reply to post by ANOK
It is true that we live in a community, but we are not that community nor can we be. A community is a group of individuals and has no more physical
existence than a forest. You cannot go pick it up, put it down, touch it ect. It is merely a concept.
I disagree to the cause of our social problems. I attribute it to individual morality. A lack of understanding on the individual level about what is
in his or her best interest, what is right or wrong.
I'm not sure what you mean by "be a part of a community". It sounds to me as if these communities are very strict in their belief systems and if you
do not agree with them you are out.
Again I'm not sure what you mean by opt out of capitalism. Capitalism is founded on the principles of private property and non initiation of force.
These are basic moral concepts and I'm not quite sure how you can opt out of them. If you disagree with one of these principles then this would be a
subject for debate, but as far as capitalism goes these are the only requirements that must be recognized.
I believe that you somehow have made a distinction between these principles and capitalism as if capitalism is much more and much different. I hear
you repeatedly speak of the private ownership of the means of production as if it is not a natural progression of private property as if the only way
of attaining means of production is by force.
The reason worker owner ship is better for the community is because people don't send their own jobs overseas, they don't lay themselves off, and a
thousand other reasons I'm too lazy to type.
Blaming a business for going over seas is like blaming a business for a shortage of wheat and the price of wheat goes up. Most business are forced out
of this country due to government interference, heavy regulation, extreme taxes, they respond to profit and when it becomes unprofitable to work in a
country you must leave, business owners do not work for free or at a loss just as you would not.
The other reason businesses move to other markets is due to the low cost of labor. Labor is a price just like any other good or service. If there is
an abundance of idle people then the cost of labor will be lower. Again I know you view this as a negative thing, but it is actually business that
bring wealth to areas. Idle people are willing to trade their time for money, they view it as more productive than the alternative otherwise it would
not be done. It is not business who made these people idle or brought them poverty. The lack of goods was already there. It is the business that bring
people out of poverty.
Capitalism exploits the community, it does not help the community. All communities have a common interest, and if those common interests are not met
you have an unbalanced community. Socialism is about meeting those common interests, not exploiting the community for your own benefit.
Again you are talking about the community as if it is a real entity that moves and thinks. A community is not a thing it does not exist except as an
abstract concept. A concept cannot have interests. There are individual interest such as eating, breathing, sleeping, relaxing, but these are
attributes of the individual, a community has no such attributes.
If you accepted this, and I'm not sure that you would, the next statement that would seem to follow would be the claim that capitalism exploits the
individual, or "worker". I argue that capitalism is in the very defense of the individual, that it is an individuals philosophy.
As Richard Overton wrote in 1646, in An arrow Against all Tyrants: “To every individuals in nature, is given an individual property by nature, not
to be invaded or usurped by any ; for every one as he is himself, so he hath a selfe propriety, else he not be himselfe”. And Locke, in 1690:
“Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to
but himself.” ((John Locke, Second Treatise of government (1690), chap V, 27.))
Self ownership is an axiom which is at the very heart of capitalism and the very core of individual freedom.
Last I did not say that Chompsky was wrong about the meaning of libertarian changing. He was wrong, but not about that... I can only imagine that you
did not read my response.
edit on 25-12-2012 by crankySamurai because: (no reason given)