The problem of Capitalism

"Nobody stays here by faking reality in any manner whatever." -- Ayn Rand

It’s a truth that validates her ideas—and why I give her credit for her discoveries in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics—and why I chuckle at those who think they’ve discovered her errors or surpassed her genius. Like the Geocentric fools in Copernicus time that disparaged his theory of Heliocentricism. Please. Not all of us were born yesterday.

But hell, it’s a semi-free country, feel semi-free. Go for it. Best of luck. You’ll need it. (The community above the individual based a metaphysical attribute that supports property rights, not deny them--all men are free, so no one man is—the parade of contradictions is mind bending, not enlightening)

I still want to know who the first Martian terra farmer needs to get permission from to turn Mars into Atlantis. Weasley Mooch in the name of the collective good?

 

An acknowledgement of the science that got him there would be a start.

 

"Recession" is what Socialist countries stay in, forever. Unless, that is, you are a member
of the Ruling Elite.

 

Why are you telling me this?

Can you point to any anything I have said that would suggest I don't already know it.

Hint: Philip Lowe - who I think I have mentioned in every post in reply to you - lives in a capitalist economy.

 

I don't read all the responses here. And I come and go. Are you proposing a "third way"?
Many "third way" people today were promoting the "second way" in the 1920 - 1950's.

 

Yes, MMT.

(google Bill Mitchell Blog, or Stephanie Kelton on youtube)

But if you are not interested in macroeconomics (I presume, since you don't know anything about it) I will withdraw.

Btw, your last sentence (above) is meaningless, please study economic history; but if your only purpose here is to enlighten us that 'capitalism is the best', well.... so be it.

 

bringiton already answered that weeks ago...

 

But you’ve never had a right to my property.

Comparing owning a human to owning land is retarded

 

You don’t have a right to what is mine. I won’t let you take it. Sorry.

No, you are aware that comparing owning a human to owning land is retarded.

 

1) Social welfare should always be available for emergencies etc. Not sure what you're driving at here.

2) You can create all the 'job guarantees' you like, but you'll never EVER create 'work' guarantees. You cannot make people work, without starving them. Is that what you plan to do? See above .. your suggestion of eliminating social welfare - is that how you plan to ensure everyone works?

2) BS. Not everyone wants to get ahead at ALL. In fact, there are huge swathes of humanity who are content to remain right where they are, at poverty level. Never mistake 'desire for more stuff' with an actual desire to get ahead.

3) No modern Western democracy has common descent, history, culture, or language. You are dreaming (of North Korea, I suspect).

4) A 'community' which exists via force is no community at all.

 

Wrong again. I have, have always had, and always will have an absolute and indisputable right to take anyone's "property" that consists of my rights. That is why slaves had an absolute and indisputable right to take that "property" of their owners that consisted of the slaves' rights.

<yawn> That's just brute, animal possession, not property. Try to understand the difference.

You only have a right to it if you came by it rightly. It is not possible to come by land rightly, as land never becomes property in the first place except by forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

I know it is a crucial insight, without which it is impossible to understand history, politics or economics.

 

<yawn> Thieves normally don't let others take what they have stolen. That doesn't mean they have a right to it, sorry.

I know that I have proved to you many times, and in numerous different ways, that it is valid and a crucial insight, and that you have never provided any evidence for your claim to the contrary.

 

Slavery dates far before European civilization. Like landowning, it was a quick and dirty solution to a real problem: what to do with captives to stop them from seeking revenge, but not waste their value by killing them.

It most certainly does, because you don't have any right to "acquire" land, as I have already proved: it inherently abrogates everyone else's rights to liberty.

Except when they are the abrogation of individual rights, such as property in land, slaves, or monopoly privileges.

False. The buyers and sellers of other people's rights would need their approval to do it validly.

Only the tribe, state or society can confer rights on individuals. That is kinda the point. What would it even mean to have a right without society?

 

I've already refuted it: Objectivism claims capitalism and the free market are the only way to implement individual rights to liberty, but capitalism is actually incompatible with free markets and the individual right to liberty because it requires private ownership of land, which inherently abrogates the individual liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. Private ownership of land inherently forces everyone to subsidize landowners, and forced subsidies can't be part of a free market. Objectivism considers "free market capitalism" a redundancy, but it is actually an oxymoron, as proved above. Objectivism is thus conclusively refuted.

 

Everyone who wanted to use the land.

"Their" land?? Blatant question begging fallacy.

Let the market decide. Whoever is willing and able to pay the most to the community for excluding them gets secure, exclusive tenure from the community they are excluding.

They probably had a better claim, but I would let the market decide.

Everyone's.

He doesn't need anyone's permission. But he sure as hell has no right to stop anyone else from doing likewise, or make them pay him for permission. As soon as anyone else is willing to pay to use that land, the market decides who gets the land, and who gets the compensation for being excluded.

No, no one had any right to deprive others of access to economic opportunity that would otherwise be accessible without making just compensation.

You cannot identify a false statement I have made.

 

Oh, read some of the relevant scientific literature.

 

Nonsense. There are lots of examples: Australia, Singapore, the Netherlands, etc.

It's easier for a small nation to be homogeneous, but larger ones can still be communities by voluntary association.

Hope they can find something congenial to their preferences.

Garbage. The productive are not equal burdens on the unproductive that the unproductive are on the productive. Give your head a shake.

I'm talking about the whole spectrum in all its absurd diversity.

 

I give her credit for her discoveries -- such as the objective basis of ethics -- and blame for her errors, such as accepting the false capitalism-socialism dichotomy.

If you can turn any of that into grammatical English sentences, I might be able to respond to it.

It's very simple if you are willing to know facts and not fake reality. As long as no one else wants to use that land, using it does not abrogate anyone else's right to liberty, so it's free. As soon as anyone else wants to use it, those who want to stop them have to make just compensation for depriving them of the opportunity.

 

Wrong, as always. If you believe any of my rights are your property, I have an absolute right to take that "property" from you by force, even if the law agrees with you. We already saw that proved in the case of slavery.

No, it is perfectly correct, as I have proved to you many times, and is the only possible way to understand politics, history, and economics.

 

If you hold my rights as your property, I have a right to take them back from you by force, sorry.

<yawn> Were you under an erroneous impression that repeating that unsupported claim ad nauseam could be interesting to anyone?

 

And thus we see the subjective matter. On what planet do you consider access to the internet as necessity for life??? Food (healthy food???) You should have left it at “answered the point” frankly the person demonstrating misunderstanding here is you… As I said, the point you made is of subjective matter. What YOU consider necessity is not the same as a person living in a subsistence existence in the middle of the Sarah desert.

Oh dear, you really don’t understand what money is, you really don’t understand why Gold is the basis…

Don’t you think that ‘value’ of anything is the ‘measure’??? Thus, creating universal measure (or value) helps to bring a broader market measurement to grow the capitalist system??? Or are you still locked in the insular rather than the global.

Oh really, did you read what I said??? Or are you going to argue what you want??? I said no nation will run out of money, Zimbabwe didn’t run out of money, their currency was made worthless. Oh and by the way, they didn’t run out of resources either. They still produced massive quantities of produce…

Let us clear this up, “Nevertheless, most scientists claim AGW is true.” Now here is where you rip out the “99% of scientist say global warming is caused by man according to the census of scientist”
So the fact is, they don’t say that, out 3150 scientist who replied (1500 odd) 99% answered the two questions “Yes.” The question you want to claim as being agreement is (and I paraphrase here) do you agree that man is likely contributing to global warming??? So when did that turn from “could be” to “IS” Just as your previous believer stated to me some fact you have shown the same by misreporting the scientist as what they believe is true to suite your claim…

Oh tell me what regulations on Ozone gas??? Did you even read what I said??? Do you even know how Ozone gas is made??? This is why I say faith… You say I am telling you your wrong because I believe something else. You have faith that I am wrong yet NOWHERE have you seen my stance, your overlord just tells you because I don’t agree with your logic I am wrong…

Yes it is totally irrelevant to global warming. But you said

I point out that your claims of higher temperatures and higher GHG’s have not eradicated life. That is what it is relevant to…

.

I don’t need to separate anything, this is you trying to jam you belief down my throat.

It has everything to do with faith, I often have these little bible bashings from people who eventually realise that I am onto their game. The point comes back to the misrepresentation of science provided. You have just tried to bypass jamming the man causing all the problems of nature to “lets clean up the atmosphere” because just as the many who claim to know how the planet works, you clearly don’t . As I often state, scientist know less than 1% of what is happening on this big ball, yet you can claim they can change it…

Are now we are trying to project insults while you’re trying to school me on your faith…

By the way, I really am not interested but how about pointing out to a credible study that shows “everyone knows that lead poisoning from petrol reduces IQ in children” We know effects of lead but you claiming lead from petrol (which has been removed from majority of fuel for years) is the cause… OR is that just more of your faith…

Oh and you measure this how??? Oh wait, you wait until somebody tells you it is happening. Then you disregard the ocean movements and the encroachment on the sea shore to justify your belief of what is happening. Like the last time I had this stoush with the faithful, Brisbane Australia has had record breaking floods. What record did it break??? After disproving the rainfall, the depth, the damage the only record broken was the cost. Which, when look at in relative terms was no record at all. But no matter how many times you showed the faithful, they would try dig some other crap up…

Oh, I love this “it doesn’t cost anything” Idea. Last time I looked, the subsidies to build this “so called” clean green energy has to come from somewhere. And before you bounce about the “so called” Find out where Ozone gas comes from.

Again, You are happy to force the poor to pay for your ideals. This clearly shows ignorance of cost while demanding others should pay. Make me wonder who pays for your living??? I have a sneaking suspicion that your living at home on the teat. Totally devoid of understanding of how your ideals impact on others because you don’t understand as you don’t pay them. I may be wrong, but clearly you have never struggled to pay a bill or put food on the plate for your family… It is easy to say these things when you don’t know.

Yeah, in short you don’t understand it… we know…

Oh I see, borrow the money and don’t pay it back… Yeah… way to go there.

First of all, I am not really interested in arguing your faith. There is an entire part of the forum devoted so you can bash your beliefs on the world and find similar theologically orientated humans and those who oppose. I noted you ignored my point on the maths, is that because your faith ignores such issues???

Second, morality, I am the person who has stated the morals are subjective constructs. Obviously, you don’t know what subjective matter is as you try brow beat me into submission on your beliefs. BUT clearly, since I don’t accept any attempt to make these issues moral, I am not sure where you get this idea of building your strawman… irrelevant as stated previously.

An Apologist for unregulated capitalism??? Buddy, what can I say, clearly you know nothing of what I have been saying. I am not talking about unregulated capitalism, I am talking about fools blaming the regulations they demand on capitalism for the failures of capitalism. Since you clearly don’t understand what capitalism is, I blame YOU.

Also, since I have ALWAYS maintained, capitalism is a mechanism (in fact and economic mechanism) which can only be described as AMORAL (I assume you know what that means) it is like fools like you saying “my car has a moral imperative to get me to work on time”…

Honestly, If you going to try build a strawman to try show foolishness, you should insure it is not yours being presented.

 

Uumm, let me explain something, the community creates the institution and the justice. Now I would think the example you point out is demonstrative of the failure of your premise.” Slaves have right to complain”??? Maybe you should go find some and tell them they have a right to complain… but for the rest of the world know that those who hold slaves do not grant any right to their slaves… So to suggest that would not be able to complain, Newsflash, they don’t have rights…


Ridding the world of slavery is granting the right to people… then they have the right to complain… and I suggest it is the most basic human right to free people from slavery…

Look, as I say, rights are subjective constructs. You talk of “natural rights” as being automatic, or as soon as your existence commences. Now the point is here, if it was natural, the world would agree and uphold them... Many, who understand the issues of rights, call them basic rights. That is because they are rights recognised over many communities not just your own. They create laws that reflect the rights the communities agree they will uphold… However, NOBODY has a natural right or basic right to use land just because they exist. I note that you clearly point out that you understand the ownership of land (I assume) is to negate the very point of the chaotic nature of humans. However, the fact that somebody has purchased the ability to decide what happens on land does not deprive everybody from the use of that land. So deciding that they should compensate YOU, who have no right of any nature to use is ludicrous.

There maybe nations who do not require any form of taxation or payment on the ownership of land, but I am assuming (pretty certainly) that neither of us live in one of them. So the attempt to suggest that land owners do not pay for or continue to contribute to the community in any way, shape or form is actually you selectively deciding to ignore aspects to support your claim… As far as I can see is that your complaining that land owners don’t pay you enough (or where you want) so you saying they pay nothing… go and buy some land and see if you never pay (or contribute) anything more…

Oh and yes, land that nobody wants is free… all you have to do is go there and sit on it… they aren’t going to kick you off but I guarantee they will demand you to pay to own it…

Yes, because the only way it goes up is because the buyers are pushing it up. If it was not a competitive market the price wouldn’t go up, unless it was gouging…

Insular considerations…

Honestly, you talk about eradicating sales tax and income tax yet you ignore these taxes actually are demanded on land ownership. First of all they pay sales tax for the purchase of the land (or the right to decide what is done with the land) then they generally pay rates or land taxes for the simple fact they own the land… then they pay income tax on the production they get from that land or the rent they demand for that land… So basically, your ignoring certain aspects of land ownership to claim ‘free advantage’

Anyway, you believe that capitalism needs a reset??? I do believe that is what you saying in the last. Well now, I am not sure what economy you live in, I am assuming American. This is not issue just the simple belief of righteousness and how they exist. So, from what I assume and from my outside look into the US economy, yes you do have the most free market, in my opinion (based upon limited knowledge) but, the issue of taxation and governance is government and community, while capitalism is simply an economic principle. This is what I believe you’re confused about, take away taxation, money, government and ownership is pretty irrelevant to capitalism.

Ok, since you look at the principle you talk about, do away with income tax, sales tax and whatever tax you want… BUT how are you going to raise the taxation you are cutting??? Or are you simply not going to spend as much on community (or government) for such as education, health and so on. All pretty irrelevant to the thread but since you mentioned, put some detail to that ideal. Tell us what corruption you want to capitalism. I Don’t think you have the detail but happy to hear what you have.

But still, you’re ignoring many aspect of the ownership of land to uphold an idea that it is free to demand your cut…

feel free, I await your response.

 

Rights are inalienable, not conferred.

 

Bye.

 

Every single one.