What are the Goals of Occupy Wall Street?

[Nick_Da_Wizard]

I really have no idea what this occupy wall street crap ism I've been ignoring it. What exactly is happening?

 

[Zeonix]

Zeo i agree with competition. And to twist Hailons example into my own.

You open a shop and gain access over the market in your area. Then your neighbor opens a shop to. Capitalism is survival of the fittest and not regulating it would mean the following. Lets say your neighbor is providing the same service at a lower price so you start loosing your market share. Now with 100% capitalism you would want to retain your earnings instead of getting less if you drop your prices. But since you already own the market you simply decide to use force to get your neighbor out of business so that you dont need to drop your profits by dropping prices.

That isn't capitalism. That sounds like interventionism. The way it works now is when one chain is threatened by another, they lower their prices which both keeps their customers loyal and attracts customers from the other chain. Then it becomes a matter of attrition. Who can keep their prices low longer? This is how Walmart became the giant it is today. Also, by exploiting minorities, but that's also partly capitalism, partly governmental failure. In other words, you don't make less if you drop your prices. You might actually end up making more as you are able to pull from a larger pool of people. I don't know what you're referencing when you say a company or store is basically going to c4 the **** out of their opponents. What you're suggesting is very much a Hollywood plot from the 70's. Not so much these days, though.

Capitalism by itself pretty much works like that. Corporate espionage, sabotage and pretty much your regular mafia stuff in order to stay ahead once you reach the biggest market share. Thats where governments come in. Now though the last hundred years governments began slowly siding with the major market holders and slowly giving them more and more power to legaly destroy any upcoming competition.

This goes for pretty much anything that involves competition. Again, not so much capitalism as it is human nature. Governments constantly spy on each other and steal each others' secrets. Athletes try to figure out their opponent's gameplan before the big game. ******* friends screen peek to get the edge over you. It's in us to want to "win". No matter the field, that is essentially what drives us.

For example look at Disney. They were one of the biggest pushers for extending the copyright duration from the initial 25 years (which is enough to regain the funds spend on R&D and production) and the current result is what a life time + 75 years. Ofcourse they only pushed that AFTER they used already existing ideas that just went over that 25 year copyright limit.

If they don't extend the duration of their copyright, everything they've created becomes public domain and they can never profit off of it again. Which means Disney would probably go under unless they can churn out a masterpiece several times a year. I don't actually take issue with this particular case at all.

And thats what i mean with capiralism is a failed system without proper regulation. Thats the middle ground im talking about. And ATM its swaying towards giving corporations more and more freedom so that they can increase their already big shares instead of letting new ones rise and present a competition.

Your original argument was capitalism has failed. Now you're stating capitalism without regulation is destined for failure. One can argue the opposite for both. It's a matter of perspective. That, however, doesn't change the fact that capitalism is responsible for the world you currently live in, and to argue our world isn't better than that of our fathers and forefathers is perhaps a failure on their part to illustrate just how ****ty life was.

@Nick: Try reading about it. You might even understand the words.

 

[-Origin]

I really have no idea what this occupy wall street crap ism I've been ignoring it. What exactly is happening?

 

[Grega]

You say capitalism is modeled after human nature to evolve itself and you say that human nature is pretty much to do anything to get ahead.

Meaning if you do not restrict things with rules you get a corporate dictatorships of the companies that eliminate all threats. Be it by sabotage (this does not mean C4 their asses mind you it can be anything from ruining credibility or anything like that) or plain old gangster methods (think of the mafia in the 1950s).

Its the governments job to prevent that from happening by putting good laws in place. Or are you telling me that if we remove the law restrictions on the market the whole economy wouldnt go ballistic?

If they don't extend the duration of their copyright, everything they've created becomes public domain and they can never profit off of it again. Which means Disney would probably go under unless they can churn out a masterpiece several times a year. I don't actually take issue with this particular case at all.

And therein is the issue. I can see the first extension of the copyright laws from 25 to 50 years as somewhat legit. But extending it to 1 life time + 75 years there i say WTF.

Capitalism was restricted in order so that it is forced to evolve. To constantly better itself. Thats what the law restrictions force it to. Now in the last you had 25 years time to sell that product you came up with and regain your investments researching it and during that time you could make a name for yourself. After 25 years the thing was open and everyone could reproduce it or even change it. Thats where the competition and the evolution came from. Because you had 25 years time and you made a name for yourself in order to compete with you others had to make your product better than you if they wanted to get past the name you made for it.

Additionally you were forced to make updates to your product so that you stayed ahead, again forcing the evolution.

Now get the extended copyright time into account.

Lets say you spend the whole 25 years to regain your R&D investments. Now you are left with 1 life time + 50 years to cash in with no fear of any competition. Because if someone gets to the market with a design thats based off yours, you can pretty much pull an Apple on them and sue them for using your design for the entire duration thats left on the copyright. Whats more the copyright is still in tact even after the initial creator died. And who gets the profits? X-random corporation that may not even have had a hand in the R&D and they can get it for a sum thats not nearly close to the R&D costs.

This slows down progress. Now i can understand the extension from 25 years to lets say 50 years. But 1 life time + X years is just absurd.

Not to mention how in gods name do they calculate 1 life time. If you take the average of 80 years then the + 75 years ends up being nearly 2 life times.

So tell me how is that good for progress? Its textbook capitalism that tries to get cash out of a product with as little effort as possible.

Its the regulations that enable the capitalism you are thinking of in your head. But the ones who write those regulations should never be capitalists since they produce corrupt scenarios.

Its the same for any system really. Those in power want to stay in power with as little effort as possible. In communism fear is the medium. Just like in a dictatorship. If you fall out of the line you are "reeducated" or simply disposed off.

I capitalism that medium is deception. A smile here and there, some nice words and you have the rest of the nation eating from your hand like puppy dogs. You dont need to be smart or educated. All you need is the ability to make speeches. A little lie here and there doesnt matter, since you can always blame someone else for as long as you stay in power.

 

[Zeonix]

You say capitalism is modeled after human nature to evolve itself and you say that human nature is pretty much to do anything to get ahead.

Meaning if you do not restrict things with rules you get a corporate dictatorships of the companies that eliminate all threats. Be it by sabotage (this does not mean C4 their asses mind you it can be anything from ruining credibility or anything like that) or plain old gangster methods (think of the mafia in the 1950s).

And this is different from what the governments of the world do how, exactly?

Its the governments job to prevent that from happening by putting good laws in place. Or are you telling me that if we remove the law restrictions on the market the whole economy wouldnt go ballistic?

You seem to be operating under the assumption that I don't think regulations are a good idea. You also seem to be operating under the assumption that these restrictions are still in place.

And therein is the issue. I can see the first extension of the copyright laws from 25 to 50 years as somewhat legit. But extending it to 1 life time + 75 years there i say WTF.

In the case of Disney, why? If I created something, I'd want control of it for as long as I existed.

Capitalism was restricted in order so that it is forced to evolve. To constantly better itself. Thats what the law restrictions force it to. Now in the last you had 25 years time to sell that product you came up with and regain your investments researching it and during that time you could make a name for yourself. After 25 years the thing was open and everyone could reproduce it or even change it. Thats where the competition and the evolution came from. Because you had 25 years time and you made a name for yourself in order to compete with you others had to make your product better than you if they wanted to get past the name you made for it.

Capitalism isn't an organism. It's a system used, altered and implemented based on how best it serves a nation and its people. If a part of it is deemed not to work, it is reworked or abandoned. Capitalism does not evolve, it does not learn to adapt, it does not exploit. People do all of those things, however. Because capitalism is a system, there are rules in place and people love to exploit, circumvent and bend the rules. I need you to come up with a new example, because Disney just doesn't work for me. I don't need anyone to rework or "improve" Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. The people who run Disney have done a fairly bang up job of adapting to whatever new social climate comes their way.

Additionally you were forced to make updates to your product so that you stayed ahead, again forcing the evolution.

Now get the extended copyright time into account.

Lets say you spend the whole 25 years to regain your R&D investments. Now you are left with 1 life time + 50 years to cash in with no fear of any competition. Because if someone gets to the market with a design thats based off yours, you can pretty much pull an Apple on them and sue them for using your design for the entire duration thats left on the copyright. Whats more the copyright is still in tact even after the initial creator died. And who gets the profits? X-random corporation that may not even have had a hand in the R&D and they can get it for a sum thats not nearly close to the R&D costs.

This slows down progress. Now i can understand the extension from 25 years to lets say 50 years. But 1 life time + X years is just absurd.

Not to mention how in gods name do they calculate 1 life time. If you take the average of 80 years then the + 75 years ends up being nearly 2 life times.

You're babbling on about copyrights so I'll just address all of the above in one go. What you're describing is a mish mash of the inadequacy of the patent system and the copyright system. Both of which can and should be changed. How this addresses capitalism's failure, I do not know.

So tell me how is that good for progress? Its textbook capitalism that tries to get cash out of a product with as little effort as possible.

Back to your example, Disney hasn't put any effort into their creations over the last however many years? Really?

Its the regulations that enable the capitalism you are thinking of in your head. But the ones who write those regulations should never be capitalists since they produce corrupt scenarios.

The regulations you think are in place no longer work or are no longer in place. Why? Government intervention works both ways. It can either be good for the consumer and work for the consumer, or it can **** him 10 ways from Sunday. The western world has chosen to do the latter. Their respective populations have done nothing. Is it a failure of capitalism or is it a failure of the average citizen to ensure their government works for them rather than corporations? And if governments work hand in hand with corporations, is it "True capitalism" or is it fascism?

Its the same for any system really. Those in power want to stay in power with as little effort as possible. In communism fear is the medium. Just like in a dictatorship. If you fall out of the line you are "reeducated" or simply disposed off.

Once again, you're confusing a government system for an economic system and vice versa. Fear is not a medium in communism. Fear is a medium in a dictatorship. Communism determines distribution of wealth, allocation of funds and materials, etc. The government determines how to run that economic system and can and will change it to suit its needs. This is also true of capitalism and any other system. This is also true of religion.

I capitalism that medium is deception. A smile here and there, some nice words and you have the rest of the nation eating from your hand like puppy dogs. You dont need to be smart or educated. All you need is the ability to make speeches. A little lie here and there doesnt matter, since you can always blame someone else for as long as you stay in power.

The above demonstrates not only how little you understand capitalism, but also how little you understand politics, human psychology and people in general.

Once again, capitalism is responsible for the wealth of the western world. To deny this is to deny history.

 

[Grega]

I dont deny that. Im just saying that its to easy to abuse and that all the abuse of the system is causing it to collapse onto itself and that we need a system that cant be abused as easily. Especially since the majority of people are being brainwashed that everything is alright all the while the people in charge of maintaining the system are screwing them crosswise.

Yes communism isnt a government system but its heavy integrated into it to the point of the government being formed round the system. The government system in communism is something close to a dictatorship, only instead of 1 person you have 1 political fraction.

The same can be said for capitalism. The government is formed round the idea of capitalism. And the government is doing a ****ty job at regulating it.

But is my assumption really that off. If you remove the government from capitalism you end up with corporate mafia wars so to speak. Maybe its my fault for not being really good at explaining my thoughts. But the more the governments side with corporations the closer we get to such a picture. Remember when the majority of people move their asses its mostly to late to salvage anything.

As for Disney. Remember all those disney movies. They made them AFTER the copyright for the original works had expired. And after they made them, they strongly pushed for the extension of the copyright. Yes they own Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. But their hit movies are all works made after the originals copyright ended. Its those movies that brought in at least 50% of their income though the 70s and 80s. And dont forget the books since they acquired the rights to the works themselves though their remake, every book with one of those stories sold means a profit for them. Im not saying they are the only ones cheating like that, but Disney was one of the more "loud" pushers for the extension of the copyright laws.

And no Capitalism isnt a system thats altered to serve a nation and its people best. Its a system thats used and altered to make the leading personalities obtain as much wealth and power as possible and keep it for themselves. In that matter its no different than a dictatorship based on false information instead of the gun to the head kind that you normally think of when you hear the word. The manipulation of media companies makes it for a very strong and successful tactic.

 

[Nick_Da_Wizard]

@Nick: Try reading about it. You might even understand the words.

It's not that, its the media in Australia, they don't show jack ****.
I'll give a read about it later.

 

[Viper]

[video=youtube;_M8fOwHnwg0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M8fOwHnwg0[/video]

 

[Devion]

I dont deny that. Im just saying that its to easy to abuse and that all the abuse of the system is causing it to collapse onto itself and that we need a system that cant be abused as easily. Especially since the majority of people are being brainwashed that everything is alright all the while the people in charge of maintaining the system are screwing them crosswise.

Yes communism isnt a government system but its heavy integrated into it to the point of the government being formed round the system. The government system in communism is something close to a dictatorship, only instead of 1 person you have 1 political fraction.

The same can be said for capitalism. The government is formed round the idea of capitalism. And the government is doing a ****ty job at regulating it.

But is my assumption really that off. If you remove the government from capitalism you end up with corporate mafia wars so to speak. Maybe its my fault for not being really good at explaining my thoughts. But the more the governments side with corporations the closer we get to such a picture. Remember when the majority of people move their asses its mostly to late to salvage anything.

As for Disney. Remember all those disney movies. They made them AFTER the copyright for the original works had expired. And after they made them, they strongly pushed for the extension of the copyright. Yes they own Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. But their hit movies are all works made after the originals copyright ended. Its those movies that brought in at least 50% of their income though the 70s and 80s. And dont forget the books since they acquired the rights to the works themselves though their remake, every book with one of those stories sold means a profit for them. Im not saying they are the only ones cheating like that, but Disney was one of the more "loud" pushers for the extension of the copyright laws.

And no Capitalism isnt a system thats altered to serve a nation and its people best. Its a system thats used and altered to make the leading personalities obtain as much wealth and power as possible and keep it for themselves. In that matter its no different than a dictatorship based on false information instead of the gun to the head kind that you normally think of when you hear the word. The manipulation of media companies makes it for a very strong and successful tactic.

You have a very poor understanding of capitalism I'm afraid.

Yes you can get government out of the economy and get rid of most regulations. Only basic things need to be "regulated" like property rights(Of land, possessions etc.) and liberties(Privacy etc.,). If only these basic rights are protected and the government doesn't bailout, doesn't stimulate, doesn't tax and let the free market(You and me) decide what are good businesses and what are poor businesses we would be much better off. Capitalism is about profit AND loss.

Imagine how many big companies would be bankrupt? General Motors, AIG, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac etc.. If the government would have liquidated these companies, good parts of these companies would been taken over by the free market, creating healthy new companies and REAL jobs. The problem here is that the government bails out these companies protecting the elite, stimulating taking more risks and saving lousy companies with the money of the taxpayers. Obama(Or most people in Congress and Senate) don't take any risk spending the tax payers money and therefore it is ill spend.

The "too-big-fail" doctrine(Nothing is too big to fail!) is making the US bankrupt, but politicians don't really care as it isn't their money(And they like to help their buddies on Wallstreet, which isn't Wallstreet's fault, but your politicians!). And thus most protesters should get their asses over to the White House and force Obama to stop bailing out losers and careless spending.

Cause capitalism and communism are both failed systems.

You dont need a hive mentality for communism to work, just the people at the top must not be corrupt since. The same requirement for any system to work. A corrupt capitalistic government is pretty similar to a communistic one. And really close to a dictatorship of the leading class.

Again one side tells you to go **** yourself, the other does the same without you really knowing it. But both of them would be happiest with mindless slaves as their subjects. But in the end you are still just being screwd by the leading class if you are not have the misfortune to step on the wrong toes.

I guess what im trying to say is they are both equally as bad and its time to start thinking of something that doesnt "work barely" and think of something that actually works well instead of this leftist, rightist puppet show thats going on all over the world before we are neck deep in another frigging world war.

Communism doesn't work for two reasons, incentives and corruption. Communism lacks the former and always leads to the second. And your(And here in Europe too) we are not ruled by a corrupt capitalistic government, or to be more specific, a capitalistic government, corrupt they could be. We are living under a corporatist government since the early 1930's, because of the economist lord Keynes. He encouraged governments to spend more and more to create jobs, stimulating companies and losing up the monetary system. This effectively killed any form of free capitalism(laissez-faire) as demand was not so much controlled by the free market, but more by the government and government getting weaved into big companies(Particularly banks). Why did the government do this? Because they believed it was the only thing they could do against the great Depression.

And at music video above, what a bunch of tools.....

 

[Z Power]

And at music video above, what a bunch of tools.....

Its a sarcasm video.

 

[Grega]

Well here is my experience with capitalism.

Companies with 1000+ workers destroyed in just a few years time because of loopholes that got exploited while the directors stole money that should have been used for upgrades and even wages for the people. The buildings reduced to pretty much ruins while countless people were fired. The whole time the politicians played a game of pointing fingers and stuffing their pockets. And the blame for that corporate theft was left with the people that came after those who stole them into ruin.

Now lo and behold. Those same people are mayors in cities and in the parlament deciding what goes on and what doesnt with ****loads of lawsuits filed against them but dragged out so long that the cases pretty much get to old to find any evidence or simply are never reviewed again. The media also doesnt talk to much about this stuff and when they do its presented in a way to make people believe they are isolated cases.

And all that was built "on examples from the western world" so that our country would prosper.

I hate to say it but it was a lot easier during the socialist times of Yugoslavia. ATM the morons running the country are even going down on the volunteer groups such as the fire departments, mountain search and rescue groups and so on, all the while putting on smiles for the people who simply dont care cause it hadnt hit them yet.

Hell even the workers syndicate takes real good care to only organize strikes on weekends in front of an empty parlament building.

So excuse me if i believe that capitalism is a lot more exploitable than socialism. At least in socialism and communism you know whos screwing you.

 

[Heron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M8fOwHnwg0

If the girl on the left wasn't blonde, I would have believed this to be a joke.

 

[Devion]

Its a sarcasm video.

No **** captain obvious. But the lyrics still make them tools.(Yes even in a sarcastic way)

 

[Chakra-X]

The "too-big-fail" doctrine(Nothing is too big to fail!) is making the US bankrupt, but politicians don't really care as it isn't their money(And they like to help their buddies on Wallstreet, which isn't Wallstreet's fault, but your politicians!). And thus most protesters should get their asses over to the White House and force Obama to stop bailing out losers and careless spending.

If I am not mistaken, didn't that cause the Great Depression? Weren't we able to avoid a worse recession, or even another Great Depression, by bailing out the banks?

The idea of a total free market seem emotion-driven and idealistic to me. Letting the 'Free Market" do as it needs, dictating who wins or who survives based on the company's merits...A similar opinion is taken on forest fires: they are part of nature and nature is build to have trees burn and tress survive, and new trees come out from the dead ones.

I don't think humans should have to burn though. Yes there needs to be a risk involved investing, knowing you have something to lose and that the government is not always going to have your back every time you mess up. But again, the Great Depression happened party from the lack of regulation on wall street, with people going crazy with the stock market and it being a such a relatively new beast, there were not many constraints set in place. I don't trust the total "free market", for I don't think it works. I think we need a government in place in case serious **** happens, but I also would like it that a company would not get to the point that if it failed, it brings the rest of the economy down with it.

 

[DiebytheSword]

If I am not mistaken, didn't that cause the Great Depression? Weren't we able to avoid a worse recession, or even another Great Depression, by bailing out the banks?

The idea of a total free market seem emotion-driven and idealistic to me. Letting the 'Free Market" do as it needs, dictating who wins or who survives based on the company's merits...A similar opinion is taken on forest fires: they are part of nature and nature is build to have trees burn and tress survive, and new trees come out from the dead ones.

I don't think humans should have to burn though. Yes there needs to be a risk involved investing, knowing you have something to lose and that the government is not always going to have your back every time you mess up. But again, the Great Depression happened party from the lack of regulation on wall street, with people going crazy with the stock market and it being a such a relatively new beast, there were not many constraints set in place. I don't trust the total "free market", for I don't think it works. I think we need a government in place in case serious **** happens, but I also would like it that a company would not get to the point that if it failed, it brings the rest of the economy down with it.

There are two schools of thought on that. One says that the depression was cured by FDRs massive spending intiatives, infrastructure building created jobs which allowed the economy to move again. The other school of thought says that the tight regulations strangled the recovery effort, and that the depression was artificially lengthened. In either scenario, World War II put the final nails in the coffin of the great depression and got the economy moving at full speed again. This is what you hear in the debate between Reaganomics vs. Keynes Economics. Both have been credited with stopping a recession/depression.

In reality, the War had a big impact on what happened with the economy at the time, while FDRs changes certainly made some impact, its just debatable what exactly happened.

 

[Esf_Newbie]

There are two schools of thought on that. One says that the depression was cured by FDRs massive spending intiatives, infrastructure building created jobs which allowed the economy to move again. The other school of thought says that the tight regulations strangled the recovery effort, and that the depression was artificially lengthened. In either scenario, World War II put the final nails in the coffin of the great depression and got the economy moving at full speed again. This is what you hear in the debate between Reaganomics vs. Keynes Economics. Both have been credited with stopping a recession/depression.

In reality, the War had a big impact on what happened with the economy at the time, while FDRs changes certainly made some impact, its just debatable what exactly happened.

Keyne's theory was proven correct with the great depression. FDR's spending pre WWII didn't get us out of a depression, that was because his stimulus was far too small. What got us out was the MASSIVE spending during WWII. It wasn't the war, the act of fighting that pulled us out of the great depression- it was all the money the government was spending on war machines, the factories to build those war machines and the labors to run those factories. When I see debates about this, the one arguing that that Keynesian economics don't work is usually the one to say something along the lines of 'the new deal didn't get us out of the depression it was WWII, therefore Keynesian economics doesn't work.' This would be true except for the fact that WWII was an excellent example of Keynesian economics.


As far as capitalism being the only means of progression. Lets not forget that the Soviet Union went from 3rd world to second world and US rival in about a generation that's insanely fast... Also scary and threatening to say, a group of people that want to promote and hold onto capitalism maybe? That being said though don't look to the Soviet Union as an example of what a communionist society should be. Despite their impressive economic gains they failed to develop a democratic society and i mean a true democratic society not elections.

 

[Grega]

Well regarding the soviets.

Lenin built up the country to be a major global power, Stalin went along for the ride and screwed it up towards the end of his regime because he was power hungry.

 

[Esf_Newbie]

Well regarding the soviets.

Lenin built up the country to be a major global power, Stalin went along for the ride and screwed it up towards the end of his regime because he was power hungry.

Lenin himself was power hungry, as soon as the civil war was over. Lenin dismantled the soviets and the workers unions which is where power was supposed to be concentrated and instead concentrated it among himself and his associates pretty much brought back the old tsarists system. I truly believe that the Soviet Union was a great opportunity that was completely squandered by its leadership and basically ended up ruining it for any sort of mainstream discussion of the idea of socialism. I mean seriously, people use it as an insult now because (in part, US cold war propaganda and) they're associating Socialism with Stalinism or Maoism or even Leninism.

 

[Devion]

Keyne's theory was proven correct with the great depression. FDR's spending pre WWII didn't get us out of a depression, that was because his stimulus was far too small. What got us out was the MASSIVE spending during WWII. It wasn't the war, the act of fighting that pulled us out of the great depression- it was all the money the government was spending on war machines, the factories to build those war machines and the labors to run those factories. When I see debates about this, the one arguing that that Keynesian economics don't work is usually the one to say something along the lines of 'the new deal didn't get us out of the depression it was WWII, therefore Keynesian economics doesn't work.' This would be true except for the fact that WWII was an excellent example of Keynesian economics.


As far as capitalism being the only means of progression. Lets not forget that the Soviet Union went from 3rd world to second world and US rival in about a generation that's insanely fast... Also scary and threatening to say, a group of people that want to promote and hold onto capitalism maybe? That being said though don't look to the Soviet Union as an example of what a communionist society should be. Despite their impressive economic gains they failed to develop a democratic society and i mean a true democratic society not elections.

This is the thinking flaw the followers of Keynes make. After World War 2 there was much less government spending, yet the economy grew faster then ever before. This is very conflicting with the theory of Keynes.

World War 2 destroyed infrastructure, lives etc. and it did not cure the great depression. Instead of creating real wealth(Demand of the consumer), United States just made tanks and had to ration food etc.

Lenin himself was power hungry, as soon as the civil war was over. Lenin dismantled the soviets and the workers unions which is where power was supposed to be concentrated and instead concentrated it among himself and his associates pretty much brought back the old tsarists system. I truly believe that the Soviet Union was a great opportunity that was completely squandered by its leadership and basically ended up ruining it for any sort of mainstream discussion of the idea of socialism. I mean seriously, people use it as an insult now because (in part, US cold war propaganda and) they're associating Socialism with Stalinism or Maoism or even Leninism.

It's the reason Socialism fails, big government will result in corruption and benefits for the few.

 

[Heron]

Esf_Newbie what? True Democracy is without election's?

Or did you mean something else?