, and Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola and Cadbury-Schweppes dominating soft drinks). These firms will then erect so-called "barriers to entry" to other firms - usually by creating brand loyalty, or raising the level of technology necessary for other firms to compete in the market. This makes the market "safe" for them - suddenly, they have more power than the consumer and can start to abuse this.

In the long run, this leads to a lack of innovation, not to mention higher prices and lower outputs than would exist in a competitive economy. Eventually, these companies may even stop producing the product consumers want, as they can produce an alternative even more cheaply (e.g. Apple - consumers wanted an iPhone without the phone, instead they got the iPod Touch which is crap in comparison. Or, even better, an iPhone that you could use on other carriers. Not happening.). Consumers lose out every way possible - low quality products that they don't want, but are forced to put up with, high prices and low available quantities. Even worse, the possibility of completely new, original products entering the market are incredibly unlikely, due to the huge costs associated because of the barriers to entry.

And I haven't even gotten STARTED on the inequality problems caused by capitalism...

[Mamoruanime]

Mamoruanime

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

Ultimately free speech cannot be dead, because if it were, we wouldn't have the ability to say (and post) anything even remotely similar to the things that has been said (and posted) here. Realistically, people don't tend to take things at just simply face value and don't look into situations entirely, and thats an issue that this country has more so than free speech issues (which by the way, its usually the ones causing trouble to begin with that create the hype simply for the sake of causing more trouble). Personally, I don't think our freedom of speech has gone down the shitter. But, if you ask me, its the people who complain about 'this' or 'that' being offensive (IE creating political correctness, which in turn causes a loss of freedom of speech) that makes us lose our core freedoms. By deeming certain words or actions offensive, people then feel morally compelled to stay away from those words and or actions; but where do people draw the line? Like for example;

we're not supposed to say midget anymore, because midget is now considered offensive. The correct term became "little people". Well, now in turn thats now considered offensive. So we cant say midget or little people anymore, its now "dwarf". BUT WTF, Dwarf sounds more offensive than either of those terms! But still, I can, according to the government say any word I want to refer to that particular condition; however its the people that limit that freedom of speech by taking offense to the word(s).

Now, my opinion on protest and punishment for disorderly conduct during a protest? I think its a good thing. Everybody has the right to protest; that is, to disagree with something and make it known. However, that does not mean that everyone has the right to hold up picket signs (anyone can hold up picket signs, its the next stuff that I'm talking about ), cause a ruckus and disturb the peace. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech or the right to protest. It has to do with disturbing the people in your surroundings to a point to where there needs to be action taken by law enforcement. I personally hate it when people milk issues, and hold up picket signs and protest rallies over issues. It really does not solve anything and its just generally annoying. I think theres more appropriate ways to handle things outside of crying about it and letting everyone know you're crying over it lol I hate it even more however when someone starts a riot (which, essentially a protest rally is just that, a riot), gets in trouble, and then raises the constitution flag and says "I have the right to do this!", when realistically, they don't; they're just spinning the law in a way that sounds good to them, and sadly getting away with it. Disturbing the peace and trespassing (and even loitering) is punishable by fine or jail time; and its not a freedom of speech issue in the least bit.

But back to my point; free speech isn't dead. You can say ANYTHING you want to at any given time in America; however, if it crosses certain boundaries (IE threats) it is absolutely 100% correct for police to take action. I cant just sit on a plane and say "I HAVE A BOMB AND IM GUNNA BLOW YOU UP" and expect to be sitting on the cat-bird seat without getting in trouble. Granted thats a severe example, but its still all the same. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism, fascism, or any other ism, its just how things go. No one would feel safe if we couldn't take action on someone running around causing trouble just because they say that they have the freedom to do that.

To finish up, before people jump to the conclusion that I have a political agenda behind any of what I just posted; I have NO political alignment; I am as it stands now politically neutral (hehe Chaotic Neutral to all you D&D geeks), and I will honestly vote for anyone or anything that fits what I feel either myself or this country needs. And I think thats about all I have to say about this o.0 I pretty much got everything out that I could think of saying <_<

[Swoftu]

Swoftu

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

No. In the most general sense, Capitalism is defined as an economic system where business is owned by private individuals and corporations looking to maximize profits. There is no "ZOMG LOOK OUT FOR Y'SELF YO", the corruption is a !@#$% byproduct.

The "general sense" never adequately describes any economic system.

Even when first described by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations", capitalism was characterised by "the invisible hand" - supposed balanced forces of self-interest between producers and consumers. The concept being that as both producers and consumers are motivated to maximising personal welfare - producers aim to maximise profits, while consumers seek to minimise cost and maximise utility - that both come to a "compromise", marked by an equilibrium price that is mutually acceptable to both producers and consumers.

These assumptions most of the time turn out to be incorrect; in the real world, there are not balanced forces between consumers and producers. Under capitalism, due to economies of scale, often a single firm or small number of firms will come to dominate a market (real-world examples include Microsoft in OSes, Apple in personal music players, WalMart in retailing, and Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola and Cadbury-Schweppes dominating soft drinks). These firms will then erect so-called "barriers to entry" to other firms - usually by creating brand loyalty, or raising the level of technology necessary for other firms to compete in the market. This makes the market "safe" for them - suddenly, they have more power than the consumer and can start to abuse this.

In the long run, this leads to a lack of innovation, not to mention higher prices and lower outputs than would exist in a competitive economy. Eventually, these companies may even stop producing the product consumers want, as they can produce an alternative even more cheaply (e.g. Apple - consumers wanted an iPhone without the phone, instead they got the iPod Touch which is crap in comparison. Or, even better, an iPhone that you could use on other carriers. Not happening.). Consumers lose out every way possible - low quality products that they don't want, but are forced to put up with, high prices and low available quantities. Even worse, the possibility of completely new, original products entering the market are incredibly unlikely, due to the huge costs associated because of the barriers to entry.

And I haven't even gotten STARTED on the inequality problems caused by capitalism...

I'm not defending capitalism, I'm just saying that your definitions are dishonest. Sure those things do happen, but they still happen as a byproduct. You can insist that it's 'evil' and whatnot, but it's like saying that you can only use guns to kill people. BUT GUESS WHAT, YOU CAN KILL WHALES, BEARS, AND CATS WITH THEM TOO; EVEN IN MORE WAYS THAN JUST USING THE BULLETS (yeah, that gun part probably made no !@#$% sense at all. ignore it. <_<)

its now "dwarf". BUT WTF, Dwarf sounds more offensive than either of those terms!

But dwarves make swords, so they're awesome.

[Mamoruanime]

Mamoruanime

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

its now "dwarf". BUT WTF, Dwarf sounds more offensive than either of those terms!

But dwarves make swords, so they're awesome.

rofl that is not the response I was expecting to my post XD

[TheDarkJay]

TheDarkJay

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

Capitalism is based on corruption. It's an entire system which says "Hey, guess what - everyone's out for number one, and only willing to help anyone else out only if it helps THEM out more."

And the problem with this is what? Humans are selfish being by nature. We are socially motivated, selfish beings. Just about any and every action a person does can be ultimately traced back to selfish intentions, or mental illness

The system isn't based on corruption, humanity itself is.

I can't pick out one good quote, so instead I give you many (again from Richard Dawkins, because I've not heard of many other people who discuss this topic from the same position (scientific) as he does):
The Selfish Gene (1976, 1989)

    * We no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the deep problems: Is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man?

    * The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.

    * Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.

    * The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.

    * We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.

    * I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave.

    * Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.

    * Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.

    * They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.

    * No doubt some of your cousins and great-uncles died in childhood, but not a single one of your ancestors did. Ancestors just don't die young!

    * The genes are the master programmers, and they are programming for their lives.

    * Whenever a system of communication evolves, there is always the danger that some will exploit the system for their own ends.

    * ... it is certainly wrong to condemn poor old Homo Sapiens as the only species to kill his own kind, the only inheritor of the mark of Cain, and similar melodramatic charges.

    * Group selection theory would therefore predict a tendency to evolve towards an all-dove conspiracy ... But the trouble with conspiracies, even those that are to everybody's advantage in the long run, is that they are open to abuse.

    * ... a lion wants to eat an antelope's body, but the antelope has very different plans for its body. This is not normally regarded as competition for a resource, but logically it is hard to see why not.

    * What is the selfish gene? It is not just one single physical bit of DNA. Just as in the primeval soup, it is all replicas of a particular bit of DNA, distributed throughout the world.

    * ... a gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies. If so, this would appear as individual altruism but it would be brought about by gene selfishness.

    * It is normally possible to be much more certain who your children are than who your brothers are. And you can be more certain still who you yourself are!

    * The truth is that all examples of child protection and parental care, and all associated bodily organs ... are examples of the working in nature of the kin-selection principle.

    * But you cannot have an unnatural welfare state, unless you also have unnatural birth control, otherwise the end result will be misery even greater than that which obtains in nature.

    * ... leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive methods ... express a preference for "natural" methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation.

[Theforeshadower]

Theforeshadower

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

Um, someone said something about a social-society being better than a capitalistic...
What exactly do you mean?  Because throughout history, there are quite a few attempts to make a social society and they all failed.  That's if you are thinking the same way I am.  I think Rapl Waldo Emerson tried it...I think,if I remember correctly.  There's another author who wrote about it and it's falling in two years.  It seems good at first.  Put some in;take some out.  Pretty soon, people take more than they give and the system begins to corrode and fall apart.  People once again look out for number one.  I wish it was as simple as everyone points out.
Again, I am only stating this if you are thinking about a social-society as I am...

Also, the thing with capitalism is that we have grown so accustomed to it, we may think we want somethingelse but the minute someone changes it, we freak out.  I personally wish America would go to a Republic.  That way if people do not like how things are run, they can blame no one but themselves.  At least in a true republic, everything is voted on by the people.  Big business could not really get involved(even though there still are ways).  The masses would be held accountable for their decisions.  We are kind of that way but we elect officials instead of direct vote.  I am tired of people bitching about their leadership,when they are the ones who put the leaders there.
"Waaa..George Bush sucks!"
You put him there.  When the people think they made a bad choice,they throw it at someone else.  No one takes the blame for what they do and it's !@#$%.  And about free speech...
I believe in free speech in the right to express your opinions and ideals.
If you are a Christian, you should be aloud to preach outside if you want.  Same goes for Muslims,Buddists,etc.  If you think the government did something wrong, the people should be aloud to speak.  Is it dead yet?  No, but it is getting there along with the rest of our Bill of Rights.
Next will be:
Freedom of religion(ie separation of church and state will be a joke)
Right to bear arms(people are easier to control when they do not have weapons...no brainer)
Whatever.
That's my shpeal...Sorry if it went everywhere.

• 

[TheDarkJay]

TheDarkJay

Re: Free Speech is Dead in America

I'm much rather have freedom from religion. You'd be surprised how easily it can gain control when it is given the chance. After all, when religion enters, and a person speaks the magical words "I believe", all rational debate is forced to silently tip-toe away.

I personally would rather charge the person saying "I believe" debate and ration guns-a-blazing, with a big hand grenade full of logic and science. But that's just me...