The Capitalist System Is Decaying Because Of Its Own Contradictions

Yes, the side of the public

.

 

I have already proved to you that free people, free sellers, and voluntary exchange are impossible under capitalism, because one of its essential functions is removal of people's rights to liberty, and their conversion into the private property of landowners.

Oh, yes.

 

how is that possible when they have the right to liberty ie the right or liberty to freely buy and sell private property to increase their standard of living at fastest possible rate.

 

You mean, because they insist that words be used correctly and honestly?

No, that is syndicalism. Notice the root "social" meaning "of the community," vs "syndical" meaning "of a labor union."

No, just in honesty.

 

Having the "right" to buy your right to liberty from its owner is not the same as actually having a right to liberty.

 

Look in a good dictionary and get back to me.

 

Nope. Flat wrong. A trustee controls trust assets for the benefit of the trust beneficiary, not his own benefit. You are OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

 

Ah, I see, when you said "deregulation" you actually meant "with regulation". Yes, I agree. The fact that the monetary/banking/financial sectors were not 'without regulation' caused the financial meltdown.

None of that gibberish supports your assertion that capitalism is inherently unstainable. Try again.

Okay, so no reason why a society could not enact laissez-faire. Thanks.

 

do you have Ph.D in dictionary economics? Why read books about socialism when you can learn what is is from a dictionary?

 

our subject was worker control. They obviously control for their benefit.

 

Yep, those universities teach political economy and, over 3 years, they remark "read the feckin dictionary that bringiton likes". Makes sense!

Neatly advertises your dictionary error doesn't it? Austrians will refer to the difference between the two because they start from a biased understanding of socialism: that socialism refers to centralisation and some corrupted understanding of Marxism

You sure? Looks like a 2:2 to me

 

so if somebody wants to cure cancer to make a huge profit that is destructive? If people want to invest in a drug company to finance a cure for cancer that is destructive?

 

I see no difference since all owners have the freedom and liberty to buy the property they own

 

Isn't that a naive comment, given cancer treatments are so reliant on charity?

How are pharmaceutical innovation rates going? And to what extent are the innovations (which desperately will include new antibiotics) the result of public sector investments via university research?

 

exactly, if we wanted laissez- faire capitalism supply side economics we could vote for it and have it. Pure capitalism and pure socialism has never existed but so what.

 

so? Our subject is whether making a profit to improve someone's life is destructive. Is liberal trying to change subject when he loses debate?

 

Supply side economics is laissez faire capitalism? Its a night of comedy tonight!

 

You've referred to an example where profit doesn't work. Charity has been key. You've then called me a liberal when I'm not one. You love being wrong don't you?

 

Would you please define "pure capitalism"? That might help.

 

for 3rd time question is: is it destructive to invest in new drugs that may save millions of lives, to make a profit? How will you learn if you try to change subject when you are losing a debate? Shall we go for 4?

 

You didn't answer the question: How are pharmaceutical innovation rates going?

(Shhh, don't want to give the game away and spoil your research: They declined considerably and new drugs are increasingly reliant on government and academic research)

 

when you have very little govt involvement beyond police and courts enforcing basic property rights

 

Chortle, chortle, any one using the term 'pure capitalism' is on a hiding to nothing. At least refer to the economic spectrum: laissez faire (which can't exist) to command (which certainly can)

 

I agree then that we have never had pure capitalism. Nor have we ever had a disease free society. Nor have we ever had a crime-free society. But I would argue that it would be sensible to try to be as disease free and as crime free as we can.

When the government messes with concerns beyond protecting basic property rights, it leads to economic cycles like the recent great recession.

 

Utter nonsense. Its like Keynes never revolutionised the discipline...