The problem of Capitalism

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by stan1990, Mar 13, 2019.

?

Do you agree that the main problem of Capitalism is of moral nature?

Poll closed Apr 12, 2019.
  1. Yes

    33.3%
  2. No

    50.0%
  3. Maybe

    16.7%
  1. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Careful...the violence of your greed is emerging there..
     
  2. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On the contrary; indifference on the Right to below poverty-level wages and unemployment is the source of violence from the Left, not 'bigotry'.

    On the other hand the violent Right reveals its ugly head every now and again, in the form of police brutality against people protesting the financial status quo, as in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  3. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113

    OK you contine to whine, bitch, and complain, and hope that someone will give you what you do not have the work ethic to earn for yourself, then come back some time and let us know how that is working for you.
     
  4. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    ???? This is a completely non-responsive personal insult. I've never argued for the right to get something for nothing.

    Food, for example, has to be either removed from its natural place while respecting others equal rights, grown, made oneself, or obtained in consensual transaction. Having a right to food would mean that you have the right to force others to give you food. That would mean you'd have the right to force somebody else to give up his food if you're hungry, even if that person would thus starve. But, as soon as you had the food, he would then, according to that logic, have the right to take it back again from you; meaning neither of you would have the right to actually eat the food. (It's, admittedly, a bit more complicated when children come into play. I do think that children have a right to food obtained by their parents. I still need to reconcile that somehow.)

    You some sort of libcommie? People have the right to have a car, rather than just having the right to the fruits of their labor to then obtain a car in a consensual transaction? So, if I produce cars, I have to give one to you? Next time read and think before you make a complete fool out of yourself.

    PS:

    FYI, everyone, this does mean that I'm in favor of getting rid of programs like welfare or food stamps that the less well off, the poor, the landless make use of in order to survive and increase their quality of life. It's not a big deal and there is no reason whatsoever to touch that, at least as long as people's rights are violated without just compensation and our systems of land tenure, intellectual property, and others continue to extract large amounts of somethings for nothing at others' expense, thus putting people in those situations in the first place.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) AGAIN, elite cities and their outrageous wealth disparities. The Alt Left (Progressives) cannot escape their guilt. No idea what that has to do with Bernie's past penury. You bring Bernie into every bloody thing.

    2) Progressives assure us they're all about equality. They don't offer a definition, but even the most cursory consideration of what they seek tells us they're interested in equality of outcome (the most unequal proposition of all), not opportunity. IOW, nothing to do with equality.

    3) Progressives are ideologues, who're currently associated with the Left (though are nowhere near liberal enough to qualify). And yes, they're almost always overtly luxury-seeking parasites with deep 'lifestyle' investment in free market capitalism.
     
    Idahojunebug77 likes this.
  6. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't, unless you volunteer it. Socialism is a voluntary economic model.
     
  7. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In my experience (which is not insignificant), conservatives are more concerned about below poverty level wages and unemployment. That's why they commit more personal time and resources to ensuring their kids are trained in something useful and have a solid work ethic etc.

    Unless ... surely, you didn't mean you think it's someone else's job to ensure YOUR kids don't get stuck in minimum wage jobs? Nah .. silly me. As IF any reasonable and fair-minded person would actually think it's not their responsibility.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it is not free, you don't have a right to it. Slaves are "free" to pay their owners for their rights to liberty. But they are slaves, not free people.
    No. You have no right to food, as it is not something you would have if others did not deprive you of it. You have a right to the liberty to provide yourself with food.
    No. There is no right to own a car, because a car is not something anyone would have if others did not deprive them of it.
    Success is not a right because it is not something one would have if others did not deprive one of it.

    Try to pay attention: Unlike food, cars and success, life, liberty, and property in the fruits of our labor are things we WOULD have if others did not deprive us of them.

    Capisci?
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is perfectly reasonable, which is why you have to make $#!+ up about it in order to respond at all. Watch:
    See? That is a total fabrication on your part. My arguments said nothing of the sort, and you know it.
    No. The productive do not get what they earn because the privileged take without earning, and the law entitles them to do so.
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do. He was one of the smartest and most rational and informed people who ever lived, a foundation stone of Western civilization. But he was obviously wrong about some things, such as slavery and falling bodies.
    I am not a fan of Plato or Obama. But they are better than Kant and Trump.
    They have. People in socialist countries like Cuba have property rights in their personal effects. That is just an empirical fact. I think socialism is even worse than capitalism, but I don't think makin' $#!+ up about it is much of an argument against it.
    <yawn> Were you thinking of making a comment relevant to something I have said?
     
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, no, it does not. The landowner being paid for what the power company provides is what pays the electric bill, not him being paid for the advantages government, the community and nature provide.

    See how that works?

    You can try again, but you won't do any better, I promise you.
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have thought about this subject incomparably more, and to incomparably better effect, than you.
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You either believe in human rights or you are a sociopath. It's not rocket science.
    Wrong. Please get a better dictionary and learn how to read it.
    True: your statement was already false whether or not I told you it was.
    Not sure how you imagine that is relevant to anything I said. The subject was the definition of capitalism, not how the production process works.
    No, I already have enough to do.
    :lol: As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
    I said the community, and you know it.
    Nope. Wrong again. That is not what rights mean. Rights are an undertaking by the community. They don't imply that the community is infallible in carrying it out.
    Wrong again. The community has already AGREED, in its adopted constitution, that it owes me my rights.
    Wrong again. It's nothing to do with me. The market has already demonstrated the value of each location.
    No, you made that up. The human right is to use land, not to own it.
    Locations are not publicly created, their economic advantages are. You are just makin' $#!+ up.
    Gibberish.
    Yes, it does.
    Only sociopaths are unable to understand that others have rights.
    Wrong again. There is a difference between having a right and the security of that right.
    I don't see that definition online, and it is not supported by other sources. A product is something that is produced. Land exists without being produced.
    Again, that definition is not supported by other sources.
    I didn't say they were.
    That is a non sequitur unrelated to anything I said.
    I don't. What I have a right to object to is someone forcibly depriving others of their liberty to use a natural tree.
    Calling facts opinions does not alter them, sorry.
    People who are comatose can own land and be paid rent for it.
    Protection racketeers put effort into running their rackets. That doesn't mean they are making a contribution. They pay their thugs to go around threatening business owners. That doesn't mean they are producing anything.
    <sigh> If a thug takes your wallet, and gives you back $10 out of the $200 in the wallet, that doesn't mean he has given you $10. The value of the land is the market's estimate of how much more the landowner will be able to take from the community by owning the land than they will ever pay in taxes on it.
    Correct.
    It is a fact: Japan became rich by requiring landowners to REPAY to the community more of what they were TAKING from the community. They weren't contributing anything.
    <yawn> Makin' $#!+ up again....
    It comes from producers.
    No he doesn't. The landowner qua landowner never provides anything to anyone because the land was already there, ready to use, with no help from him or any previous owner. All he does is demand that the producer pay him for what would otherwise have been available anyway.
    ?? Unrelated to anything I said. Why are you trying to change the subject to me?

    As if we both don't know very well why....
    No. You are just trying to pretend this is about me personally rather than about justice.
    You have no facts or logic to offer, so you have to change the subject to me.
    What do I get from the landowner's parasitism?
    Because that is the truth.
    Acceptance of human rights is not universal. Sociopaths do not recognize that others have rights.
    Tell that to the North Koreans.
    Already disproved. Land cannot be owned except by government fiat.
    So you admit that you made it up. Good.
    I think most readers are agreed that people have a right to liberty, and I am satisfied that I can demonstrate it.
    I invite readers to confirm that my statements are objectively correct.
    To not be ignorant of the topic you are presuming to discuss with someone who knows it incomparably better than you.
    I am not American either. But the Declaration makes some points people everywhere understand.
    Gibberish.
    You made that up. I have said no such thing. And it is landowners who are the ones doing the killing: TWO HOLOCAUSTS A YEAR worth of killing.
    Labor earns its product. As land is not a product of labor, it can never be earned by labor. All private titles to land have always been based on government grants of title and forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.
    It cost the blood of the previous occupants.
    That's just obviously false. Landowners own the opportunity, and everyone has to pay landowners full market value just for PERMISSION to access it.
    Inevitably, that is the same sociopathic "logic" that slave owners used to justify their exploitation of an "opportunity"....
    That is another fabrication on your part.
    A sociopath is unable to distinguish between capitalizing on an opportunity to obtain value by providing value to others, and obtaining value by being legally entitled to take it from others without providing any commensurate value in return.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  14. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  15. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed.

    Guilt for the outrageous disparity?

    Consider this set of 'values' , namely: establishment of equality of opportunity, and just access to vital resources, for all.

    Is that set of values normally considered to be of the Left, or the Right?

    In any case, that set of values by definition is not responsible for "outrageous wealth disparity"; on the contrary, those values aim to eliminate gross and destructive wealth disparity.


    Because Bernie's value set is the same as that outlined above, and he is a 'social democrat' on the Left of the political spectrum. Get it?

    Well, now I have provided you with that definition. [I consider myself a 'progressive', of the Left].


    I have already refuted that many times now, which you seem determined to ignore.
    Equality of opportunity - which obviously requires eradication of poverty - is not the same as equality of outcome, which means equal wealth for all.
    By now I hope you understand otherwise.

    Progressives are associated with the Left, but aren't "liberal" (ie Left) enough? So 'progressives' are still too far Right?

    You might need to flesh out what you are trying to say, there.

    I agree parasites, whether luxury seeking or not, are not an attractive species.

    But "invisible hand" competitive (among profit seekers), 'free' market capitalism is THE source of ENTRENCHED, SYSTEMIC inequality of opportunity, because competitions always have winners and losers.

    I suspect you consider the latter to be parasites.....whereas Bernie, a Leftist. wants to reduce the inequality of both opportunity AND outcome resulting from said competition, by means of a handicap, or tax, eg, a financial transaction tax on derivative plays within the parasitic (non-productive) financial industry.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  16. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you say, reality disagrees. I’ll side with reality.
     
  17. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Still pays the electric bill.
     
  18. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Though it is true that one cannot copyright or own the metaphysical, for example, the principles of flight, one most certainly can copyright one’s creation based on the application of those principles, for example, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

    But asserting that because there is a difference between the manmade and metaphysical makes intellectual property rights and land ownership are immoral and unpractical does not logically follow.

    The creator owns his creations, including any land that is morally acquired and used for whatever purpose deemed desirable.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  19. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Me producing an airplane almost perfectly resembling a Boeing 787 Dreamliner doesn't change the fact that that the airplane I made is my creation. I haven't taken anything from you. You typing something onto your screen resembling letters, which, remember, were invented by people other than yourself, doesn't change the fact that those letters on your screen right now are your creation. According to your stupid "logic", you have no right to type those letters.

    In fact, just to let you know, I'm an heir of the person that invented the alphabet. Please transfer $1,000,000 to my bank account for a 1 year permission to make physical creations fitting the definition of what letters are or I'll have my lawyer send you cease and desist letters. Thank you for cooperating and thank you for your business. Helping people communicate by allowing them to make use of our creation has always been my family's first and foremost priority for many generations.


    I created an airplane resembling a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. I own my creation. We are starting to get along.

    Nobody created land. Nice try sneaking that in there.

    Something that is not morally property in the first place cannot be morally acquired. Chattel slaves having been acquired according to the prevailing rules before the owner subjugated, raped, robbed, and whipped them wouldn't change the nature of chattel slavery.

    You need to stop assuming that whatever the law currently considers property is automatically morally justifiable.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  20. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Delusional...
     
  21. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "almost perfectly"--Hmmm?

    What's more moral than receiving what you have earned? Perhaps the "earning".

    It's not a law that determines morality, its what's moral that determines the law.

    You need to stop assuming I'm assuming anything.

    If the purpose of your posts is to play your name game, what's your end game? The obliteration of the conceptual?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  22. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I just checked my bank account and I haven't received the $1,000,000 payment yet for the yearly usage rights for the alphabet. I'm an heir to the man who created it, as I already told you in my last post.

    I decided to improve a bit upon it, of course. ;)

    Even if the plane I created was identical to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner it doesn't change the fact that it's my creation, not yours. I own my creation, remember? I built the plane. It's mine. What would you do if I decided not to stop building those airplanes? Use state violence against me?

    You cannot "earn" property that isn't morally property in the first place. As proven by chattel slavery. And property cannot be assumed to be moral by being established by the prevailing laws.

    Also, haven't I earned the airplane I created? I planned and organized for its construction and hired people for help and paid them the market wage for their help.

    ??????
    Nothing in the law could've ever been immoral according to that logic. Proven wrong by chattel slavery.

    If what's moral determines the law, then everything that's ever been established as law already had to be moral before it was in the law, but then the law should've never been any different in the first place. Has the law never changed?

    The law can merely be designed in such a way as to hopefully best reflect whatever actually is moral.

    Your "arguments" aren't my fault.

    "obliteration of the conceptual"
    Concepts wouldn't cease to exist without IP.
    Not interested in your silly pseudo-witty nonsense.

    PS:

    Please post that Ayn Rand quote again, so that I can point out her OBVIOUS mistake for a third time.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  23. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Take it to court. The law will settle according to objective law; if your improvement is significant, you’ll win, if it’s superficially cosmetic, the jurors are rational, you’ll win.

    Go for it.
     
  24. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    If you wish to discuss Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, go here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness.556951/
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  25. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    :roll: Here we go again.

    Pointing out what is or isn't considered property according to the prevailing rules, and how this is determined, isn't a logical argument when we are discussing the moral justifications for what should or shouldn't be considered property.

    In a world where the law morally justifies the law, Starjet could be turned into a slave by the law and would then, according to his own logic, have no grounds for complaint. If Starjet is property he's property.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019

Share This Page