And would vote for an objectivist and/or pure capatalist if he/she ran for an election (probably not presidential but governor, house member, or senate).
2007-02-19 10:57:59 · 5 answers · asked by Josh S 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm not complaining about Bush I am just asking, wondering if a platform of pure capatalism could even come close to winning an election anytime soon.
2007-02-19 11:05:56 · update #1
Jenny check and see how many social programs there were at the inception of the country. The total government spending (state, local, and national) was under 12% of GDP, national always under 3%, from the inception until 1929 (except in times of war). Since 1929 it has skyrocketted.
Since
2007-02-19 11:12:18 · update #2
Jenny you obviously have no idea what capatalism or objectivism (which has the political goals of capatalism) stand for if you in any way call it communism. In no way is it an oligarchy either. The founding fathers set up the closest thing to capatalism the world has ever seen.
2007-02-19 11:59:02 · update #3
Your talking about like Ayn Rand Objectivism right?
yea i probably would.
2007-02-19 11:13:38 · answer #1 · answered by sociald 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Objectivism wouldn't work in this country.
And an objectivst President would not be elected.
Some social programs are seen as absolutely necessary to the welfare of the nation. Voting an objectivist in would essentially dismantle the government we've had since the inception of this country and certainly dismantle any changes produced as a result of the depression.
The Republicans had power for a decade. They could have wholly dismantled or at least minimized some of the social programs, but they did not. You ask anyone of them why, and they say some things are simply necessary.
Trust me an objectivist state would result in a public uprising and pretty much complete anarchy. Americans simply wouldn not stand for it.
--------------------------------------------------
The founding fathers did not intend to set up an oligarchy. In fact, they were aiming to get away from the stringent confines of such a system. The little man was meant to have the freedom to own and flourish. There is no feasible way that the little man can even have a shot in an Objectivist state. Monopolies would be the name of the game and the powerful would be encouraged to hoard and hoard. The mom and pop place wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Objectivism is the Communism of the Right. It cannot work because the world does not exist in a moral vaccum. Trust me the ideals of "the land of opportunity" would not exist. And as I have already said American's won't go for it.
-------------------------------------------
I said "Objectivism is the Communism of the Right." What is meant by that is they are both philosophies that are impossible to implement without an eventual degradation of the country. Both are extremes that cannot be supported by an informed electorate. I did not say Objectivism was similar to Capitalism, so perhaps you misunderstood me. They are both systems which may work if human nature is not taken into account. We are not robots. People do what is good for themselves, even if it is inherently bad for others. Rand says selfishness is a virtue, but as a country Americans DO NOT hold to that philosophy. Americans care about our fellow citizens and Objectivists care only about themselves and what they can get from their fellow citizens. As far as an oligarchy, that is exactly what we would have under objectivism. The haves would ensure they will always have and effectively shut the have-nots out.
Trust me, I know Objectivism and I can assure you that if the citizenry truly understood Objectivism, an Objectivist president would not and could not be elected.
Sure the founding fathers created a capitalist country, but they didn't intend for one group to run the show (that's one reason we have a multi party system). And under Objectivism that is exactly what we would end up with.
2007-02-19 19:08:24 · answer #2 · answered by Mrs. Bass 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Objectivism is a half baked philosophy. Ayn Rand's assessment of human nature is robotic and soulless. I would not vote for an objectivist or a pure capitalist. Capitalism is an economic system which is incapable of encompassing all that a governmental system must address.
2007-02-19 19:18:38 · answer #3 · answered by Seraphim 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I know about it, I would NEVER vote for a pure capitalist (if that is not a contradiction in terms).
2007-02-19 19:52:22 · answer #4 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
lighten up josh,,,,Bush is in the house....cheers decider
2007-02-19 19:03:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋