Giancarlo said:
Working nicely does not mean it works? Warning: Logical fallacies committed by Lord Kalthorn yet again. Take classes in college and you will understand economics a bit more. It is more then just economists, it is the people who rely on the companies for jobs. Capitalist scum anyways? Get off your computer and go live in a cave. Then you won't be a hypocrite.
The point was Economists say it works nicely. Economists saying it works nicely does not mean it works. Haha; we've been over the Computer thing... using something created in a system does not mean you agree with that system; you agree with that something.
Giancarlo said:
I can tell you why. I know more then you do because this is what I do. I actually study this fucking topic in far more depth then you could ever dream of. The US two party system is truly democratic because:
1) It makes the system more efficient, and effective
2) People often can criticize their own party unlike in Britain. John McCain is a politican who goes after his own party
3) The system had a high turn-out in the last election (2004), nearly 60% I believe
Efficiency is not a requisite of Voting - Voting is not efficient in the first place if you really want efficiency have a Oligarchy or a Dictatorship. Which is half way to what America is. The President is a Dictator who is voted in; one of only two. As in the Simpsons; which is often quick; if Kang and Kodos are both running - what do the people do? Generally the less efficient, the more Democratic the Election - what about the Communists in America? Or more likely, the Nationalists, or Fascists - it's their democratic right to vote for their Party - they can't do that in America.
You can critise you Party in Britain! We do it all the time; the difference being that in Britain you can move your vote - in America, to move your vote you have to vote for somebody completely the opposite generally of who you would have before - its harder in American to change your vote therefore. Politicians in Britain also change their party, and critise their party without changing. Because they can here
60% is a dreadful turnout! I don't know what part of you thinks that 60% is a reasonable turn out but that missing 40% could have easily changed the election - how can George Bush say he has 51% support in his country when that's from a poll of only 60%! Its crazy.
Giancarlo said:
It is always capitalist freedom. You can't have freedom any other way. It is either capitalist freedom, or dictatorship and murder which you want. You are a freedom hater. Bush was right in this regard. People are freedom haters. You aren't really understanding the facts all that much anymor4e.
Not really... you can have Freedom without Capitalism. What part of not having Capitalism means you don't have Freedom? You live in your own house for free, like with Capitalism but better, you go to Work, like in Capitalism, you get Free Health care, like in few Capitalist Countries, you get a free transport system, like in few Capitalist Countries indeed if any, you pay no Taxes, money is made for the government through your work and through your custom, no Capitalist Country does that. If you want to create a shop; its only a trip to the Local Office, a few forms and if you can you've got the permits to create your own Shop; you get free goods for your shop from a choice of everything the Government makes, you sell it and the set price, you get 10% of that and the rest the government gets. If you don't make money - you're closed down, if you do you're rewarded. You invent things on Government resources at Universities; Colleges; Schools; Labs and in your own home if you work too. If you don't find a job and are not in Education, you are set a job; you can't be Unemployed - there's always something to do.
Where does the lack of Capitalism in that inhibit Freedom?
