Capitalism Is Evil

Originally posted by Alakhriveion@Sep 16 2004, 07:14 PM
That's true.  They also found that democracy leads to socialism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great! As long as it's a socialist democracy.

It is. The next step is utopian communist anarchy... we think.

Originally posted by Alakhriveion@Sep 16 2004, 07:17 PM
It is.  The next step is utopian communist anarchy... we think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm hoping the world will get destroyed (whether it be by rapture or an expanding sun) before that happens.

Heat death! Heat Death!

Originally posted by Sycron@Sep 16 2004, 04:13 PM
I'd die for liberty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then why was your life worth living?

Originally posted by arunma@Sep 16 2004, 04:16 PM
Great!  As long as it's a socialist democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YEAH!

Originally posted by Alakhriveion@Sep 16 2004, 07:09 PM
No it isn't.  There's no freedom of the press until I can get the press for free.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You do have the press for free. You are the press. Other people choose to sell their opinions and stories, through what are often called "Newspapers". You cannot have liberty without allowing capitalism. You automatically destroy my liberty if you do not allow me to participate in capitalism.

Freedom to trade goods, to trade period, is such a basic and integral part of liberty.

The greatest part about it all, is that capitalism, in the true spirit of freedom, is not compulsory. You do not have to participate in capitalism if you do not desire to do so. Just don't buy goods and products.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If I have to have money to exersize a freedom, in effect, I need a "Platinum-Plus Citizenship," I need to be rich to count. That's not freedom in ANY way. Second, there's no freedom being infringed. The right to trade goods is far, far less than the right to livelyhood, shelter, education, and such. Lastly, yes, it is compulsory, that's the essence of corporate society.

Originally posted by Alak
That's true. They also found that democracy leads to socialism.

Well, as long as we're playing this game...

Capitalism - Republic - Democracy - Socialism - Communism - Anarchy - End of the world

"Wrong, wrong, wrong."

Um, ok. That's such a fine way to start your rebutle. Tell the other side they're "wrong" and "wrong" and oh... "wrong". I'm trying to be moderately civil in this particular thread, so if you will, let's be mutual in this regard.

"If I have to have money to exersize a freedom, in effect, I need a "Platinum-Plus Citizenship," I need to be rich to count."

What's stopping you from bettering yourself? What's stopping you from making money? What's stopping you from creating your own news source?
How do you think the Carnegies and the Rockefeller's built the United States? They certainly didn't demand to be rewarded with the gifts of prosperity without striving for greatness. They strove, farther than anyone of their generation. That great wealth, that was created, is gone now. Why? Because the inheritors were not capable of sustaining it - another important aspect of capitalism. Wealth is not constant, it shifts to those who strive to go the farthest.

"That's not freedom in ANY way. Second, there's no freedom being infringed."

1) I concure with the first sentence. I've set the framework in my response to the previous question. Now, I'll respond to the issue of freedom within this context.

You have the ability to achieve anything you desire, if you strive to achieve these things hard enough. This is what capitalism is, in it's very essence. Capitalism is examplatory of freedom in it's greatest light. Freedom is at the core of capitalism. I'd refer you to Friedman if you concure with me on this, as a full-blown explaination and justification, is simply beyond my capability on a forum of this nature.

2) If a system prevents me from competing, striving for my desires, and prevents me from accumulating wealth, it is undoubtably infringing upon my freedom, to an unnecessary degree.

"The right to trade goods is far, far less than the right to livelyhood, shelter, education, and such."

The right to trade goods is just emphatic of more "primary rights" if you will. The trade of ideas and opinions, of speech itself. One does not have to purchase certain products, or take a particular religion as their own. We have the right to abstain from a particular religion or religions, just as we have the right to abstain from a particular product.

"Lastly, yes, it is compulsory, that's the essence of corporate society."

I don't see anyone with a pointed stick telling us that we have to purchase products. It's non-compulsory. This really is a silly argument. There's nothing stopping us from not purchasing anything. Really, I'd like to see this Pikeman.


Capitalism certainly isn't a perfect system. Why? Because perfect is a very subjective adjective. Everyone has their own opinion and view of what exactly the perfect system would look like. However, that being said, capitalism is one of the very few economic systems to have proven itself capable of functioning as a stable economic framework. Communism may be all well and good in many people's eyes, including yours, but there's simply no way of denying that communism has not yet proven itself as a stable economic system for a world of 6.2 billion individuals.

EDIT:

"Then why was your life worth living?" - Big O

I can answer this a few ways. However, I'll use the shortest. I would die for liberty, because the defense of it, in my opinion, is worth my own death. I'd really like to respond further, but this post is long enough already.

What's stopping you from bettering yourself? What's stopping you from making money? What's stopping you from creating your own news source?
How do you think the Carnegies and the Rockefeller's built the United States? They certainly didn't demand to be rewarded with the gifts of prosperity without striving for greatness. They strove, farther than anyone of their generation. That great wealth, that was created, is gone now. Why? Because the inheritors were not capable of sustaining it - another important aspect of capitalism. Wealth is not constant, it shifts to those who strive to go the farthest.

First part- You need money to make money.
Second part- Don't kid yourself, they were born with advantage. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

I don't see anyone with a pointed stick telling us that we have to purchase products. It's non-compulsory. This really is a silly argument. There's nothing stopping us from not purchasing anything. Really, I'd like to see this Pikeman.

OK, prove it to me. Drop out of the system, show me it can be done. Failing that, give me an example in which it HAS been done. Hell, even tel me how it WOULD be done!

The right to trade goods is just emphatic of more "primary rights" if you will. The trade of ideas and opinions, of speech itself. One does not have to purchase certain products, or take a particular religion as their own. We have the right to abstain from a particular religion or religions, just as we have the right to abstain from a particular product.

Thanks for equating corporations with god, I think it helps move my point. But aside from that, the freedom to say what you want and the freedom to scam who you want aren't even close. They're not just on different pages, they're on opposite sides of the library. Speech is a right, Trade is a tool. You don't need it anymore than you need an Iron Lung with perfect natural ones.

Capitalism certainly isn't a perfect system. Why? Because perfect is a very subjective adjective. Everyone has their own opinion and view of what exactly the perfect system would look like. However, that being said, capitalism is one of the very few economic systems to have proven itself capable of functioning as a stable economic framework. Communism may be all well and good in many people's eyes, including yours, but there's simply no way of denying that communism has not yet proven itself as a stable economic system for a world of 6.2 billion individuals.

Gee, I wonder why that is... Oh YES, it's because the capitalist class, interested in it's own benefit, not that of society, has prevented it from taking root even ONCE. And, as for socialism, it has, in fact worked better than capitalism in terms of servinf the people- not in terms of who-has-more-SUV's, but that's not the point. Stop comparing apples and oranges and just go by pounds of fruit.

I would die for liberty, because the defense of it, in my opinion, is worth my own death.

What a coincidence, so would I. Difference is, you're fighting to stay in Egypt, and I'm trying to overcome Babylon. (Biblical analogies are convinient.)

"Wrong, wrong, wrong."

Um, ok. That's such a fine way to start your rebutle. Tell the other side they're "wrong" and "wrong" and oh... "wrong". I'm trying to be moderately civil in this particular thread, so if you will, let's be mutual in this regard.

Of course. Why attack my substance when you can attack my style?

Just to make a point. It works today in China and worked great in Yugoslovia. Then people wanted "freedom' (read: Freedom to commit acts of genocide) and fucked it all up.

Uh, China? Dude, the party's over.

Not for me! There movie closer and closer to corporativism. WHEEEE!

I don't know how to respond to that, Alak. I mean, there's nothing more I can say. I answered your questions, and then you just proceeded to phrase them differently, and ask them again. Additionally, you reject my offer of mutual civility. It's really not worth my time to have this discussion if there's not going to be any matter of civilty involved.

There's civility and there's detachment. I strive for both but under certain circumstances can achieve neither. If we continue in a more organized way, i.e., not in a Board Thread, I could, but this isn't a debate, it's a discussion.

This...

Of course. Why attack my substance when you can attack my style?

...can hardly be considered civil, especially when you had started it with "Wrong, wrong, wrong". That's quite a turn off when trying to talk with anybody. Whether it be a debate, discussion, whatever.

True. Excuse me, then.

Social Democracy = Modern-Day Socialism.

I seem to be one of a few who think Capitalism is not only not 'the lesser of two evils' but not evil at all.

I consider free-market Capitalism the root of all good, even. I'd assassinate someone who tried to turn America into anything else (Kerry? Gephardt? Edwards? I'm looking at you guys...)

And you base your assertion that Kerry, Edwards or Gephardt would change America from capitalism to anything else on what?

Interesting to see another person who doesn't think Capitalism is an enormous evil.

The doctrine of Free Market capitalism did not originate from Conservatism, however. In actuality, it is a product of Liberalism. Classical liberalism, mind you, embodied primarily in the works of John Stuart Mill et al, (there is a great disctintion between modern and classical liberalism, most people refer to it now as "Libertarianism", which is very close philosophically), but liberalism none-the-less. I'm not entirely sure on how I feel in regards to the Bush economic policies. He has created a fiscal defeceit of nightmare proportions, one that the United States will not exit for a very long time indeed, unless an economic boom occurs, which is doubtful. Hence, I can't say I support him economically, but then again, Kerry doesn't seem to differ much in his platform. He just uses different rhetoric.

CFS: His assertion is indeed mildly typical of party politics. I suppose one could aruge that Kerry is outwardly socialist, thus intent on changing the economic system... although I think anyone would considers themself to be a socialist would aruge that he isn't.

Universal Health Care.

Higher tax levies on upper-income earners.

Why don't we just cover the land in everlasting darkness and get it over with?

Hee hee. Very good, Syrcon. Nice history lesson.

I confess I was rather sleepy when I posted, so I may not have been entirely stable, but I do agree with the basic theses of my posts.

Capitalism is as just as they get. I think eventually the rest of the world will have to be converted sooner or later. I just hope they don't put up a fight.

It is only party politics. I hate it when people make stupid assertions. It is like when people go around saying, "Want a weaker military? Vote for Kerry!" It is stupid baseless crap. Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt's livelyhoods only depend on capitalism.

You know, I never said capialism was vil, just inferior. It's the new Corporate system which is, undoubtedly, evil, as it supresses the free market and has no regard for the public good. Capitalism, at least, has some freedoms. Not many, but moe than Corporate Feudalism.

"It is only party politics. I hate it when people make stupid assertions. It is like when people go around saying, "Want a weaker military? Vote for Kerry!" It is stupid baseless crap. Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt's livelyhoods only depend on capitalism."

Interesting that you say that actually. You reminded me of who John Kerry is married to. She's one of the richest people in America.

Which is part of the reason I don't like John Kerry. He's not as bad as Bush, but that's all he has going for him, in my mind.

I think that seems to be a sentiment shared by many people towards more fringe left-wingers. That's the vibe I get from you guys anyways. But, back to Capitalism...

Yeah. As I see it, capitalism can work, and by work, I mean function as it's intended to, not make the world a better place for it's residents. What would be required:

Equal Start- Lots of Free Education, Housing, and Health Care for children and their families.

Return to the Marketplace- No more corporations, monopolies, and the like.

NO Advertising- I think that one explains itself, but I'm usually wrong about these things.