What is capitalism?

What capitalism is can be summed up simply as a free exchange of value for equal value.   What that means is that people are free to exchange between each other their goods, effort, ideas, and any thing else with a value, tangible or otherwise.


Before I continue, I feel that I need to define a few terms.

Property is the sum of what an individual owns. This is not limited to tangible goods, but includes their life, labor, and ideas.

Free exchange is the principle that a person is free to dispose of their property as they see fit. this means that, not only is a person free to sell their property, but is also free from inducement to sell their property if they do not wish to do so. This also includes freedom from selling their property for a value of exchange less than they feel the property is worth.

Market-based economy is an economic system where goods and services are sold in an open market, and the relative scarcity and demand for the good or service determines the relative worth of the good or service.



it is not, an unrestrained search for wealth, even if that search is not incompatible with capitalism. it is a delicate system that needs a strong government to protect the property rights of it's citizens. By this, I mean, the government needs to have the authority to match the responsibility entrusted in it.

capitalism has been given a bad reputation for a while, but this is an undeserved reputation, as it stems from a lack of a basic understanding of what it is. There are many people that can be blamed for this, social activists that think they know better than everyone else, opportunistic politicians, and corrupt businessmen are a few. The recent meltdown on wall street is not an indictment on capitalism, but an affirmation of it's most fundamental principles. The business that needed the bailout were all guilty of: fraud, stock manipulation, seeking government protections instead of competing with other businesses, and worst of all, rewarding those entrusted to run the businesses for failing to run the businesses properly.


All of those behaviors are counter to the most fundamental principle of capitalism, which is a fair exchange between two or more consenting parties.
Fraud violates this principle because it is outright theft. while it may not use force as an inducement, it is still theft because one or more parties involved in the exchange is being deceived, and is therefore unable to give an informed consent.
Stock manipulation is also theft, as it involves fraud.
Seeking government protection violates this principle because it allows a party in the exchange to force the other party to give a greater value in exchange than the true worth of what they are receiving.
The reason the last is the worst is due to it not only being theft, but also a form of theft that encourages the other behaviors.

Another aspect of capitalism in the market-based economy is the labor market. This is the market for employees, the people that make the goods or provide the services sold in the market for goods and services. because of the previously mentioned behaviors, this market has suffered greatly. This is a terrible thing, because those that earn their living in the labor market are unable to purchase the goods and services that they provide. This is due to the practice of outsourcing and limiting benefits or pay.

By limiting pay, the company makes short-term gains, but at the cost of long-term stagnation. This stagnation means that, in times of economic crisis, the economy is slow to recover, as the fundamental mechanic of the economy, free exchange, is stifled due to a lack of disposable income. This is due to the fact that a person can only spend so much money in a limited amount of time, and since the practice of limiting pay to benefit those at the top of the company has the effect of concentrating wealth, there are fewer consumers, as the few with disposable income do not create enough demand for the goods being produced to justify creating new jobs in order to create even more goods. this has the effect of limiting the market cycle.

In short, capitalism did not fail. in fact, it succeeded until the government intervened and prevented the deserved failure of the business that were pursuing bad policies.

i had to share this.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/GrEbJBFWIPkHere is a powerful argument for pulling our collective heads out of our asses on the issue of same gender marriage.

My view is simply, if heterosexual couples are able to be married, and gain all of the rights and privileges therein, and our constitution prohibits granting rights to some citizens while denying them to others, then either homosexual couples have the right to get married, or noone does, and all marriages have no legal standing.

equality in military service.

Anyone that knows me knows that I am a vet, and now those of you that didn't know, now do.

that having been said, i have adopted certain values because of both my service, and because of the  influence of my jrotc instructors, Col. Jones, and Csm Garcia, from high school. i was taught that the army exists to protect the constitution, and the values within the document. I was also taught that double standards are unacceptable, as that is the quickest way to create unjust situations.

Unfortunately, the ideals of the military are not being upheld. We still have a problem with people trying to keep gays and lesbians out of the military they are volunteering to serve in, we keep women from serving in combat arms, and we have diffetent standards for women than we have for men.

The arguments against letting gays and lesbians serve openly usually boil down to one of two equally fallacious arguments. Those arguing to stop them from serving either argue that there will be a 'breakdown of unit cohesion," or cite religious reasons. The first has been dis-proven, as gays and lesbians currently serve, just not openly. The reason that this serves as evidence that the claim is false is that there has been none of the alleged 'breakdown of unit cohesion," and therefore, how could theur service create the alleged result. As for the reasoning of " they might make a pass at me" or " what about sexual assault?" Well, sinse it hasn't happened, it is unlikely to happen just because they are allowed to serve openly.

Another counter to the claims of allowing gays and lesbians to serve  having a detrimental effect is simple crime statistics, which show that sexual assault is predominantly committed by 20 something white heterosexual males, out of proportion to their portion of the population. This includes same gender sexual assault.

As to the religious arguments, the first amendment's establishment clause is pretty specific on that, and it isn't allowed as a reason to bar them from service.

As for a very good reason to allow them to serve, it is the core of military values, a value so vital to the army, that the Drill sergeants wear it as their badge of office, The United States constitution. In the constitution, it states that ALL citizens are guaranteed the full and equal protection under the law. This has NO exceptions, and is one of the few parts of the constitution that is absolute.



Now, as to allowing women to serve in combat arms, I am for it, but with one qualification, the women need to meet all of the standards that the men do, and at the same level as the men. This means that they need to have the same marksmanship scores, the same roadmarches, the same pt standards, everything barring those things that are to prevent sexual harassment and/or hygiene issues.

Women have repeatedly proven themselves to be as professional, dedicated, strong, and tough as the men, we just need to make it so that the standards they are expected to meet reflect that. It is the biased standards that will guarantee a brakdown of cohesion, as it is unjust to allow women to perform duties without proving themselves capable.

This is because it takes a certain personality to do a combat arms job, and this personality has little respect for artificial authority. This is especially true in the armor community, which I was/am a part of. We are a very independently-minded group, an as such, the shiny on your collar has little bearing on the respect you receive, you have to prove yourself to those you serve with before you can have their full respect. Putting women in that sort of unit, without holding them to the same standard puts the m at a disadvantage in regards to earning this respect, as they have to both earn the respect, and overcome the perception, real or otherwise, that she did not earn her position, but was given preferential treatment.

The differing standards for women are not limited to job qualifications, but also to other aspects of life. One example is pregnancy. If a male soldier knowingly and or intentionally commits an act that they know will make them unable to perform their duties, they will be punished for doing so. If a woman gets pregnant, however, she is able to ask for light duties, and is undeployable. Thisresults in women being able to commit the same act as a man, but recieving a different treatment as a result.
Before anyone starts going apeshit over "women's rights," remember, the woman made a conscious, informed decision to enlist, and noone coerced her into enlisting. She made a decision that had an opportunity cost attached, either she can be a soldier with all of the commitments that come with being a soldier, or she can start a family with all of those commitments, but not both as the commitments conflict with one another.
Another double standard is hygiene facilities, women are given preferential treatment when access to showering facilities are limited, while male soldiers have to make do, often with extreme regulations on when and where they are allowed to bathe.

All of these double standards are problematic because the military exists to safeguard the constitution and it's values, but those values are not being applied to the military. It is time to fix these problems and create a better, stronger military.

Real truth in media, not just saying honest words, but speaking them honestly.

Truth in media seems like a dead creature.

What I mean is, with the consolidation of news outlets, the race for profits, lack of standards for documentaries, and extremely partisan politics  influencing reporting, there seems to be no real truth in news media any longer.

WARNING: SOMETHING SHOCKING IS COMING UP!!!!

one of the most commonly used techniques to lie witout overtly lying used in the newsmedia is to grab attention, either with an exciting, but vague statement about an upcoming piece, or to print a shocking or inflamatory headline in bold type, while the article is neutral, or even contradicts the headline.
While "more at 11" is frustrating or misleading, the headline/content dissonance is worse. This is a technique used to take a particular position without commiting to it. it is a manipulation of the way that the human mind, regardless of intellect, works. The bold type puts a subconscious message in the readers' minds, one that overpowers the content of the article.

A friend of mine recently tried to convince me of the good intent of an organization, one that i am opposed to on the grounds that i believe that they perpetuate bigotry towards my religion. She showed an article written by  them, attempting to use it as evidence of their sincere intent. the problem was, that the article was an example of why I am opposed to them. while the overt message was fine, the subconscious one was not so. The title of the article, and bold face type that lead into each section of  the article created negative connotations, and the pictures accompanying the article had no captions, but were stereotypical images associated with negative images of my religion. my friend, assuming that they were trying to reach an "educated" audience said that it was fine, since the overt message was positive.

The problem is, the writers of the article are educated, the organization is full of "educated" people. They had to have taken some course in writing in order to complete that education, so they know about the effect of placing the right phrases  in bold, in order to convey a different message subconsciously. Ethically, it is no better than yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room, and then whispering " would be bad right now."

Both sides cannot be "pro-"

Another way  that truth is distorted is the "pro-life", "pro-choice" crap.
It is complete bullshit, not one of  the "pro-lifers" is "pro-life" when it comes to abortion, they are Anti-abortion. The pro-choice people are not for choice, they are pro-abortion. Neither is honest about their position because of the rhetorical effect it would create. Stating that your position is anti- anything gains you the label of "negative," while abortion is an extremely charged issue, and stating that you are for abortion, regardless of reason why, would be interpreted as being in favor of mandatory abortion.

The last one I will talk about today is the re-labeling of phenomena. When i was a kid in the 80's. illegal immigrants were called illegal aliens, sort of referring to their legal status. then they were relabeled illegal immigrants, then undocumented immigrants, then undocumented guest workers. Today, they are referred to a "migrants." While I have no problem with saying "illegal immigrants" the terms that followed, while somewhat synonymous in the very broad sense of being someone who moves to another place, a migrant has a legal right to be in a country, where an illegal immigrant does not.
This phenomena is troubling, because it is outright lying, but it is hard to catch, because the person/people doing it can simply say that the words are synonyms, and that they were being " sensitive." 


I say screw this crap. I despise "politically correct" speech. I despise it not only because of the bullshit condescension and inherent dishonesty behind euphemistic language, but because you are not doing anything real to avoid hurting feelings. People catch on to what you really mean when you use the bullshit, that you not only want to say the other term you are avoiding, but that you have so little respect for them that you think that they are fooled. Let us say what we mean, mean what we say, and damn the consequences.

A little remedial U.S. history

Today's rant is about the roots of the United States, and why movements like the "tea party" and political parties in general, are bad for the united states.

Most believe that the reason that the United states broke away from Britain was a matter of government, but that is only part of the story. We all know of the battle cry of " No taxation without representation." What is less known is why the taxes were imposed, and who benefited. The taxes that were being imposed were to keep the British East India Company, one of the first corporations, afloat after many expenses incurred by their many ventures.

This behavior on the part of a government is a hallmark of mercantilism, which was the dominant economic model of the time. The system of mercantilism benefited those at the top of society, but created the maldistribution of wealth that Adam Smith described when outlining his theories regarding capital.

What we have now is a model moving away from market-based capitalism, and is shifting towards the mercantilism model.
Evidence of this shift is deregulation of credit lending practices coupled with a removal of bankruptcy protections.
What this means for the taxpayers is that their creditors are now allowed to change interest rates at will and without cause, while they, the debtor no longer has relief. This was done despite the overwhelming evidence that the vast majority (93%) of private bankruptcies were due to illness, job loss, or divorce. Another way that our model is shifting is the subsidizing of corporations, either through direct subsidies, "bailouts," or through the practice of protective tariffs. All of these policies mean that we, the consumers, lose in the market, due to increased prices and decreased competition.


When we broke away from Britain, we did not have political parties, and were leery of them, as a whole. This was due to a distrust of putting power in the hands of too few people, as their needs, and the needs of their group, would not always be the same as those of the nation as a whole. President Washington even went so far as to warn against the notion of political parties.

The matter of political parties is benign, in and of itself, but when the wants/needs of the party are set against the best interest of the nation, we have a situation where the nation will, unfailingly, tear itself apart. If we look at the most recent administration, and the previous democratic administration, the behavior of the Republican party takes on an almost treasonous tone. In both times, the government had a shutdown of services, and at the same time, the republicans were engaged in behavior that could kindly be called obstructionist, and less kindly, treasonous pandering to the religious fundamentists they "represent." I call their behavior treasonous, because they are, by obstructing business, are usurping both the election process from the people, but the role of the president. In any other nation, their behavior would be called a "bloodless coup."


In his farewell address, president Washington made a statement to the effect of assuming that religion and morality were not intrinsically linked, but two separate qualities that one could possess, and not necessarily possess both. In their correspondence, many of those credited as 'founding fathers," express the idea that the government, while influenced by the religious values of the people that make it up, cannot exist if religion and government are intertwined.


I think this is very important, and is a fact that is both misunderstood and misrepresented. what those that created this nation were attempting to say was very simple. They wanted it clear that mixing religion and government always corrupts both. They understood the value placed on religion by the people of the United States, but also knew of the horrors created when religion had the backing of the government, and the inherent corruption of government with too much influence from religion. The republicans are currently pandering to a religious base( I use that term with more than one intended meaning) that has values contrary to what it has been accepted to mea to be "American." These people want a racist, sexist country where non-christians are second-class citizens. They want a Sharia law style of government, where their religious text forme the literal basis of the law. they want their religion taught as science.




What scares me about the policies pursued by those currently in political power is the sheer ignorance of what it will do, not only to the United states, but to the whole world. if this massive backslide is not stopped, we will see the return of the dark ages, with corporations replacing feudal lords.