Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure what you mean. Anarchy is the natural state of a free soul. If you are free you will engage in capitalism or go it alone. Do as you wish.
There is no such thing as a "free soul."
Each and every soul is assigned certain role in the grand scheme of things ( or social formation if you wish.)
Quote:
You're in it right now. You signed the social contract by flying out of a vagina...remember?
Nope, don't remember signing ANYTHING at that point in time.
Quote:
Who are the most morally reprehensible people on earth in your eyes? The masters or the slaves?
One important thing I learned is that there are reprehensible people in both groups.
That's where the Communists went totally wrong with all their "class" theories)))
Quote:
There is no expectation of behavior when a free soul freely interacts with others.
I call it BS.
Quote:
Capitalism is based on freedom which is the highest form of human nature.
Capitalism is based on human misery and no particular belief that humans can overcome their greed and selfishness.
Quote:
Anything else (socialism) is simply slavery to varying degrees.
And so is the capitalism. Different kind of slavery, different structure of hierarchy, different idols, but slavery never the less.
If you had a choose which one would you prefer and why? There's pros and cons on both sides but which is the best form of governance?
I'll start...
I see Socialism as a trade. You give up freedom and individuality in return for a promise of security. The problem is these promises are often broken. No government can give you peace of mind and protect you from the realities of life. Life is a learning experience with many challenges and nobody can protect you from it. That's why Socialism doesn't work. The world isn't perfect.
As for Capitalism. The economy grows because people engage in consensual transactions and people invent new things in order to engage in more consensual transactions. That's not an impoverished thing. The truth is that socialism is the most selfish philosophy on Planet Earth because it's the concept where I breathe, therefore i deserve. Capitalism is in essence forced altruism because if I don't give you something you want then I'll starve so therefore it's based on consent. Socialism is based on force.
In the 1950's we had the highest wages and made the cheapest stuff. That's because we had more capital. Government was less involved in the private sector than today. I don't want to get too far off topic but if we have less taxes and less regulations then companies here in the U.S. will be more than willing to hire more workers since there's less risk.
For clarification, are you speaking in pure terms? Because neither in their purest forms is really the "best", in my opinion.
Pure capitalism cares very little about the well being of the world or its people. It's dog-eat-dog, and taken to its logical extreme will destroy the world as we know it.
Pure socialism takes care of everyone, but at the expense of many things (such as quality of life or advancements in technology).
It's balancing between them that pushes humanity forward. I tend to think something like a 50/50 balance (whatever that means...) is what one should shoot for. And in that regard, I guess there isn't one that's better than the other. Capitalism should be regulated if we actually care about the survival of our species and the well being of our common man - and socialism should the tool by which you regulate capitalism and take care of the world and its people.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,590,333 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
It's the "bad people may do bad things to you so let's give one man/small group the power to do bad things on our behalf to stop them" scenario.
No matter how many times we see it play out we continue to go back to the same model.
Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Pinochet.
If we vote for the right guy this time. If we agree to only murder/steal this one time.
Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results?
Pinochet was a "free market" right winger, thought you would have been for him, among statists anyways
And have to correct you, Pinochet was installed by coup de etat by the US, because we didn't want Salvatore Allende in charge. Same thing when Mossadeq was overthrown in Iran, by us and the British because he was going to nationalize Iran's oil industry
Pinochet was a "free market" right winger, thought you would have been for him, among statists anyways
And have to correct you, Pinochet was installed by coup de etat by the US, because we didn't want Salvatore Allende in charge. Same thing when Mossadeq was overthrown in Iran, by us and the British because he was going to nationalize Iran's oil industry
That's why I threw him in there. Authoritarianism exists on the Left and Right via statism.
Trump is a statist rightie. But you're always a statist first.
As evident by Pinochet's torture, imprisonment and murder of dissidents.
True. Plus most of the Nordic countries are extraordinary ethically homogeneous so they're not comparible as well as being culturally homogenous which means Vermont looks a lot like Denmark and Norway. That's why most of the Vermont loves Bernie. It terms of economics it won't simply work here as these countries have gone nearly bankrupt. With the amount of high taxes in these countries, they're experiencing extremely small GDP and economic growth which in return has led to more right wing dominance in their government. They've been slowly moving away from this even when the U.S. has been paying their defense budget for well over 50 years. With all of that being said, why you want to adopt their system when they can't even sustain their own budget even with A LOT of foreign involvement?
I don't see why an ethnically diverse country couldn't have a system similar to the Nordic countries.
Anyways, those Nordic countries aren't socialist under the more original definition anyways.
In fact, Denmark's Prime Minister asked Bernie to stop calling Denmark socialist, because they are not.
The truth is, that there are variations of capitalism and socialism.
Per their Prime Minister, Denmark is a market economy, with economic freedom, but a large social safety net. He is essentially saying that they are a capitalist society where the means of production and distribution are privately owned, but there is a substantial welfare state to provide more opportunities to pursue one's dreams or recover off of hard times.
Even Adam Smith talked of the need of making the workers happy, content, and even mentioned the possibility of pensions.
True. Plus most of the Nordic countries are extraordinary ethically homogeneous so they're not comparible as well as being culturally homogenous which means Vermont looks a lot like Denmark and Norway. That's why most of the Vermont loves Bernie. It terms of economics it won't simply work here as these countries have gone nearly bankrupt. With the amount of high taxes in these countries, they're experiencing extremely small GDP and economic growth which in return has led to more right wing dominance in their government. They've been slowly moving away from this even when the U.S. has been paying their defense budget for well over 50 years. With all of that being said, why you want to adopt their system when they can't even sustain their own budget even with A LOT of foreign involvement?
"Norway ranks as the second-wealthiest country in the world in monetary value, with the largest capital reserve per capita of any nation."
"Foreign Policy Magazine ranks Norway last in its Failed States Index for 2009, judging Norway to be the world's most well-functioning and stable country." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy
There is no such thing as a "free soul."
Each and every soul is assigned certain role in the grand scheme of things ( or social formation if you wish.)
Contrary to popular belief man walked this earth before involuntary States were formed. States did not exist and then humans appeared. Man created the State. Man creates all social constructs. Stick to the chicken-or-the-egg paradigm. It's much more interesting and not yet solved. I got this one figured out.
No one is "assigned" anything. A human being can live absent human interaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Nope, don't remember signing ANYTHING at that point in time.
So you don't believe in the social contract? Perhaps there is hope for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
One important thing I learned is that there are reprehensible people in both groups.
That's where the Communists went totally wrong with all their "class" theories)))
Political Communists were/are statists. Remember that communism is a philosophical theory first and a political theory second. And a true communist "becomes" apolitical if you subscribe to this philosophy.
But my point was is that when two human interact and one initiates force/breaks the non-aggression principle that person is always at fault. They are wrong. And they have forfeited their rights by infringing on the rights of another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
I call it BS.
I should clarify that response. When two people freely associate without the threat of involuntary third party intervention (the State) you may expect anything and everything under the sun but you will not have the backing of a monopolized goon squad to impose your expectation or have another's expectation imposed on you.
When a man is the rightful owner of the fruits of his labor he can do whatever he wants with his private property. If I make a sandwich and charge 1 cent or $1,000 you cannot force me to sell you that sandwich for $5.00 because that is "what you were expecting to pay".
Of course I'm talking about a morally and logically consistent world not the statist world where we live now. That sandwich is capped on both ends of the pricing scale by 3rd party regulation/law. You never owned that sandwich, it's contents, your thoughts to mentally make it, your arms to to physically make it. The State loaned you those things to you because it sets the price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Capitalism is based on human misery and no particular belief that humans can overcome their greed and selfishness.
Assigning values to the collective/group is your first mistake. Capitalism would be the initial transaction of any two free parties free from coercion. That is why it is the opposite of misery. It is the light of the human soul. The belief that upon an initial social interaction two people can negotaiate their minds and bodies in the development of a relationship is my idea of nirvana. Two slaves using an involuntary government to negotiate their lives because their minds and bodies are on loan from the State is the most depressing miserable plight I can fathom. Unless you cheered for Agent Smith in The Matrix I think you'd agree with me if you really reflected on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
And so is the capitalism. Different kind of slavery, different structure of hierarchy, different idols, but slavery never the less
Once the first State came into existence capitalism ceased to be possible anywhere on earth. Yes, you may find remote desolate areas to minimize third party intervention from the State and you may actually reduce your interaction within the statist paradigm but never forget that all States operate with a carte blanch monopoly on force.
Capitalism is simply the basis of freedom for two parties to interact. How they freely choose to interact is up to them.
This is the exact opposite of slavery where you are only as free as the State you live under allows you to be via socialism.
If you had a choose which one would you prefer and why? There's pros and cons on both sides but which is the best form of governance?
These are not forms of governance.
They are economic systems.
The USA has had a mixed economy since the American Revolution. Most people I know personally have no idea what socialism really is, I suspect that it is the same for most Americans I don't know.
Contrary to popular belief man walked this earth before involuntary States were formed.
Not only did he "walked this Earth," but he actually already passed through few social formations, starting from the first primitive communal system, progressed to slavery, then feudalism and finally capitalism, building and destroying quite a few Empires in the process, when he stumbled by accident upon American continent)))
Quote:
States did not exist and then humans appeared. Man created the State. Man creates all social constructs. Stick to the chicken-or-the-egg paradigm. It's much more interesting and not yet solved. I got this one figured out.
No one is "assigned" anything. A human being can live absent human interaction.
As in Mowgli you mean?
Quote:
So you don't believe in the social contract? Perhaps there is hope for you.
I didn't say that. I only said that I don't remember signing anything the minute I was born.
Quote:
I should clarify that response. When two people freely associate without the threat of involuntary third party intervention (the State) you may expect anything and everything under the sun but you will not have the backing of a monopolized goon squad to impose your expectation or have another's expectation imposed on you.
When a man is the rightful owner of the fruits of his labor he can do whatever he wants with his private property. If I make a sandwich and charge 1 cent or $1,000 you cannot force me to sell you that sandwich for $5.00 because that is "what you were expecting to pay".
No. What might happen instead though, is the big bad dude will show up out of nowhere with few of his friends, and they'll explain it to you that the aforementioned "fruits of your labor" belong to them, with no payment of either $ 1,000 or $5.
You of course can call few of YOUR friends to get your sandwich back, but soon enough it will be all about few of you shooting each other, and you simply won't have any more time to MAKE your sandwiches.
Which in turn will give you a bright idea to ask one of your friends ( or acquaintances) to walk around with a gun, while you keep on making sandwiches. You, of course will have to share those $1,000 or $5 (or whatever you'll manage to sell your sandwich for) with your friend. And that's how the feared by you State is born)))
Europe isn't socialist and America isn't capitalist.
If you look at government spending as a percentage of GDP..
Ireland 37.4%
United States 38.1%.
Japan 42.1%
UK 43.8%
Germany 44.1%
Norway 45.9%
Greece 50.6%
Portugal 51.8%
Europe is capitalist, with a marginally more-expansive social-welfare system compared to the United States, which is basically "Neo-Keynesian" in nature.
The purpose of "free education", is to provide trained and disciplined workers for capitalist industry.
The purpose of "free healthcare", is to act as a subsidy for industry, and to keep workers healthy and working. The reason General Motors wants universal healthcare, is because it would reduce their costs, making them artificially more-competitive.
With that said, it is pointless to argue whether socialism or capitalism is better. Why do you think capitalism exists in the first place?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Socialism? Capitalism?
