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. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    16,234
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nomenclature aside, we agree that they want to take people's stuff by force of arms. Hence, they are bad people.
     
    crank likes this.
  2. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,849
    Likes Received:
    7,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They won't have to resort to arms initially. They'll just do as every good totalitarian state does, and declare all lands 'Govt Administered' by fiat. The guns will come once the people (being genies long released from the bottle, as all First Worlders are) understand what's been done to them.
     
  3. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    16,234
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, they advocate the violation of their neighbor's property in order to accomplish their goals.

    I can't get on board with any policy that violates the property of my neighbor.
     
  4. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,849
    Likes Received:
    7,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed. The whole thing is horrifying.

    That it's all just lip service is the bugbear in terms of this thread. They can buy land any time they like, and share it with as many people as can be accommodated. But are they doing that? Of course not. They want their cushy exclusive use just like those they condemn.
     
    Longshot and Idahojunebug77 like this.
  5. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    6,735
    Likes Received:
    1,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's your problem, not mine. We are NOT on the same mental-frequency.

    And it is not worth both-of-us jumping into what is clearly an Enormous Rat-hole of I-said-You-said.

    Too bad. Moving right along ...
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 4:41 AM
  6. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Administration is not ownership. By that logic, the company that administers possession of the land I live on owns the land; but they're merely a third party collecting rent for the actual owner. Never even met the actual owner.

    Government would merely be the third party ensuring that every community members equal rights to the land are respected, meaning requirement of just compensation if those rights are abrogated out of practical necessity, as is the case with regards to exclusive land tenure.

    Neither the government nor the community would "own" it. The idea that there are no rights to something without ownership is absurd. If somebody decided to release dangerous toxins into the air I would want the government to step in. You don't have to own the air you breathe before you breathe it to have a right to sustain your life with it, and neither does the party protecting your rights have to own it.
     
  7. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Incredible. How many times does the "property is automatically right" justification for property in land have to be demonstrated as fallacious before it gets into your skull?

    You are merely pointing to the prevailing norms as justification for the prevailing norms. Some good historical company you're in there.

    I doubt that you are not smart enough to understand this. So what exactly is it that makes you continue with this type of argument?
     
  8. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Stupid ****ing lie. We don't want to "take people's stuff", WE are the one's pointing out that there is massive, systemic, institutional injustice which allows the beneficiaries of it to "take people's stuff" without the victims' consent and without any commensurate reciprocation. We are on the right side of history. You are on the wrong side.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 11:16 AM
  9. Liberty_One

    Liberty_One Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Pointing at your neighbors' property and yelling that it's actually yours while you stamp your feet doesn't make it so.

    The Bolsheviks thought that too.
     
    crank likes this.
  10. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    16,234
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What stuff is being taken?
     
  11. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,849
    Likes Received:
    7,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can it be called 'injustice' when there is not a single legal impediment to purchasing as much or as little land as an individual sees fit to purchase? We live in First World capitalist democracies .. the very foundation of our nation models is the freedom to do such things. That freedom is the ultimate justice.

    When that freedom is lost, justice is lost. I'm astonished that you can't see that.
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,546
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No. Wrong. Again. A trustee administers possession and use of trust assets but does not own them. I have explained this to you many times before. You always just ignore the facts I identify and repeat your false claim that public administration of possession and use of land for the public benefit and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor is government ownership of land. Why do you permanently refuse to know the fact that governments administer private use of e.g., the oceans, the atmosphere, etc. without owning them?
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,546
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    All the wealth that the privileged obtain by dint of government force, without making any commensurate contribution to wealth production. Call it half of GDP.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,546
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Huh?? The legal need to "purchase" land -- i.e., to buy back from the landowner one's liberty to use what one would otherwise have been at liberty to use -- is itself the impediment. Duh. You could with equal "logic" -- and morality -- ask how it could be called injustice when there was not a single legal impediment to slaves purchasing their rights to liberty back from their owners.
    Which by definition have forcibly stripped us of our rights to liberty and made them over to the privileged, especially landowners, as their private property. They OWN our rights to liberty. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?
    The "freedom" to own others' rights to freedom. Right.
    Nonsense. What is just about being enslaved by the privileged unless rescued by massive government intervention in the economy?
    We can't see it because it isn't there. Legal entitlements to strip others of their rights to liberty without making just compensation are self-evidently and indisputably not justice -- and I am not in the least surprised that you refuse to know that fact.
     
  15. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    3,597
    Likes Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, it does.
     
    crank and Longshot like this.
  16. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    16,234
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like what specifically?
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,546
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am completely serious.
    <yawn> Like Hong Kong, where all land is publicly owned and has been for over 160 years? That barbarism?

    Or do you mean the barbarism in places like Pakistan, the Philippines, and Guatemala, where private landowning is the basis for the effective enslavement of 90% of the population?

    Why can't you ever remember that all your silly tripe has already been refuted by the facts of objective physical reality?
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,546
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why do you feel you have to make $#!+ up? You know that a trustee administers trust assets but does not own them. You KNOW that. Why do you pretend that you do not?
     
  19. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    3,597
    Likes Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    COMPLAINS ABOUT GOVERNMENT GRANTING PRIVLEDGES LIKE SLAVE OWNING TO THE WEALTHY

    THINKS THAT SOLVING THE PROBLEM IS ALLOWING GOVERNMENT TO "ADMINISTER" (CONTROL) ALL LAND

    :roflol::roflol::roflol:
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,546
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The land portion of all the rent landlords pocket would be one specific example, along with everything they have used that money to buy. Obviously we are talking about literally billions of specific items.
     
  21. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    They can't win the battle of ideas, so they resort to changing what we use to relay ideas -- language -- in order to cause confusion and misunderstanding.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,546
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Government already administers and controls all land, and that cannot be changed because that is what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. So what you object to is not government administration or control of all land, which you are well aware it is going to do anyway, but rather its discharge of that function in the interest and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all the people, rather than in the narrow financial interest of a wealthy, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning elite.

    Your puerile and disingenuous, "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" tripe is noted.
     
  23. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    3,597
    Likes Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I love it when you neo-chartalists fall back on this worn out old argument, and it is so wrong headed...

    What I object to is any government, PERIOD.

    I know, I know...you will fall back into the standard statist argument best summed up by "But without government who will build the roads?"...except you'll vomit some tripe about the rich "WILLZ TAKE OVA EVEYTING!" (see, I've seen Star Wars too). That's all the same crap, because just like every other statist you fail to recognize that members of government will always take advantage of the Monopoly of Force that you and the other mindless zombie voters grant them and they will never let go, unless forced. They will always grant privlesge, and is the tool by which the wealthy snowball into the ungodly power that they wield. This is history of ALL government, that is it's inevitablebility.
     
    Longshot and Idahojunebug77 like this.
  24. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    16,234
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What items were stolen?
     
  25. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    16,234
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd rather that each of us owns (or, if you will, administers) a small piece of land rather than the state do so for all land in the jurisdiction.

    What I'm saying is that I'm basically opposed to communism.
     

Share This Page