Capitalism is economic tyranny Socialism is economic democracy.

He'll have a hard time surviving without them.

How would any natural resource get to be "his own property" other than through forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it -- i.e., other than by forcibly removing others' freedom?

I'm waiting.

If any natural resource is his own property, he has by definition removed everyone else's freedom to use it. Freedom is therefore impossible by definition when natural resources are privately owned (i.e., under capitalism). You would know this if you were willing to know the fact that under capitalism, working people toil their lives away and end up with nothing, while landowners are made wealthy without lifting a productive finger or making any other productive contribution of any kind. You have simply decided it will be more comfortable for you not to know that fact, so you refuse to know it.

 

They pay the extortion demands of the privileged, especially landowners, just for permission to do business.

That is just baldly false.

 

Read my response -- if you dare.

I'm certainly not. If someone legally owned the earth's atmosphere, and charged you rent for air to breathe, would that be involuntary servitude?

If Friday washes up on the island Crusoe claims to own, and Crusoe points a musket at him and tells him to either get to work or get back in the water, would that be involuntary servitude?

If a man dying of thirst in the desert stumbles into an oasis, bends to take a sip from the natural spring, and hears a pistol being cocked behind his ear, and a quiet, menacing, sibilant voice says, "Uh-uh. I know what you're thinkin'. Will he charge me six days' labor for a sip of water, or only five? And to tell the truth, in all this excitement, I hadn't quite totaled up the rent myself. But bein' as its 44 miles to the next water hole, which might as well be the other side of the world, and I'd as soon kick your sorry butt clean off my land, you gotta ask yourself a question: Do I feel thirsty? Well, do ya, slave?" is that involuntary servitude?

You see where we are going with this?

 

It's also what you are doing you're just being dishonest about it

 

No, it's what you are doing, and falsely accusing me of doing.

 

Yes

Well you're just insisting something is fact without presenting the slightest shred of evidence.

 

As stated .. if you can't figure out that "Work for Food" is "involuntary .. I can not help you .. Must help self first

 

Then your blind .. and/or do not understand the word coersion.. one of those folks who thinks forced vaccination wasn't forced...

In this case --what part of "work for food" - "Feudal system" are you having trouble understanding.. or the word "Involuntary" in context = something you would not have done otherwise.

A ring a ding ding .. pring a pring pring ..

 

You can keep saying your words, but it still doesn't make them fact.

Simple definition and all is true today for any citizen of these United States: Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price system, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor.

All citizens can own their own businesses for their profit. They can own private property and their property rights are recognized. And employees work for a wage. They are not slaves. If you don't think you are being treated fairly by your employer, go elsewhere. Freedom is amazing!

And is the government involved sometimes more than we would like? Yes. But that doesn't redefine capitalism to fit your definition.

 

Just a few questions. Inquiring minds like to know.

1. Should the most skilled workers be paid the same wage as the lowest skilled workers?
2. Should all health care and other benefits be paid by the employer or by the worker?
3. If one has a dispute on management decisions who decides the outcome; management or the workers?
4. Should all business be run like our inefficient government?
5. Should all decisions be based on democratic majority rule?
6. Which form of rule do you believe promotes laziness? Innovativeness?
7. Should all housing be of the same value? Tear down the mansions?
8. Should business or factories be kept open even if they are failing to produce?
9. Which form do you believe promotes a overall higher standard of living for the country?
10. Do you believe the cost of goods will be lower or higer under socialism?

 

Congratulations - You got it ass backwards.

With Socialism you get the Gulag and the Laogai...

 

No.

Definitions are evidence, duh.

 

You can keep denying facts of objective physical reality, but that does not make them any less true. You keep denying what I have said, but you have never even attempted to refute it with facts or logic, nor will you ever be doing so.

Correct.

Problem is, that is self-contradictory because private ownership of natural resources (which classical economics called, "land") cannot occur by any process of production or voluntary exchange. It can only be effected by forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use those resources, which removes the element of consent from economic relations, replacing it with duress.

But some own others' liberty rights to access the opportunities government, the community and nature provide.

Because they must pay the owners of natural resources just for permission to survive, they are working under duress, as proved above.

Because my right to liberty is owned by others, I won't be treated any more fairly anywhere else. A slave is no less a slave if he gets to choose who owns him.

And cannot exist under capitalism.

It's your definition, too. I'm just explaining to you what it means.

 

Can you name an economic system in which people don’t work for food?




and homes?
and heating / cooling?
and transportation?
and
and
and
and


You have three choices.
1. Work for food.
2. Be rich enough to have other obtain and prepare your food.
3. Die.

 

Lost in the supermarket again ? Can no longer shop happily ? Do try to figure out what "involuntary" means .... in context

 

I figured it out long ago but you haven’t answered my question because you can’t.

 

Someone has to work to produce the food, but every system has niches for people who don't work to nevertheless eat.

In modern capitalist democracies, if you don't have money and don't work, you can still get enough food to survive through public income support programs and charitable projects like food banks. But more importantly, you are still sticking with the capitalist-socialist refusal to distinguish between the rich who get food by contributing their purchasing power to enhance the production process and those who do not contribute to production, but just own legal entitlements to steal.

 

"Work for food" is only "involuntary" in the same sense that "Breathe for air" is: it's the natural physical condition of a mammal's survival. If any animal declines to make an effort to obtain food, it will perish, just as if it declines to make the effort to breathe. When you have to work to get someone else's permission to obtain food, or to keep breathing, that's involuntary in the relevant sense.

 

HELLOOOoooooo?????

 

You said capitalism IS involuntary servitude. IS not WAS. Let's talk about today please.

 

Please explain how it's involuntary, in a democracy. Which law compels it?

 

You'll need to point me to the actual LAW involved. Otherwise it's just a nonsense.

There were LAWS around vaccination, if you recall.

 

Thank you!

 

Give it up GO. You've lost this one.

 

Yes

Or propaganda.