The compatibility of capitalism

Capitalism is, quite literally, perfect

Why? It's quite simple; it isn't a system in the first place. Well, it is, but what the system is is completely up to you. It is also based on common sense; this is mine, I do what I want with what is mine, and you have something that I like, so we trade, and we build the life we want.

Capitalism allows individuals to make their own life choices in the absolute sense.

And capitalism is compatible with any lifestyle choice. Are you a socialist? Under a capitalist system, you could make a joint-purchase of land, and with the others create your own community where you are FREE to share and have brotherhood and what not all you wish without forcing me to join you. It's voluntary.

Same for any sort of community; or you could live in a diverse setting.

You could choose what to do in life, or even whether or not to do anything.

Voluntary association (no forced loyalties or nonsensical pledges); and obviously this naturally means no victimless "crimes" anymore. In fact, under a true capitalist system you'd be free of government.


Like helping people? Then YOU do it and don't force me to. Want to give to the poor, give free education and such? YOU DO IT and YOU FUND IT and don't force me to.

Want to start unncessary wars? You do it with an army you hire and you fund it.

Of course this means, alot less wars I think. No one would think to go to war first if it meant they had to pay for it themselves.


Capitalism is the only freedom where you aren't FORCED to "give back" and "be equal", but still have the option if it is your will.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No....that's a common misconception.

One cannot say capitalism is flawed because the markets are doing poorly or because people are living in poverty; it isn't the purpose of capitalism to give everyone a good life or to give "society" a solid economy.

The purpose is to allow the individual to give themselves a good life and allow people voluntary exchange and voluntary association, and thus, freedom, which it does.

The market might do poorly, but more often this is because of government interference. Bad businesses fail, so there are checks and balances. But when governments stop bad business from failing, bad business continues and that which made it a bad business continues, and nothing changes. Yes, if a major business fails, there will be some negative effects; but the market recovers and this means opportunity to fill in the gap.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It also "allows" those who have things that are needed, like food and water, to withhold it from those who want and need it ....unless they pay the asking price. Thus, freedom of one individual might well mean dire hunger and starvation for many. And you call that "feedom" and "voluntary exchange"?

Your ideals of "freedom" go far beyond the ideals of society and community and tribe and clan, etc. Have you no ideals for "The Greater Good"?

Baron Max

 

wow barron, im impressed. I never expected to see you defending the social contract. To be honest i agree with you, "sociaty" cant exist with the removal of goverment compleatly. Even a dictatorship is better than no goverment

 

Yeah, scared me, too! My fingers just typed that crap, and I hit the "submit reply" button before I could catch myself and spout my usually hatred of anything and everything. Sorry, I'll try not to let that happen again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

By the way, I think a "benevolent dictatorship" is the finest form of government that can exist in human societies. One person must have the final say or getting anything done will be an exercise in which side can yell the loudest and longest.

Baron Max

 

Private property allows for you to be your own government.


It is quite that simple. Again, Baron, you're assuming it's my problem if you starve. It isn't. I would help out of the goodness of my heart, but I don't have to.

 

not to mention that what he is suggesting is what lead to feudalisum

 

I do not want to get involved in this discussion, but I object to the following remark.

The USA was a very good approximation to a capitalist system until perhaps 1890 to 1910, when it started to change just a little. When the income tax amendment was ratified (1913, I think), the USA started to be noticeably different from a capitalist system.

Even those who disagree with the above, should (but might not) recognize that by 1940, the USA was definitely a mixed economy, not a capitalist system.

Anyone who calls the USA from 1960 on a capitalist system does not understand what capitalism is. Most would surely call it a mixed system. I consider it a system which is closer to socialistic than capitalist.

It took 50 or so years (say from about 1890-1913 to 1940-1960) to slowly evolve away from a capitalist system. I am hoping it will evolve back, but doubt that it will without another revolution or a total collapse of the economy.

 

That isn't the job of capitalism, though.

We measure the system's perfection by whether or not it achieves its goal. In socialism, that is "equality" for all. It certainly succeeds, but it's more like everyone is equally restricted and poor.

The purpose of capitalism is simply to allow voluntary exchange and association, and it does this, therefore it is perfect. Whether or not it fails for one person, isn't the point.

Then so be it. That is the way of the free market; you can't take away freedom just because things aren't going smoothly.

A fully voluntary system? No.

The thing left liberals don't understand is that they are contradicting themselves; they emphasize choice, but they fail to apply this to the free market. They might believe in equality and providing healthcare and all of this, but then THEY HAVE TO do it THEMSELVES!

You can't force anyone to and you shouldn't. In a capitalist system, if you really want to donate and such, you can, without forcing others to. If you really want to be equal, then do it. But YOU do it.

 

there is no choice without power. The power can be political (ie of the people) or it can be money (the ritch) or it can even be social (pop stars ect). The only power the poor have is political, that is good represenation of there intrests by goverment. It may not always work but it works a hell of a lot better than PRE the political proccess

 

You need regulations, but not too much.

Keep things in balance, don't go from one extreme to another.

Remove regulations completely and you are putting the health and safety of citizens at risk.

Put too many regulations and the businesses won't run.

When one company pretty much owns the entire market and kills the competition simply because its so large, is that still considered capitalism?

In some ways, capitalism is self destructive if unregulated, because it no longer gives individual people a chance to strive.

You need regulation to allow competition. And you need competition for capitalism to work.

 

There's an inherent problem with capitalism as the sole model for financial interaction, which is that great wealth creates dynasties of power, thereby robbing other individuals of their freedom. In Europe, this led to the tyranny of Royal families and feudalism. The "peasants" rebelled, leading directly to representative forms of government.

 

And I don't agree with that. If a business is failing it is the fault of the business. If I started a business and it failed, I can't go to your house and take your money to pay off my debts

Asguard: representation is one thing. However regulation? And benefits? And welfare paid for with stolen money?

If you were mugged $50 by sally sue, you'd probably think that was wrong.

If sally sue elected an official that taxed you $50 and gave it to the "disadvantaged" sally sue, it's still the same: theft. It's just through some bureaucracy now.

I agree with you on interactions being voluntary and consensual and all of that stuff but if you have government regulation of business that is NOT consensual and taxes are not consensual. Freedom also means freedom to keep what is yours.

spidergoat, the peasants didn't have to work for their landlords.

 

Feudalism means that if you wanted to farm, you had to pay the owner. What's to stop a few extremely rich people from buying all our land too?

 

People not wanting to sell it. Just because you can afford something of mine doesn't mean I want to sell it.

Besides, I don't oppose labour unions. They are a good check against "unethical" business.

 

It's so perfect we are on the verge of extinction?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!