[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They also are never wrong , Beans especially 
[/quote]
How do my nuts taste?
You sure seem to like them in your mouth a lot these daysā¦[/quote]
Oh I thought that was a clit
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I believe capitalism is a term actually coined by Marx
The concepts that free market or ācapitalismā espouse are timeless and apply to hunger gatherer societies. Why do the men do the hunting and the women do other stuff? Thatās so easy you donāt really need this link to figure it out, but it could help with understanding beansā perspective
[/quote]
Actually Karl Marx said exactly what I said.
Karl marx only uses capitalism to refer to post feudal societies and he certainly did not call any older societies capitalist as they were not by any scientific analysis.[/quote]
Yea, I figured
Seems to me youāre really big on Marx, but know nothing of free market as taught by actual free market people
Do you understand opportunity cost, marginal benefits/costs, comparative advantage etc.? Its pure logic, while you seem to be all about narrating/regurgitating a story
Yes thatās the story Marx told. It isnāt a science, it doesnāt explain human interaction down to a t. Free market people do
Just get off your high horse, brotha. Consider that maybe youāre still to caught up on your version of the ābasicsā that youāre missing half of the fun stuff
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
Actually Karl Marx said exactly what I said.
Karl marx only uses capitalism to refer to post feudal societies and he certainly did not call any older societies capitalist as they were not by any scientific analysis.[/quote]
How do you scientifically analyze a social science?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
Actually Karl Marx said exactly what I said.
Karl marx only uses capitalism to refer to post feudal societies and he certainly did not call any older societies capitalist as they were not by any scientific analysis.[/quote]
How do you scientifically analyze a social science?[/quote]
You actually can, some uNiversities economics departments do. They set up games with prizes and watch the decision making processes. Scary shit
Thatās not what heās talking about, granted
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I believe capitalism is a term actually coined by Marx
The concepts that free market or ācapitalismā espouse are timeless and apply to hunger gatherer societies. Why do the men do the hunting and the women do other stuff? Thatās so easy you donāt really need this link to figure it out, but it could help with understanding beansā perspective
[/quote]
Thank you.
[/quote]
Youāre welcome, āI killa communist for funā, ya know? Iām just hoping you forgive me for kicking you in the nuts that one time
It was an accident. Plus, you look exactly like someone else
(Iām just kidding Kareem, I hope you communists stick around)
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
That it lasted 11 pages, talking about a philosophy built on a broken precedent.
Then, people arguing the semantics of capitalism, as if unabashed capitalism were somehow attached to liberty.
Hows democracy and capitalism working for say Thailand? Once money becomes the top priority and money is for the most part controlled by government, isnāt it a given that corruption follows? Isnāt Thailand the best example?
Beans, Capitalism REQUIRES private ownersā¦ [/quote]
Capitalism is the only economic system possible in a free society.
A state would not control money in a free society.
Capitalism certainly does require private owners.[/quote]
You say Capitalism is the only economic system possible for a free society with a ton of confidence it seems, are you certain? How certain are you that the many examples of capitalism today bring about a free society?
I think the reality is that we have ran with currency and capitalism for so long that we believe in itās hype in a sort of blind way. Are we free? And does capitalism bring about maximal freedom compared to other forms of government? There hasnāt ever really been an experiment as by default we always compare capitalism to collectivism.
In reality there is probably a medium between capitalism and collectivism which would maximize what most people consider freedom or a free society. The problem lies in limited resources and who controls those, as resources are the things that ultimately make what we call freedom possible. Once people lack equality as far as social and economic mobility, and trends such as the ones currently in place are gone we lack that freedom. The trend Iām talking about is the likelihood of say people being born to poor families ending up say wealthy or even rich. The statistics speak for themselves as there is a lack of social and economic mobility in every single mature state of capitalism.
People born poor are more likely to stay that way than just about any other time. So when we go back to concepts of the state of nature and ideas Locke loved, and I love, it needs to be brought up. It is an inevitable weakness of capitalism.
Can call it free, adults being required to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, possibly still depending on things like housing and food stamps, while others who are born into money by default get opportunity for college or a foot in as GM or whatever at their parentās business.
With limited resources, and the same dominant groups in control of all resources there are still things like intellectual property, but good luck finding the avenues and having enough money to protect the things you create, like say facebook (even if you can afford the lawyers). You are more likely to experience āfreedomā as a wealthy person than as a poor person, that is a fatal flaw. Look at what our own government does for the sake of resources, it understands resources = money and power in the world. Look at our involvement in the Congo, S. America and their resources as sovereign nationsā¦ We go out of our way to control them so we have more āfreedom.ā Patrice Lumumba is someone old Abe Lincoln would have loved, probably cut from the same cloth, but who killed him? Who has blood on their hands?
As it is today in our own country we have facets of communalism in place to deal with some of the very things I have brought up. But they seem more like bandaids these days. Can you imagine doing things like removing minimum wages and getting rid of housing, foodstamps, GI bill? I used the G.I. bill myself to go to college, but should I have had to do that to get an education?
Back to libertyā¦ As Iāve tried to point out, in theory we give up what we are supposed to by default have/ own in the state of nature for protections of government according to Locke. In the state of nature there isnāt necessarily a set form of currency, and in the state of nature we are arguably experience the most freedom. How do you explain Capitalism equating to the most freedom when looking at it from this perspective? Iām honestly curious, as state of nature isnāt a form of governmentā¦ It by default states you give up certain freedoms for the sake of protections of a society. Just something to chew on, I canāt really figure anything out from here either as my imagination is limited at least for now, probably because the state of nature is a bit more hopeful after itās practicality ran out, before itās idea was even conceived if you count indigenous people as people.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Beans, Capitalism REQUIRES private ownersā¦ [/quote]
And? Every example I gave had private ownersā¦
Or are you back to make up things that didnāt happen in threads again?
[/quote]
You brought up capitalism in feudalism boyo. You talking about what?
Some people equivocate capitalism to freedom. That isnāt what you believe is it?
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Beans, Capitalism REQUIRES private ownersā¦ [/quote]
And? Every example I gave had private ownersā¦
Or are you back to make up things that didnāt happen in threads again?
[/quote]
You brought up capitalism in feudalism boyo. You talking about what?
Some people equivocate capitalism to freedom. That isnāt what you believe is it?
[/quote]
How is whatever youāre trying to say here at all relevant to anything that has gone on in this exchange?
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The statistics speak for themselves as there is a lack of social and economic mobility in every single mature state of capitalism.
People born poor are more likely to stay that way than just about any other time. [/quote]
This justā¦ well, isnāt at all true. Particularly in Contemporary America.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You say Capitalism is the only economic system possible for a free society with a ton of confidence it seems, are you certain? How certain are you that the many examples of capitalism today bring about a free society? [/quote]
-Iām positive. What examples of capitalism today? The United States? LOL
When did this run begin? It certainly ended many years ago if it did begin. If voluntary actions are limited, then liberty does not exist.
Maximizing what most considerā¦does not equal liberty. Tyranny of the majority. Ever heard the phrase, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?
That has nothing to do with liberty or freedom. If true, it just is.
Food stamps would not exist if we were free.
Lifeās not fair. Nobody owes you a thing. Many cute sayings went through my head when I read that paragraph. Nobody is FORCED to make ends meet. Some are lucky enough to find enough work to survive.
In todayās America, itās probably true that the wealthy have more freedom than the poor. We have laws punishing an almost infinite number of non-crimes, so of course those who have the means to get around the law are more able to do so. The answer is the legalization of all victimless crimes and crimes against the state.
I would love to get rid of minimum wage. I donāt at all want to get rid of housing, although getting rid of PUBLIC housing would be great. I donāt care for foodstamps. Iād like to see the GI bill eliminated immediately for anyone who hasnāt already joined the military with it included in his contract.
When something is freely traded for something else, that is completely compatible with capitalism/liberty. Currency should not be regulated by the state. I would not voluntarily give up any freedom for protection.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You say Capitalism is the only economic system possible for a free society with a ton of confidence it seems, are you certain? How certain are you that the many examples of capitalism today bring about a free society? [/quote]
-Iām positive. What examples of capitalism today? The United States? LOL
When did this run begin? It certainly ended many years ago if it did begin. If voluntary actions are limited, then liberty does not exist.
Maximizing what most considerā¦does not equal liberty. Tyranny of the majority. Ever heard the phrase, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?
That has nothing to do with liberty or freedom. If true, it just is.
Food stamps would not exist if we were free.
Lifeās not fair. Nobody owes you a thing. Many cute sayings went through my head when I read that paragraph. Nobody is FORCED to make ends meet. Some are lucky enough to find enough work to survive.
In todayās America, itās probably true that the wealthy have more freedom than the poor. We have laws punishing an almost infinite number of non-crimes, so of course those who have the means to get around the law are more able to do so. The answer is the legalization of all victimless crimes and crimes against the state.
I would love to get rid of minimum wage. I donāt at all want to get rid of housing, although getting rid of PUBLIC housing would be great. I donāt care for foodstamps. Iād like to see the GI bill eliminated immediately for anyone who hasnāt already joined the military with it included in his contract.
When something is freely traded for something else, that is completely compatible with capitalism/liberty. Currency should not be regulated by the state. I would not voluntarily give up any freedom for protection.
[/quote]
Hey man I am at the other end of the political spectrum than you in many ways but I really appreciate quality posts like this putting out rational arguments without annoying county one liners.
Can I ask you what you think about mixed stateless economies, so for example each community votes and you have scattered economic zones where rather than be coerced by a state you can leave or start a new community or join a preexisting capitalist or communal zone.
Of course with unrestricted access to firearms etc.
How would you see an Anarchist stateless society staying stateless without groups trying to take over and install themselves in state power?
I am anti statist and I struggle with some problems wight he anti statist libertarian/libertarian communist stance of no states, unrestricted freedom.
I think a revolution would have to be global to really bring about a stateless society. Thats why I promote cross nation organising.
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
Hey man I am at the other end of the political spectrum than you in many ways but I really appreciate quality posts like this putting out rational arguments without annoying county one liners.[/quote]
Iām not sure whether thatās a serious statement or not, but Iāll treat it that way.
[quote] Can I ask you what you think about mixed stateless economies, so for example each community votes and you have scattered economic zones where rather than be coerced by a state you can leave or start a new community or join a preexisting capitalist or communal zone.
Of course with unrestricted access to firearms etc. [/quote]
If I understand you, that would be anarchy.
Iām not sure I can see it, but I think itās worth striving for. The worst that can happen is another state pops up to rule us, but who really cares how kind master is to his slaves?
If Iām correct about ālibertarian communism,ā itās a far more utopian/fantastical idea than anarcho-capitalism, because it requires people to act against their own self-interest. Anarcho-capitalism at least recognizes that most people are motivated by self-interest. The problem for anarcho-capitalism rests in the fact that a small number of people are not motivated by self-interest, but merely by a desire to rule(even if quality of life suffers greatly for them=not in their best interest to rule).
It probably would have to be. That makes the possibility of it happening pretty much non-existent, in my opinion. However, I still hope to see the state shrink greatly during my lifetime.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
Hey man I am at the other end of the political spectrum than you in many ways but I really appreciate quality posts like this putting out rational arguments without annoying county one liners.[/quote]
Iām not sure whether thatās a serious statement or not, but Iāll treat it that way.
[quote] Can I ask you what you think about mixed stateless economies, so for example each community votes and you have scattered economic zones where rather than be coerced by a state you can leave or start a new community or join a preexisting capitalist or communal zone.
Of course with unrestricted access to firearms etc. [/quote]
If I understand you, that would be anarchy.
Iām not sure I can see it, but I think itās worth striving for. The worst that can happen is another state pops up to rule us, but who really cares how kind master is to his slaves?
If Iām correct about ālibertarian communism,ā itās a far more utopian/fantastical idea than anarcho-capitalism, because it requires people to act against their own self-interest. Anarcho-capitalism at least recognizes that most people are motivated by self-interest. The problem for anarcho-capitalism rests in the fact that a small number of people are not motivated by self-interest, but merely by a desire to rule(even if quality of life suffers greatly for them=not in their best interest to rule).
It probably would have to be. That makes the possibility of it happening pretty much non-existent, in my opinion. However, I still hope to see the state shrink greatly during my lifetime.
[/quote]
Yes I was sincere. I like open and rational debate.
But how is it not in the working classās interest to seize say, the apple factory, the microchip manufacturing plant etc and continue the production of goods, that would be in their interests. 95% of the population would benefit from it surely.
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
Yes I was sincere. I like open and rational debate.
But how is it not in the working classās interest to seize say, the apple factory, the microchip manufacturing plant etc and continue the production of goods, that would be in their interests. 95% of the population would benefit from it surely.[/quote]
The vast majority of the working class would be unable to produce those goods competitively for long. Those who created those things to begin with would begin producing them again. The working class would be back where it started. The working class could, of course, murder those whose factories and ideas it stole, but the factories would begin to break down soon. Who would repair them? Of course, the most likely scenario is that the leaders of the revolution(the most influential and powerful workers) would merely take the place of the business owners it removed. However, because the worker leaders would have no competitive advantage over the other workers, they would have to retain their position through force. The worker society would be less able to produce desirable goods, while being run more brutally.
Itās in the workersā best interests to do their best while also allowing those more skilled to do the same.
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
But how is it not in the working classās interest to seize say, the apple factory, the microchip manufacturing plant etc and continue the production of goods, that would be in their interests. [/quote]
Because they would go to jail for breaking several laws.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Because they would go to jail for breaking several laws.
[/quote]
The ultimate owners of such a company are āthe publicā. Peopleās 401k plans, mutual funds, individual investors, etc. The board is elected by the shareholders, and the Board puts upper management in place, who places mid and lower management, who places the employees.
So who is the company being taken away from? Well, themselves ultimately. So they do what? Elect a new board, who puts new management in place, etc so on and so forth and we have the same thing as before? That would be silly. What would be the point of that other than the hopes the wage scale flattens a little? (And if that is all you want, there are much better ways of going about it.)
Those details aside, not 100% of āthe peopleā would be on board with such an action, and youāll lose a good 70%+ of upper management, who will go to a competitor company not run by people who have never run a company before. This will create massive inefficiencies that will likely not be remedied prior to demiseā¦ If that happens, the company fails, society loses jobs and a product it likes, and we are, as a whole worse offā¦
No Beans, Bill Gates is rich and that isnāt fair. So we (the workers) are gonna take over. Ya then weāll be rich and people will work for us!
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
Yes I was sincere. I like open and rational debate.
But how is it not in the working classās interest to seize say, the apple factory, the microchip manufacturing plant etc and continue the production of goods, that would be in their interests. 95% of the population would benefit from it surely.[/quote]
The vast majority of the working class would be unable to produce those goods competitively for long. Those who created those things to begin with would begin producing them again. The working class would be back where it started. The working class could, of course, murder those whose factories and ideas it stole, but the factories would begin to break down soon. Who would repair them? Of course, the most likely scenario is that the leaders of the revolution(the most influential and powerful workers) would merely take the place of the business owners it removed. However, because the worker leaders would have no competitive advantage over the other workers, they would have to retain their position through force. The worker society would be less able to produce desirable goods, while being run more brutally.
Itās in the workersā best interests to do their best while also allowing those more skilled to do the same. [/quote]
There would be no competition, the working class would take control of the only way to produce and wouldnāt work for any supposed private company. How would those companies produce with no workers?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
But how is it not in the working classās interest to seize say, the apple factory, the microchip manufacturing plant etc and continue the production of goods, that would be in their interests. [/quote]
Because they would go to jail for breaking several laws.
[/quote]
Yes, but we are hypothetically talking about if it succeeded.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No Beans, Bill Gates is rich and that isnāt fair. So we (the workers) are gonna take over. Ya then weāll be rich and people will work for us![/quote]
Jesus christ can we have a rational discussion without this idiocy?