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.
There is no excess wealth that could lead to such power in capitalism because currency is not monopolized and private property must be rightfully owned.
No standardized currency sounds horribly inefficient. Your economy would be terrible since business wouldn't be as streamlined. The more I learn about anarcho capitalism the more insane it appears.
You are merely paying for the privilege of caring for a child if the child does indeed stick around to be cared for.
That child can leave at any time. You can give the child away as well if you'd like.
Are you sure we're looking at the same assertions?
From Mr. Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty
Quote:
...but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[4]
Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.[12] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.[13]
No standardized currency sounds horribly inefficient. Your economy would be terrible since business wouldn't be as streamlined. The more I learn about anarcho capitalism the more insane it appears.
You brought up emotions as a necessary component of life and I said it is something individuals must figure out without production capacities.
You brought up drugs and I said (emotional stimuli affected via bodily intake) that drugs aren't responsible for building emotional fullfillment in ones life.
And somewhere from that you got A Brave New World.
Originally Posted by Joe90
Different rates of pay are the way of deciding who gets what -I don't want equal share if my imput is less important.
So a if person can't sell their labour, they aren't really in control of their own body then -their body and mind belong to "the collective"
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
As per Mr. Einstein's article Why Socialism?:
...For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. ...
There is no excess wealth that could lead to such power in capitalism because currency is not monopolized and private property must be rightfully owned.
1. That wouldn't fix your problem; Excess wealth, regardless of currency, can be produced via great production abilities.
Once an oil field (just an example) is for sale and can be rightful bought under the guise of private ownership the production capacity of that company increases.
If company X only owns one oil field and company Y owns two then the latter will naturally obtain an excess amount of wealth compared to the former. Being as everything is for sale and the purpose of capitalism is increased profits company Y will buy up the oil field of company X expanding their production deficit.
Once the means of production are controlled by one source the economy (of that sector and for that region) will be monopolized and anyone from that point on who would like to work in oil production must go through the one authority of that area.
The owner of the means of production can set their pay rates however they want, and the worker has the freedom to accept or reject the work.
The essential point is that the freedom of both parties is vastly superior to Marxism, which would quickly turn to violence to eliminate dissent.
The workers having no control over the means of production leave the power in the hand of an exterior source. That authority over the workers can only mean slavery.
When you say there are other options you must take in two points.
a.) What if a worker wants to work at that production center, who has the right to stop them. If a man wants to produce they have the right to produce with all resources at their disposal.
b.) Competition will eventually be monopolized under one source as the capitalism places profit above all else and the only way to maximize profits is to maximize control over the means of production.
The only way to stop men from owning means of production is tyranny. That has been proven time after time.
Labor without capital is usually pretty worthless. Try mowing your yard using your hands and teeth.
Two out of three businesses fail. A lot of exploited capitalists.
Johnny mows 1 yard a month using hands and teeth. I charge him a buck a day to use my mower. He now mows 60 yards a month at 25 bucks a yard.
I am being exploited. My mower is worth 1475 a month.
Johnny is an evil proletariat.
Last edited by whogo; 05-06-2018 at 12:43 PM..
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.
. The sheer pettiness
