How Capitalism Saved America

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 16 2005, 07:57 AM
Care to explain to me where is the middle point between stealing and not stealing?

When you're an ex-Halliburton executive and now in the executive of government?

While Flame of Liberty likes to beat the drums that he is a libertarian I do not believe that for a second. The guy is a closet anarchist, because its "cool", plain and simple. The funny thing is, I'm positive that he would be the first one crying about oppression if he was living in the society he yearns for. Be careful what you wish for... !

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 21 2005, 03:22 PM
When you're an ex-Halliburton executive and now in the executive of government?

While Flame of Liberty likes to beat the drums that he is a libertarian I do not believe that for a second. The guy is a closet anarchist, because its "cool", plain and simple. The funny thing is, I'm positive that he would be the first one crying about oppression if he was living in the society he yearns for. Be careful what you wish for... !

To me, a libertarian and anarchocapitalist are the same. But I understand that those two are viewed as two different things n the US/Canada.

Therefore, I have referred to myself as anarchocapitalist on this board (heck, even in my sig).

I think you are mixing up left anarchism (absence of law) and anarchocapitalism (existence of private law, as opposed to state law)...

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 20 2005, 07:48 PM
You can ask for help? Who do you ask? What if they say no?

Geez, you really have some easy answers for difficult (if not impossible) questions.

If I told you babies were starving in the local hospital you'd roll your eyes and say "give them some food, sheesh".

99% of all people say about themselves that they as socialy aware with strong social feelings. Time to put their money where their mouth is. Apparently the world is full of solidarity so why are you worried?

You did not answer my question. Do you think you are automatically entitled to receive help/care/money from other people? Are other people obligated to help you? Should they be forced to do so? Do you think people not willing to help should be penalized? Put into jail?

[Hakan]

Basically yes I do FOL.

A quick look at the nature of Human adaptation and specifically the evolution of Human society would point out that one of the main reasons our species thrived was because we created tribes and helped each other out so that we as individuals weren't dependent for everyone on our own. Some could go hunt, while others could go pick berries while others crafted tools which then everyone communally used for the betterment of the group.

So I actually see nothing wrong with having to help out in many ways it's just natural.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 21 2005, 12:26 PM
99% of all people say about themselves that they as socialy aware with strong social feelings. Time to put their money where their mouth is. Apparently the world is full of solidarity so why are you worried?

You did not answer my question. Do you think you are automatically entitled to receive help/care/money from other people? Are other people obligated to help you? Should they be forced to do so? Do you think people not willing to help should be penalized? Put into jail?

Where did you get this "99%" business? I've a sneaking suspicion you just made that up to fit your argument and it's, umm, not true. Not even close. 99% of people will not voluntarily help out someone in need.

Are people obligated to help me? No, because I don't need help. Am I obligated to help people that need it? Yes. In your fantastic system, I'd like to think I'd help someone out if they needed it, but maybe I wouldn't. Maybe I wouldn't even know someone needed my help. Would there be some overarching organization that would let me know if a woman across town with drug dealers in her yard needed my help?

Maybe we'd find it more convenient to, you know, all pay into a pot to make sure the private police force just looks after everyone in town. That sound reasonable?

Forget all the philosophical debates and blather, just the amount of paperwork of your anarchocapitalist society is enough to turn me off. If I had to write a cheque to my kid's teacher, the janitor at the school, my road crew, my private police force, sidewalk maintenance guy, the guys in the alley fixing the water pipes, the guy above them fixing the power lines, the street sweeper, tree pruner, air traffic controller, bus driver, doctor on call for me at the hospital and the nurse... and on and on, well, I'd never have time to make money.

[badnarik]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 21 2005, 11:48 AM
Where did you get this "99%" business? I've a sneaking suspicion you just made that up to fit your argument and it's, umm, not true. Not even close. 99% of people will not voluntarily help out someone in need.

Are people obligated to help me? No, because I don't need help. Am I obligated to help people that need it? Yes. In your fantastic system, I'd like to think I'd help someone out if they needed it, but maybe I wouldn't. Maybe I wouldn't even know someone needed my help. Would there be some overarching organization that would let me know if a woman across town with drug dealers in her yard needed my help?

Maybe we'd find it more convenient to, you know, all pay into a pot to make sure the private police force just looks after everyone in town. That sound reasonable?

Forget all the philosophical debates and blather, just the amount of paperwork of your anarchocapitalist society is enough to turn me off. If I had to write a cheque to my kid's teacher, the janitor at the school, my road crew, my private police force, sidewalk maintenance guy, the guys in the alley fixing the water pipes, the guy above them fixing the power lines, the street sweeper, tree pruner, air traffic controller, bus driver, doctor on call for me at the hospital and the nurse... and on and on, well, I'd never have time to make money.

i dont know about 99% of everyone else, but i know 100% of myself would help out someone in need, and i would rather give my money willfully to a private charity who would use it more effectively and efficiently than the government.

legalized drugs would eliminate the drug dealer problem.

you could also open up an account at a bank that uses computers so you wouldnt have to write any checks.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Hakan@Sep 21 2005, 07:31 PM
Basically yes I do FOL.

A quick look at the nature of Human adaptation and specifically the evolution of Human society would point out that one of the main reasons our species thrived was because we created tribes and helped each other out so that we as individuals weren't dependent for everyone on our own. Some could go hunt, while others could go pick berries while others crafted tools which then everyone communally used for the betterment of the group.

So I actually see nothing wrong with having to help out in many ways it's just natural.

Hakan, I am sure you can differentiate between voluntary help and involuntary (ie forced) help.

Again, is someone automatically entitled to receive help? Should people help each other freely? Absolutely. Should people be forced to help someone else if they dont want to help? Absolutely not. That would be agression.

Disagree?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Where did you get this "99%" business? I've a sneaking suspicion you just made that up to fit your argument and it's, umm, not true. Not even close.[/b]

OK maybe we can have a poll on this site. How many people would agree that the state should take care of “underprivileged” people (unemployed, low income, single mothers, etc.)? I am sure the percentage will be approaching 100. I would be shocked if more than 5 members of this site said that unemployed people should not be given welfare benefits.

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>99% of people will not voluntarily help out someone in need.[/b]

I have never said that 99% of people would voluntarily help. That is the point. I said that 99% of people are all for helping, but with other people money. Let’s give them a chance to prove they mean business, that they will help with their own money. It is easy to cry “government should take care of this and that” when it is not you who is footing the bill. But as I said, if so many people declare that they want welfare state, why are you worried about poor people left unnoticed? With so many socially aware people in our society, that sure cannot happen. Unless you worry that the majority of left wingers are hypocrites…

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos
Are people obligated to help me? No, because I don't need help. Am I obligated to help people that need it? Yes.

Why? Based on what? Again, I am not talking about morality of voluntary help here. If I see you drowning, do I _have to_ help you? And if I don’t, should I be put into jail? Where does your (or anyone else’s) right to be given help comes from? You haven’t answered me.

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos
In your fantastic system, I'd like to think I'd help someone out if they needed it, but maybe I wouldn't. Maybe I wouldn't even know someone needed my help. Would there be some overarching organization that would let me know if a woman across town with drug dealers in her yard needed my help?

Why not? If people value mutual help, that is likely to happen. You are informed about kids in Cambodia needing your help, is it a stretch to think you will find out about that woman across town? Ever heard of community newspaper? Or charities?

<!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@
Maybe we'd find it more convenient to, you know, all pay into a pot to make sure the private police force just looks after everyone in town. That sound reasonable?[/quote]
As long as it is voluntary, it sounds more than reasonable

<!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos
Forget all the philosophical debates and blather, just the amount of paperwork of your anarchocapitalist society is enough to turn me off. If I had to write a cheque to my kid's teacher, the janitor at the school, my road crew, my private police force, sidewalk maintenance guy, the guys in the alley fixing the water pipes, the guy above them fixing the power lines, the street sweeper, tree pruner, air traffic controller, bus driver, doctor on call for me at the hospital and the nurse... and on and on, well, I'd never have time to make money.[/quote]
Right. I have to pay separately for my groceries, clothes, shoes, gas, newspaper, books, movie tickets and zillion of other goods and services. Gee just look at the amount of paperwork, I wonder if we can socialize the whole economy so I will write one cheque to cover all my expenses… Wonder how can I have any time left to make money…

BTW I would be interested to know how long it takes you to lodge your tax return. If you are an entrepreneur dealing with the tax office, now that’s what I call shinguardload of paperwork…

[mykalberta]

Sheet, I just assumed people felt the same way about Rome.

I probably should have said empire - but I think society also works.

China - yes, in the arts and mathematics China is great, but they never really did anything - they didnt conquer much of anything.

Russia - same deal as China.

Mongolia, for a time they were a great Empire but doesnt even compare to Rome.

I guess Prussia comes close, as does Naploeonic France, and England durring its hay days - but I guess it depends on what you value in a society.

Every modern soceity of any power dating back to the 1900s has always tried to model themselves after Rome dating back to Hitler, Napoleon, and England.

Which other society has been able to live with so many different religions and cultures and not only survive but some would say prosper not in spite but because of its differences (no modern culture with the exception of the US, but it used a melting pot, where as Rome used inclusion)

Rome controlled most of the civilized world. I guess alot of things Rome is credited for were really done by the Greeks and others but that is just another testiment to Rome. They were able to not melting pot but combine all these societies so that you thought it was Rome.

As to the capitalism. Like everything capitalism needs a few things to function properly. Yes, pure capitalism should be able to work if human emotions are removed from the equation.

Somalia is a terrible example because it doesnt matter what government was their, they still would have killed each other. The problem with capitalism is that the purest form we have seen is from Nazi Germany (which needless to say is not a great example to bring up).

America is often used as the beacon of light for capitalism because we deal with factors of scale. America is the largest country that works in a quasi free-market society which is why its the best one to use as an example. Yes, nothing is perfect when human emotions and imperfections are accounted for and as such I dont believe you can truly judge an economic system.

MYK

[WCE]

Sheet, I just assumed people felt the same way about Rome.

I probably should have said empire - but I think society also works.

China - yes, in the arts and mathematics China is great, but they never really did anything - they didnt conquer much of anything.

Russia - same deal as China.

Mongolia, for a time they were a great Empire but doesnt even compare to Rome.

I guess Prussia comes close, as does Naploeonic France, and England durring its hay days - but I guess it depends on what you value in a society.

Every modern soceity of any power dating back to the 1900s has always tried to model themselves after Rome dating back to Hitler, Napoleon, and England.

Which other society has been able to live with so many different religions and cultures and not only survive but some would say prosper not in spite but because of its differences (no modern culture with the exception of the US, but it used a melting pot, where as Rome used inclusion)

Ummm, what about the Ottoman Empire? They controlled the modern middle east, Turkey, North Africa and pushed as far as Vienna...

There empire conisted of a myriad of cultures and religions.

They also exercised BY FAR the most tolerance toward other groups compared to their christian or protestant counterparts in europe. It was one of the reasons they were able to keep their empire together for so long...And it only started to fall apart once European economic/social influences began to sink in.

There was a time that Europe played second fiddle.

I think if it hadn't of been Muslim/Islam at the top of the food chain, than the history books we often read here would have payed a lot more attention.