Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ten Myths About Capitalism

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by daskakik
 

Simply having no government does not mean freedom for the individual and this is not what I am claiming.

Actually you threw out a blanket statement of freedom = prosperity. The bit of the puzzle that you keep overlooking is that to guarantee individual freedom takes force.


Your argument is that of a utilitarian, we should pursue means solely on the basis of helping the most number of people or which leads to the most prosperity. While my appeal to you may of been similar, it is not my basis for a free market argument. My basis is it is the only moral system. The only system which claims absolute non-contradictory freedom for the individual. Meaning that simply a prosperous end is not enough to justify the means taken.

My argument is that, while your basis may have the moral high ground, it doesn't work and has never existed in the real world.


I will concede that freedom of the individual is no guarantee for prosperity, but I think it the ideology which offers the best chance at it.

When a group of people are "given" more authority than other individuals, I believe it is nearly impossible to keep this in check. History shows there is a natural tendency to claim superiority when in this position and expand on that basis. In order to eliminate such situations the individual must be able to claim sovereignty with no infringements deemed morally acceptable. For it is under this cover of "morally accepted" violations against the individual that a group is able to expand its functions without mass objection.

People are not "given" more authority, they "take" it because they are "free" to do so. That is where your argument breaks down.

In the US, it's because of the institution of the republic, the constitution and the system of checks and balances, that individual freedom has been respected. It isn't freedom but force, the force behind the system which has served to keep men from usurping power.




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I don't even know what to think or believe anymore. One minute I have an opinion and then I find myself changing my mind the next minute. Clearly these systems have been abused. I suppose the answer would be a system that has healthy doses of both right and left ideologies, each keeping the other in check. Allow for some economic autonomy and innovation but not corruption and power consolidation. But I don't know, easier said than done, I suppose.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by crankySamurai
 


I am glad you support individual freedom, samurai, and not that of the "legal entities" (a later fakery designed to obscure the results of the American Revolution). One can never be sure these days, because a large percentage of corporate-sponsored propaganda takes advantage of people's desire for individual freedom then exploits their support to achieve goals of dominating others - for ownership or power or both. Sometimes in countries and cultures far away. Indeed, the anti-Soviet world dubbed itself "the free world" for a while. While it was certainly freer for most white middle class citizens, it also created its neo-colonial shadow on other parts of the globe.

The single greatest threat against individual self-determination these days is corporatocracy. As a result, my standpoint is that I now support maximum freedom of individuals possible, but not the "free market." I support moderately regulated markets, a lot of local stuff and barters - but certainly not the international arms trade. I would say very small enterprises probably work better independently (as economics textbooks unfailingly point out), but that it is inhuman and unreal (in Marxist jargon: alienated) to own a railway, the coastline or the mines. However, if something is so large as say, an oil refinery, and it must be operated, it should respond to the needs of a larger collective. There are other incentives in human life than owning much more than you can manage.

I have befriended well-to-do people with over 200 employees and I can say I already saw some personality distortion from having all that money and power - though they did as good as they could with charity etc.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





Originally posted by crankySamurai
To me freedom brings prosperity.


This is what I said. I still believe that the individual freedom will bring prosperity, but that is not my defense of it or justification for it.



The bit of the puzzle that you keep overlooking is that to guarantee individual freedom takes force.


It is only aggressive force, force which violates the principle of self-ownership, a mans claim on his own body, which is not permitted. Retaliatory force, force which is used in response to aggressive action, is perfectly moral. If an individual claims he can hit me, steal my property, dictate my actions (by threat of force), then it is my right and my responsibility to stand in defiance and respond with force when necessary.

Notice that with this understanding only the first use of force immoral, but the second, that is the response to someones violation, is not only moral but practically necessary.



People are not "given" more authority, they "take" it because they are "free" to do so.


No man or group of men is free to violate an individuals sovereignty. I'm not sure where you think I claim this. If an individual or group of individuals claims this and act on it, they are asserting force against you. It is your right to stand against this with retaliatory force. This is the only use of force that is morally acceptable.

This must be clear. Governments, clans, thieves, warlords use aggressive force. It is this that must be acknowledged and rejected as immoral. As long as the use of aggressive force is permitted as morally acceptable there will be tyrants and oppressive systems of government.

edit on 9-2-2013 by crankySamurai because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by venkman13
 


I like to start with what is irrefutable, the axiom of self-ownership, and build from there.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by crankySamurai
"To me freedom brings prosperity."

This is what I said. I still believe that the individual freedom will bring prosperity, but that is not my defense of it or justification for it.

It is a blanket statement which you later qualified by stating that you meant individual freedom.



It is only aggressive force, force which violates the principle of self-ownership, a mans claim on his own body, which is not permitted. Retaliatory force, force which is used in response to aggressive action, is perfectly moral. If an individual claims he can hit me, steal my property, dictate my actions (by threat of force), then it is my right and my responsibility to stand in defiance and respond with force when necessary.

An individual doesn't have to claim anything. If he hits you, steals your property or forces you then it's done. There is nothing left to philosophize.



No man or group of men is free to violate an individuals sovereignty. I'm not sure where you think I claim this. If an individual or group of individuals claims this and act on it, they are asserting force against you. It is your right to stand against this with retaliatory force. This is the only use of force that is morally acceptable.

I never said you claimed it. I'm pointing out that it is the reality of this world that keeps getting left out of your ideology.


This must be clear. Governments, clans, thieves, warlords use aggressive force. It is this that must be acknowledged and rejected as immoral. As long as the use of aggressive force is permitted as morally acceptable there will be tyrants and oppressive systems of government.

You need to take a long hard look at what you posted here until you realize how convoluted this is.
edit on 9-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
reply to post by lampsalot
 


Thanks to Capitalism, our poorest in the US own colour TV's, cell phones, microwave ovens, Nike basketball shoes, are overfed, watch Cable TV, have internet access, etc...

Thanks to Capitalism, I was able to, despite being born to a very poor family, achieve an impressive amount of success and wealth. None of which was handed to me because it was my 'right'.

So, what are the alternatives to Capitalism? Let's explore them in great detail here, shall we?


I have thought in depth about this I believe we need a new system that does not exist yet. This new system should be based on human need not human greed. The problem is we have set up a system that is based upon and relies on currency/money; this is a invalid system. Why? The simple reason is because currency can be devalued and it can cause inflation and at severe rates. Zimbabawee had that happen to them where everyone was a billionare yet had no food. It costs more than most people had to buy one loaf of bread. This is the nightmare because everything is devalued by currency and even human life.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 




It is a blanket statement which you later qualified by stating that you meant individual freedom.


Of course I mean individual freedom, what the hell kind of freedom do you think I'm talking about.



An individual doesn't have to claim anything. If he hits you, steals your property or forces you then it's done. There is nothing left to philosophize.


This is nothing more than a cop out. I am telling you which actions are moral and immoral and your saying it doesn't matter, that once it's done its done, no reflection necessary.



I'm pointing out that it is the reality of this world that keeps getting left out of your ideology.


NO the reality that people keep ignoring is that of the state. People think that the state can be used as a tool to aggress against whoever they want, that just because the state is the one doing the stealing, killing, detaining it is morally acceptable.

"My ideology" is the response to this aggression. It is the response to aggressive action taken any behalf of any individual of group of individuals who claim to have the moral authority to such action. It is this ideology of individual freedom which morally justifies use of force against such oppression. It is this ideology which the individual can use as a tool to obtain his freedom, by force if necessary.

The free market is the only economic structure aligned to the individual. It is this ideology that I stand behind.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by crankySamurai
Of course I mean individual freedom, what the hell kind of freedom do you think I'm talking about.

Please, I was just pointing out that you did not specify that in the beginning.


This is nothing more than a cop out. I am telling you which actions are moral and immoral and your saying it doesn't matter, that once it's done its done, no reflection necessary.

And I'm telling you what happens in the real world. You know, the place where your ideology, which looks great on paper, falls apart.


NO the reality that people keep ignoring is that of the state. People think that the state can be used as a tool to aggress against whoever they want, that just because the state is the one doing the stealing, killing, detaining it is morally acceptable.

It can be used and has been used that way. Doesn't make it right but it is the truth.


"My ideology" is the response to this aggression. It is the response to aggressive action taken any behalf of any individual of group of individuals who claim to have the moral authority to such action. It is this ideology of individual freedom which morally justifies use of force against such oppression. It is this ideology which the individual can use as a tool to obtain his freedom, by force if necessary.

The free market is the only economic structure aligned to the individual. It is this ideology that I stand behind.

No it isn't. It is just as simplistic and misguided as every other ideology that has failed when put to the test in the real world.

You have not given one example of anything close to it working anywhere, ever. Stand behind it all you want but in the end you'll end up joining everybody else, coping out with the "that wasn't real (insert failed system name here)", line.

edit on 9-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


If your just going to resort to insults ill just give you a big F you. The free market is in no way simplistic. Your continued rejection of moral principle will lead to continually self destructing systems that perpetuate violence. You reject the principle of self-ownership, that's your deal.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by crankySamurai
 

So you have nothing but a paper model and you think that that proves something?


This must be clear. Governments, clans, thieves, warlords use aggressive force. It is this that must be acknowledged and rejected as immoral. As long as the use of aggressive force is permitted as morally acceptable there will be tyrants and oppressive systems of government.

I told you to take a good look at the statement you made above and figure out why it is convoluted. I guess you didn't figure it out so I will lay it out: those who use aggressive force are not waiting for you to give them permission. No matter how much you acknowledge and reject it, if they continue to resort to it then what are you going to do?

You say that you will fight but lets be honest, you are living under a government at this very moment and I'm sure that other than "getting the message out", your really not doing anything to stop them from using force. I bet you acquiesce to a lot of it. Most people do because of the reason I gave above.

That is the reality of this world which won't let free market capitalism work.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I'm not sure what your point is with this. Its impractical because people aren't smart enough? Is that the point? The morality of the issue stands and it does not matter whether people accept it or not. Truth is true, it does not need people believing it to make it true.

You can go look for a way that is more pragmatic, but its like trying to build a building while ignoring the laws of reality, it will always fall. Morality stands. The free market is the only system which does not go against mans nature. If people choose not to accept it that's fine, they don't have to. Doesn't make it any less true. People can continue to build system after system, as they will all fall, until there has been enough pain and poverty to make them decide that they want a system that will work.

edit on 9-2-2013 by crankySamurai because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by crankySamurai
 

Why is the point so difficult for you to see? Immoral people will act immorally. You standing up and pointing at them and saying, "that is immoral", isn't going to make them stop.

The free market system does nothing to keep immoral people from acting immorally. You seem to think that this is something that you can just overlook. That everyone being free will sort it all out. It doesn't and the lack of real world examples proves that.

You can continue to believe and repeat the same old Austrian School of economics' quotes but the truth is that they don't flesh out in the real world.
edit on 9-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


So your solution is a system which is based on immorality? Where the people "in charge" are permitted and even encouraged to behave immorally?

The free market does not let just anybody acquire wealth. You must be able to produce it. Its not like a government where the officials are given a free pass to attain any weapon and amount of military man power that they want. They can command whole armies and buy as many weapons of mass destruction as they desire and they did not have to produce an ounce of that wealth. Not only this but the blatant theft used to procure this wealth it is deemed morally acceptable by the public.

The free market does not claim to end immorality, but sure as hell stops giving free weapons to the most immoral of us.

In the market there is no entity which is superior to the rest, which claims different standards of judgment. One is not given moral supremacy and lawful jurisdiction over others.

The assumption is that private property could not be enforced in the market. That just courts would not be in demand and that people could not defend themselves. Without our wise overlords providing these services no body would be able to figure them out.

There has not yet been absolute free markets tried, but before America there was never this type of republic tried. It was an experiment and that is how progress is made. The founder could have said well, there has never been a government arranged quite like this... how do we know it will work? All we have is a paper model... and all that crap. The American republic has had the best system to resist oppression to date and a whole lot of prosperity that followed, but now with it going under its time to take it yet another step further down the path to individual freedom.

In order to attain wealth in the free market you must produce it. Sure you can try to steal it but it sure is hard to rob someone when you don't have much of anything and no authority to get it. For those smart enough to be able to produce, it becomes clear that producing wealth is much easier and beneficial than working to take it from others. Robbery and theft die out simply out of practicality, it sure is hard to steal from someone if he has a lot more resources than you.

If you have those resources sure you could try to take people over, become a dictator. Worst case scenario we end up with something like we have right now. Chances are people would actually realize that its unprofitable to do so. It would cost to much and require the use of to many resources to enslave a bunch of people. If these people are already free they would be much quicker to recognize oppression when some business tries to pull this. Its a lot different with a government who the people already give oppressive powers from the start.

The immoral is the immoral because it is not best suited for living. It is not the most efficient nor does it lead to the highest potential for the individual. It is more than just wrong, it is unbeneficial for the one practicing immoral behavior. This might actually be realized by people given true freedom and a little bit of time, but in the mean time there would be a high demand for services with protect individuals from immoral behavior. Smart entrepreneurs would have no trouble figuring this out and would be glad to make money providing it.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by crankySamurai
 

I never said I had a solution. I'm pointing out why your solution won't work.

Everything that you claim happens in a free market is untrue as evidenced in the real world. Your already using the "it has never been tried" line.

Do you want to know why "it has never been tried"? Because in the real world someone who is willing to use force always comes along and takes control. This is backed up by it having been the norm, all over the world, throughout history.

Where's the proof for your claims?

edit on 9-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
In what way would the "free market" promote the rights and self-determination of individuals across the world?
I fail to see that it would have any consequences in today's globalized world.
It did so in textbooks describing the situation of eighteenth-century grocers in England. But that is a basically nonexistent economic model today.
If any industry is relevant, paid experts will find legal and illegal ways to eliminate all competition. Yes, this has been a case with even mom and pop grocery stores in this country - large firms would design a strategy to put them out of business even if they had to sell routine products under their acquisition price for extended periods of time.
This type of pressure has always been working in international relationships (e.g. how much a country stands to profit from its own natural resources), but at least checks and balances were placed on it within the Western world. Simple laws, even with added regulations such as a multimillionaires not being able to buy a politician directly - limits on campaign contributions etc. Of course, meanwhile in Nigeria, Shell equals government, though formally they are elected just as they are here. No one is concerned about oil spills (except local millions) because it is not in the interest of the West to impose penalties on their own corporations abroad.

Investors own multinational corporations. If they cannot find cheap and exploitable labor in the Western World (if that's where they are based, laws used to make them have local employees, but this is less and less so), or if cannot manage to bribe the first world legislators, they will outsource work to other countries, where governments are routinely bribed, threatened or coup-d-état-ed as long as there are US interests and labor suppressed (which usually stands up for the individual rights of workers).
It was only the democratically elected states and legislature bodies of first world governments, as well as international agreements that used to place some degree of control over this - true, this hardly affected the targeted Third World countries and the effect has been far less noticeable after Reagan's deregulation (which was followed by the entire Western World).

Economy these days is very rarely a single issue of any one country.
You would have to have liberal democracy in the entire world if you are serious. Which would be nice. But hundreds of wars were started against precisely that in the past century, mainly by the oligarchy and the militaries serving them. If you work for the individual in Central America, for instance, you are branded a Communist - with very serious consequences.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


What evidence? Whats the evidence that self ownership is a "bad system" to operate by. Whats the evidence that voluntary action doesn't work?

The reason this has not been tried yet is because fools like you keep asking for oppression. People insist on a forceful government who will prevent people from operating this way.

I'm not sure what evidence you talking about other than the fact that people continually support their own enslavement. If that's the evidence your referring to then I don't disagree.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by crankySamurai
 

Pointing out that oppression exists and that free market capitalism has nothing inherent to counter it is not the same as asking for it.

If you don't see how most of human history is proof of this then you are just in denial.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


The defense is the awareness of it. In most systems of government the oppression is asked for and thought of as moral. The majority of people are not even aware that they are under a restrictive rule. They think that they are free and that this is what freedom is. When this is the common consciousness there is little resistance to the state, that is until it pushes to far, and by that time they are usually disarmed.

The concept of self-ownership is never asserted so when it is broken there is no objection. In a system where this it he very basis and principle of operation the general awareness of oppression, violation of this principle, will be much greater.

People are armed and that is the defense. If there is no standing army given, to a would be tyrant, it is nearly impossible to take over an armed population. Even with a standing army there is little chance a military would win against an well armed population. The U.S. military can barely handle the poverty stricken middle east, let a alone a population that is well armed and has ability to produce wealth. The best weapon of the authoritarians is the ignorance the public has of its own servitude, of the concepts of self-ownership and individual freedom.

The free market is premised on this very concept. The general public must understand individual freedom and self-ownership for it to even arise.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by daskakik
 

The free market is premised on this very concept. The general public must understand individual freedom and self-ownership for it to even arise.

I understand the premise but that very premise lacks any inherent construct to prevent oppression other than to arm yourself and band together. Guess what that leads to? Pretty soon your back at square one. That is why you have nothing to point to and say "there is an example of free market capitalism working well".

Your lack off proof is proof to the contrary.






top topics



 
29
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join