News Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[deckart]

To be honest, I learn a lot from these conversations on this forum regarding politics and economics. Whether I agree or disagree I always get a better perspective of the issues by listening to everyone.

What I don't understand is why people have a problem with capitalism? It is one of the great freedoms we enjoy in America.

capitalism

n : an economic system based on private ownership of capital [syn: capitalist economy] [ant: socialism]

What's wrong with this?

 

[Smurf]

At the top of the subforum you'll see a thread by LYN with links to threads in this forum. Read the one about Anarchism and the one about Socialism. Anything we say here will mostly be repeating what's been said there.

And actually, most of the time we (anyone who doesn't like it) use the definition of capitalism as a economic system in which most of the means of production are owned and controlled privately and distributed in a free market economy.

 

[deckart]

At the top of the subforum you'll see a thread by LYN with links to threads in this forum. Read the one about Anarchism and the one about Socialism. Anything we say here will mostly be repeating what's been said there.
And actually, most of the time we (anyone who doesn't like it) use the definition of capitalism as a economic system in which most of the means of production are owned and controlled privately and distributed in a free market economy.

Ah, I haven't looked at that thread, thx.

 

[Smurf]

well I don't really blame you, both those threads are pretty long.

 

[Yonoz]

well I don't really blame you, both those threads are pretty long.

...and a little repetitive too

 

[sid_galt]

To be honest, I learn a lot from these conversations on this forum regarding politics and economics. Whether I agree or disagree I always get a better perspective of the issues by listening to everyone.
What I don't understand is why people have a problem with capitalism? It is one of the great freedoms we enjoy in America.
capitalism
n : an economic system based on private ownership of capital [syn: capitalist economy] [ant: socialism]
What's wrong with this?

Everything.

For beginners, it has increased prosperity wherever it has gone.
Secondly, it gives more power to the individual and less to the government.
etc.

 

[Smurf]

...and a little repetitive too

Yeah.. they really are!

 

[Smurf]

You know if you're looking for a much more brief explanation then I have some advice for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Marxist_critique_of_capitalism"

This too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalism

 

[deckart]

I've just read a five page debate on that other thread. I'm left with my original question.

It seems that those that are against capitalism, say that it is unfair to those not born into wealthy homes. The reason why capitalism works in the US is because even if you aren't born into a wealthy home, you can create one if you both desire it and choose to work for it. The mechanisms are there to accomplish what you set out to do. I've done it. I was born in poverty and have brought myself out of it and have become (modestly) successful. I've lived on the street and decided I didn't like it and did something about it using the things in our society that allowed me to. Anyone can get a student loan, learn a trade, and be successful at it.

The argument that corporations exploit 3rd world countries has some merit and we can do something about that. But it is also fair to say that these same countries need to take care of their citizens and not allow such things. It's not so much a capitalism issue as much as it is a humanity issue. To say that capitalism is the root of "evil" is to remove the responsibility of individuals. Freedom will always have those that abuse it and it's up to society to recognize where this occurs and correct it.

 

[pattylou]

One problem I have with capitalism is that it promotes marketing yourself (or your product), which promotes consumerism, which promotes the sense of "I need it" entitlement that is prevalent in western society, which degrades living in balance with the natural world.

I see a lot of good in capitalism, but as with most things, it is hardly perfect, and I feel like our destruction of the environment (deforestation etc) is partly due to this idea that everyone can be wealthy if they want...

gotta dash

 

[wasteofo2]

Herbert Hoover once said the following:
"The trouble with capitalism is capitalists; they're too damn greedy."

Capitalism is a great system, very crafty and clever. However, people in power tend to abuse their power in almost every situation imaginable. There is no market mechanism to make sure that things like Enron don't happen, there is no market mechanism to stop factories from blatently polluting entire cities.

Capitalism is a philosophy, and like all philosophies, it isn't perfect, so you need to mix it in with other things to make it really work.

 

[gravenewworld]

In short, PURE capitalism promotes greed at all costs. Who cares if you destroy the environment, make people work 15 hour days w/ no benefits, or pay workers 15 cents an hour as long as you make $1 more in profits right?? There are serious flaws with unrestricted capitalism. Believe it or not the Catholic Church offers up a very good argument against pure communism and capitalism in Rerum Novarum. Even if you hate Catholicism and religion, you should still read it. It is very thought provoking. Wiki has a brief descripition of the Papal encyclical here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum

 

[Anttech]

The argument that corporations exploit 3rd world countries has some merit and we can do something about that. But it is also fair to say that these same countries need to take care of their citizens and not allow such things. It's not so much a capitalism issue as much as it is a humanity issue.

ohh and you almost took the step into the unknown and understood :-)

So who should control this Humanity aspect? The corporations? The fact is they cant! Not because they "cant" but becuase they wont, Money drives the bottom line, not Humanity. If you don't have a frame work in place internationaly that stops expolitation then business will expolit, its simple really. This is the problem with Capitalism...

I also believe that with Captilalism consumer choice is not as great, because with this market structure you end up with a Monopoly (in the long run) and a oligopoly in the short term. Look at the IT Sector and you will see this happening already. What do you want Goverment or Big buisness? Your choice

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Some people, like myself, disagree with many aspects of capitalism because of the reasons listed on wikipedia; however, as a Democratic Socialist, I will give you my personal views on capitalism.

Pro:

-People who work harder, in some cases, are able to get more money than people who don't.
-People who are more skilled, in some cases, are able to get more money than people who don't.

I believe that people who have more skills should be of more value; however, I believe that effort is an essential factor as well. Modern capitalism completely disregards luck. According to studies, little of intelligence is actually capable of being developed by the individual. Intelligence develops when a person is too young to care and is primarily inherited. Therefore, the fact that people have the ability to advance in a capitalist society is simply a matter of chance. Hard work is irrelevant when people are randomly dealt a better hand than others.

Someone mentioned they grew up in a difficult situation and got out of it. That isn't always possible for everyone, and, frankly, it is a matter of luck is some cases. Personality and human characteristics are all a matter of chance. Every action taken is rather a reaction.

Socialism is far superior to capitalism in the fact that it is humane. It strives to eliminate a hierarchy and work towards the good of all people for the best of humanity. Instead of capitalism exploiting negative characteristics for the benefit of some, socialism, in my opinion, should be used to benefit all.

An employer finds it easier to punish employees as motivation than to reward them because of how capitalist society is structured. Socialism, over time, would remove that occurance. The problem with socialism failing is that it is an evolutionary process. Society can be viewed through a darwinian lens and analyzed. People cannot create the perfect society through some violent revolution. Socialism is an inevitable path the world will lead into if, in fact, evolution truly exists.

Structured capitalism, of course, is nice; however, socialism eventually eliminates the characteristics which cause flaws in society. Capitalism uses those flaws to benefit society - which is good - but they are still around to infest the world once again.

As a smart kid growing up, I was once a strong capitalist. I thought, "Why should I have less than people who aren't as skilled as me". I had no realization of the true facts of life and the unfair qualities it contains. Socialism is the answer.

Socialism is an ideal that, in my opinion, we should all strive towards. You will hear peope say socialism is prevalent in kids and not in adults. That is true, and people may tell you that wisdom is the factor. However, it is not. Capitalist society crushes the hearts of the spirited children who grow up striving for a better world. Adults have simply been thwarted by the evils of the world while children and young adults remain stronger in their convinctions.

If you read about socialists and communists, you will usually find that they are emotional and bitter people. Frustrated with capitalist society, they don't give up fighting for the good of all people.

I believe society will improve and should strive towards ideals rather than been caught up in what is 'realistic' according to our peers. Something is realistic if the environment allows it to be, and the environment is malleable.

 

[loseyourname]

Deckart, the idea behind that thread directory was to eliminate redundant threads. When you want to discuss one of those frequently discussed issues, just bring back one of the linked threads in there.

 

[Anttech]

Deckart, the idea behind that thread directory was to eliminate redundant threads. When you want to discuss one of those frequently discussed issues, just bring back one of the linked threads in there.

loseyourname-- live a little ;-)

 

[loseyourname]

loseyourname-- live a little ;-)

How is telling him what the purpose of that thread is an indication of my not living? Chances are, he didn't know.

 

[moose]

I think capitalism is awesome. Competition gets things done.

 

[Smurf]

I disagree with Capitalism because it promotes inequality. That's it.

 

[loseyourname]

I disagree with Capitalism because it promotes inequality. That's it.

My roommate and I were going over this the other day. We were talking specifically about the use of SATs in college admissions. She started out by pointing out that allowing SATs to be used encourages the stratification of society along intelligence lines. I pointed out that colleges cannot admit everybody, and the test is designed to simply determine how successful a person is likely to be in college, thereby allowing competitive schools to admit those students who are most likely to do well.

If we were going to do nothing but promote equality, then all colleges would simply admit people at random (because even then they could not admit everybody). Frankly, I fail to see how this would be any more fair.

Of course, I'm not saying anything here about capitalism, but simply pointing out that promoting equality or promoting inequality are not in and of themselves either good or bad things.

 

[Smurf]

Your only pointing out your opinion. I disagree. Equality is essential groundwork for a healthy, non-violence, less conflicting and as a result, happier society. The fact that humanity as of yet hasn't figured out how to be massively productive without destroying each other in the process doesn't change that equality should be one of our highest goals.

 

[jimmie]

There are 2 types of Capitalism:

One type of Capitalism is that an individual teaches other individuals what true Capitalism is, and then capitalizes on that "teacher/student" relationship by supplying many individuals/students with "only what they need" of mass-produced products that are needed only, for monetary profit.

The "other" type of Capitalism is that many individuals "want" many products that may or may not be NEEDED, and many individuals intend to capitalize on that "demand" by supplying many individuals with "more than what they need" of mass-produced products that are either needed or wanted, for monetary profit.

Both types of Capitalism have, what is known as, a "bottom-line".

One type of Capitalism's bottom-line is the TRUE bottom-line and that ONLY one type of Capitalism is sustainable, and able to supply ALL individuals with ALL needed products ALWAYS.

The "other" type of Capitalism's bottom-line, is "bottomless", a mirage that many individuals 'thought' existed, but did not.

The "other" type of Capitalism hinders the survival of one type of Capitalism, and hence, the survival of ALL human beings.

 

[russ_watters]

I've just read a five page debate on that other thread. I'm left with my original question.

It seems that those that are against capitalism, say that it is unfair to those not born into wealthy homes. The reason why capitalism works in the US is because even if you aren't born into a wealthy home, you can create one if you both desire it and choose to work for it. The mechanisms are there to accomplish what you set out to do. I've done it.

Ok, perhaps the point of view of someone who is for capitalism (me) will be helpful then.

First off, you really ought to specify if you mean capitalism in its purest form or if you mean capitalism as it is actually practiced. Obviously, the American system (for example) has some pretty major deviation from pure capitalism.

The biggest flaw in pure capitalism is that there are no guarantees. Those who fail are pretty much on their own. Yes, I know guarantees limit freedom, but regardless, there will always be a group of people who fail in capitalism and capitalism itself can do little to help them.

Please note: I did not compare capitalism to any other economic model there, so it cannot be implied from what I said that I think other forms are better at handling those who fail to prosper.

The second biggest problem with pure capitalism is that while most industries are stable, some are not. By this I mean that a stable industry eventually reaches an equilibrium where supply and demand don't fluctuate much. Unstable industries and industries with high entrance barriers (ie, it's expensive to start a car company) lead to monopolies.

 

[loseyourname]

Your only pointing out your opinion. I disagree.

Do you disagree with my claim that admitting students at random would be less fair? Or just with my claim that equality in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing?

Obviously, when we're making value judgements, we're going to end up with these kinds of dilemmas. We can only say what we value. I don't value being equal with people. I just value being happy, and as I've said elsewhere, it doesn't make much of a difference to me that my neighbor has more money and better opportunities. Maybe that's not the case for you.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

My roommate and I were going over this the other day. We were talking specifically about the use of SATs in college admissions. She started out by pointing out that allowing SATs to be used encourages the stratification of society along intelligence lines. I pointed out that colleges cannot admit everybody, and the test is designed to simply determine how successful a person is likely to be in college, thereby allowing competitive schools to admit those students who are most likely to do well.
If we were going to do nothing but promote equality, then all colleges would simply admit people at random (because even then they could not admit everybody). Frankly, I fail to see how this would be any more fair.
Of course, I'm not saying anything here about capitalism, but simply pointing out that promoting equality or promoting inequality are not in and of themselves either good or bad things.

In some ways, they do promote the stratification of society along intelligence lines. If there is a proper education system, grades should be a legitimate way to determine someone's suitablility for a career.

Standardized Tests are culturally biased and are influenced by the area someone lives. Education is better in different areas and certian people are deprived. SATs perpetuate racial inequality because blacks lack the opportunities to do as well as whites. Furthermore, English is something it tested. In the English tests, teenagers are expected to give the 'correct' interpretation of something when, in reality, a work of literature or a poem is probably meant to have multiple interpretations. In Canada, my English teacher despises standardized tests in English. She gave her students the answers to tests they had even though the tests had no relevance except for helping the state measure how students can memorize answers.

SATs are about memorization and put unnecessary stress on children and teenagers. They are unnecessary and an inefficient waste of time. If someone is not qualified when they get to university, they can be removed. It's better than having a hard-working poor child deprived of a university experience because their school didn't receive adequate funding.

 

[russ_watters]

Your only pointing out your opinion. I disagree. Equality is essential groundwork for a healthy, non-violence, less conflicting and as a result, happier society. The fact that humanity as of yet hasn't figured out how to be massively productive without destroying each other in the process doesn't change that equality should be one of our highest goals.

I don't see how you can even be sure it is possible for "equality" to work. People have been trying for milenia and no one has found a viable system yet. That alone implies to me that it is unlikely that such a thing will ever be feasible.

In addition, it is a violation of the primary principle on which western civilization is based: freedom.

And beyond that, the principle of equality of outcome seems to go against biology. We have good evidence in hand that says that equality of outcome simply isn't possible.

And even if you just want to be hopeful (that is, of course, your prerogative), it is still destructive to not support and strive to improve capitalism until such time as an alternative can be found.

 

[Anttech]

Do you disagree with my claim that admitting students at random would be less fair? Or just with my claim that equality in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing?

Admitiing student randomly is or not will never have anything to do with captilalism

Are you serious that equlaity is not a good thing? after all you are the true DEMOCRATE right?

 

[loseyourname]

If someone is not qualified when they get to university, they can be removed. It's better than having a hard-working poor child deprived of a university experience because their school didn't receive adequate funding.

The discussion ended up being abstract, not really about the SAT per se, but rather about the efficacy of having admissions standards in general. In fact, I actually wrote an essay to the LA Times when I first got out of high school against the use of SATs, as I and a friend of mine scored near perfect but did not initially do well in college at all. It didn't seem to me that they did accurately test whether or not a student would be successful in college.

Putting that aside, though, what you just posted above is done at some schools that don't get very many applicants. In fact, the college that my roommate first attended, St. John's, admits almost everyone that applies. They also have a near 50% dropout/flunkout rate. Frankly, I think it is better for colleges to admit only those students that have the best chance of succeeding, even if the reason they have that best chance is terribly unfair. Take Princeton, for instance. It is one of the most difficult schools in the entire country to get into it, but over 98% of the students that enroll there graduate from there. They haven't even allowed any transfers for several years because their retention rate is so high. In my opinion, they are getting it right, whereas St. John's is almost encouraging certain students to fail (St. John's is a very difficult school, and it should not be so easy to get in).

 

[Anttech]

Or just with my claim that equality in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing?

Russ.. being an engineer, you surely understand the quote "standing on the shoulders of giants"

Just becuase you can't fathom it, doesn't mean that another man, better than you and I will not come along and understand us better...

Dont be so arrogant

 

[Smurf]

Do you disagree with my claim that admitting students at random would be less fair? Or just with my claim that equality in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing?

Equality not being good. I can't dis/agree with your student analogy since I don't consider it relevant.

Obviously, when we're making value judgements, we're going to end up with these kinds of dilemmas. We can only say what we value. I don't value being equal with people. I just value being happy, and as I've said elsewhere, it doesn't make much of a difference to me that my neighbor has more money and better opportunities. Maybe that's not the case for you.

I didn't say it was essential to all individuals. I said it was essential to all society.

my argument goes like this:

Inequality -> Conflict -> Violence -> Bad
Therefore:
Inequality -> Bad

Inequality does not necessarily mean economic inequality. Equality means equality of power. In a capitalist system money tends to represent power.

 

[Smurf]

Russ.. being an engineer, you surely understand the quote "standing on the sholders of giants"

Just becuase you can't fathom it, doesn't mean that another man, better than you and I will not come along and understand us better...

Dont be so arrogant

It's already been fathomed by countless people before us and among us. Right now it's a matter of culture and society evolving enough to allow it to be implimented.

 

[loseyourname]

Admitiing student randomly is or not will never have anything to do with captilalism

I said at the bottom of my post that the post had nothing to do with capitalism.

Are you serious that equlaity is not a good thing? after all you are the true DEMOCRATE right?

Equality is not the goal we should be striving for is what I said. Universal prosperity is what we should be striving for. They are not the same thing. Universal depression would be equality, but I do not think it would be a good thing.

 

[Smurf]

I don't see how you can even be sure it is possible for "equality" to work. People have been trying for milenia and no one has found a viable system yet. That alone implies to me that it is unlikely that such a thing will ever be feasible.
In addition, it is a violation of the primary principle on which western civilization is based: freedom.
And beyond that, the principle of equality of outcome seems to go against biology. We have good evidence in hand that says that equality of outcome simply isn't possible.
And even if you just want to be hopeful (that is, of course, your prerogative), it is still destructive to not support and strive to improve capitalism until such time as an alternative can be found.

I don't necessarily advocate perfect equality, all of the time. Merely that it should be a high goal of any society if it is to be healthy.

And I disagree. I don't see equality as limiting freedom at all. It's a matter of definition.

 

[jimmie]

essential to all society

Smurf, please define "all society".

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, please define "all society".

Every society.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Also, I would like to note that, like capitalism, socialism and communism come in multiple varities. Socialism does not require complete equality amongst individuals. It can, however, promote a reasonable distrubtion of wealth and resource while limiting free trade for the benefit of human rights. Furthermore, socialism usually involves more wealth being distributed to the lower-class as a work incentive.

Despite what history may indicate, socialists do have good arguments and socialism can be implemented in some form. Capitalism may serve as a foundation for the change; therefore, a primarily socialist but social capitalism hybrid may occur.

The problem with socialism, in my opinion, has been the tendency for its supporters to be rash, impatient, and overzealous. They care too much about people to wait the necessary time to implement a proper economy policy, and, as a result, their movement(s) falls apart.

In a traditional Marxist sense, socialism is not communism. Communism is total equality. Socialism is a change in economic policy and freedoms.

Furthermore, one must remember that freedom has always been limited. The freedom to do violence against another is limited. Over time, the freedom to hurt an individual through words has become incorrect and not an essential right. As a result, it is only natural that the freedom to cripple someone in the worst way should be taken away to. That method is an abuse of free trade and the utilization of capitalism.

Freedom to do things that don't hurt others is something a liberal and democratic society values. Participating in a capitalist economy does hurt others.

 

[Anttech]

Universal prosperity is what we should be striving for. They are not the same thing. Universal depression would be equality, but I do not think it would be a good thing.

I aggree... But to get here we need equality...There is NO NEED FOR POVERTY in our whole WORLD... the reason we have this (poverty) is because of GREED...

 

[jimmie]

Every society.

So, one WHOLE society?

 

[Smurf]

I aggree... But to get here we need equality...There is NO NEED FOR POVERTY in our whole WORLD... the reason we have this (poverty) is because of GREED...

I don't think blaming poverty on a noun with an essentialist definition is the best we can do Anttech.

 

[Smurf]

So, one WHOLE society?

What?

 

[loseyourname]

Equality not being good. I can't dis/agree with your student analogy since I don't consider it relevant.

It's an example of where I think inequality is a good thing. Students who learn faster and better grasp the material should be able to obtain a better education. That's why we have honors classes and things like that. How would you like it you had no choice in school but to progress at the rate of the slowest learner in the class?

I didn't say it was essential to all individuals. I said it was essential to all society.
my argument goes like this:
Inequality -> Conflict -> Violence -> Bad
Therefore:
Inequality -> Bad
Inequality does not necessarily mean economic inequality. Equality means equality of power. In a capitalist system money tends to represent power.

Maybe it would be best if I can better clarify the positive claim that I am making. I said it in my response to Anttech:

I think that the primary goal of any economic system should be universal prosperity.

Several qualifications:

• "Prosperity" is not being treated here as a relative thing. That is, you are not prosperous because you are either equal or unequal to your neighbor financially. If everyone lives above the poverty line, then everybody is prosperous, even if some are way more prosperous than others.
• I'm only talking about economic systems, which is what capitalism is. The nature of inequality in political power is another matter, one that should be addressed separately from economics. That is, money does not have to equal political power. The only reason it does now is the need to finance political campaigns.

I am contrasting this with the claim that the goal should be universal equality. Equality can mean that everyone is in equally bad condition. This might mean that no one has any means to assert power over another and so we may very eliminate a lot of conflict, but so what? I'd also rather have a world in which everyone is prosperous, but there is conflict, than in a world where there is no conflict, but also no prosperity.

Now before you jump in with "equality does not have to mean universal lack of prosperity," I know. The point is only that universal lack of prosperity would qualify as equality, and would be bad, therefore equality is not necessarily a good thing. There are situations in which equality can be a bad thing. Therefore, it should not be the primary thing that an economic system strives for.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

What?

He wants to know whether you mean all society as in:

1. Canada, China, and all other countries should adopt that philosophy.

2. The entire world should be under one government with that philosophy.

I believe you meant #1, but you may advocate #2 as well - I don't know.

 

[loseyourname]

I aggree... But to get here we need equality...

Why? Is there seriously any reason that we cannot, in principle, have a society in which everyone prospers, but some prosper more than others?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ.. being an engineer, you surely understand the quote "standing on the shoulders of giants"

Just becuase you can't fathom it, doesn't mean that another man, better than you and I will not come along and understand us better...

Dont be so arrogant

Arrogant? What is arrogant is proposing that something is possible when strong evidence exists to the contrary. Just browse the TD archives for perpetual motion claims if you want a good demonstration of that kind of arrogance.

And btw, what you wrote about that quote implies that you do not understand it. The guy standing on the shoulder of the giant is the lesser man, not the better man. Newton wrote that as a put-down of a short competitor of his. Ie, 'the only way for you to succeed is to build on my accomplishments - you can't do it on your own'.

 

[Anttech]

* "Prosperity" is not being treated here as a relative thing. That is, you are not prosperous because you are either equal or unequal to your neighbor financially. If everyone lives above the poverty line, then everybody is prosperous, even if some are way more prosperous than others.
* I'm only talking about economic systems, which is what capitalism is. The nature of inequality in political power is another matter, one that should be addressed separately from economics. That is, money does not have to equal political power. The only reason it does now is the need to finance political campaigns.

Exactly! Capitalsim is a POLITCAL ideal! CAPTIALISM is what drive politics...

 

[Smurf]

He wants to know whether you mean all society as in:
1. Canada, China, and all other countries should adopt that philosophy.
2. The entire world should be under one government with that philosophy.
I believe you meant #1, but you may advocate #2 as well - I don't know.

Government leads to inequality. Thus, a government that does adopt this policy would disband it's self immediately. So neither can be true.

 

[Anttech]

And btw, what you wrote about that quote implies that you do not understand it. The guy standing on the shoulder of the giant is the lesser man, not the better man. Newton wrote that as a put-down of a short competitor of his. Ie, 'the only way for you to succeed is to build on my accomplishments - you can't do it on your own'.

then I am a lesser man, sorry Russ.. but so are you! And it is pure arrogance that makes you think that your ideals are not BASED on your predecessors

I can't think of any man in science that hasnt used what humans have learned to build there own ideas

 

[jimmie]

only one WHOLE society can hold together all particular societies.

If you agree that it is possible to think of "every" society, it is possible to understand "one" society.

64 crayons may be unique and individualistic, busy doing its own thing, but without the PACKAGE that holds them together as one unit, they are fully exposed to the elements are are liable to "break".

And at the time of writing the current post, all the crayons are weathered and beaten, nearly broken. Submission into a package is certain to save them all.

The question is: will the crayons submit?

 

[jimmie]

Thus, a government that does adopt this policy would disband it's self immediately.

And there it IS folks...the formation of the PACKAGE.

 

[jimmie]

How many particular societies were there on the continental U.S. at the year 1775?