Can we have a meaningful discussion about the effectiveness of capitalism?

Rob Roy · May 2, 2015

NewtoMJ said:
I understand what you're saying, but whose going to stop them from getting together and creating a monopoly. Also, what about the people who need their services but can not afford them? What happens if a single mom of 3 has HER car stolen, and she cannot afford the justice companies fee? Do they take their fee from the criminal? Then what if he or she has nothing? What do we do if someone gets a bunch of arms, and tries taking over things with force, like some individual governing nations in Africa? What do we do when a single person with no relatives or friends is murdered, it doesn't create profit for these justice companies to persue the murderer, so what happens? The point is, anarchy has been tried and is still being tried in some places with utter failure. We haven't even covered who makes the money that these companies are going to want for their profit.

Nearly any monopoly you can think of came about thru the biggest monopoly of them all (government)(providing some level of protectionism to a business. When you remove the protectionism, (government) the ability to hold a monopoly is severely restricted.

Actually government has been tried and is an utter failure. Which entity has caused the greatest number of deaths, caused violence to exist on a large scale (wars) and restricted peoples freedom the most?

Who makes the money? Money is just a substitute for some kind of value. The "money" most people carry in their wallet is a debt note and serves a function, but not the one most people think.

The only sure way to prevent the rich from buying unfair government influence is to stop allowing government to use physical force against peaceful people. Whenever government is allowed to favor one group over another, the rich will always win, since they can "buy" more favors, overtly or covertly, than the poor. - Mary Ruwart

If people needed helping, I should expend my energy to offer that help, rather than forcing others to provide it. - Mary Ruwart

NewtoMJ · May 2, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Nearly any monopoly you can think of came about thru the biggest monopoly of them all (government)(providing some level of protectionism to a business. When you remove the protectionism, (government) the ability to hold a monopoly is severely restricted.

Actually government has been tried and is an utter failure. Which entity has caused the greatest number of deaths, caused violence to exist on a large scale (wars) and restricted peoples freedom the most?

Who makes the money? Money is just a substitute for some kind of value. The "money" most people carry in their wallet is a debt note and serves a function, but not the one most people think.

The only sure way to prevent the rich from buying unfair government influence is to stop allowing government to use physical force against peaceful people. Whenever government is allowed to favor one group over another, the rich will always win, since they can "buy" more favors, overtly or covertly, than the poor. - Mary Ruwart

If people needed helping, I should expend my energy to offer that help, rather than forcing others to provide it. - Mary Ruwart

Well, were gonna agree to disagree. At least we didn't end up calling each other racist pedophiles.

Rob Roy · May 2, 2015

NewtoMJ said:
Well, were gonna agree to disagree. At least we didn't end up calling each other racist pedophiles.

Yes, thank you for engaging politely. I appreciate that.

Padawanbater2 · May 2, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Nearly any monopoly you can think of came about thru the biggest monopoly of them all (government)(providing some level of protectionism to a business. When you remove the protectionism, (government) the ability to hold a monopoly is severely restricted.

Actually government has been tried and is an utter failure. Which entity has caused the greatest number of deaths, caused violence to exist on a large scale (wars) and restricted peoples freedom the most?

Who makes the money? Money is just a substitute for some kind of value. The "money" most people carry in their wallet is a debt note and serves a function, but not the one most people think.

The only sure way to prevent the rich from buying unfair government influence is to stop allowing government to use physical force against peaceful people. Whenever government is allowed to favor one group over another, the rich will always win, since they can "buy" more favors, overtly or covertly, than the poor. - Mary Ruwart

If people needed helping, I should expend my energy to offer that help, rather than forcing others to provide it. - Mary Ruwart

Why do you think government was established?

schuylaar · May 2, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I'm afraid you have failed to understand what a consensual exchange is. It is not a monopoly if you can refuse it, counter offer or make an exchange with other people rather than just the one party making an offer.

My theories are what must be done if people are to be free and peaceful. Logic has my back.

Your "theories" are the ones used by people that think it is okay for some people to run others lives....that's alot like slavery isn't it?

it's a bit hard to refuse utilities. but that's just me.

reddan1981 · May 2, 2015

The Social Compact

John Locke and other philosophers developed a solution to the problems that exist in a place without government. In a state of nature, people might feel free to do anything they want to do. However, their rights would not be protected and they would feel insecure.

Locke argued that people should agree with one another to give up some of their freedom in exchange for protection and security. They should consent to follow some laws in exchange for the protection that these laws would give them. This agreement is called a social compact or social contract. A social compact is an agreement people make among themselves to create a government to rule them and protect their natural rights. In this agreement the people consent to obey the laws created by that government.

Wavels · May 2, 2015

Capitalism is rife with problems and largely sucks, however it is still superior to any alternative as yet attempted historically by the feeble mind of man and his societies.

Innovation and the quest to obtain the satisfaction of consumers drives the imperfect engine of capitalism.

abandonconflict · May 2, 2015

Standard oil wasn't built by gov't, it was broken by it.

abandonconflict · May 2, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Why do you think government was established?

To serve the ruling class and protect private property.

Padawanbater2 · May 2, 2015

Wavels said:
Capitalism is rife with problems and largely sucks, however it is still superior to any alternative as yet attempted historically by the feeble mind of man and his societies.

Innovation and the quest to obtain the satisfaction of consumers drives the imperfect engine of capitalism.

I think it would depend on the metric used to determine superiority to reach that conclusion. For example, if your goal is to ensure selling your labor results in maximized profits, and that's all, capitalism is probably the best system of economics to use. If your goal is to eliminate poverty, capitalism is probably the worst system of economics to use.

So it depends on how you're measuring it and what you want to accomplish

Wavels · May 2, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
I think it would depend on the metric used to determine superiority to reach that conclusion. For example, if your goal is to ensure selling your labor results in maximized profits, and that's all, capitalism is probably the best system of economics to use. If your goal is to eliminate poverty, capitalism is probably the worst system of economics to use.

So it depends on how you're measuring it and what you want to accomplish

The basic elevation and improvement of the human condition, in toto, has been decidedly and demonstrably more positive under the influence of some type of capitalism.
Perfection is unattainable, and we need to do the best we can given the constraints of reality and human history.

Padawanbater2 · May 2, 2015

Wavels said:
The basic elevation and improvement of the human condition, in toto, has been decidedly and demonstrably more positive under the influence of some type of capitalism.

I think it's unfair to compare the capitalist society we live in today with the communist or socialist societies of the past because they weren't true representations of communism or socialism as observed by men like Marx. It would be similar to someone looking at the US today with the rampant corruption and crony capitalism and basing their opinion of capitalism on that.

Wavels · May 2, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
I think it's unfair to compare the capitalist society we live in today with the communist or socialist societies of the past because they weren't true representations of communism or socialism as observed by men like Marx. It would be similar to someone looking at the US today with the rampant corruption and crony capitalism and basing their opinion of capitalism on that.

So you guys basically want a do-over.
This is understandable and I am not wholly against this notion.

Unfettered socialism vs unfettered capitalism...hmm, interesting.

Padawanbater2 · May 2, 2015

Wavels said:
So you guys basically want a do-over.
This is understandable and I am not wholly against this notion.

Unfettered socialism vs unfettered capitalism...hmm, interesting.

That's why I brought up Mondragon, that's a socialist system that seems to be pretty effective at what they do. I wouldn't want to live under communism or socialism of regimes of the past, those are perverted interpretations of the systems designed to consolidate power to a small group of elites (sounds eerily similar, doesn't it?)

In any case, communism, socialism, capitalism, or something new would all be a lot better without some group twisting the meaning to suit their own interests

max420thc · May 2, 2015

reddan1981 said:
The Social Compact

John Locke and other philosophers developed a solution to the problems that exist in a place without government. In a state of nature, people might feel free to do anything they want to do. However, their rights would not be protected and they would feel insecure.

Locke argued that people should agree with one another to give up some of their freedom in exchange for protection and security. They should consent to follow some laws in exchange for the protection that these laws would give them. This agreement is called a social compact or social contract. A social compact is an agreement people make among themselves to create a government to rule them and protect their natural rights. In this agreement the people consent to obey the laws created by that government.

ben franklin said those that would give up liberty for security would get neither

travisw · May 2, 2015

max420thc said:
ben franklin said those that would give up liberty for security would get neither

Do you even quote bro?

You clearly don't have a clue, what that fuck Ben was talking about, in that misquote you posted. He wasn't writing about being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his role as a legislator being asked to renounce his ability to tax lands under his jurisdiction.

The essential liberties he referenced weren't civil liberties, they were the right of self governance of a legislator in the interest of collective security.

Learn to history, dump truck!

Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep

desert dude · May 2, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
I think it would depend on the metric used to determine superiority to reach that conclusion. For example, if your goal is to ensure selling your labor results in maximized profits, and that's all, capitalism is probably the best system of economics to use. If your goal is to eliminate poverty, capitalism is probably the worst system of economics to use.

So it depends on how you're measuring it and what you want to accomplish

If your goal is to say something profoundly silly, then you have achieved it. A person, or society eliminates poverty by working and producing something of value. If you can't keep your gains, there is little incentive to work your ass off. If nobody in a society works hard, that society is impoverished as a result and there can be no other result.

Government oppression is no way to get rich.

Padawanbater2 · May 3, 2015

desert dude said:
A person, or society eliminates poverty by working and producing something of value.

How does that person or society rise out of poverty if they end up actually earning 6% of what they're making while their boss earns the remaining 93%?

desert dude said:
If you can't keep your gains, there is little incentive to work your ass off.

That's interesting, you seem to be saying exactly what I've been saying. Why should I "work my ass off" if my boss gets to keep the majority of my labor?

desert dude said:
If nobody in a society works hard, that society is impoverished as a result and there can be no other result.

The same goes for a society that does work hard but doesn't get to keep the wages they've earned

abandonconflict · May 3, 2015

Wavels said:
The basic elevation and improvement of the human condition, in toto, has been decidedly and demonstrably more positive under the influence of some type of capitalism.

For some, but simultaneously for the majority of the rest of the species and for every other species it has not. Neoliberal western imperialism is quite possibly the greatest scourge in history and is wholly dependant upon war and consumerism if not outright colonialism. In fact, just about all of the problems facing our planet can be traced back to it, from the mushrooming population growth to the melting glaciers and sea ice to the plastic trash gyres in every ocean to the catastrophic declines in many species of wildlife in every niche of every ecosystem.

The prosperity for a few came at far too great a cost.

max420thc · May 3, 2015

travisw said:
Do you even quote bro?

You clearly don't have a clue, what that fuck Ben was talking about, in that misquote you posted. He wasn't writing about being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his role as a legislator being asked to renounce his ability to tax lands under his jurisdiction.

The essential liberties he referenced weren't civil liberties, they were the right of self governance of a legislator in the interest of collective security.

Learn to history, dump truck!

Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep

Yea I know exactly what he meant. ive read most of bens writings in the anti federalist papers,
I see we have another one of the three stooges, we are going to have to add you as the fourth stooge,
All aboard the free shit train,

Can we have a meaningful discussion about the effectiveness of capitalism?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads