Ten Myths About Capitalism

reply to post by lampsalot



from whom does govt get money from?

reply to post by hawkiye


Just like when you say what we have today isn't Capitalism because it's corrupted by the State and how there is only one definition of Capitalism? You're taking the exact stance and using the exact same wording as Socialists. One post of yours in this thread is very nearly identical to one of mine on Socialism. The State corrupted Socialism and made it the exact opposite of it's definition and intention. You might want to stop acting like someone took your binky and try looking at the actual problem... the State.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
I'm sorry but you have to be crazy if you think fascism can claim this. Market socialism could claim this if it is not forced on anybody but arises voluntarily once freedom is established. Anarchism is the ultimate free society where no aggressive force is accepted as moral and a free market would thrive under this environment.

Actually fascism can claim this as can others systems which include a market model on the economic side.

Look man there are two different poles that an economy can lean towards. One is called command economy where all freedom is outlawed and all economic choices are made centrally and enforced aggressively. The other is the absolute free market where all coercive force is illegal and only voluntary action takes place. Every economic system is on that spectrum somewhere between total force and total freedom. The idea is to understand this and push in the direction of the abolition of aggressive force as morally acceptable. There are however different variations and mixes between these two polarities. Just because there are aspects of the free market that exist does not mean that capitalism is the system in place. Both of those opposite poles are nearly impossible to come to in reality so there will always be some mixture. The point is to move as close as you can to the total freedom pole and your pushing the wrong direction.

The problem I see is that everything left of absolute free markets but right of the center, is still claimed to be leftist by proponents of capitalism. This is dishonest. As is the idea that only under absolute free markets can someone accumulate wealth.

You said it plainly in this reply, "in reality there will always be a mixture" and I happen to agree, which is why I have stated, as I often do, that a free market has never existed on a national level anywhere.

The actual point I was making was that even in the most controlled system there is always individual trade and more often than not a free/black market. So in some way, there is always capitalism.

By the way, I don't push in any particular direction. I believe the wealthy will use whatever movement is popular with the masses at any given time and place to stay on top.

reply to post by daskakik


You know what.....................ah never mind. You won't understand it anyways.

I get that you don't like Capitalism. That is nice.

reply to post by macman

Actually I don't have a problem with capitalism.

I have a problem with the misrepresentation of what it is, the turning of a blind eye as to what its weaknesses are and the demonizing of anything other than.

I also have a problem with people stating that anything other than free markets is not capitalism and, in the same breath, trying to claim that 19th century USA, which was full of market manipulation by the state and big business, as the example par excellence of capitalism.

reply to post by daskakik


Free Market Capitalism is what we are supposed to have. That is what provides the most freedom on an economic environment.

The others are all forms of Capitalism one way or another.

I do agree that there has been outside influence, but the market was never allowed to correct itself. The Govt just stepped in and tried to be the nanny for the whole correction process, thus leaving us with a jacked up system, more so with every action Govt injects with.

Originally posted by macman
Free Market Capitalism is what we are supposed to have. That is what provides the most freedom on an economic environment.

Free market capitalism is what they promised but politicians are not known for keeping their promises.

I do agree that there has been outside influence, but the market was never allowed to correct itself. The Govt just stepped in and tried to be the nanny for the whole correction process, thus leaving us with a jacked up system, more so with every action Govt injects with.

When you realize that it was business men, like John Hancock, who pushed the hardest for the American Revolution and that many of them ended up being part of the government then, how can anyone really believe that government was ever free from the influence of these business interests?

Yet, no founding father displayed greater virtue and resolution towards independence and none spent more of their personal wealth toward that effort. During the War of Revolution it was mostly Hancock's money which armed and fed the volunteers from Massachusetts.

reply to post by daskakik


I agree that what we were promised, is not what is being delivered.

Now, as for the interests of the Founding Fathers??
Don't know, as I was not there.

reply to post by macman

I meant the interests that some had, as far as their personal businesses and how this had to have played a part in how they voted while in positions in government. Just the fact that the Articles of Confederation were dumped because they didn't give the federal government enough power is very telling.

reply to post by daskakik


Ahhhhh, you want the Fed Govt to have more power???

Men are men. Regardless of the personal interest, if they followed through with what they believed in, it doesn't matter, as I have yet to meet anyone that knows what is in the heart of your fellow man.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by daskakik

 

Ahhhhh, you want the Fed Govt to have more power???

Men are men. Regardless of the personal interest, if they followed through with what they believed in, it doesn't matter, as I have yet to meet anyone that knows what is in the heart of your fellow man.

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with me wanting anything.

They wanted the Fed Govt to have more power so they did away with the Articles of Confederation and voted in the Constitution. That action shows what some of them actually believed in.

reply to post by daskakik


Dude you can argue about semantics as much as you want. I don't care what you want to call it but I am in favor of freedom. It is that simple.

I'm tired of going circles with you guys. You don't like freedom thats fine. Go offer yourself up for enslavement but you cannot offer me up. You can give up your guns, your mind, your family but you cannot give up mine. You want to give up your property, the sovereignty of your own body, the freedom to make your own decisions that is your prerogative and I will not stop you. But when you offer me up for the same I will fight as is my right as an individual.

There is no compromise with this. It is freedom or slavery. You can give freedom whatever name you want to as long as the principles are the same. Self-ownership, private property and non aggression. There make up your own name for it. Have a ball.

KGB defector:

reply to post by crankySamurai

I'm talking about the actions of the forefathers showing that, some of them, pushed hard for big government and somehow you have turned that into a case of semantics.

They are the ones who pulled the bait and switch. I don't know why you and macman think it has anything to do with me personally.

In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by crankySamurai

 

I'm talking about the actions of the forefathers not fitting your definition of freedom and you want to call semantics?

They are the ones who pulled the bait and switch. I don't know why you and macman think it has anything to do with me personally.

In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification.

You are talking about the forefathers as if they were all of one mind. Jefferson was an anti-federalist Hamilton was a federalist. Both are considered forefathers. Some were working for more central power and some were working to prevent it. The articles of confederation would of definitely been preferable, they instituted no central government.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the free market or capitalism. My study of economics has nothing to do with the founding father but instead with Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises.

The constitution right now is our best legal defense against the state and it should be used as such. This being said I think it has utterly failed and would not of supported it at its founding.

reply to post by crankySamurai

Already edited to show that it was only some of them, as I have said in more than one post.

The point is that they were politicians and while some fought hard for "freedom", many fought just as hard for "slavery". Since you want to act like there can only be one or the other, which one do you think won out, given the fact that the smaller federal government of the Articles of Confederation were traded for the larger government of the Constitution.

It has to do with the claim that establishing the new government was all about ensuring free markets. There's even a copyright clause in the constitution. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it is just more proof that among those who came together to vote on it, there were those who were looking out for number one.

reply to post by daskakik


I'm not sure what your arguing. Of course people are fighting all of the time for and against freedom. I am fighting for freedom. Whats your point? That your fighting for slavery?

reply to post by crankySamurai

In case you have not noticed, people often claim that some long gone period in american history was one big free market and that this was the reason for american prosperity. Such a time never existed and people buying into that version of history are being duped. That is all I am saying.

In the spirit of this thread, it would seem that the reason for the existence of this version of history is to perpetuate the myths of capitalism.

reply to post by daskakik


The 1800s in America was a time a of great freedom compared with this planets history. There was still attempts at central banks, there was still authoritarianism, there was still aggression against the individual by the state, but it as still less than any other time in this worlds history. If you don't like the 1800s that's fine you don't have to and to be honest, while history may be useful, it does nothing to validate or invalidate the moral issues of non-aggression and self-ownership. These are principles of morality. They have nothing to do with history.

You need to stop feeling butt hurt when you hear the word capitalism and instead realize what principles it stands for. This does not have to do with history, it does not have to do with dogma, it does not have to do with peoples bias towards a word. This has to do with principles and ideologies. If you don't agree with self-ownership argue against it. If you don't agree with voluntary action argue against that. if you don't agree with non-aggression or private property then you can argue against those things, but stop arguing against groups or organizations that you don't like or agree with.

I care not what people have done in the name of an ideology but instead the principles that the ideology is based on. That is the important part so argue against that if you still want to argue.

reply to post by crankySamurai

Like I said above I don't have anything against "capitalism". I don't even have a problem with what people may have done in the name of that ideology but I do have something against people trying to back up the "utopian" aspects of it, using lies and history seen through rose colored glasses.

I'm just pointing out how futile your fight for "freedom" really is if you believe that that moment in time was the pinnacle of freedom. Again, as stated before, turning a blind eye to the weaknesses of the ideology can only end with the same mistakes, already evidenced by history, being repeated.

reply to post by crankySamurai

The 1800s in America was a time a of great freedom compared with this planets history.

You can't be serious. I suppose you're referring to the great prosperity of American and British Capitalists? Sure it was a time of great freedom for them. Extremely prosperous too, in fact much of the wealth generated then is still floating around today in their decedents off-shore accounts.

But there was an extremely heavy human price paid which we are still feeling the blowback from even now. Their is still an extremely heavy human price today in our wiser more ethical 'free market' by wiser and more ethical I of course mean, we just don't talk about the horrors.

there was still aggression against the individual by the state, but it as still less than any other time in this worlds history.

Again, I guess it depends on your perspective because it certainly was not less for Africans, South/Central Americans, Mexicans and Native Americans and God knows where else.

Capitalism depends on exploitation and that hasn't changed regardless of how much Capitalism has changed and it never will change.