The compatibility of capitalism

A common mistake; you do not measure the success of capitalism in how well people are doing, but rather how free they are. In this respect capitalism is perfect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know that logic doesn't work. Money is power. Why let a few people have all the power?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Geeeez - I got to stop drinking so much - now I am hallucinating a liberal Baron.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No kidding! I'm confused and disoriented....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It isn't your "right" to "let" anyone have anything. If they have it they have it, you can't take away my money because I'm becoming too rich. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I can't steal your cars because you have so many of them. They're still yours.

 

Why can't mankind collaborate to create a better future for the species?

This is not a jungle. We are not against each other.

Can competition coexist with collaboration? Huummm.... :scratchin:

 

Who says that that doesn't happen in capitalism? Each human being, acting it their own interest by providing labour for coin, contributes to a functioning society.

Think of this concept as analogous to a ecosystem. Each organism acts in its own interests, and by doing so contributes to the health, well-being and stability of a dynamic ecosystem.

 

copernicus66 no it doesnt. See we have been through that, the kings and lords as apsolute rulers was an example of what happens when few have all the power.

wether its money, political power or (as in there case) millatry power the outcome is the same. The few profit at the expense of the rest. The irony is that if norsefires "ideal" came to pass everyone in this thread would be amongst the first to die because there is no one here ritch enough to hire the armies which would be required to first protect and then atack

 

Agsard:"The few profit at the expense of the rest."

oh please, those few are why we arent eating bugs and wiping our asses with our hands. wake up already.

 

because we have goverments?

Your not far wrong though, look at the countries which DONT have effective goverment

 

oh, i am not wrong at all. there will always be cry babies (Foley comes to mind) in the world but who cares?

 

the truth is the truth. are we all gonna sit here and lie to eachother? stroke eachother, cry in our beers? be a bunch of miserable scum bags?

 

Yes. Isn't it terrible when authoritarian governments and regimes restrict the freedoms of the people and overtax them? Anarchists desire the abolition of governments so that no one will ever bow the knee to a king, military ruler or presidente. Anarchy isn't necessarily chaos. Both right wing and left wing anarchist societies have the potential to function cohesively. For example, the American Old West was anarcho-capitalistic at one point in time.

That's nonsense. In a free trade society where one is not being exploited by a government body (right wing anarchy or right wing libertarianism), then people will stand and fall on their own merits. In a left wing anarchist society, wealth would be allocated according to need to those living in the commune.

Attack? Attempting to employ coercion against another individual to deprive them of life, liberty and property would be forbidden in such a society.

 

how will you enforce it?
you cant, you have no goverment, not police, no army. Your sociaty would be unsubstainable either internally or externally.

The biggest bully would easerly take over. I can understand your idealisum but try to be realistic

 

You don't need a government to enforce property rights and civil liberties.

Norsefire has already mentioned (although maybe not in this thread) that law enforcement would be private.

You would have a militia instead. And before you roll your eyes, I might remind you that it was the Viet Cong militia who fought successfully against the U.S.A, not the Vietnamese regular army.

I disagree.

Who knows? What I do know is that currently the 'biggest bully' has *already* taken over, all over the world. Governments, not individuals, are the biggest perpetrator of human rights abuses, and to add insult to injury they steal the money of citizens to perpetuate those atrocities. For example, the executive American Government uses force to obtain money from its citizens, and then uses that money to buy bombs to kill Iraqi citizens, all with no perceived benefit for the vast majority of Americans. And the American government is one of the more progressive, democratic governments!

Back in the 1950's, homosexual citizens in the U.S.A were forced to pay taxes for a police service which raided gay bars and beat the shit out them. That would not happen in a right wing anarchistic society. Don't like your service provider? Just change to a different provider. We do that all the time in Australia with telephone providers, why can't we choose who protects us from harm?

The reality is that government has a long, unbroken history of oppressing both citizens and non-citizens, denying civil liberties and property rights in order to advance the agenda of the elite, redistributing the wealth of the middle-class (but not the upper class, naturally), conducting wars of imperialism, censoring 'objectionable' ideas, and oppressing minorities.

And in regards to comments made by several other posters on this thread, we live in a democracy. Whoop de fucking do! Deciding on which government to vote in is the equivalent of deciding who is going to sodomise you in the prison shower. Either way, you're fucked!

 

copernicus, those who cant - criticize.

 

Those who can't - look to a nanny government to wipe their ass.

 

those who cant - criticize.

 

The reality is that if the entire world population were shrunk to a population of 100 villagers. 2/3's of the world's wealth would be in five people. Guess how many would be from the USA? All five (this doesnt mean 2/3's of the world's wealth is only in American hands, it just means atleast 91% of it is)

7 people would have internet access
Only 1 would have graduated from college (which i personally believe is massive BS)
And 60 would be Asian

 

I would think it slightly more accurate* to say you both are just very ignorant. For example, I am sure you have never read Lock's discussion of the "social contract,” which is now hundreds of years old - but that ignorance does cause you both to be wrong also.

My God, you both are so ignorant of realities of why societies, laws, etc. exist that even the curmudgeon Baron had to appear liberal in his reply!
------
*to be wrong requires some understanding of what your mouth is saying - clearly you lack that and can only accuse others. Read Loch, and then get back to us.

PS
Post 8 & 9 have already replied to Norsefire adequately or I would put him here too as ignorant of the essence of the social contract.
Fortunately, pure capitalism has only existed in Ayn Rand's books. (Greenspan often sat in on her home discussion groups - some of his dislike for government regulation did come from her - to the damage of the US. Pure capitalism is ultimately a disaster for all, including the very rich. It destroys the social contract and thus societies. GWB was moving the US towards that no goverment regulations / pure capitalism and the results are now obvious - probably a global depression and certainly many instances of collapsed social order.)