On October 23 2011 19:07 OsoVega wrote: Show nested quote +
You're correct in your first sentence. You're wrong in two ways in your second sentence. A mixed market getting capitalism to work is just an oxymoron. A mixed market and capitalism are just two fundamentally different things which are mutually exclusive. A market can not be both mixed and capitalist. The other way that you're wrong is that it isn't true that true capitalism can't work but right now, I'm not up to that debate so I'll agree to disagree here for now.
To quote myself a few pages ago
"Capitalism can't exist without some form of government anyway. You need the monopoly of violence to protect the privatization of production, and private property in general. Without it, no ones stopping Corporations of either war with each other, or that people, rebel, revolutionaries, whatever take whatever they think is due to them. You wage war until either a a corporation is powerful enough to assert hegemony and build a dictatorship or "revolutionaries" win and put the form of government in charge that they want.
Look up how territorial states came into beeing in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the same game, just different players.
I don't even tackle the point that a libertarian society would be destroyed within years or even less because rebels and revolutionaries would spread like a wildfire because nobody sane wants to live in a capitalistic society without rules. In the end it's aiding the communists you hate so much, why do you think the European welfare states ever came into being? Because people were asking nicely, and the people in power felt generous?"
^^^ the entire above conversation is true. what we have is still better than china, and we all know that...
the point of how the country started was to have rules, but as little as possible.
On October 23 2011 17:50 Krehlmar wrote: It's an american think-tank sponsored by capitalism that has fooled people to believe that anyone on this earth has become rich purely and solely on his or her own work.
No one is an island unto themselves, everyone is in need of others.
Capitalism doesn't adress any of that.
Capitalism simply means that the people get to largely run the economy, being able to form their own companies and be entiteld to most of the profits these companies produce.
Ideas that are not capitalist are infact rather extreme changes of the status quo like communism.
Taxing business more to fund socialist programs is still capitalism. At it's core capitalism just means that the economy is largely owned and operated by the private market.
That's not true. Capitalism means that force is banished from all legal relationships. The only true capitalism is complete, unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. What you are referring to is a mixed market which mixes capitalism with regulation and force.
Well in that case, capitalism has never existed and isn't supported by any large political party anywhere in the world. A mixed market is the only way to get capitalism to work. Market fundamentalism is just as bad as a completely planned economy.
You're correct in your first sentence. You're wrong in two ways in your second sentence. A mixed market getting capitalism to work is just an oxymoron. A mixed market and capitalism are just two fundamentally different things which are mutually exclusive. A market can not be both mixed and capitalist. The other way that you're wrong is that it isn't true that true capitalism can't work but right now, I'm not up to that debate so I'll agree to disagree here for now.
To quote myself a few pages ago
"Capitalism can't exist without some form of government anyway. You need the monopoly of violence to protect the privatization of production, and private property in general. Without it, no ones stopping Corporations of either war with each other, or that people, rebel, revolutionaries, whatever take whatever they think is due to them. You wage war until either a a corporation is powerful enough to assert hegemony and build a dictatorship or "revolutionaries" win and put the form of government in charge that they want.
Look up how territorial states came into beeing in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the same game, just different players.
I don't even tackle the point that a libertarian society would be destroyed within years or even less because rebels and revolutionaries would spread like a wildfire because nobody sane wants to live in a capitalistic society without rules. In the end it's aiding the communists you hate so much, why do you think the European welfare states ever came into being? Because people were asking nicely, and the people in power felt generous?"
I agree that there needs a government with a monopoly over retaliatory force (self defense force would still be legal) which is tasked with protecting individual rights. You need a government to enforce the banishment of force from relationships. A libertarian society would have a strong military, police force and judicial branch tasked with protecting individual rights and responding to any initiations of force. Remember, a government doesn't have to be funded by involuntary tax, it can be funded by voluntary tax. Are you confusing a libertarian society for an anarchy? That's never been what I've supported.
If you want to be technical, the government having control over the military and police would have some impacts on the economy but it just doesn't make semantic sense to consider those a violation of laissez-faire capitalism.
On October 23 2011 19:07 OsoVega wrote: Show nested quote +
You're correct in your first sentence. You're wrong in two ways in your second sentence. A mixed market getting capitalism to work is just an oxymoron. A mixed market and capitalism are just two fundamentally different things which are mutually exclusive. A market can not be both mixed and capitalist. The other way that you're wrong is that it isn't true that true capitalism can't work but right now, I'm not up to that debate so I'll agree to disagree here for now.
To quote myself a few pages ago
"Capitalism can't exist without some form of government anyway. You need the monopoly of violence to protect the privatization of production, and private property in general. Without it, no ones stopping Corporations of either war with each other, or that people, rebel, revolutionaries, whatever take whatever they think is due to them. You wage war until either a a corporation is powerful enough to assert hegemony and build a dictatorship or "revolutionaries" win and put the form of government in charge that they want.
Look up how territorial states came into beeing in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the same game, just different players.
I don't even tackle the point that a libertarian society would be destroyed within years or even less because rebels and revolutionaries would spread like a wildfire because nobody sane wants to live in a capitalistic society without rules. In the end it's aiding the communists you hate so much, why do you think the European welfare states ever came into being? Because people were asking nicely, and the people in power felt generous?"
^^^ the entire above conversation is true. what we have is still better than china, and we all know that...
the point of how the country started was to have rules, but as little as possible.
It's not that rules are inherently bad things, it's just that we have so many bad rules.
Actually it is a choice. It's not slave labor because it is a choice. The employer could always withdraw that choice but that would be to the benefit of no one. Imagine these areas without these sweat shops. Would that make them better? Adding the sweat shop is simply adding a choice to these kids lives and it's a choice they take because it is better than all alternatives. What are your alternative for these kids? No, just because you have the option to kill yourself does not mean force does not exist. Holding a gun to someone's head and telling them that they can kill themselves, get shot or work is still using force. You're just forcing three options on them instead of just two. You're still forcing choices away from them. Also you could force someone into a situation in which it is impossible for them to kill themselves. Clearly, force does exist by my definition.
And those who are born with capital deserve the right to pay those born into poverty as little as possible while using the profits to build lavish mansions, buy maseratis, and own massive yachts.
AT LEAST SLAVE WAGES ARE BETTER THAN STARVING TO DEATH, RIGHT GUYS?! AND IT'S A CHOICE, MADE WITH FREE WILL, WHATEVER THAT IS.
Actually it is a choice. It's not slave labor because it is a choice. The employer could always withdraw that choice but that would be to the benefit of no one. Imagine these areas without these sweat shops. Would that make them better? Adding the sweat shop is simply adding a choice to these kids lives and it's a choice they take because it is better than all alternatives. What are your alternative for these kids? No, just because you have the option to kill yourself does not mean force does not exist. Holding a gun to someone's head and telling them that they can kill themselves, get shot or work is still using force. You're just forcing three options on them instead of just two. You're still forcing choices away from them. Also you could force someone into a situation in which it is impossible for them to kill themselves. Clearly, force does exist by my definition.
And those who are born with capital deserve the right to pay those born into poverty as little as possible while using the profits to build lavish mansions, buy maseratis, and own massive yachts.
AT LEAST SLAVE WAGES ARE BETTER THAN STARVING TO DEATH, RIGHT GUYS?! AND IT'S A CHOICE, MADE WITH FREE WILL, WHATEVER THAT IS.
Those who earn capital should be free to pass it on to whomever they choose.
Again, what are your alternatives? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? In order to believe this you have to accept the initiation and use of force against innocent, non-rights violating people as moral and just. Do you?
Those who earn capital should be free to pass it on to whomever they choose.
Again, what are your alternatives? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? In order to believe this you have to accept the initiation and use of force against innocent, non-rights violating people as moral and just. Do you?
You must have some faulty understanding of what "earn capital" means. Being born with capital and the resources to acquire more capital is not "earning" anything. Did you miss how social mobility is all but a fiction?
I don't have to accept the "use of force" against anyone. Who says you own all that capital anyway? What makes it yours? Circumstance of birth? Rofl.
On October 23 2011 17:50 Krehlmar wrote: It's an american think-tank sponsored by capitalism that has fooled people to believe that anyone on this earth has become rich purely and solely on his or her own work.
No one is an island unto themselves, everyone is in need of others.
Capitalism doesn't adress any of that.
Capitalism simply means that the people get to largely run the economy, being able to form their own companies and be entiteld to most of the profits these companies produce.
Ideas that are not capitalist are infact rather extreme changes of the status quo like communism.
Taxing business more to fund socialist programs is still capitalism. At it's core capitalism just means that the economy is largely owned and operated by the private market.
That's not true. Capitalism means that force is banished from all legal relationships. The only true capitalism is complete, unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. What you are referring to is a mixed market which mixes capitalism with regulation and force.
Well in that case, capitalism has never existed and isn't supported by any large political party anywhere in the world. A mixed market is the only way to get capitalism to work. Market fundamentalism is just as bad as a completely planned economy.
You're correct in your first sentence. You're wrong in two ways in your second sentence. A mixed market getting capitalism to work is just an oxymoron. A mixed market and capitalism are just two fundamentally different things which are mutually exclusive. A market can not be both mixed and capitalist. The other way that you're wrong is that it isn't true that true capitalism can't work but right now, I'm not up to that debate so I'll agree to disagree here for now.
To quote myself a few pages ago
"Capitalism can't exist without some form of government anyway. You need the monopoly of violence to protect the privatization of production, and private property in general. Without it, no ones stopping Corporations of either war with each other, or that people, rebel, revolutionaries, whatever take whatever they think is due to them. You wage war until either a a corporation is powerful enough to assert hegemony and build a dictatorship or "revolutionaries" win and put the form of government in charge that they want.
Look up how territorial states came into beeing in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the same game, just different players.
I don't even tackle the point that a libertarian society would be destroyed within years or even less because rebels and revolutionaries would spread like a wildfire because nobody sane wants to live in a capitalistic society without rules. In the end it's aiding the communists you hate so much, why do you think the European welfare states ever came into being? Because people were asking nicely, and the people in power felt generous?"
I agree that there needs a government with a monopoly over retaliatory force (self defense force would still be legal) which is tasked with protecting individual rights. You need a government to enforce the banishment of force from relationships. A libertarian society would have a strong military, police force and judicial branch tasked with protecting individual rights and responding to any initiations of force. Remember, a government doesn't have to be funded by involuntary tax, it can be funded by voluntary tax. Are you confusing a libertarian society for an anarchy? That's never been what I've supported.
If you want to be technical, the government having control over the military and police would have some impacts on the economy but it just doesn't make semantic sense to consider those a violation of laissez-faire capitalism.
Ah good. So you are saying yourself that the state then is owned by the rich, because no one else has the money to freely sponsor the military and police power. So what's holding them from enforcing their will on the population?
Actually it is a choice. It's not slave labor because it is a choice. The employer could always withdraw that choice but that would be to the benefit of no one. Imagine these areas without these sweat shops. Would that make them better? Adding the sweat shop is simply adding a choice to these kids lives and it's a choice they take because it is better than all alternatives. What are your alternative for these kids? No, just because you have the option to kill yourself does not mean force does not exist. Holding a gun to someone's head and telling them that they can kill themselves, get shot or work is still using force. You're just forcing three options on them instead of just two. You're still forcing choices away from them. Also you could force someone into a situation in which it is impossible for them to kill themselves. Clearly, force does exist by my definition.
And those who are born with capital deserve the right to pay those born into poverty as little as possible while using the profits to build lavish mansions, buy maseratis, and own massive yachts.
AT LEAST SLAVE WAGES ARE BETTER THAN STARVING TO DEATH, RIGHT GUYS?! AND IT'S A CHOICE, MADE WITH FREE WILL, WHATEVER THAT IS.
Those who earn capital should be free to pass it on to whomever they choose.
Again, what are your alternatives? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? In order to believe this you have to accept the initiation and use of force against innocent, non-rights violating people as moral and just. Do you?
I think this article posted in the thread a few days ago will answer most of your questions.
One thing I want to point out. While our tax system appears progressive, it is actually closer to a flat tax. Basically, the top 25% of income earners pay roughly the same share in taxes as their share in overall income. So, if they earn 80% of the income in America, they're paying about 80% of the taxes. This isn't a perfect correlation, however, because the bottom few percent and the top few percent actually pay more than their "fair share," but that's to be expected.
Those who earn capital should be free to pass it on to whomever they choose.
Again, what are your alternatives? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? In order to believe this you have to accept the initiation and use of force against innocent, non-rights violating people as moral and just. Do you?
You must have some faulty understanding of what "earn capital" means. Being born with capital and the resources to acquire more capital is not "earning" anything. Did you miss how social mobility is all but a fiction?
I don't have to accept the "use of force" against anyone. Who says you own all that capital anyway? What makes it yours? Circumstance of birth? Rofl.
You missed how I was not referring to the children born into wealth, but the rights of the parents who can choose to give their wealth to whomever they choose. It's the parents who earn and own the capital. It's the children who are given rightful ownership of it by their parents as it is their parents right to give them that control and ownership. And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
You don't have to accept the use of force against anyone but you do if you accept the notion of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I'm not saying that you do accept this notion but you still haven't given any alternatives to sweat shops. I'd appreciate it if you did.
It's not circumstance of birth that gives a child who inherit wealth, ownership of that wealth. It's the choice of the parents who own that wealth to give it to the child that gives them ownership of that wealth. What gives the parents ownership of that wealth? The fact that they either created it or were given it by those who created it.
On October 23 2011 17:50 Krehlmar wrote: It's an american think-tank sponsored by capitalism that has fooled people to believe that anyone on this earth has become rich purely and solely on his or her own work.
No one is an island unto themselves, everyone is in need of others.
Capitalism doesn't adress any of that.
Capitalism simply means that the people get to largely run the economy, being able to form their own companies and be entiteld to most of the profits these companies produce.
Ideas that are not capitalist are infact rather extreme changes of the status quo like communism.
Taxing business more to fund socialist programs is still capitalism. At it's core capitalism just means that the economy is largely owned and operated by the private market.
That's not true. Capitalism means that force is banished from all legal relationships. The only true capitalism is complete, unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. What you are referring to is a mixed market which mixes capitalism with regulation and force.
Well in that case, capitalism has never existed and isn't supported by any large political party anywhere in the world. A mixed market is the only way to get capitalism to work. Market fundamentalism is just as bad as a completely planned economy.
You're correct in your first sentence. You're wrong in two ways in your second sentence. A mixed market getting capitalism to work is just an oxymoron. A mixed market and capitalism are just two fundamentally different things which are mutually exclusive. A market can not be both mixed and capitalist. The other way that you're wrong is that it isn't true that true capitalism can't work but right now, I'm not up to that debate so I'll agree to disagree here for now.
To quote myself a few pages ago
"Capitalism can't exist without some form of government anyway. You need the monopoly of violence to protect the privatization of production, and private property in general. Without it, no ones stopping Corporations of either war with each other, or that people, rebel, revolutionaries, whatever take whatever they think is due to them. You wage war until either a a corporation is powerful enough to assert hegemony and build a dictatorship or "revolutionaries" win and put the form of government in charge that they want.
Look up how territorial states came into beeing in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the same game, just different players.
I don't even tackle the point that a libertarian society would be destroyed within years or even less because rebels and revolutionaries would spread like a wildfire because nobody sane wants to live in a capitalistic society without rules. In the end it's aiding the communists you hate so much, why do you think the European welfare states ever came into being? Because people were asking nicely, and the people in power felt generous?"
I agree that there needs a government with a monopoly over retaliatory force (self defense force would still be legal) which is tasked with protecting individual rights. You need a government to enforce the banishment of force from relationships. A libertarian society would have a strong military, police force and judicial branch tasked with protecting individual rights and responding to any initiations of force. Remember, a government doesn't have to be funded by involuntary tax, it can be funded by voluntary tax. Are you confusing a libertarian society for an anarchy? That's never been what I've supported.
If you want to be technical, the government having control over the military and police would have some impacts on the economy but it just doesn't make semantic sense to consider those a violation of laissez-faire capitalism.
Ah good. So you are saying yourself that the state then is owned by the rich, because no one else has the money to freely sponsor the military and police power. So what's holding them from enforcing their will on the population?
Everyone with any capital can choose to pay a tax. It's not like it's only the rich who pay taxes now. Who pays the tax does not matter. Paying tax would not give you ownership over the government. It would still be limited by constitution and controlled by constitutionally limited democracy. The government would still be tasked with protecting individual rights.
What's to prevent the rich from buying the military and police in our society? Nothing that wouldn't also prevent them in a free society.
On October 23 2011 19:58 OsoVega wrote: And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
That's a false statement, unless by many you count on pure number only and not relative percentages.
On October 23 2011 19:58 OsoVega wrote: And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
That's a false statement, unless by many you count on pure number only and not relative percentages.
On October 23 2011 19:58 OsoVega wrote: And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
That's a false statement, unless by many you count on pure number only and not relative percentages.
Just because they don't doesn't mean they don't have the tools to do so.
... So, according to you, more and more people are actively choosing to be poor (or rich) because that's how their parents lived. This OWS stuff is really a protest to say, "Nah, bro. It's cool. We choose not to make millions every year and respect you for choosing to take up that burden!"
Those who earn capital should be free to pass it on to whomever they choose.
Again, what are your alternatives? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? In order to believe this you have to accept the initiation and use of force against innocent, non-rights violating people as moral and just. Do you?
You must have some faulty understanding of what "earn capital" means. Being born with capital and the resources to acquire more capital is not "earning" anything. Did you miss how social mobility is all but a fiction?
I don't have to accept the "use of force" against anyone. Who says you own all that capital anyway? What makes it yours? Circumstance of birth? Rofl.
You missed how I was not referring to the children born into wealth, but the rights of the parents who can choose to give their wealth to whomever they choose. It's the parents who earn and own the capital. It's the children who are given rightful ownership of it by their parents as it is their parents right to give them that control and ownership. And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
You don't have to accept the use of force against anyone but you do if you accept the notion of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I'm not saying that you do accept this notion but you still haven't given any alternatives to sweat shops. I'd appreciate it if you did.
It's not circumstance of birth that gives a child who inherit wealth, ownership of that wealth. It's the choice of the parents who own that wealth to give it to the child that gives them ownership of that wealth. What gives the parents ownership of that wealth? The fact that they either created it or were given it by those who created it.
Uh, what? I guess back at the beginning of time everything was equal and people either chose to create or not create. Yeah, that sounds plausible.
Since when did people choose their parents? Who would choose to be born into poverty? I guess they just get shat all over for having poor luck. That way we can make sure that rich parents can continue to pass on the capital they got from their rich parents.
It's about Freedom™. The freedom to have rich kids.
On October 23 2011 19:58 OsoVega wrote: And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
That's a false statement, unless by many you count on pure number only and not relative percentages.
On October 23 2011 17:50 Krehlmar wrote: It's an american think-tank sponsored by capitalism that has fooled people to believe that anyone on this earth has become rich purely and solely on his or her own work.
No one is an island unto themselves, everyone is in need of others.
Capitalism doesn't adress any of that.
Capitalism simply means that the people get to largely run the economy, being able to form their own companies and be entiteld to most of the profits these companies produce.
Ideas that are not capitalist are infact rather extreme changes of the status quo like communism.
Taxing business more to fund socialist programs is still capitalism. At it's core capitalism just means that the economy is largely owned and operated by the private market.
That's not true. Capitalism means that force is banished from all legal relationships. The only true capitalism is complete, unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. What you are referring to is a mixed market which mixes capitalism with regulation and force.
Well in that case, capitalism has never existed and isn't supported by any large political party anywhere in the world. A mixed market is the only way to get capitalism to work. Market fundamentalism is just as bad as a completely planned economy.
You're correct in your first sentence. You're wrong in two ways in your second sentence. A mixed market getting capitalism to work is just an oxymoron. A mixed market and capitalism are just two fundamentally different things which are mutually exclusive. A market can not be both mixed and capitalist. The other way that you're wrong is that it isn't true that true capitalism can't work but right now, I'm not up to that debate so I'll agree to disagree here for now.
To quote myself a few pages ago
"Capitalism can't exist without some form of government anyway. You need the monopoly of violence to protect the privatization of production, and private property in general. Without it, no ones stopping Corporations of either war with each other, or that people, rebel, revolutionaries, whatever take whatever they think is due to them. You wage war until either a a corporation is powerful enough to assert hegemony and build a dictatorship or "revolutionaries" win and put the form of government in charge that they want.
Look up how territorial states came into beeing in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the same game, just different players.
I don't even tackle the point that a libertarian society would be destroyed within years or even less because rebels and revolutionaries would spread like a wildfire because nobody sane wants to live in a capitalistic society without rules. In the end it's aiding the communists you hate so much, why do you think the European welfare states ever came into being? Because people were asking nicely, and the people in power felt generous?"
I agree that there needs a government with a monopoly over retaliatory force (self defense force would still be legal) which is tasked with protecting individual rights. You need a government to enforce the banishment of force from relationships. A libertarian society would have a strong military, police force and judicial branch tasked with protecting individual rights and responding to any initiations of force. Remember, a government doesn't have to be funded by involuntary tax, it can be funded by voluntary tax. Are you confusing a libertarian society for an anarchy? That's never been what I've supported.
If you want to be technical, the government having control over the military and police would have some impacts on the economy but it just doesn't make semantic sense to consider those a violation of laissez-faire capitalism.
Ah good. So you are saying yourself that the state then is owned by the rich, because no one else has the money to freely sponsor the military and police power. So what's holding them from enforcing their will on the population?
Everyone with any capital can choose to pay a tax. It's not like it's only the rich who pay taxes now. Who pays the tax does not matter. Paying tax would not give you ownership over the government. It would still be limited by constitution and controlled by constitutionally limited democracy. The government would still be tasked with protecting individual rights.
What's to prevent the rich from buying the military and police in our society? Nothing that wouldn't also prevent them in a free society.
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
On October 23 2011 17:50 Krehlmar wrote: It's an american think-tank sponsored by capitalism that has fooled people to believe that anyone on this earth has become rich purely and solely on his or her own work.
No one is an island unto themselves, everyone is in need of others.
Capitalism doesn't adress any of that.
Capitalism simply means that the people get to largely run the economy, being able to form their own companies and be entiteld to most of the profits these companies produce.
Ideas that are not capitalist are infact rather extreme changes of the status quo like communism.
Taxing business more to fund socialist programs is still capitalism. At it's core capitalism just means that the economy is largely owned and operated by the private market.
That's not true. Capitalism means that force is banished from all legal relationships. The only true capitalism is complete, unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. What you are referring to is a mixed market which mixes capitalism with regulation and force.
Well in that case, capitalism has never existed and isn't supported by any large political party anywhere in the world. A mixed market is the only way to get capitalism to work. Market fundamentalism is just as bad as a completely planned economy.
You're correct in your first sentence. You're wrong in two ways in your second sentence. A mixed market getting capitalism to work is just an oxymoron. A mixed market and capitalism are just two fundamentally different things which are mutually exclusive. A market can not be both mixed and capitalist. The other way that you're wrong is that it isn't true that true capitalism can't work but right now, I'm not up to that debate so I'll agree to disagree here for now.
To quote myself a few pages ago
"Capitalism can't exist without some form of government anyway. You need the monopoly of violence to protect the privatization of production, and private property in general. Without it, no ones stopping Corporations of either war with each other, or that people, rebel, revolutionaries, whatever take whatever they think is due to them. You wage war until either a a corporation is powerful enough to assert hegemony and build a dictatorship or "revolutionaries" win and put the form of government in charge that they want.
Look up how territorial states came into beeing in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the same game, just different players.
I don't even tackle the point that a libertarian society would be destroyed within years or even less because rebels and revolutionaries would spread like a wildfire because nobody sane wants to live in a capitalistic society without rules. In the end it's aiding the communists you hate so much, why do you think the European welfare states ever came into being? Because people were asking nicely, and the people in power felt generous?"
I agree that there needs a government with a monopoly over retaliatory force (self defense force would still be legal) which is tasked with protecting individual rights. You need a government to enforce the banishment of force from relationships. A libertarian society would have a strong military, police force and judicial branch tasked with protecting individual rights and responding to any initiations of force. Remember, a government doesn't have to be funded by involuntary tax, it can be funded by voluntary tax. Are you confusing a libertarian society for an anarchy? That's never been what I've supported.
If you want to be technical, the government having control over the military and police would have some impacts on the economy but it just doesn't make semantic sense to consider those a violation of laissez-faire capitalism.
Ah good. So you are saying yourself that the state then is owned by the rich, because no one else has the money to freely sponsor the military and police power. So what's holding them from enforcing their will on the population?
Everyone with any capital can choose to pay a tax. It's not like it's only the rich who pay taxes now. Who pays the tax does not matter. Paying tax would not give you ownership over the government. It would still be limited by constitution and controlled by constitutionally limited democracy. The government would still be tasked with protecting individual rights.
What's to prevent the rich from buying the military and police in our society? Nothing that wouldn't also prevent them in a free society.
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Noam Chomsky answer:
There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?
You are right, it basically doesn't make sense. And the comparison with Stalinist is a fine one: people fighting for their own enslavement in the name of a principle.
Those who earn capital should be free to pass it on to whomever they choose.
Again, what are your alternatives? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? In order to believe this you have to accept the initiation and use of force against innocent, non-rights violating people as moral and just. Do you?
You must have some faulty understanding of what "earn capital" means. Being born with capital and the resources to acquire more capital is not "earning" anything. Did you miss how social mobility is all but a fiction?
I don't have to accept the "use of force" against anyone. Who says you own all that capital anyway? What makes it yours? Circumstance of birth? Rofl.
You missed how I was not referring to the children born into wealth, but the rights of the parents who can choose to give their wealth to whomever they choose. It's the parents who earn and own the capital. It's the children who are given rightful ownership of it by their parents as it is their parents right to give them that control and ownership. And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
You don't have to accept the use of force against anyone but you do if you accept the notion of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I'm not saying that you do accept this notion but you still haven't given any alternatives to sweat shops. I'd appreciate it if you did.
It's not circumstance of birth that gives a child who inherit wealth, ownership of that wealth. It's the choice of the parents who own that wealth to give it to the child that gives them ownership of that wealth. What gives the parents ownership of that wealth? The fact that they either created it or were given it by those who created it.
Uh, what? I guess back at the beginning of time everything was equal and people either chose to create or not create. Yeah, that sounds plausible.
Since when did people choose their parents? Who would choose to be born into poverty? I guess they just get shat all over for having poor luck. That way we can make sure that rich parents can continue to pass on the capital they got from their rich parents.
It's about Freedom™. The freedom to have rich kids.
that's a pretty old argument... You need to have inheritance because it's in people's nature to try to provide their kids with a better future, if inheritance tax was 100% or something like that people would just spend all their money on frivolous things.
That's bullshit. And it's quite insulting to all those people...
Not everyone do the best they can in this world. Is that so hard to believe? I guess you can always use "circumstances" as an excuse for not doing well in school, hanging out on the corner instead of looking for a job, and spending money lavishly instead of living conservatively when your employment isn't very stable.
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor.
Noam Chomsky answer:
There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?
You are right, it basically doesn't make sense. And the comparison with Stalinist is a fine one: people fighting for their own enslavement in the name of a principle.
Except how libertarians believe in the free market which has since the beginning of time has been THE tool of innovation, wealth creation, and raising the standard of living in the history of humanity, while strong government has always been the tool of oppression, and war.
So people that are fighting for libertarianism are actually fighting AGAINST slavery, but otherwise you're pretty close (not really, but ok.)
Those who earn capital should be free to pass it on to whomever they choose.
Again, what are your alternatives? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? In order to believe this you have to accept the initiation and use of force against innocent, non-rights violating people as moral and just. Do you?
You must have some faulty understanding of what "earn capital" means. Being born with capital and the resources to acquire more capital is not "earning" anything. Did you miss how social mobility is all but a fiction?
I don't have to accept the "use of force" against anyone. Who says you own all that capital anyway? What makes it yours? Circumstance of birth? Rofl.
You missed how I was not referring to the children born into wealth, but the rights of the parents who can choose to give their wealth to whomever they choose. It's the parents who earn and own the capital. It's the children who are given rightful ownership of it by their parents as it is their parents right to give them that control and ownership. And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
You don't have to accept the use of force against anyone but you do if you accept the notion of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I'm not saying that you do accept this notion but you still haven't given any alternatives to sweat shops. I'd appreciate it if you did.
It's not circumstance of birth that gives a child who inherit wealth, ownership of that wealth. It's the choice of the parents who own that wealth to give it to the child that gives them ownership of that wealth. What gives the parents ownership of that wealth? The fact that they either created it or were given it by those who created it.
Uh, what? I guess back at the beginning of time everything was equal and people either chose to create or not create. Yeah, that sounds plausible.
Since when did people choose their parents? Who would choose to be born into poverty? I guess they just get shat all over for having poor luck. That way we can make sure that rich parents can continue to pass on the capital they got from their rich parents.
It's about Freedom™. The freedom to have rich kids.
that's a pretty old argument... You need to have inheritance because it's in people's nature to try to provide their kids with a better future, if inheritance tax was 100% or something like that people would just spend all their money on frivolous things.
That's bullshit. And it's quite insulting to all those people...
Not everyone do the best they can in this world. Is that so hard to believe? I guess you can always use "circumstances" as an excuse for not doing well in school, hanging out on the corner instead of looking for a job, and spending money lavishly instead of living conservatively when your employment isn't very stable.
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor.
There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?
You are right, it basically doesn't make sense. And the comparison with Stalinist is a fine one: people fighting for their own enslavement in the name of a principle.
Except how libertarians believe in the free market which has since the beginning of time has been THE tool of innovation, wealth creation, and raising the standard of living in the history of humanity, while strong government has always been the tool of oppression, and war.
So people that are fighting for libertarianism are actually fighting AGAINST slavery, but otherwise you're pretty close (not really, but ok.)
Oh, it's not me, it's Noam Chomsky.
Your dream is a society without rules in which big fishes eat small fishes. That's it.
I don't find it very arousing, but maybe that's just me.
Those who earn capital should be free to pass it on to whomever they choose.
Again, what are your alternatives? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? In order to believe this you have to accept the initiation and use of force against innocent, non-rights violating people as moral and just. Do you?
You must have some faulty understanding of what "earn capital" means. Being born with capital and the resources to acquire more capital is not "earning" anything. Did you miss how social mobility is all but a fiction?
I don't have to accept the "use of force" against anyone. Who says you own all that capital anyway? What makes it yours? Circumstance of birth? Rofl.
You missed how I was not referring to the children born into wealth, but the rights of the parents who can choose to give their wealth to whomever they choose. It's the parents who earn and own the capital. It's the children who are given rightful ownership of it by their parents as it is their parents right to give them that control and ownership. And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
You don't have to accept the use of force against anyone but you do if you accept the notion of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I'm not saying that you do accept this notion but you still haven't given any alternatives to sweat shops. I'd appreciate it if you did.
It's not circumstance of birth that gives a child who inherit wealth, ownership of that wealth. It's the choice of the parents who own that wealth to give it to the child that gives them ownership of that wealth. What gives the parents ownership of that wealth? The fact that they either created it or were given it by those who created it.
Uh, what? I guess back at the beginning of time everything was equal and people either chose to create or not create. Yeah, that sounds plausible.
Since when did people choose their parents? Who would choose to be born into poverty? I guess they just get shat all over for having poor luck. That way we can make sure that rich parents can continue to pass on the capital they got from their rich parents.
It's about Freedom™. The freedom to have rich kids.
that's a pretty old argument... You need to have inheritance because it's in people's nature to try to provide their kids with a better future, if inheritance tax was 100% or something like that people would just spend all their money on frivolous things.
That's bullshit. And it's quite insulting to all those people...
Not everyone do the best they can in this world. Is that so hard to believe? I guess you can always use "circumstances" as an excuse for not doing well in school, hanging out on the corner instead of looking for a job, and spending money lavishly instead of living conservatively when your employment isn't very stable.
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor.
There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?
You are right, it basically doesn't make sense. And the comparison with Stalinist is a fine one: people fighting for their own enslavement in the name of a principle.
Except how libertarians believe in the free market which has since the beginning of time has been THE tool of innovation, wealth creation, and raising the standard of living in the history of humanity, while strong government has always been the tool of oppression, and war.
So people that are fighting for libertarianism are actually fighting AGAINST slavery, but otherwise you're pretty close (not really, but ok.)
Actually, everything that happened in ancient times was due to a strong government and a strong state. (I'm not a fan of a government, just telling the truth). When in Europe the strong government fell, you had a hundred years of dark age and back and forth fighting. Viewing history as a history of the free market is pretty whacky in my opinion. Can you give me counterexamples?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/koKlV.gif)
