Corporations are not capitalism: Vox Day advocates ditching Congress, conglomerates

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Monday, October 11, 2004 | Vox Day

[Durus]

Is that where Lincoln placed emphasis? He placed the idea of a united country over that of his neighbors to the south. One could make an argument that it was representative of the struggle between agriculture and industrialization. I could go on about Lincoln but it's too easy to find quotes where he all but contradicts other quotes he made. The safest thing to say about Lincoln was that he was a politician before anything else.

[XBob]

45-"Unfortunately most people can't see the difference between corporatism and capitalism. Corporations use their influence to pervert our legal system and the entire free enterprise system. That they do it under the guise of capitalism make it more repugnant. Corporatism is the enemy of free market capitalism."

good call see :

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3054

What is American Corporatism?
By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 13, 2002

[XBob]

58- excellent summary

[XBob]

61 - " Labor in and of itself has little value."

????

ROTFL

Labor is only the foundational value of EVERYTHING we value.

[XBob]

65 - you are absolutely hilarious.

Labor has no value? A ditch has no value?

It's pretty obvious you never worked or never were in the military.

[XBob]

73 - "If nobody paid you to dig a ditch, and you were dumb enough to dig one that you didn't need, that's your problem."

LOL - So that's his problem.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Untrue. An example, though not at the federal level, is CostCo. Here in SoCal, they had the City of Cypress eminent domain a church's land so they could build.

Is it liberalism to worry about Fifth Amendment violations in the interest of corporations? Just as the reflexive hatred of conservatism on the Left is irrational, the Pavlovian instinct on some "conservatives" to side with corporations no matter what is also irrational.

[Durus]

Ya...that's what it proves. Your "opinion" proves something to. Any idea what?

[ninenot]

Lincoln acted to free slaves based on his morally certain understanding of the value of men, as reflected in the comment quoted by Willie Green.

I've read all the arguments about the Constitutionality of Lincoln's action, and am fully aware that he declared war to 'preserve the Union,' not "to free the slaves."

Of course, one can also postulate, defensibly, that he REALLY wanted to 'free the slaves,' and used 'the Union' as an excuse which was acceptable to Northern interests.

In either case, the moral axiom must stand and must be defended. Labor has priority over capital. If you don't agree, that's fine: but you cannot be a Conservative and believe otherwise.

[Durus]

Had Lincoln undertaken to the civil war to free the slaves then I would fully support that action and anyone who was a firm believer in the Constitution would as well. However you can find speeches where Lincoln specifically said the opposite. I don't know what he really wished to accomplish and neither do you. Like Kerry and most politicians you can usually find that his position on the issues depended on the audience. Using a Lincoln quote to support any moral axiom therefore is a little silly.

Now...why can't I be a conservative if I don't believe that labor has priority over capital? Capital has intrinsic value. A dollar is a dollar no matter how I spend it. Labor value, if any, can only be measured by the usefulness of the labor.

Let's say I have flour, apples, eggs, baking soda, shortening, salt sugar, milk, and various spices. The average cook could make a delicious pie. A great cook could make some extraordinary confection that far surpasses a pie. Without labor I simply have cooking materials, yet labor without expertise or motivation and I'm lucky to get a pie. Incompetent labor could actually destroy any inherent value of the ingredients. Without capital of some type the cooks wouldn't even be cooking. Labor in and of itself CAN have value but it doesn't have INTRINSIC value. Capital can be more valuable if used correctly but it's minimum value is fixed. It has inherent value despite it's usage.

One could argue that capital can not be created without labor. That is true up to a point until you come to the conclusion that if you are starting with nothing but yourself and your potential of labor, then you are in fact your own capital and you will invest yourself into your work to make more capital.

I do not believe that capital has priority over labor, nor do I believe the opposite. Capital can not increase it's value without labor. Labor can not find value without capital, hence we have created a capitalistic system.

The more I think about this...isn't capital really just a representative of applied labor? Perhaps discussing the two as if they are separate entities presents a false dichotomy.

[Willie Green]

In either case, the moral axiom must stand and must be defended. Labor has priority over capital.

It is the sweat of Man's labor that creates capital.
In the pre-Civil War southern states, the entire socio-economic structure was based on a foundation of slave labor. All arguements that attempt to minimize and discount this fact, and attribute the war to less significant, supposedly-unrelated factors are an excercise in diversionary hypocrisy.

[Richard Kimball]

bump

[tpaine]

73 - "If nobody paid you to dig a ditch, and you were dumb enough to dig one that you didn't need, that's your problem."
-willy-

______________________________________


LOL - So that's his problem.
86 xbob

______________________________________


'So'? -- Not at all.
Durus's problem is in laboring to educate you two. Such labor has no value.

[Willie Green]

Labor has no value? A ditch has no value?
It's pretty obvious you never worked or never were in the military.

In the military, a ditch has value as a storage place for the dirt you just dug.

Foxholes and latrines are also useful military ditches,
but ya gotta make sure they're well labeled so nobody gets them confused.

;^)

[ninenot]

There is a dichotomy, because capital exists only because of labor; it is a result. IOW, labor is primary, just as certain rights are given not by Gummint, but by God.

Yes, capital represents labor; but do not confuse 'dollars' with capital. That's fatal.

[radicalamericannationalist]

A dollar only has value b/c the government says so. My labor of building a house gets me a house, no matter whether the government says it's a house or not.

[Jaysun]

Untrue. An example, though not at the federal level, is CostCo. Here in SoCal, they had the City of Cypress eminent domain a church's land so they could build.

Is it liberalism to worry about Fifth Amendment violations in the interest of corporations? Just as the reflexive hatred of conservatism on the Left is irrational, the Pavlovian instinct on some "conservatives" to side with corporations no matter what is also irrational.

First, I was speaking to the comments of the article and that sentence in particular because it sounds like the usual tripe that comes from those that constantly bash capitalism and corporations. Second, the article says nothing about eminent domain. In the example that you provided I would of course agree that it's wrong. I think that eminent domain is commonly abused and should be done away with. However, you blame the corporation and say nothing about the city - without the city's dubious involvement it's impossible for such an incident to occur.

There are some corporations that lack integrity and behave in a criminal manner - but isn't that the same in any other type of arrangement? The corporations that break the law should be punished. Other than that, I think that corporations are wonderful.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Well, I do blame the corporation because eminent domain is an actual Constitutional power of government. It is the influence of a corporation that caused the misuse of this power.

You should always remember that a corporation is a special kind of license. It means that you and I as investors do not risk what an owner normally risks; that is, everything we own. Our liability (save extreme circumstances of fraud where the veil can be pierced) is limited to our investment.

This arrangement is good for facilitiaing investment and capital. However, the corporation is not a person. It has no conscience. That's what always must be remembered.

For some insight, try and get a hoold of Samuel Huntington;s Who Are WE? (I know, from some of my posts on illegal immigration, you;d think I was being paid to plug him. I'm not. I'm just impressed with his insight) His opening has an interesting discussion of the national identity of today;s corporations.

[XBob]

90 - "A dollar is a dollar no matter how I spend it."

LOL - A dollar has no intrinsic value. It has only the value which those who accept it agree that it has.

If you cannot find a "buyer"/"acceptor" for your dollar, then it is worth only what you can use it for, like a value as toilet paper.

In as much as a dollar is accepted by someone for their own labor or possesion, then, and only then, does it represent the value of that labor or posession, to that person.

Remember the 'confederate dollar'?