Yes the idea was everything was to be owned by individuals. Then the individuals didn't like the responsibility so they made the Personless entity we call the corporation. With that few stroke of the pen they decided to have even worse masters than a monarch: A Personless Entity.
I see that you chose to dodge the ONLY question I asked of you. Not only that, but after having read your comments and replies throughout the rest of this thread. one can only conclude that you simply cannot comprehend the information being presented to you. And that applies to your very next paragraph as well (which I am about to respond to). I agave you ALL the information needed. If you are totally unaware of World History then I choose not to be your first teacher. I'm not about to waste my time filling a page with links about the rise of capitalism in the British Empire nor that of every single country in Europe. Especially given the fact that you refuse to answer the ONLY question I have asked you. (And I know why you didn't - because there is NO country like that in the entire world that supports your viewpoint.)
Yes, but not purely in these terms; you have to take into account the resources you used to produce, and where they came from; and you can then transfer the ownership if you sell your property (obviously). Only if it is yours. Just because you are using it for production doesn't mean it is yours; for instance, factory workers do not own the factory they work in, because the capital that created the factory was not theirs, but the owner's. They are working there under an agreement between them and the owner of the factory, that invested his own money in order to build the factor and thus produced the factory. Wrong. Somebody had to build the homes; the person that invested the capital to build the homes, 'produce' them, owns them. He can then sell them, and the transfer of ownership goes accordingly. The legal contract would be a binding agreement, a legal document, wherein two or more parties agree on a set of terms and agree to carry out and fulfill their end. The government would be paid for by taxes (surprise!), but such a government would not tax to spend on pork barrel projects and ridiculous programs, but rather on that bare minimum; thus, only a minor tax would be required, as to be almost not there. For instance, a minor import tax could probably cover the costs of such a government. If he holds me on his property against my will, then he is violating my rights; thus, assuming no violation of rights is occurring, I do have a choice of being on his property or not. Here's the secret: you can have socialism under laissez-faire capitalism. Nobody is stopping people from voluntarily organizing, forming communities (wherein individuals are there of their own accord and can opt out, and the land is not monopolized), and working together toward egalitarian ends. Nobody is stopping people from creating programs, feeding the homeless, donating to charity, or working together to help the poor.
even the god of the free market (Smith) didnt belive in a sociaty without regulation. He may not have cared to much if that regulation was fair or just as long as it was predictable but he DID belive regulation was essental. Its an issue i wanted to take up with norse when i had time because there was quite a facinating show on the philosophers zone on ABC national radio about it on christmas eve eve
Of course regulation is important; that is why people need to be responsible and self-regulating in a market. Though I take it you believe in more than just "regulation", but even wealth redistribution. That is an absurdity.
Government regulation would be violating peoples' freedoms. Government regulation is a trade off of freedom for security; you can try to justify that, but don't deny that it is trading freedom for security, because it is. Agree or not: the only reason people propose 'government regulation' is because they have no confidence in human beings; that is because our society has no values and people are not responsible. Thus the answer, in my opinion, isn't to introduce nanny government, but rather to be responsible and ethical; and if we will not be, then we do not deserve the prosperity.
You simply cannot see the big, overall picture, can you? Of course laws are a trade-off of some freedoms - for example, the freedom to kill anyone you might not like. They are necessary IN any society for the protection of people at large and their personal property. Your final sentence above indicates you don't understand even the most basic thing about human nature.
Read-Only, I was referring to government regulation of the economy, not of laws like forbidding murder.
I only asked that you provide me with a link or reference, I suppose thats too much for an online discussion. Maybe I am unawares of certain aspects of British history. Maybe you could actually provide specific information that could contribute to a discussion...but I guess you had to get up on the tall pedestal of feeling like you are somehow better than me because you know what I do not. Just links is all I asked for maybe you could teach me something, maybe we could both learn something. I thought the purpose of a discussion was to teach and learn by sharing ideas. Ahh but your too smart to waste your time on a dullard like me I see.
You seem to think you are the only person who understands anything. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In answer to your original post, capitalism is neither freedom nor slavery. It is a resource allocation and distribution system intended to manage the fundamental economic problem, scarcity. Capitalism has its weak points and it has its strong points. However, it is the best resource allocation system yet developed, especially when tempered and managed by governments. People can be free in a capitalist society. But they can also be enslaved in a number of ways (e.g. China, India, Industrial Revolution, etc).
Capitalism doesn't mean anything except as a catch phrase for all ideologies in opposition to communism.
Not in the least !! I understand some things quite well and other people understand other things quite well. Yet you clearly demonstrate that you know practically nothing about human nature - OR history for that matter. I'm not about to spend hours trying to educate you. If you are still in school, please don't drop out because you've still got tons to learn. And if you've already finished school it was certainly wasted on you. Is that simple enough for you to understand?? Go and get a *decent* education and *then* come back and try taking with the adults again.
How did you reach that conclusion? A poor person would have the same individual rights as a rich person in an Ayn Rand-style capitalist country.
Obviously you don't understand the first thing about voluntarism and the principles of emergent interactions.
coming from someone who has yet to fully understand a concept he champions I'll take that as a compliment. just because you wish to believe you are free doesn't mean you are. You are chained they might be light and long but a chain is still a chain.
How are you chained in capitalism? You are chained only by your limit of imagination and willingness to work hard.
