Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Apparently pro-capitalists who responded to my post don't know how to compose an intelligible sentence nor how to use question marks for questions. But they imply I have a low IQ. Yet they aren't a member of Mensa. Your first sentence is vague and therefore says nothing that I can respond to with confidence that I'm responding to what you meant to say.

Another vague, poorly worded pseudo-sentence. On the chance that I may be able to discern something of that "sentence" I'll say that I gave you three links to lists of co-ops, yet you say "no co ops to speak of".

 

Does it bother you? Does anything "need" to be discussed on a public forum? As I recall, in various threads I mentioned economic problems and employment problems that socialism would solve, and it gradually moved to the more specific discussion of WSDEs. But for some reason you want it gone. I wonder why.

 

Natural laws that living things live by? The very concept has problems.

Scientific 'natural law' exists eg the laws of motion, law of gravity etc, but behavioural law as it relates to living creatures is much more determined by the instinct for survival and self preservation, and manifests itself in countless ways among different species.

Eg, solitary tigers may indeed stake out a piece of territory and claim it for itself, but for thousands of years men lived in tribal groups that admitted of communal possession of a certain territory, to be available to all members of the tribe.

Still looking to Aristotle for confirmation of your world view? His society depended on slavery in order to function.

Obviously contracts were invented by men because 'natural law' proved insufficient, or indeed offended the human sense of 'justice' which simply does not exist in nature.

You, like Roon, are denying the capacity of the cerebral cortex - a gift of evolution - to desire better outcomes than those ordained by nature.

 

It doesn't bother me that you prefer Coke (WSDEs) and I prefer soy milk (working for a BUSINESS OWNER). I just wonder what the relevance is in a political forum. Why is it a political issue?

 

If it weren't a political issue then why did you engage me on it all these days? And BTW, you could ask that question about plenty of other threads.

 

I was misled by your posting of the topic on a political board. I thought you were referring to a political issue, not a coke vs soymilk issue, which is entirely personal and not political.

 

Well, your assessment is incorrect. The push for WSDEs is political. That is why Rhode Island has submitted two bills to assist the effort.

BTW, I'm finding myself doubting that your son works in a WSDE. My bet is that you are assessing that wrong too. Tell me the name of the business and I'll look it up.

 

Marx killed no-one. His theories on economic organisation arose in response to the injustice and oppression that accompanied the industrial revolution eg forced child labour in coal mines, as well as the entrenched poverty in subsistence agrarian economies like Tsarist Russia. The manner in which in which Marx's theories were implemented was a tragedy, but the theories themselves might have been implemented in a different manner; in any case, the goal - the elimination of injustice and poverty and social and economic disadvantage, remains to be achieved.

Trump is currently facing all the contradictions in the present dysfunctional global economic system. Currently many nations GDP's are actually going backwards, and of course Trump hates the German auto manufacturers because they build a more desirable product. Meanwhile his latest budget reveals the tired old policies of withdrawing economic support for the most disadvantaged, while spending more on the military.

 

You don't need to.

A better question is; how can you maximise sustainable use of available resources.

Capitalism fails, because it is based solely on competition.

Obviously co-operation is a necessary element in any system that seeks to eliminate poverty, war and disadvantage.
Competition can be both a creative and destructive force, hence it must be counterbalanced by co-operation, however constituted.

I propose an international bank constituted with the authority to oversee money printing by national governments, so that the public sector is not entirely dependent on competitive private sector processes.

eg, why on earth did Teresa May have to sack 20,000 policemen, arguably leading to a less secure environment in Britain?

 

capitalism obviously since the more a resource is depleted the higher its prices. This is class one day one.

 

somebody lied to you and you are merely repeating the lie. Capitalism is based on raising our standard of living at fastest possible rate. What could be more godly and Republican than that? Competition is an aspect of capitalism wherein businesses compete to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

 

so it would oversee money printing by telling them to do what exactly, print more or less??? and do what with it after they printed it??

 

of course that's a lie that someone told you and you are merely repeating it. if injustice and oppression arose people would have stayed on the farm and the industrial revolution would never have happened. The fact is people took those jobs because they represented a vast improvement over what they had. You pretend they were slaves who were forced to take those jobs because Marxists tricked you like they tricked those who killed 120 million human souls.

 

yes like in Cuba, Venezuela East Germany, Cambodia, Red China and 132 other example. When Marxism fails 100% of the time and 100's of million end up dead a sentient being would have the ability to see that it is the world's most deadly idea.
Imagine the true state of our civilization when the most deadly idea in human history is gaining more and more currency?

 

absurd since what we call natural law is designed to give a better outcome than nature, but an outcome consistent with human nature so that human beings can support it. Now do you understand what natural law is?

 

OMG!!!!wrong of course contracts were invented to codify or supplement the justice in natural human behavior. If a bear has a den or private property for his family and another bear tries to take it a war will ensue. To avoid the war natural law recognizes private property so people learn not to steal and go to war over private property. Now do you understand? Becuase the law is natural or consistent with our sense of justice or fair play humans can support it.

We get into huge trouble when liberals like Hitler Stalin and Mao Castro Pol Pot etc come along and try to imagine bold new idea not consistent with natural human nature. NOw do you understand?

 

Why would the government need to get involved? Some people like coke (WSDEs) and some people like soy milk (working for a business). Why shouldn't each just choose what they prefer?

I'm assessing it correctly. It's a worker cooperative. It one of the companies in this list: https://usworker.coop/member-directory/

 

any business is free to move more and more toward the co-op principle as much as it wants to but virtually none have because the idea is almost universally recognized as idiotic by virtually all of the world's 100 million corporations.

 

Which is false.

Free enterprise, more or less: there's a lot of government and PLA involvement, but prices are fairly unregulated and opportunities open. Free markets, again more or less: you almost always have to pay off corrupt officials, but they typically stay bought, and there is a predictable market in their favors.

But free enterprise and free markets are not capitalism. In fact, capitalism cannot occur with free enterprise or free markets, because landowners own the opportunities, and there is an inherent subsidy to them at taxpayer expense. Free markets don't allow tax-funded subsidies.

As you know, the Nazis never attempted anything resembling what I propose.

There are no land title transactions, as no one owns land privately. The titles are to IMPROVEMENTS.

Some local governments do.

To the improvements.

Wrong.

Bingo: just like landowners in capitalist countries, they don't want to repay any of what they are taking.

Heehee. Anyone can see the website you copied that from:

https://www.internations.org/china-...-accommodation/buying-property-in-china-17852

Why didn't you give the source?

 

Nope. No resemblance.

<yawn> Haven't read any Thomas Paine, have you?

 

Yes, including some with doctorates.

 

Where else would the victims of capitalism die? I see no point in a country-by-country breakdown. If you are interested, just look at how many die of poverty and poverty-related conditions in each capitalist country. They are almost all landless, and almost all would have lived if landowners had not removed their rights to liberty.

 

so show us one!!! lest we think only you have the most absurd idea in a world of 7 billion humans

 

You can find it in almost any good dictionary.

 

fewer people die of poverty in capitalist countries. China just switched to capitalism because 60 million slowly dies under liberalism; now no one dies thanks to the glories of Republican capitalism. The main benefit of private capitalist land is that it can be used to secure a loan thus enabling each individual to be as productive as possible.