How Capitalism Saved America

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 15 2005, 03:54 PM

How does private property become private? North America was collectively owned and then expropriated from a socialist collective, stripping the collective of their property rights at the barrel of a gun. The movement from system to another is unavoidably violent and unfair to some, beneficial to others. When countries go from capitalism to extreme socialism is inherently no different than what has happened historically when property rights are created out of thin air because someone has bigger guns. Neither system can be created without displacing what was there beforehand, generally via force of arms.

You go further in your presumptions, at least as I read them. Implying that private property rights can exist without a well developed collective legal and political system assumes that there is some sort of natural law that can be used to resolve all disputes between private property holders. Rights are only rights when a collective agrees to uphold them.

^^^^^^^

This is the problem I tend to have w/ FoL's pie-in-the-sky anarcho/capitalist system. It revolves too much, in the end, around men's 'natural' rights, and the mutual and consensual respect of everyone's property based on philisophical niceties as opposed to physical realities. People have not shown thus far that they are universally capable of acting civil without the confines of social-organization.

I also like the point about the capitalist system in the United States being violently achieved. The US was born out of decades of genocide and expansion. This process was, I'm sure, at least as bad as the extreme excesses of the 20th century 'communist' states. Just pointing out that it's not like democracies are achieved through partying and celebrating, but often through the same type of bloodshed as 'communist' historical events have.

[tjinaz]

The difference between the excesses of the Communists in the 20th centrury and the "genocide" you attribute to the US is that the communists did it to their own people. Those that were supposed to be provided for and protected by their government were slaughtered like sheep.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by "Flame On"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Flame On")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What a thread. Why are you so bent on convincing everyone how great you believe capatalism is? I bet even you could come up with some downsides to it everyone else certainly could.[/b]

I dont think that capatalism all that great. Capitalism on the other hand... I am not trying to preach to anyone. I am just trying to offer arguments that prove many often repeated claims about capitalism wrong. I am trying to have a debate. You know, on a message board. How crazy.

Originally posted by "Flame On"@
Capatalism run within it's true spirit works, as does communism.

What does that mean? Capitalism is not being “run” in any way. Also I am not sure what you mean by “true spirit.”

<!--QuoteBegin-"Flame On"
Unfortunately neither have really ever occured although western governments have gotten closer than communists have been able.
Social degredation, exploitation, widening of have and havenots, pollution and environmental erosion, corruption, facism, war, imperialsim etc etc. all have been linked to your vaunted system. I know the others have had many of these also but don't try to hold up capatalism as some pantheon of success and virtue, it ain't.[/quote]
Can you logically prove that capitalism is ineed the cause of what you listed? You know, just because that stuff is repeated hundred times, it doesnt make it a fact. One example for all – corruption. How can corruption exist on free markets? Who are you going to bribe if there are no state officials? Do you need to bribe your local baker to get bread? How does capitalism lead causes wars? Last time I checked states and politicians start wars. I havent seen Microsoft or Sony declare war on anyone. It is hard to “run” capitalism while killing your customers.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by "Agamemnon"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Agamemnon")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Fair enough. I'd debate the points, but, since all government is criminally thieving from us all of our hard-earned resources (apparently), I don't see any possibility for a middle-ground.[/b]

Yeah. Because there is no middle ground, I agree with that. You either believe no one has the right to steal from other people or you dont. There is no middle ground.

Originally posted by "Agamemnon"@
If you're middle/upper-class, you're right, Capitalism is a godsend. Of course, I believe that only 10-20 percent of the world falls into those categories. The rest are screwed.

How? Do you think that lower classes in “more capitalist” countries are worse off than lower classes in “more socialist” coutries? Lets say the US vs Cuba? Quite some time ago, I posted here a link to a study about the american poor. People who classifiy as poor in the US would be middle to upper class in many, many other countries. Stuff like “American poor are underprivileged and exploited” is nonsense. They are being taken care of, and are better off than billions of people living elsewhere. I may dig up that study later.

<!--QuoteBegin-"Agamemnon"
Are you saying that 'capitalist' Somalia is a better place to live than 'communist' East Germany was? Both had their faults, but... [/quote]
Depends for who. If you were spineless parasite without opinion in East Germany, you were doing just fine. Waiting 15 years for a Wartburg, eating bananas on Christmas only. Those who werent, well... Lets fast track to present day. But do you know how many billions of euro are being funneled to eastern Germany from the west of the country? Its easy to build communism when you have insane amounts of money pouring in. And lets keep in mind who is subsidizing who. If socialism is better, why does east Germany need money from more capitalist west? Why not the other way?

PS Lurch, I will adress your points later. Tijnaz, good points, looks to me you have read Hayek, havent you?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by "Devils`Advocate"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Devils`Advocate")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It's FoL that seems to be holding up the extreme of Capitalism as the ultimate system. [/b]

Pure capitalism is the more appropriate term.

Originally posted by "Devils`Advocate"@
But there have been democratically elected Communist governments (Poland is one example of where it has happened). Communism doesn't always mean fascism... just that that is the most common implementation.

Democracy is also illegitimate system. Goes well with communism. You are right, communism doesnt mean fascism, but they are 99% identical collectivist regimes. Both show total disrespect towards freedom and individual rights.

<!--QuoteBegin-"Devils`Advocate"
FoL: I just don't think that electing a government to act as a co-ordinating body for the people constitutes slavery. [/quote]
And what does constitute slavery to you? Co-ordinating people, that is a nice way to put it. Governments coordinate people, take away fruits of their labour and live off them. How is that different from slave owners? The difference is in degree, not in the substance.

[Devils'Advocate]

Sorta a hit and run here as I have to step out...

But what is your opinion of things in Somalia where if you are rich enough to afford to kill someone you don't like, you can kill them without reprisal. Is this a part of your dream society?

[badnarik]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 15 2005, 04:21 PM
Sorta a hit and run here as I have to step out...

But what is your opinion of things in Somalia where if you are rich enough to afford to kill someone you don't like, you can kill them without reprisal. Is this a part of your dream society?

is oj from somalia?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 15 2005, 11:21 PM
Sorta a hit and run here as I have to step out...

But what is your opinion of things in Somalia where if you are rich enough to afford to kill someone you don't like, you can kill them without reprisal. Is this a part of your dream society?

Of course it is!

In FoL's state, everything goes!! With no controls (other than man's natural rights, larf) you can hire a hitman to kill whoever you want (as long as the supply/demand works out). Who's to stop you? No one. But that wouldn't happen, because, as FoL says, people would respect each other's stuff, even without consequences or coercion... right.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 15 2005, 11:50 AM
^^^^^^^

This is the problem I tend to have w/ FoL's pie-in-the-sky anarcho/capitalist system. It revolves too much, in the end, around men's 'natural' rights, and the mutual and consensual respect of everyone's property based on philisophical niceties as opposed to physical realities.

Well said.

It sounds nice but it can't happen.

[Five-hole]

Why do y'all bother with FOL? He addresses the points he can conveniently shoot down and completely ignores the ones he can't. He puts words in people's mouths. He's an absolute master at abusing logical fallacies. Point in case?

Originally posted by "Flame of Liberty"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Flame of Liberty")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-"Agamemnon"

Fair enough. I'd debate the points, but, since all government is criminally thieving from us all of our hard-earned resources (apparently), I don't see any possibility for a middle-ground.

Yeah. Because there is no middle ground, I agree with that. You either believe no one has the right to steal from other people or you dont. There is no middle ground.[/b][/quote]

Brutal.

Don't bother. He's obviously pretty convinced of his position, and has yet to figure out that the reason nobody agrees with him is because of the obvious flaws in his system. Which he CONTINUES to ignore while shotgunning at other lines of people's text.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 16 2005, 01:20 AM
Of course it is!

In FoL's state, everything goes!! With no controls (other than man's natural rights, larf) you can hire a hitman to kill whoever you want (as long as the supply/demand works out). Who's to stop you? No one. But that wouldn't happen, because, as FoL says, people would respect each other's stuff, even without consequences or coercion... right.

Come on man. Obviously it is not okay. Murder is aggression so it is not okay. You ignore the fact that:

- people able to defend themselves will do so
- people not able to defend themselves will hire a private security agency. Whats so suprising about it? In the US, people spend on security agencies more money than federal government spends on the police. Dont you think that there would be a demand for such security services?

I never said I expect that people will respect their respective rights. Its great if they do, but it is not a requisite. Security and defense can be supplied by the market, and it has happened in the past.

BTW There is no FoL`s state

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Five-hole@Sep 16 2005, 03:22 AM
Why do y'all bother with FOL? He addresses the points he can conveniently shoot down and completely ignores the ones he can't. He puts words in people's mouths. He's an absolute master at abusing logical fallacies. Point in case?



Brutal.

Don't bother. He's obviously pretty convinced of his position, and has yet to figure out that the reason nobody agrees with him is because of the obvious flaws in his system. Which he CONTINUES to ignore while shotgunning at other lines of people's text.

Well you sure showed me. Care to explain to me where is the middle point between stealing and not stealing?

Stealing sometimes? Stealing just a little?

What points have I ignored?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 16 2005, 12:55 AM
I never said I expect that people will respect their respective rights. Its great if they do, but it is not a requisite. Security and defense can be supplied by the market, and it has happened in the past.

BTW There is no FoL`s state

How about you completely skipped my post?

IN SOMALIA, WHERE THERE IS NO POLICE, THE RICH REGULARLY KILL THE POOR BECAUSE THERE ARE NO REPRISALS. If you have money and you want someone dead, they're dead.

The poor cannot defend themselves. And the poor certainly cannot afford protection. Security is a HUGE business in Somalia - but only those with money can afford it.

So let me try again.

"But what is your opinion of things in Somalia where if you are rich enough to afford to kill someone you don't like, you can kill them without reprisal. Is this a part of your dream society?"

And how is Somalia NOT a FoL state? No government. No government regulations. No state sponsored health care, department of transportation, police... nothing. How is this different than your dream state?

[Lurch]

I think the logical conclusion of the FoL system is a dictatorship unless the system exists like a socialist enclave of the 70's. Without an external arbiter and guarantor of property rights PUBLICLY provided by a monopoly, it cannot be sustained. Its a pretty experiment within an established state, but as a worldwide system it is not stable. IMO, it is similar to how agrarian cultures could not be sustained once people began to organize and form states. As a closed system, they worked, but in an open environment, external forces make them obsolete.

For example, FoL quoted some community in Somolia that hired a warlord as an example of privately procured security. Two failings - the public grouped together to hire the security (a lot like a democracy, no?), and what happens when they want to terminate the contract. Does the warlord walk away peacefully b/c his contract has expired?? Not unless they can afford a bigger warlord.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 16 2005, 12:14 PM
How about you completely skipped my post?

IN SOMALIA, WHERE THERE IS NO POLICE, THE RICH REGULARLY KILL THE POOR BECAUSE THERE ARE NO REPRISALS. If you have money and you want someone dead, they're dead.

The poor cannot defend themselves. And the poor certainly cannot afford protection. Security is a HUGE business in Somalia - but only those with money can afford it.

So let me try again.

"But what is your opinion of things in Somalia where if you are rich enough to afford to kill someone you don't like, you can kill them without reprisal. Is this a part of your dream society?"

And how is Somalia NOT a FoL state? No government. No government regulations. No state sponsored health care, department of transportation, police... nothing. How is this different than your dream state?

IN THE US, WHERE THERE IS POLICE, PEOPLE REGULARLY KILL OTHER PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE REPRISALS. If you have money and you want someone dead, they're dead.

How is that any different? People kill other people, in all economic and political systems.

Show me where I said that Somalia is heaven on Earth. Obviously it is not. You cannot "undo" decades and decades under tyranny in such a short time.

I have provided some links (even a World Bank report, you should find that credible) giving evidence that the Somali society is making real progress (compared to the rest of Africa) and you give me counter argument that people kill other people, which happens EVERYWHERE. Can you give me evidence that today, poor Somalis are less able to defend themselves than lets say, poor Nigerians ("protected" by their government)? Or that more people are killed today than say 20 years ago? Obivously the peace is hard to achieve, the thing is - are they making progress? I think I provided credible links that say it is so, you have provided nothing to suggest otherwise.

As for your last quote, I hope you are kidding me. I have been voicing my opinions on this board for years, where I repeatedly said I am against even such acts of agression, that are tolerated by most other people here (drug users put into jail, tax evaders put in to jail). And now you are asking me if murders are part of my dream society?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 15 2005, 04:54 PM
How does private property become private? North America was collectively owned and then expropriated from a socialist collective, stripping the collective of their property rights at the barrel of a gun. The movement from system to another is unavoidably violent and unfair to some, beneficial to others. When countries go from capitalism to extreme socialism is inherently no different than what has happened historically when property rights are created out of thin air because someone has bigger guns. Neither system can be created without displacing what was there beforehand, generally via force of arms.

You go further in your presumptions, at least as I read them. Implying that private property rights can exist without a well developed collective legal and political system assumes that there is some sort of natural law that can be used to resolve all disputes between private property holders. Rights are only rights when a collective agrees to uphold them.

Maybe I can borrow your history book, because from what I know from my books, it was English, French, Spanish, and later American imperial armies who killed most of the natives in America. You know, imperial countries. Again, lets blame capitalism for that...

How does private property becomes private?

- production
- original appropriation
- trade
- gift

I agree with one thing though, it may difficult to trace origins of certain property (because of the movement from system to another system). If you can go back and prove that some land was stolen from its original owner, it should be given back.

However, the difficulty is not a reason to keep everything status quo. I think we ought to aim for a free society, eventhough it is difficult. Keeping on doing harm again and again because harm was done before is a recipe for disaster (see Israel vs Palestina)

You are right in your last paragraph (save the last sentence). No such collective agreement is needed. Does existence of your right to your life depends on the opinion of the others? If the majority of the society says you have no such right, you wont have it? Then you should be killed freely? Is that your dream society?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by badnarik@Sep 16 2005, 01:16 AM
is oj from somalia?

Well no kidding... I guess crime is commited only in Somalia...

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 16 2005, 12:57 AM
Well you sure showed me. Care to explain to me where is the middle point between stealing and not stealing?

Stealing sometimes? Stealing just a little?

What points have I ignored?

Easy. If I reject your premise that taxes are the government stealing from me, then the question isn't even worth talking about.

You only want to debate these ideologies on your own terms, though, where everyone is misguided because you assume they accept your premises and reject your conclusions, whereas many reject both.

[Lurch]

Maybe I can borrow your history book, because from what I know from my books, it was English, French, Spanish, and later American imperial armies who killed most of the natives in America. You know, imperial countries. Again, lets blame capitalism for that...

- original appropriation

Imperialism and orginal appropriation are by and large the same thing. Armies created property rights and private landholders where none existed previously.

You are right in your last paragraph (save the last sentence). No such collective agreement is needed. Does existence of your right to your life depends on the opinion of the others? If the majority of the society says you have no such right, you wont have it? Then you should be killed freely? Is that your dream society?

Dream society ideal is silly - it cannot exist. So no, this has nothing to do with my dream. However, it is clear that if the majority decides my right to life is no longer a right, then I no longer have that right. Any number of genocides can attest to this. Private rights are meaningless when groups can organize and expropriate those rights. History has shown 2 things that unavoidably make your ideal society impossible: people organize and groups/people are aggressive. No matter how well you perform mental acrobatics, you cannot pull a spontaneous natural law out of thin air that everyone will abide by in recognition that its in their best interests.

As a point on why your system won't work economically speaking consider the following. An individual inventor comes up with an economic way to create solar power. Alas, there are no patents since there is no gov't to enforce them. He does not have access to capital unless he shares his plans with companies to demonstrate the technology. The company decides that they love the technology, but lo and behold, it turns out they actually invented it, not the inventor. The inventor is paid the grand sum of a coffee and a donut for his invention, becomes disillusioned and gives up pursuing inventions. As I understand your system, this won't happen b/c this violates the intellectual property rights of the inventor - as enforced by "NATURAL LAW", or alternatively, the army of about 1 that the inventor can afford to enforce his property rights.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Five-hole@Sep 16 2005, 05:48 PM
Easy. If I reject your premise that taxes are the government stealing from me, then the question isn't even worth talking about.

You only want to debate these ideologies on your own terms, though, where everyone is misguided because you assume they accept your premises and reject your conclusions, whereas many reject both.

steal - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I dont remember giving the government a permission to take money from me. Where does your (gov) right to my money comes from? Just because you claim it is so? Verbal claim is not a right.

So you reject first definition of the word and conclude that my question isnt worth talking about. Simply put, you refuse to take facts into account only because they dont fit your agenda.

My own terms? Its from a dictionary.