capitalist ideals & "selling out"

[atlantabiolab]

By giving people the illusion of freedom and the illusion of seemingly unlimmited materialistic growth through working hard you make workers more willing to work. Such workers are potentially cheaper and work harder.

Do you really believe the drivel that you write? Do you really believe that in your dream Aboriginal society, man does not have to work his entire life for survival? That if we just went back to primitive life, all would be great?
Do you really believe that we have it so much worse than people who are almost totally dependant on their environment, instead of having the technology to manipulate our environment for our benefit? Do you really wish to have to build your home, grow or hunt your food, treat all of your ailments, etc., instead of the division of labor that we have under our system?

The average capital needed to start a business is typically drastically unproportional to the profit margins. It takes alot of money to make money.

In some instances yes, in some no. Dell was created out of two guys' garage for something like $10,000. This is irrelevant, though. What system do you know of that does not require some investment to see returns? Besides the lottery.

Spreading of crack-cocaine through poor black areas in the 60's.

LOL...what the hell does this have to do with anything?? Are you saying that capitalism necessitates the distribution of illicit drugs?

There is no one main mechanism present, other than human greed, but by looking at the collective picture it's pretty clear as to what is goingo n.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

The government is depended on the flow of money too grow and thrive. The government is also run by a bunch of hungry men. Capitalism may essentially be a system of economics but its grasps go beyond economics.

It can, but this is more of the realm of the political machinary existant in a society.

Maybe, but the structure of our system is preventing us from using its position in the world to do things such a powerful system should be doing. Such as feeding the hungry in Africa, or letting them manufacture their own drugs for HIV/AIDs to sell at affordable prices.

Capitalism is simply the boundaries in which man acts, not the virtues he must seek. Capitalism does not tell man what he must act towards, only that he is allowed the freedom to act with little interference. You seem to think that capitalism tells man to act immorally towards others, which is untrue, this is the jurisdiction of the individual. Thousands and millions of entreprenuers have donated works and resources to assist others, because THEY so chose to do so.

Well it'd be nice to do psychadelics without the worry of being persecuted. I can thing of other things as well.

But such laws occur in less capitalistic societies. What is the reason for such, if you believe that such laws are derivatives of capitalism?

Exactly!

Please!!! Tell us why you know the truth about Microsoft and how worthless it truly is, yet the other 100's of millions of individuals can't see this "truth"? Why is everyone else duped, even after having experience with the product, yet not you?

Microsofts' genius was not that the product was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that they were smart enough to bundle it into newly purchased computers. They essentially provided a user system for the consumer, preventing them from having to go buy this type of program after buying a computer. It did not prevent a person from buying another system, it simply gave them one "free".

Where is the evidence that they aren't? Russia was technologically superior to the U.S for some time when it was the USSR. China has it's own R&D companies that rival those of the United States(including R&D companies owned by the Chinese Government running with the U.S). Western Europe made the ROOR. You can't generalize technology as each country may excel in one field over another.

You are correct, there is nothing that precludes non-capitalistic societies from succeeding in certain industries. The problem you are not seeing is that while countries such as Russia were doing great things technologically in certain industries, due to the concentration of resources towards a goal, they were failing miserably in others. Russia was barely able to feed itself. A country that at one time easily produced enough food for its citizens were now buying food from other countries to survive. Why? Because when central planning agencies control the distribution of resources, you deprive resources from other necessities. The old "guns vs. butter" scenario.

Who truly believes that a few political officials know better what should be produced, how much and for what cost, compared to the millions and millions of individuals who accomplish this job under a capitalist system?

Because I was born into this system and have grown attached to it to a certain extent. I rather try and make changes to it then abandon it.

But if your dream society exists, then why waste the effort of trying to recreate it?

Obviously everything has Pros and Cons to it.

Yes and you have not demonstrated any cons of living in Western society as opposed to living primitively as Aboriginal man.

They aren't neccasarily less worthwhile, just based on very primitive drives and are prone to manipulation.

So, Aboriginal man is not prone to manipulation? You need to stop doing so many drugs.

 

[yougene]

Do you really believe the drivel that you write? Do you really believe that in your dream Aboriginal society, man does not have to work his entire life for survival? That if we just went back to primitive life, all would be great?
Do you really believe that we have it so much worse than people who are almost totally dependant on their environment, instead of having the technology to manipulate our environment for our benefit?

I never said any of that.

Do you really wish to have to build your home, grow or hunt your food, treat all of your ailments, etc., instead of the division of labor that we have under our system?

It's nice to not have to build and grow(even though I like doing both). But those conveniences come at a price.

In some instances yes, in some no. Dell was created out of two guys' garage for something like $10,000. This is irrelevant, though. What system do you know of that does not require some investment to see returns? Besides the lottery.

Investment of something is always required. Still it is almost impossible to start a business with money(besides the relatively few exceptions).

LOL...what the hell does this have to do with anything?? Are you saying that capitalism necessitates the distribution of illicit drugs?

Capitalism sure does profit on illegal drugs. Crack-Cocaine is a tool of slavery, any user can vouch for that. Crack-Cocaine WAS distributed into poor black areas by the government in the 60's. It's just an example.

It can, but this is more of the realm of the political machinary existant in a society.

Indeed

Capitalism is simply the boundaries in which man acts, not the virtues he must seek. Capitalism does not tell man what he must act towards, only that he is allowed the freedom to act with little interference. You seem to think that capitalism tells man to act immorally towards others, which is untrue, this is the jurisdiction of the individual. Thousands and millions of entreprenuers have donated works and resources to assist others, because THEY so chose to do so.

True capitalism is just a system, a technology. The outcome is to what purpose it is used. Still it is a system that is dependant upon human nature to work. Supply and Demand. Humans are naturally greedy especially in a capitalistic environment. By building a political system around it we now have a very powerful system whose purpose is to benefit the powerful and greedy. True many humans benefit from this system, but ultimately the system is just a level of control. Change can take a turn for the worst if something is not done about it.

But such laws occur in less capitalistic societies. What is the reason for such, if you believe that such laws are derivatives of capitalism?

There are several reasons for this. One there is more profit to be made from drugs that are illegal. The second reason is some drugs are a threat to the systems stability. It would be a problem if everyone thought the system needs changing, or if everyone just didn't want to work, etc....

Please!!! Tell us why you know the truth about Microsoft and how worthless it truly is, yet the other 100's of millions of individuals can't see this "truth"? Why is everyone else duped, even after having experience with the product, yet not you?

Because the average computer user doesn't know much about computers and has nothing else to compare to anyway since all they ever see is Windows.

Microsofts' genius was not that the product was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that they were smart enough to bundle it into newly purchased computers. They essentially provided a user system for the consumer, preventing them from having to go buy this type of program after buying a computer. It did not prevent a person from buying another system, it simply gave them one "free".

Microsofts position in the industry drove away competition. Microsoft also took advantage of its position by embedding certain software into their OS to make people dependant upon it because they are familiar with it. Microsoft has so many dishonest tactics that I would have trouble listing them all, but their position in the economy permits them to do that. Who knows what kind of great stuff we would have right now if capital resources were spread evenly.

You are correct, there is nothing that precludes non-capitalistic societies from succeeding in certain industries. The problem you are not seeing is that while countries such as Russia were doing great things technologically in certain industries, due to the concentration of resources towards a goal, they were failing miserably in others. Russia was barely able to feed itself. A country that at one time easily produced enough food for its citizens were now buying food from other countries to survive. Why? Because when central planning agencies control the distribution of resources, you deprive resources from other necessities. The old "guns vs. butter" scenario.

Why do you assume I do not see this?

Who truly believes that a few political officials know better what should be produced, how much and for what cost, compared to the millions and millions of individuals who accomplish this job under a capitalist system?

What does this have to do with anything I said?

But if your dream society exists, then why waste the effort of trying to recreate it?

I don't think a "dream society" has been implemented on Earth before. Even so I don't think it would be a waste recreating it if it did.

Yes and you have not demonstrated any cons of living in Western society as opposed to living primitively as Aboriginal man.

How about being attached to materialistic things and losing perspective.

So, Aboriginal man is not prone to manipulation? You need to stop doing so many drugs.

You need to get off your high horse and stop assuming things. I didn't think/imply half the things you were talking about.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Its nice to not have to build and grow(even though I like doing both). But those conveniences come at a price.

Which are????? This is problem with your argument, you make assertions with no support. What prices are we paying for not having to perform every labor required to keep us alive?

Investment of something is always required. Still it is almost impossible to start a business with money(besides the relatively few exceptions).

What city and state do you live in that has very few businesses?? I have not been to every corner of the US, but the little I have viewed is filled with businesses that cater to numerous demands of the public.

If you are trying to claim that most business ventures will not become a Coca Cola or Chevrolet, that is true, but it is irrelevant, since there is no necessity for all ventures to become such monolithic leaders. Many business owners are very content with small to moderate sized companies.

Capitalism sure does profit on illegal drugs. Crack-Cocaine is a tool of slavery, any user can vouch for that. Crack-Cocaine WAS distributed into poor black areas by the government in the 60's. It's just an example.

This is an example of nothing. What company distributed crack? What company is manufacturing crack?

Your assertion is that the government did this, the government is not a company in any economic sense of the word. The same occurances could occur in any country with a government: capitalist, socialist, or dictatorship. Do you not realize that you are not supporting any of your assertions with such examples?

True capitalism is just a system, a technology. The outcome is to what purpose it is used. Still it is a system that is dependant upon human nature to work. Supply and Demand. Humans are naturally greedy especially in a capitalistic environment. By building a political system around it we now have a very powerful system whose purpose is to benefit the powerful and greedy. True many humans benefit from this system, but ultimately the system is just a level of control. Change can take a turn for the worst if something is not done about it.

What system do you propose that does not allow human nature to influence it? What system do you propose that does not strongly interfere with man's ability to make his own decisions?

There are several reasons for this. One there is more profit to be made from drugs that are illegal. The second reason is some drugs are a threat to the systems stability. It would be a problem if everyone thought the system needs changing, or if everyone just didn't want to work, etc....

The War on Drugs has nothing to do with capitalism, but instead government influence. Illegal drugs are profitable BECAUSE government regulates their distribution and use, not because of capitalism. Prior to the 1900's numerous illicit drugs were available and not illegal to purchase and use. In Communist Russia, drug use was outlawed, yet a blackmarket manifested itself. In fact, the blackmarket was a very prosperous economy BECAUSE the government regulated so much of the economy.

Because the average computer user doesn't know much about computers and has nothing else to compare to anyway since all they ever see is Windows.

What precludes entreprenuers from doing what Microsoft did in its infancy? Why was Microsoft able to topple the IBM giant? Why do you think that no one can do the same to Microsoft? There is nothing that prevents someone else from beating Microsoft in the industry of computers, save a new idea. The problem is that new ideas do not occur every day.

Microsofts position in the industry drove away competition. Microsoft also took advantage of its position by embedding certain software into their OS to make people dependant upon it because they are familiar with it. Microsoft has so many dishonest tactics that I would have trouble listing them all, but their position in the economy permits them to do that.

More nonsense. Microsoft has not prohibited anyone else from entering the market. You cannot claim that the lack of new operating systems is proof of Microsoft's guilt in "driving away competition". Bundeling of OS in new computers was a great idea and served the consumers tremendously. As you stated, the average user is not computer savy, thus a free OS, and one easy to use, is beneficial to the end user. No one has been disenfranchised in such transactions.

Who knows what kind of great stuff we would have right now if capital resources were spread evenly.

How do you "spread evenly" capital resources, other than confiscation from those who have to give to those who do not have, Marx?

Since there is no evidence, save your belief that the lack of evidence IS evidence of some unethical practice, no one will ever know what we don't have due to Microsoft.

How about being attached to materialistic things and losing perspective.

Perspective of what?? Do you not see the condescending manner by which you speak? You insinuate that only you and a few other enlighteneds know what everyone else SHOULD be doing, yet they are dupes to the powers that be. If only you could be in charge, you could tell them what they SHOULD be directing their energies toward, for their best interest, mind you.

It is so entertaining to read your writtings, and those like you, who bitch and moan about the evil unseen forces who trick men into becoming consumers of their shiny trinkets and dreams of riches, yet you do not see the underlying premise of your argument which is force. You believe that men should be forced to act as you deem proper, to not have the freedom to buy material items, no matter how worthwhile in their eyes they may be. You believe that men should not be able to strive for riches, if this be their goal, because you yourself do not entertain this goal. You entertain the idea that men will see the errors of their ways, if only they accept YOUR beliefs.

 

[SoHiAllTheTime]

^ This guy is good, i mean real good.

 

[yougene]

Which are????? This is problem with your argument, you make assertions with no support. What prices are we paying for not having to perform every labor required to keep us alive?

Obviously you are having trouble following along with the posts.

What city and state do you live in that has very few businesses?? I have not been to every corner of the US, but the little I have viewed is filled with businesses that cater to numerous demands of the public.

If you are trying to claim that most business ventures will not become a Coca Cola or Chevrolet, that is true, but it is irrelevant, since there is no necessity for all ventures to become such monolithic leaders. Many business owners are very content with small to moderate sized companies.

Again that has nothing to do with anything I said.

This is an example of nothing. What company distributed crack? What company is manufacturing crack?

Your assertion is that the government did this, the government is not a company in any economic sense of the word. The same occurances could occur in any country with a government: capitalist, socialist, or dictatorship.

It was the CIA. You don't need a company when you can just confiscate it, sell it back to guerilla manufacturers, then use CIA planes to ship it back in. Other governments could do that, but only the US did.

Do you not realize that you are not supporting any of your assertions with such examples?

I'm sorry you are not able to see how I am supporting my assertions.

What system do you propose that does not allow human nature to influence it? What system do you propose that does not strongly interfere with man's ability to make his own decisions?

Capitalism, and Democracy are good ideas in theory. I just think more checks and balances need to be put into place. Ones that would assure equal power to all citizens, not to just huge corporations.

The War on Drugs has nothing to do with capitalism, but instead government influence. Illegal drugs are profitable BECAUSE government regulates their distribution and use, not because of capitalism. Prior to the 1900's numerous illicit drugs were available and not illegal to purchase and use. In Communist Russia, drug use was outlawed, yet a blackmarket manifested itself. In fact, the blackmarket was a very prosperous economy BECAUSE the government regulated so much of the economy.

Exactly, but the war on drugs does have to do with capitalism because like you said it was a matter of government influence. Essentially capitalism is the main influence of the government.

What precludes entreprenuers from doing what Microsoft did in its infancy?

Nothing, all you need to do is find the right market.

Why was Microsoft able to topple the IBM giant?

IBM is still alive and going strong.

Why do you think that no one can do the same to Microsoft? There is nothing that prevents someone else from beating Microsoft in the industry of computers,

Because microsoft has 50 billion dollars. Make a contract with almost every computer manufacturer and everyone is buying Windows whether they like it or not. Windows isn't free, Windows costs alot of money. Now why would the average consumer go out of his way to spend even more money. Microsoft builds products that will only work with other Microsoft products and puts patents on them. Now why would you buy another OS if it can't work with the majority of computers you already have? If a good idea comes out Microsoft just steals it. Do you really think they were the first ones to make Windows?

save a new idea. The problem is that new ideas do not occur every day.

Linux

More nonsense. Microsoft has not prohibited anyone else from entering the market. You cannot claim that the lack of new operating systems is proof of Microsoft's guilt in "driving away competition".

I never said that was the proof, the proof lies elsewhere. You don't believe me? Do some skimming of http://www.slashdot.org and chances are you'll find an article talking about Microsofts latest efforts to exploit the industry.

Bundeling of OS in new computers was a great idea and served the consumers tremendously. As you stated, the average user is not computer savy, thus a free OS, and one easy to use, is beneficial to the end user. No one has been disenfranchised in such transactions.

Bundeling an OS is a practical solution. But the computer manufacturers have contracts with Microsoft to bundle Microsoft products exclusively. And like i said earlier it isn't free.

How do you "spread evenly" capital resources, other than confiscation from those who have to give to those who do not have, Marx?

The natural flow of supply and demand would be an obvious way of doing so. Essentially capitalism. Unfortunately the natural process of capitalism is prone to manipulation and hijacking.

Since there is no evidence, save your belief that the lack of evidence IS evidence of some unethical practice, no one will ever know what we don't have due to Microsoft.

there you go assuming again

Perspective of what?? Do you not see the condescending manner by which you speak? You insinuate that only you and a few other enlighteneds know what everyone else SHOULD be doing, yet they are dupes to the powers that be. If only you could be in charge, you could tell them what they SHOULD be directing their energies toward, for their best interest, mind you.

I think you are the one insinuating that. I never said I want a position of power, or that I know better than everyone else.

It is so entertaining to read your writtings, and those like you, who bitch and moan about the evil unseen forces who trick men into becoming consumers of their shiny trinkets and dreams of riches, yet you do not see the underlying premise of your argument which is force.

The only one bitching and moaning so far is you. When did I ever say the use of force was the correct way of doing anything?

You believe that men should be forced to act as you deem proper, to not have the freedom to buy material items, no matter how worthwhile in their eyes they may be. You believe that men should not be able to strive for riches, if this be their goal, because you yourself do not entertain this goal. You entertain the idea that men will see the errors of their ways, if only they accept YOUR beliefs.

How typical, I talk about what kind of changes would ideally need to be made to such a system to potentially make it a more balanced one and you automatically assume I would want to force it upon everyone like some dictator/communist. Such assumptions are the epitome of what I have been talking about.

 

[The Word]

Yougene, most of what you say are identity statements simply defining capitalism.

You need money to start a business? You mean CAPITAL? ...ism

You highlight all the negatives, and then say it should be "different." Well different how? And you can't just change one thing, that thing will reverberate throughout the entire system, as there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Also, what system is better? I could point out only the negatives of every system there is and say it "needs to change" or "needs to be different" but who cares?

There will always be inequality and there will always be suffering.

 

[yougene]

You highlight all the negatives, and then say it should be "different." Well different how? And you can't just change one thing, that thing will reverberate throughout the entire system, as there's no such thing as a free lunch.

That's true such a system is very sensitive to change. I think the idea of checks and balances is a good one(the basis of US government). The checks and balances need to be refined though, so there is a truly balanced, dynamic system. I can think of ways to do this but the problem at the moment is it would be rather impractical. Impractical but not impossible, it's just a matter of time before it is practical.

Also, what system is better? I could point out only the negatives of every system there is and say it "needs to change" or "needs to be different" but who cares?j

I do. Many others do too.

There will always be inequality and there will always be suffering.

I don't believe so.

 

[atlantabiolab]

This is getting tiring. It is typical of the nonsense gibberish espoused by the left, the constant vasilations in debate where one statement is asserted then denied when the points are addressed. "Thats not what I meant.", "I didn't say that.", etc. Not to mention the unsupported rhetoric filled with insinuations of answers, but with no mention of specifics.

The lack of clarity and the allusions to how great primitive life really is, tends to demonstrate the self-evident, erroneous fact of the anti-capitalist ideology.

 

[yougene]

There is no point for me to continue this "debate" with you either as you are going to do little more than manipulate and put a spin on things I say.

 

[BlueMind]

In capitalism, a few are poor.

In other forms of government, almost all are poor.

 

[SavageMan]

Teeny trash whore and the homey nigga boyz do not create art, they design a product. It isn't a question of selling out, its pure commerce.

Like pepsi or starbucks, or hyundai or whatever, the major labels push a product tailor made to conform to the expectations and desires of a particular audience. Profit is the sole barometer of success.

Its not something I really get concerned about. I don't view it as better or worse than any other aspect of consumerism. There is now, and there always will be exciting, important art being created. Its not that hard to find it. I could just go to a music space downtown right now and find some. Commerce can only take of art what artists are prepared to give it.

Couldn't have said it any better.

There is much confusion surrounding "art" and it's relationship to the capitalist free-market economic system. Many feel that "art" is somehow being sacrificed in the name of "capitalism". What is seen in the Top 40, however, is not so much art as it is a product being sold to consumers.

Granted, many musicians in the Top 40 would consider what they do as "art" and a form of expression, but obviously, it is more than that.

I think it is a good thing when an individual can express themselves through their art and make money at the same time. Not only are they earning a living through what they love to do, but they are bringing their work to thousands or millions of people. What is most popular may not be what another individual likes best, but there will always be something out there that they will like. Our capitalist free-market system sees to that quite nicely.

 

[SavageMan]

BTW, should point out, in regards to the tangent discussion about capitalism, that it is extremely important to distinguish between capitalism and free-market capitalism.

Capitalism is the name for the system which allows privately owned production, savings, and investment.

Free-market capitalism is the name for the system which allows the same thing as capitalism, but without certain types of government interference.

Free-market capitalism is by far the superior system to any other means of market organization. It is far more efficient, in just about every way, than any other system. Perfect? No, but nothing is.

 

[protovack]

This is getting tiring. It is typical of the nonsense gibberish espoused by the left, the constant vasilations in debate where one statement is asserted then denied when the points are addressed. "Thats not what I meant.", "I didn't say that.", etc. Not to mention the unsupported rhetoric filled with insinuations of answers, but with no mention of specifics.

So, your strategy is to make a straw-man argument against the tactics of a few uninformed "leftists"? Talk about unsupported rhetoric.

Just saying, "Capitalism is the greatest" doesn't carry any more meaning than "Communism is the greatest."

I liked psychoblast's post about advertising alot. I am socialist in most respects, but I wouldn't complain too much if we had capitalism minus advertising. I've always thought all products should be sold in blank containers (like the bulk food section). Just think of how many fewer things people would buy if there wasn't a soccer-mom in tennis shoes on TV telling them to buy it.

 

[ebola?]

>>I am socialist in most respects, but I wouldn't complain too much if we had capitalism minus advertising.>>

not socialist enough.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I liked psychoblast's post about advertising alot. I am socialist in most respects, but I wouldn't complain too much if we had capitalism minus advertising. I've always thought all products should be sold in blank containers (like the bulk food section). Just think of how many fewer things people would buy if there wasn't a soccer-mom in tennis shoes on TV telling them to buy it.

Why is advertising bad? Psychoblast, nor you, have presented any reasoning on why advertizing is "harmful", save the insinuation that free consumption of goods is somehow harmful, or the idea that all the world are automatons, save the enlightened leftists of course, and are fooled into buying goods that they really don't want. The left's whole anti-capitalist mantra is based on condescension of the "vulgar" masses.

Why is buying less a virtue?

 

[quiet roar]

The fact that my kids are continually bombarded by ads while watching saturday morning cartoons, for shit they don't need but think are essential to being a "cool" kid. This brainwashing starts at a very young age and continues all the way through life - and yes, I do believe most of the people out there are sheep, or "automatons" as you put it.

 

[The Word]

My main beef against advertising is, it's annoying. It's mentally tiring if I attune to it and keep myself aware that it's just really bad logic. In other words, it's a waste of time, and a drain on energy. Of course some silly commercial comes on and think "what a stupid commercial, I'd never but that crap," but if that happens like 75 times in one night as I get more and more tired, even though it's obviously still crap and crap logic, it's annoying...or maybe I'm just not good enough at tuning stuff out.

The problem with ANY system is rich versus poor. Even with communism, socialism, you name it, someone is in charge. The people in charge have a higher living standard than the masses, and this pisses the masses off. Yougene, you seriously believe there will come a time on earth where at least 1 human is alive but there will be no inequality and no suffering? Well, I take that back, 1 human = guaranteed suffering and 2 or more guarantees inequality.

 

[SavageMan]

Advertising is only necessary in imperfect market conditions. Advertising does not exist in a perfectly competitive market. If we moved away from government interference in markets that many times create the imperfect market conditions, we would see much less advertising.

I propose communitarian anarchism.

With all due respect, I hope you realize this isn't anarchism. These two concepts are contradictory.

If a communitarian society develops, then it necessarily follows that it is not an anarchist society, since anarchy is the absence of government. Similarly, if an anarchist society develops, it necessarily follows that communitarianism is impossible since it takes some form of official or unofficial government to ensure everyone has equal ownership of production and has their differences settled.

For example, say a society wanted to start over anew in a communist (communitarian) manner. An individual or a group of individuals would have to make sure that everyone gets equal owership of production. They would have to settle disputes, make rules (laws) and enforce the rules. Hence, you have the formation of a government and a communitarian society, the exact opposite of extreme libertarianism/anarchism.

 

[SavageMan]

BTW...

Currently von Mises. But yes, Rand, von Hayek, Bastiat, Rothbard, etc.

excellent choices, my man! Looks like you're a fellow Austrian! Good stuff.

I propose we start a separate thread in which we look at how free-market capitalism is superior to everything else, as opposed to "hijacking" this thread.

 

[SavageMan]

The fact that my kids are continually bombarded by ads while watching saturday morning cartoons, for shit they don't need but think are essential to being a "cool" kid. This brainwashing starts at a very young age and continues all the way through life - and yes, I do believe most of the people out there are sheep, or "automatons" as you put it.

There is no "brainwashing" here. They're letting you know their products exist and why they think their products are better than other companies' products. It's up to you to decide if 1) It's worth your time to listen and 2) If they are correct. Nothing more, nothing less. They can't brainwash you or force you to do anything. They simply don't have the authority or power to do such things.

The government, however, can coerce you into doing things. Sometimes, things you don't agree with.

So, the question becomes, do you want to increase public/government ownership of industry so they can control your life more or do you want to allow the private sector to run such things, so that you have a choice and a say in the matters?

My apologies for not saying all of this in one post. I seem to find more and more to reply to everytime I go back and read.