Poll: Capitalism dying?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:45:37 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Poll: Capitalism dying?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: Do you think capitalism will die sooner or later?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 73

Author Topic: Poll: Capitalism dying?  (Read 9222 times)
Flake
Flo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2014, 02:17:33 AM »

If capitalism dies, mankind's ability to progress will die.

Not certainly, but capitalism has lead to a lot of competition in order to get a better, cheaper product and that's where the driving force for a lot of innovation in technology comes from. In this system, which there are a lot of flaws, it has worked better than our friends in the USSR and Cuba.

I think it would be best to continue to have a mixed market system, where some things are controlled by the government (schools, police), and others not controlled by the government (businesses) but needs to pay their fair share so everybody can prosper. Almost the current system we have now.
Capitalism is much more efficient than a mixed market system. The only reason we can have a mixed market system is because pure capitalism created enough wealth for all of these safety nets. Capitalism literally has no flaws.

What kind of response is that? Capitalism has a lot of flaws, the largest one being inequality, inequality in gender pay, inequality between the rich and the poor, and it leads to systems such as slavery. Capitalism has a lot of flaws and it's pretty ignorant for someone to think that it's perfect.
Logged
Anti Democrat Democrat Club
SawxDem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,094
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2014, 04:12:46 AM »

If capitalism dies, mankind's ability to progress will die.

Not certainly, but capitalism has lead to a lot of competition in order to get a better, cheaper product and that's where the driving force for a lot of innovation in technology comes from. In this system, which there are a lot of flaws, it has worked better than our friends in the USSR and Cuba.

I think it would be best to continue to have a mixed market system, where some things are controlled by the government (schools, police), and others not controlled by the government (businesses) but needs to pay their fair share so everybody can prosper. Almost the current system we have now.
Capitalism is much more efficient than a mixed market system. The only reason we can have a mixed market system is because pure capitalism created enough wealth for all of these safety nets. Capitalism literally has no flaws.

Kids, this is why elephant dick is bad for you.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,235
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2014, 11:10:45 AM »

Capitalism is much more efficient than a mixed market system. The only reason we can have a mixed market system is because pure capitalism created enough wealth for all of these safety nets. Capitalism literally has no flaws.

*NUCLEAR FACEPALM*

Yeah, same exact reaction. Funniest thing is his "name me the flaws" response.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2014, 11:24:18 AM »

I like market economy, that's a term which I understand the definition of.

Isn't that as vague as capitalism? I mean, markets (in all senses of the word) were essential to the operation of the economy in the 12th century, say.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2014, 11:30:47 AM »

Couldn't "capitalism" or "market based" system mean any system exists where people generally are compelled to perform for each other based or some sort of offer acceptance and consideration?

This could all be based on asking whether or not someone is for "human rights" or "freedom".
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2014, 11:40:06 AM »

Couldn't "capitalism" or "market based" system mean any system exists where people generally are compelled to perform for each other based or some sort of offer acceptance and consideration?

This could all be based on asking whether or not someone is for "human rights" or "freedom".

A market based system is at least in theory based on mutual consent, but capitalism I would understand as involving the use and investment of capital as central to economic activity (though that definition would describe a great many things not usually thought of as capitalism).
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2014, 12:46:14 PM »

Capitalism is much more efficient than a mixed market system. The only reason we can have a mixed market system is because pure capitalism created enough wealth for all of these safety nets. Capitalism literally has no flaws.

*NUCLEAR FACEPALM*
Name me the flaws



Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2014, 01:59:32 PM »

Couldn't "capitalism" or "market based" system mean any system exists where people generally are compelled to perform for each other based or some sort of offer acceptance and consideration?

This could all be based on asking whether or not someone is for "human rights" or "freedom".

A market based system is at least in theory based on mutual consent, but capitalism I would understand as involving the use and investment of capital as central to economic activity (though that definition would describe a great many things not usually thought of as capitalism).

What qualifies as "consent" and "capital". If Republicans got their way much of the consent would be through duress and if Democrats got their way much  consent would indirectly implied through the Democratic process
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2014, 03:44:59 PM »

If capitalism dies, mankind's ability to progress will die.

Not certainly, but capitalism has lead to a lot of competition in order to get a better, cheaper product and that's where the driving force for a lot of innovation in technology comes from. In this system, which there are a lot of flaws, it has worked better than our friends in the USSR and Cuba.

I think it would be best to continue to have a mixed market system, where some things are controlled by the government (schools, police), and others not controlled by the government (businesses) but needs to pay their fair share so everybody can prosper. Almost the current system we have now.
Capitalism is much more efficient than a mixed market system. The only reason we can have a mixed market system is because pure capitalism created enough wealth for all of these safety nets. Capitalism literally has no flaws.

What kind of response is that? Capitalism has a lot of flaws, the largest one being inequality, inequality in gender pay, inequality between the rich and the poor, and it leads to systems such as slavery. Capitalism has a lot of flaws and it's pretty ignorant for someone to think that it's perfect.
Under what system would inequality cease to exist? Certainly not the "mixed market" system you advocate, and certainly not any system capable of doing anything other than impoverishing every member of the populace. I agree that excessive inequality is a bad thing, but you're assuming that this is the result of the free market rather than upward wealth redistribution and destruction, as well as government barriers designed to prevent those on the lower end of the spectrum from escaping poverty.

You probably believe that, even in the absence of such anti-upward mobility policies, a strong welfare state is still needed to help the poor. However, given that basically every politician who champions the welfare state also supports a plethora of regulations (I can specify if you want) in agriculture, energy, housing, labor, medical care, transportation, and countless other economic sectors that make the poor poorer (and quite often, the rich richer), I have to conclude that any sort of social welfare state will inevitably be used as a tool by politicians seeking to harm the poor. Welfare states create a vicious cycle whereby politicians can run for office on the promise of preserving and strengthening welfare programs, quietly enact policies that will steal and destroy even more of what little the poor have (or sometimes, loudly enact them while claiming that they'll really help poor people). The poor then become even more dependent on welfare benefits, and even more likely to vote for candidates that promise to protect and expand these programs, who then enact even more anti-poor policies and perpetuate the cycle. So, the very institution you desire to alleviate inequality will only serve to perpetuate and exacerbate it.

As for slavery, I'm curious why you believe that what we call "capitalism" is responsible for its existence. It's true that slavers subjugate(d) their fellow human beings in search of profit, but the profit motive is not synonymous with capitalism. If I murder someone and steal their wallet out of greed, is that capitalism?
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2014, 05:33:29 PM »

Couldn't "capitalism" or "market based" system mean any system exists where people generally are compelled to perform for each other based or some sort of offer acceptance and consideration?

This could all be based on asking whether or not someone is for "human rights" or "freedom".

A market based system is at least in theory based on mutual consent, but capitalism I would understand as involving the use and investment of capital as central to economic activity (though that definition would describe a great many things not usually thought of as capitalism).

What qualifies as "consent" and "capital". If Republicans got their way much of the consent would be through duress and if Democrats got their way much  consent would indirectly implied through the Democratic process

The key is mutual consent, as opposed to collective consent. If someone is commanded to buy or to sell something at a certain rate, that would not be mutual consent between buyer and seller and have no relation to a functional market. Decisions made out of duress on the other hand are not incompatible with a market, though they may be incompatible with a functional economy in other ways.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2014, 07:17:51 PM »

Couldn't "capitalism" or "market based" system mean any system exists where people generally are compelled to perform for each other based or some sort of offer acceptance and consideration?

This could all be based on asking whether or not someone is for "human rights" or "freedom".

A market based system is at least in theory based on mutual consent, but capitalism I would understand as involving the use and investment of capital as central to economic activity (though that definition would describe a great many things not usually thought of as capitalism).

What qualifies as "consent" and "capital". If Republicans got their way much of the consent would be through duress and if Democrats got their way much  consent would indirectly implied through the Democratic process

The key is mutual consent, as opposed to collective consent. If someone is commanded to buy or to sell something at a certain rate, that would not be mutual consent between buyer and seller and have no relation to a functional market. Decisions made out of duress on the other hand are not incompatible with a market, though they may be incompatible with a functional economy in other ways.
There are no functional differences between forcing people to trade and uh...Forcing them to trade. I guess in one situation you can go live in the forest. How many people do you think think about that?
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2014, 08:59:52 PM »


I think not.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2014, 10:55:18 PM »

If I murder someone and steal their wallet out of greed, is that capitalism?

I think the more apt comparison is if you create a fantastic new formula for a drug and I sneak into your laboratory, copy down the formula, sell the exact same thing at 10% less, and undercut you to make a fortune, is that not capitalism?  I mean, it's just smart business sense, right?  Screw government regulations like patent law.
Logged
Flake
Flo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2014, 03:22:21 AM »

If capitalism dies, mankind's ability to progress will die.

Not certainly, but capitalism has lead to a lot of competition in order to get a better, cheaper product and that's where the driving force for a lot of innovation in technology comes from. In this system, which there are a lot of flaws, it has worked better than our friends in the USSR and Cuba.

I think it would be best to continue to have a mixed market system, where some things are controlled by the government (schools, police), and others not controlled by the government (businesses) but needs to pay their fair share so everybody can prosper. Almost the current system we have now.
Capitalism is much more efficient than a mixed market system. The only reason we can have a mixed market system is because pure capitalism created enough wealth for all of these safety nets. Capitalism literally has no flaws.

What kind of response is that? Capitalism has a lot of flaws, the largest one being inequality, inequality in gender pay, inequality between the rich and the poor, and it leads to systems such as slavery. Capitalism has a lot of flaws and it's pretty ignorant for someone to think that it's perfect.
Under what system would inequality cease to exist? Certainly not the "mixed market" system you advocate, and certainly not any system capable of doing anything other than impoverishing every member of the populace. I agree that excessive inequality is a bad thing, but you're assuming that this is the result of the free market rather than upward wealth redistribution and destruction, as well as government barriers designed to prevent those on the lower end of the spectrum from escaping poverty.

You probably believe that, even in the absence of such anti-upward mobility policies, a strong welfare state is still needed to help the poor. However, given that basically every politician who champions the welfare state also supports a plethora of regulations (I can specify if you want) in agriculture, energy, housing, labor, medical care, transportation, and countless other economic sectors that make the poor poorer (and quite often, the rich richer), I have to conclude that any sort of social welfare state will inevitably be used as a tool by politicians seeking to harm the poor. Welfare states create a vicious cycle whereby politicians can run for office on the promise of preserving and strengthening welfare programs, quietly enact policies that will steal and destroy even more of what little the poor have (or sometimes, loudly enact them while claiming that they'll really help poor people). The poor then become even more dependent on welfare benefits, and even more likely to vote for candidates that promise to protect and expand these programs, who then enact even more anti-poor policies and perpetuate the cycle. So, the very institution you desire to alleviate inequality will only serve to perpetuate and exacerbate it.

As for slavery, I'm curious why you believe that what we call "capitalism" is responsible for its existence. It's true that slavers subjugate(d) their fellow human beings in search of profit, but the profit motive is not synonymous with capitalism. If I murder someone and steal their wallet out of greed, is that capitalism?

Under no system would inequality would cease to exist, but there is a very large difference between the rich and the poor, that is a fact. Under other systems, like socialism, inequality isn't as large, and the inequality is usually between the leaders of the country and the followers, that happens in a capitalistic system as well.

Of course I support a strong welfare state. It's the right thing to do, we cannot let people who are poorer starve because we don't feel like helping. I also have no idea what regulations would hurt the poor, as regulations are made to help people be safe, and if we didn't have these regulations, it would ultimately hurt the poor, just look at things we've seen in the past. We do not want a return to child labor or very unsafe working conditions.

Of course slavery was caused by capitalism, people wanted to have their farms (the main reason in 1700's and 1800's) run as cheaply as possible to get the biggest profit, and that was through the buying and selling of "property". That happened to be people. Earlier it was because of war, and they wanted soldiers, and that was to be more powerful, to have more land, more stuff.

If the profit motive is not capitalist, then what is? What would you even call capitalism? That's the major pillar, that's what it's based on, the profit.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2014, 12:54:59 PM »

If I murder someone and steal their wallet out of greed, is that capitalism?

I think the more apt comparison is if you create a fantastic new formula for a drug and I sneak into your laboratory, copy down the formula, sell the exact same thing at 10% less, and undercut you to make a fortune, is that not capitalism?  I mean, it's just smart business sense, right?  Screw government regulations like patent law.
I'm not seeing what that has to do with slavery. My point is that not every profit-motivated action is capitalism...by that logic capitalism has been practiced since the dawn of humanity.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2014, 01:30:41 PM »
« Edited: July 30, 2014, 04:35:49 PM by Deus Naturae »


Under no system would inequality would cease to exist, but there is a very large difference between the rich and the poor, that is a fact. Under other systems, like socialism, inequality isn't as large, and the inequality is usually between the leaders of the country and the followers, that happens in a capitalistic system as well.
And it's also a fact that we currently have a mixed economy. So, excessive inequality is not necessarily caused by the free market.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Really? You actually believe that the only reason regulations exist is to protect people? That reads like a libertarian parody of a leftist. Do you believe that regulations passed in NC and NJ to prevent Tesla from selling cars are just there to "protect" people from dangerous solar vehicles? Apartheid regulation banning the hiring of blacks? It's one thing to say that we need regulations, but your claim that "regulations can't hurt the poor because they only exist to protect us" is frankly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

As for specific examples, agricultural regulations limiting food production and requiring farmers to charge higher prices for their products, restrictive zoning ordinances and building codes that prevent affordable housing construction, occupational licensing and minimum wage requirements that prevent people from entering the labor market, FDA regulations that delay the release of potentially life-saving medicines for years, etc. Most if not all of which are supported by politicians who champion the welfare state. This leads me to the conclusion that a welfare state will always be used by politicians who wish to make the poor poorer, because this will lead to more people dependent on welfare, which will then lead to more votes for pro-welfare politicians, who will then have an incentive to enact even more anti-poor policies in order to further expand their electoral base.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Capitalism may be driven by profit, but that doesn't that every profit-driven activity is inherently capitalistic. By that logic, a government bureaucrat who embezzles taxpayer money is a capitalist.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 31, 2014, 03:50:39 AM »
« Edited: July 31, 2014, 03:53:16 AM by asexual trans victimologist »

People being poor is obviously a flaw. You could argue that it's a flaw that would exist in any other system as well and perhaps even be worse or that it's a flaw that's in some way balanced out by benefits that necessitate it as a side-effect, but saying that it's not a flaw at all makes you sound like you care more about their markets as their own abstracted entities than about the actual people who have to live in and use them. Which is a horrible, disgusting way to think.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2014, 07:16:45 AM »

People being poor is obviously a flaw. You could argue that it's a flaw that would exist in any other system as well and perhaps even be worse or that it's a flaw that's in some way balanced out by benefits that necessitate it as a side-effect, but saying that it's not a flaw at all makes you sound like you care more about their markets as their own abstracted entities than about the actual people who have to live in and use them. Which is a horrible, disgusting way to think.

In fairness, there's a legitimate philosophical position that would make poor members of society a feature instead of a flaw. If one holds that an underclass serves the purpose of motivating people to achieve more and thereby either escape from or avoid entering that underclass, then having some poor people in a society becomes a necessity to the economic system.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 31, 2014, 11:24:55 AM »

People being poor is obviously a flaw. You could argue that it's a flaw that would exist in any other system as well and perhaps even be worse or that it's a flaw that's in some way balanced out by benefits that necessitate it as a side-effect, but saying that it's not a flaw at all makes you sound like you care more about their markets as their own abstracted entities than about the actual people who have to live in and use them. Which is a horrible, disgusting way to think.

In fairness, there's a legitimate philosophical position that would make poor members of society a feature instead of a flaw. If one holds that an underclass serves the purpose of motivating people to achieve more and thereby either escape from or avoid entering that underclass, then having some poor people in a society becomes a necessity to the economic system.

This is all well and good, but what "poor" means can be drastically different in different societies and ending up in a society like Victorian Britain where ending up maimed on the job and then starving because you have no natural means of support (which is more or less the natural endpoint of an unregulated market with a labor glut...there's more where that came from!) is naturally morally reprehensible.  Every society has winners and losers, of course, but there's a point at which you need to step in to prevent the economic system from literally murdering the losers. 

Without regulations like, say, the Americans With Disabilities Act, who would go through the effort of setting up ramps that would enable a wheelchair-bound person to even hold gainful employment, when that boss could hire an able-bodied person and save on the ramp?  The society that the blue avatars in this thread envision isn't the fair "people are allowed to fail/be poor/whatever" society they envision, its one where one disadvantage (say, amputee status) reinforces others and culminates in leaving someone totally unemployable and therefore doomed to starvation.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 31, 2014, 11:30:46 AM »

People being poor is obviously a flaw. You could argue that it's a flaw that would exist in any other system as well and perhaps even be worse or that it's a flaw that's in some way balanced out by benefits that necessitate it as a side-effect, but saying that it's not a flaw at all makes you sound like you care more about their markets as their own abstracted entities than about the actual people who have to live in and use them. Which is a horrible, disgusting way to think.

In fairness, there's a legitimate philosophical position that would make poor members of society a feature instead of a flaw. If one holds that an underclass serves the purpose of motivating people to achieve more and thereby either escape from or avoid entering that underclass, then having some poor people in a society becomes a necessity to the economic system.

This is all well and good, but what "poor" means can be drastically different in different societies and ending up in a society like Victorian Britain where ending up maimed on the job and then starving because you have no natural means of support (which is more or less the natural endpoint of an unregulated market with a labor glut...there's more where that came from!) is naturally morally reprehensible.  Every society has winners and losers, of course, but there's a point at which you need to step in to prevent the economic system from literally murdering the losers. 

Without regulations like, say, the Americans With Disabilities Act, who would go through the effort of setting up ramps that would enable a wheelchair-bound person to even hold gainful employment, when that boss could hire an able-bodied person and save on the ramp?  The society that the blue avatars in this thread envision isn't the fair "people are allowed to fail/be poor/whatever" society they envision, its one where one disadvantage (say, amputee status) reinforces others and culminates in leaving someone totally unemployable and therefore doomed to starvation.


In fairness, there's a legitimate philosophical position that would make poor members of society a feature instead of a flaw. If one holds that an underclass serves the purpose of motivating people to achieve more and thereby either escape from or avoid entering that underclass, then having some poor people in a society becomes a necessity to the economic system.
[/quote]



Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 31, 2014, 01:26:43 PM »
« Edited: July 31, 2014, 02:10:38 PM by Starwatcher »

Poverty isn't a flaw of capitalism. Capitalism wasn't supposed to eradicate the poor class. No1 has ever said it was. If they did, they were misinformed. Capitalism is perfect because it consistently achieves it's goals.
Again, capitalism isn't perfect. I posted this link for a reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

Also, have you consider that maybe capitalism's goals are incomplete or imperfect?
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,714


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 31, 2014, 01:44:27 PM »

Starwatcher is correct. Market failures are the literal flaws in "capitalism" in the sense that markets fail to do efficiently what they are meant to do whereas inequality is definitely not a flaw but a necessary outcome. The optimal degree of inequality is debatable.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 31, 2014, 03:34:37 PM »

Poverty isn't a flaw of capitalism. Capitalism wasn't supposed to eradicate the poor class. No1 has ever said it was. If they did, they were misinformed. Capitalism is perfect because it consistently achieves it's goals.

I'm sorry, I thought you meant 'flawless' in some kind of moral or at least in some way normative sense. What are the goals of capitalism, as you understand them?
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,235
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 31, 2014, 03:38:35 PM »

Poverty isn't a flaw of capitalism. Capitalism wasn't supposed to eradicate the poor class. No1 has ever said it was. If they did, they were misinformed. Capitalism is perfect because it consistently achieves it's goals.

Yeah, the goal that for every millionaire, there's gonna be hundreds of people stricken with poverty. Pretty sweet goal. But hey, those poverty-stricken cretins will some day be rich thanks to trickle down economics. Just ask everyone in Detroit. They all got rich after that big auto boom.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,962
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 02, 2014, 04:57:38 AM »

Capitalism is perfect because it consistently achieves it's goals.

I guess concentration camps were perfect too, then?

(yeah I know, Godwin point, whatever)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 14 queries.