Freedom and Capitalism

iARTthere4iam
#1
The right to make a living by using your talents and hard work is one of the greatest blessings we can hope for. Capitalism is the natural result of freedom of action. Capitalism is not Walmart, or "big" oil, or the stock market but the thousands of private enterprises that employ the majority of us in this country.
 
darkbeaver
#2
Capitalism is freedom.
 
coldstream
#3
That's right, with some qualifications. What we see now with Chicago School, Friedman/von Hayek school of Free market mania.. including Free Trade, monetarism (free trade in currency and credit), privatization of natural monopolies (basicly in transportation, utilities, communication, natural resources).. is a complete anathema to a true Fee Enterprise system. It causes chaos and industrial collapse where ever it is implemented. Capitalism requires a strong centralized role for government in supervising markets for the common good, and ensuring an equitable distribution of wealth. It also requires a strong respect for national prerogatives and soveriegnty .. all of that is lost in free market ideology.
Last edited by coldstream; Nov 21st, 2007 at 02:17 PM..
 
Toro
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

That's right, with some qualifications. What we see now with Chicago School, Friedman/von Hayek school of Free market mania.. including Free Trade, monetarism (free trade in currency and credit), privatization of natural monopolies (basicly in transportation, utilities, communication, natural resources).. is a complete anathema to a true Fee Enterprise system. It causes chaos and industrial collapse where ever it is implemented. Capitalism requires a strong centralized role for government in supervising markets for the common good, and ensuring an equitable distribution of wealth. It also requires a strong respect for national prerogatives and soveriegnty .. all of that is lost in free market ideology.

Straw man.

Government spending accounts for a third of the economy in Canada and the US. Such a description of the economy does not exist.
 
darkbeaver
#5
Freedom is relative.
 
china
#6
darkbeaver ,

Quote:

Freedom is relative.

Sounds very "intellectual"and wise,but it not the case darkbeaver.
 
iARTthere4iam
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

That's right, with some qualifications. What we see now with Chicago School, Friedman/von Hayek school of Free market mania.. including Free Trade, monetarism (free trade in currency and credit), privatization of natural monopolies (basicly in transportation, utilities, communication, natural resources).. is a complete anathema to a true Fee Enterprise system. It causes chaos and industrial collapse where ever it is implemented. Capitalism requires a strong centralized role for government in supervising markets for the common good, and ensuring an equitable distribution of wealth. It also requires a strong respect for national prerogatives and soveriegnty .. all of that is lost in free market ideology.

I'm not sure capitalism requries a stron centralized role for government as much as the population requires a stability provided by a strong centralized government. Capitalism is freedom, socialism is safety.
 
china
#8
iARTthere4iam

Quote:

Capitalism is freedom, socialism is safety.

Nope , Capitalism is people taking advantage of other people . Socialism is the other way around .
 
Niflmir
#9
Capitalism, like anything with the same suffix, is the philosophy that views the root word as the central aspect of the human condition (or at the very least, as the central method to another goal). In viewing capital as the primary indicator or vehicle of quality of life, capitalism necessary promotes certain views on how capital should be treated by society.

Under such views, classical economics proceeded to formulate an ideal market place, the perfect market, and show that this would result in price efficiency. One factor of the perfect market is that each producer was atomic, and thus a price taker. It was not that capitalism would produce a plethora of producers, it was that a plethora of producers were necessary to achieve the ideal marketplace.

There is nothing that says the ideal outcome of capitalism will or will not be equivalent to the ideal outcome of another philosophy. It is generally asserted by interested parties one way or another, however. In any case, capitalism is the philosphy that puts capital first. Socialism, is the philosophy that puts the members of society first. The ultimate objective is not price efficiency, it is the highest possible quality of life for all citizens; alternatively, the goal is the constant betterment of quality of life.
 
warrior_won
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

iARTthere4iam

Nope , Capitalism is people taking advantage of other people . Socialism is the other way around .

That's funny.

Capitalism is people taking advantage of other people. If Socialism is the other way around, then Socialism is different people taking advantage of other people.

I liken your stance to the argument for raising the minimum wage. Is raising the minimum wage a miracle cure for poverty? Not at all. At best, it's a placebo that maintains the present status quo. At worst, it's a poison pill that thrusts many more folks into poverty. So much for Socialism.
 
Toro
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Capitalism, like anything with the same suffix, is the philosophy that views the root word as the central aspect of the human condition (or at the very least, as the central method to another goal). In viewing capital as the primary indicator or vehicle of quality of life, capitalism necessary promotes certain views on how capital should be treated by society.

Under such views, classical economics proceeded to formulate an ideal market place, the perfect market, and show that this would result in price efficiency. One factor of the perfect market is that each producer was atomic, and thus a price taker. It was not that capitalism would produce a plethora of producers, it was that a plethora of producers were necessary to achieve the ideal marketplace.

There is nothing that says the ideal outcome of capitalism will or will not be equivalent to the ideal outcome of another philosophy. It is generally asserted by interested parties one way or another, however. In any case, capitalism is the philosphy that puts capital first. Socialism, is the philosophy that puts the members of society first. The ultimate objective is not price efficiency, it is the highest possible quality of life for all citizens; alternatively, the goal is the constant betterment of quality of life.

A very insightful and intelligent post as always N, but I would disagree.

Most of those who believe in capitalism as the ideal - and I stress the word "ideal" - would say you have it backwards. It is capitalism that puts the individual first while socialism subjects the individuals to the powers and whims of the state. To the idealistic capitalist, the rights of the person in a socialist society is everywhere and always subsumed by the state, stripping away her ability to choose what is best for her. In a capitalistic society, the rights of the individual are paramount and placed ahead of those of the state. In this sense, socialism and fascism are similar in that the interests of the state are always put ahead of the individual. Thus, the ultimate objective is the highest possible quality of life, but that cannot be obtained in a socialist society where the state's interest always subsumes the individual's.
 
Niflmir
#12
The minimum wage is a tool to maintain a certain threshold of wealth in the labor class. If the government has control of the value of the currency, they can accomplish this and more. Were they to release minimum wage completely, wealth and class would become dangerously polarized and there are many historical examples of this.

Periodically, the minimum wage must be increased to accomodate for inflation and thus prevent the lowest labor class from becoming poorer. Socialism which targets the minimum wage class can thus be achieved by increasing the minimum wage, controlling the value of currency and having a sufficient safety net to accomodate for fluctuations in the employment rate and prevent unemployment destitution.

To set up minimum wage as a supposed miracle cure, is to set it up to be knocked down: a straw man. Minimum wage can effect certain social goals given other effective policies.
 
warrior_won
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

The minimum wage is a tool to maintain a certain threshold of wealth in the labor class. If the government has control of the value of the currency, they can accomplish this and more. Were they to release minimum wage completely, wealth and class would become dangerously polarized and there are many historical examples of this.

Not to nitpick, but when you assert that there are many examples, you should provide at least one example to support your argument. Two examples would be even better, if you were wanting to avoid being accused of presenting the exception as the rule.

I find that I run into this practice all too often. People will use the phrase, "there are many examples of this," without providing any of those examples as corroboration. I've also been running into a lot of people who choose to stress the exception as the rule. It, apparently, is common practice for those seeking to mislead or manipulate facts. Not that I'm accusing you of this. I'm just saying.

As for your point about minimum wage being used to maintain a threshold, or "status quo" as I wrote, I agree. To think that raising the minimum wage would accomplish more than this is naive wishful thinking in my opinion. Of course, it is just my opinion.
 
Niflmir
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro View Post

A very insightful and intelligent post as always N, but I would disagree.

Most of those who believe in capitalism as the ideal - and I stress the word "ideal" - would say you have it backwards. It is capitalism that puts the individual first while socialism subjects the individuals to the powers and whims of the state. To the idealistic capitalist, the rights of the person in a socialist society is everywhere and always subsumed by the state, stripping away her ability to choose what is best for her. In a capitalistic society, the rights of the individual are paramount and placed ahead of those of the state. In this sense, socialism and fascism are similar in that the interests of the state are always put ahead of the individual. Thus, the ultimate objective is the highest possible quality of life, but that cannot be obtained in a socialist society where the state's interest always subsumes the individual's.

Haha, I tried to do some justice to capitalism, without appearing too biased. But it is generally quite impossible, one is always biased.

I would of course argue that socialism need not be utilitarian, or totalitarian, that was the lesson that the quebec government learned when the supreme court overturned their version of universal health care and ruled that they could not prevent private health care through legislation alone. This was a lesson for Quebec alone; had they sought systems such as Ontario's or Nova Scotia's they could have attempted to make private insurance infeasible. In any case I view socialism less as an ideal and more as a contant struggle for betterment, generally I am not really opposed to anything in particular but I do have the view that certain policies have been around for too long without achieving their objectives.

When I mentioned that capitalism in some cases views capital as the vehicle to some other objective, I was of course tyring to grant views which see capital as a primary step in granting personal freedoms or satisfaction. I was going to put in a statement about how superficial the definitions I was giving was, but didn't really know where to put it without giving undue weight. I simply left it at the statement that socialism and capitalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive at the ideal; in practice, there are many differences and insults based, sadly, on definitions such as the ones I gave.
 
darkbeaver
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

darkbeaver ,



Sounds very "intellectual"and wise,but it not the case darkbeaver.

How's it going China? At least it sounds" intellectual and wise" not being the case is not the point. So when you red that you didn't leap to the conclusion that I was an important author or a visiting proffessor, you're a hard one to fool Phil.
 
iARTthere4iam
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Capitalism, like anything with the same suffix, is the philosophy that views the root word as the central aspect of the human condition (or at the very least, as the central method to another goal). In viewing capital as the primary indicator or vehicle of quality of life, capitalism necessary promotes certain views on how capital should be treated by society.

Under such views, classical economics proceeded to formulate an ideal market place, the perfect market, and show that this would result in price efficiency. One factor of the perfect market is that each producer was atomic, and thus a price taker. It was not that capitalism would produce a plethora of producers, it was that a plethora of producers were necessary to achieve the ideal marketplace.

There is nothing that says the ideal outcome of capitalism will or will not be equivalent to the ideal outcome of another philosophy. It is generally asserted by interested parties one way or another, however. In any case, capitalism is the philosphy that puts capital first. Socialism, is the philosophy that puts the members of society first. The ultimate objective is not price efficiency, it is the highest possible quality of life for all citizens; alternatively, the goal is the constant betterment of quality of life.

As mob rule is not democracy so too is materialism not capitalism. Capitalism is a framework through which individuals may choose their livelihood and do with their life what they will. Capitalism says nothing about what an individual may or should do with that life. Aquiring things is something that people do often because they don't know what else to do. Many people choose a life of religion, academic study, the study of the arts, travel or charitable works over income or the accumulation of stuff. Other people choose collecting massive piles of wealth. Still others spend lifetime accumulating wealth only to give it away in a grand flourish of philanthropy like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Andrew Carnegie.
 
darkbeaver
#17
(Freedom is relative)----------Max Plank in a conversation with Werner Von Braun March 23 1926 01:37 AM Hymies Bar And Grill, in Hiedelburg . There China is that better. I suppose you won't be satisfied with Max's ideas niether. hanadhaha
 
Niflmir
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by warrior_won View Post

Not to nitpick, but when you assert that there are many examples, you should provide at least one example to support your argument. Two examples would be even better, if you were wanting to avoid being accused of presenting the exception as the rule.

I find that I run into this practice all too often. People will use the phrase, "there are many examples of this," without providing any of those examples as corroboration. I've also been running into a lot of people who choose to stress the exception as the rule. It, apparently, is common practice for those seeking to mislead or manipulate facts. Not that I'm accusing you of this. I'm just saying.

As for your point about minimum wage being used to maintain a threshold, or "status quo" as I wrote, I agree. To think that raising the minimum wage would accomplish more than this is naive wishful thinking in my opinion. Of course, it is just my opinion.

It would be hard to level an argument against nitpicking when I could probably be accused of it quite often. In mentioning "historical" examples, I mean that a reasonably knowledgeable person can pick any society and go back in time, and know of a time where there was no minimum wage and simultaneously wealth was concentrated in the hands of a minority class. I left it at that hoping that people would accept historical as the proper emphasis and all the caveats that should go with history would necessary weaken any examples that I could currently come up with.

Plus, I really didn't feel like it was at all essential to my argument, so I left it intentionally weak, not wanting to string off debates on the applicability of early Canada, the early USA, pre-victorian England, pre renaissance European countries, and so forth.

The crux if the argument, without needing examples:

If one could keep the employment rate and the value of the currency constant, raising the minimum wage would indisputably make the minimum wage class richer: they would not be laid off or they would be but get jobs at equal or higher than minimum wage, the buying power of the money would be equal and so they are richer. Thus the dream of using it to empower the minimum wage class depends strongly on one's ability to control two capitalist indicators.

One can also weaken the requirements and still arrive at net gains for the minimum wage class, so long as the net gain from those still employed is higher than the net loss from those who end up seeking welfare due to layoffs, one can argue that it is better is some restricted sense.

In any case, given the reality of economies, doing away with the minimum wage or not increasing it with inflation would be disastrous from a social indicator standpoint.
 
iARTthere4iam
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

iARTthere4iam

Nope , Capitalism is people taking advantage of other people . Socialism is the other way around .

I am an artist. If I paint you a picture and you buy it, which of us took advantage of the other? If the government takes money (taxes) from me even before it reaches my wallet and then passes laws that restrict my freedom to buy (with my after-tax money) medically necessary treatment and forces me into a dangerously long que to wait for treatment, have I not been taken advantage of? Money taken, freedom restricted, health jepordized.
 
Niflmir
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by iARTthere4iam View Post

As mob rule is not democracy so too is materialism not capitalism. Capitalism is a framework through which individuals may choose their livelihood and do with their life what they will. Capitalism says nothing about what an individual may or should do with that life. Aquiring things is something that people do often because they don't know what else to do. Many people choose a life of religion, academic study, the study of the arts, travel or charitable works over income or the accumulation of stuff. Other people choose collecting massive piles of wealth. Still others spend lifetime accumulating wealth only to give it away in a grand flourish of philanthropy like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Andrew Carnegie.

Your mistake is in conflating capitalism with freedom. The two are distinct. From Merriam Webster:

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

As opposed to freedom to do with their lives what one wills, it is freedom to do with one's capital what one wishes. In this light a monarchy could just as easily be capitalist, in particular, I believe Saudi Arabia fits the bill quite nicely. Although you may believe that capitalism is the only government philosophy which can achieve the penultimate goal of social freedom, you do no justice to capitalism by equating the means with the attempted ends.

Opponents of capitalism, or proponents of alternative philosophies, point out that in order to achieve certain other goals, some investments must necessarily be prevented or constrained. In order to be free from smog for instance, an environmentalist would point out that we need to constrain investments in dirty energy production.

I have been attempting to be clear on the distinction between capital, money and material. In any case, I wanted to merely distinguish socialist politics from capitalist politics, now I will point out that there are also egalitarian politics, which will often be opposed to both of these and which take as first principles the ideas of freedom and equality.
 
warrior_won
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

It would be hard to level an argument against nitpicking when I could probably be accused of it quite often. In mentioning "historical" examples, I mean that a reasonably knowledgeable person can pick any society and go back in time, and know of a time where there was no minimum wage and simultaneously wealth was concentrated in the hands of a minority class. I left it at that hoping that people would accept historical as the proper emphasis and all the caveats that should go with history would necessary weaken any examples that I could currently come up with.

The reason I asked for examples, is because I couldn't think of any historical examples to support your hypothesis. Seems to me that it was the recognition of human and employee rights that prevented workers from being exploited as cheap and/or slave labour. A minimum wage was established as one element in establishing the rights of workers, but elevating the minimum wage only contributes to inflation. That means that the cost of living creeps upward, thus necessitating the need for another rise in the minimum wage.

Anyway, the net effect is that minimum wage earners are no further ahead by raising the minimum wage from $7 to $10, for example. It is quite likely that the opposite would occur. Instead of putting more money in the pockets of consumers, a dramatic raise in the minimum wage would put more folks on the unemployment line. When unemployment rises, wages actually go down because employers no longer have to offer good money for labour, because of the paradigm shift. i.e. instead of employers competing for employees, employees compete for employment.

Course, I'm in way over my head on this topic... But I do enjoy a challenge.

Quote:

Plus, I really didn't feel like it was at all essential to my argument, so I left it intentionally weak, not wanting to string off debates on the applicability of early Canada, the early USA, pre-victorian England, pre renaissance European countries, and so forth.

I feel that it is necessary. If you were a prosecutor, do you think that a judge would be satisfied with you simply stating that the accused had a record of similar offenses? Hell, no! And even if the judge were satisfied with just your word, the defense sure as hell wouldn't be. The defense would be screaming, "What similar offences? What record? What history? What are you talking about Mr. Prosecutor?"

Quote:


If one could keep the employment rate and the value of the currency constant, raising the minimum wage would indisputably make the minimum wage class richer: they would not be laid off or they would be but get jobs at equal or higher than minimum wage, the buying power of the money would be equal and so they are richer. Thus the dream of using it to empower the minimum wage class depends strongly on one's ability to control two capitalist indicators.

The employment rate and the value of the currency? Those are the only factors that would have to remain constant? What about the cost of producing the goods and services? Who pays for employers extra labour costs? The consumer! The consumer has to pay more for the same goods and services that cost him/her less before the rise in the minimum wage. It's a cycle. And the minimum wage earner is never further ahead. So an increased minimum wage is a placebo remedy. i.e. The minimum wage earner gets the psychological benefit of thinking that he/she is further ahead, but in reality he/she is still earning the same $7 per hour... Only by a different name.

Quote:

One can also weaken the requirements and still arrive at net gains for the minimum wage class, so long as the net gain from those still employed is higher than the net loss from those who end up seeking welfare due to layoffs, one can argue that it is better is some restricted sense.

One could argue it, but one would be wrong.

Quote:

In any case, given the reality of economies, doing away with the minimum wage or not increasing it with inflation would be disastrous from a social indicator standpoint.

Disastrous in what sense? Aren't labour costs the single largest contributers to inflation?

By the way, I'm just stumbling through this. I'm hoping you can help me out by teaching me this stuff as I go along. So don't laugh too much at my blunders. I'm learning... I really am. I'm just a bit slow.
 
karrie
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

iARTthere4iam

Nope , Capitalism is people taking advantage of other people . Socialism is the other way around .


the other way around of "people taking advantage of people", is "people taking advantage of people" Hmm. lol.

lol... and apparently I'm not the first to notice that!
Last edited by karrie; Nov 22nd, 2007 at 01:22 PM..Reason: reading through.
 
Toro
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Your mistake is in conflating capitalism with freedom. The two are distinct. From Merriam Webster:

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

As opposed to freedom to do with their lives what one wills, it is freedom to do with one's capital what one wishes. In this light a monarchy could just as easily be capitalist, in particular, I believe Saudi Arabia fits the bill quite nicely. Although you may believe that capitalism is the only government philosophy which can achieve the penultimate goal of social freedom, you do no justice to capitalism by equating the means with the attempted ends.

Opponents of capitalism, or proponents of alternative philosophies, point out that in order to achieve certain other goals, some investments must necessarily be prevented or constrained. In order to be free from smog for instance, an environmentalist would point out that we need to constrain investments in dirty energy production.

I have been attempting to be clear on the distinction between capital, money and material. In any case, I wanted to merely distinguish socialist politics from capitalist politics, now I will point out that there are also egalitarian politics, which will often be opposed to both of these and which take as first principles the ideas of freedom and equality.

It is definitely true that "capitalism" and "freedom" are not necessarily the same thing. However, classical liberals - who believe in individual liberty and freedom first - ascribe to capitalism because it is the capitalist system which allows the individual to most fully reap the benefits of his labour. When the benefits of labour are taxed away and markets - which is the economic manifestation of free choices made by individuals - are obstructed by statism and central planning, then the will of the individual is subsumed to the state and violates the tenets of freedom.

Of course, this is semantics since all economic systems are mixed economies to some extent.
Last edited by Toro; Nov 22nd, 2007 at 01:46 PM..Reason: grammar
 
iARTthere4iam
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Your mistake is in conflating capitalism with freedom. The two are distinct. From Merriam Webster:

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

As opposed to freedom to do with their lives what one wills, it is freedom to do with one's capital what one wishes. In this light a monarchy could just as easily be capitalist, in particular, I believe Saudi Arabia fits the bill quite nicely. Although you may believe that capitalism is the only government philosophy which can achieve the penultimate goal of social freedom, you do no justice to capitalism by equating the means with the attempted ends.

Opponents of capitalism, or proponents of alternative philosophies, point out that in order to achieve certain other goals, some investments must necessarily be prevented or constrained. In order to be free from smog for instance, an environmentalist would point out that we need to constrain investments in dirty energy production.

I have been attempting to be clear on the distinction between capital, money and material. In any case, I wanted to merely distinguish socialist politics from capitalist politics, now I will point out that there are also egalitarian politics, which will often be opposed to both of these and which take as first principles the ideas of freedom and equality.

Your mistake is assuming capitalism is a government, it is not. It is, as you pointed out, a freedom. Our government is a parlimentary democracy, capitalism is the system that generates wealth, and socialism is the system that is supposed to protect us from falling too low financially. Capitalism could very well exist in a monarchy and freedom could exist where a tyrant ruled as long as the tyrant allowed it. Democracy gives us a say in the government but requires that we subjugate ourselves to the will of millions of others (and especially to the governing party). Capitalism allows us to pursue our own livelihood and to negotiate with others for things we want and need and socialism takes a piece of our work, steals from us, to provide a safety net should we ever find ourselves in economic trouble.
 
coldstream
#25
Free market capitalism, and specifically that which has come to dominate the World Economy of the last 30 years trades on the word 'Free' as a fundmental aspiration of the human condition. It is however, anything but free.. its implementation has always been done through crises and tyrannies.. as in Chile's full acceptance of enshrined Chicago school dictates under Pinochet.. or the rule of the oligarchs in post Soviet Russia. It conflates corporate welfare with that of the nation. To do that it has to diminish the power of the state. It is every bit as destructive as socialism, but much more covert.

Naomi Campbell's book The Shock Doctrine gives a comprehensive view of the motives of methods of what its leading the world into an economic debacle of unkown depth and duration.. but it will be unprecedented.
 
warrior_won
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by iARTthere4iam View Post

Capitalism allows us to pursue our own livelihood and to negotiate with others for things we want and need and socialism takes a piece of our work, steals from us, to provide a safety net should we ever find ourselves in economic trouble.

Is that what Socialism is? Security against an economic downturn? I always thought that Socialism was the idea that the least productive should reap the rewards of the most productive. In other words, I always thought of Socialism as stealing from the rich to give a free ride to the poor.

I should probably elaborate on that. I kind of make myself sound like a student of the great Josef Stalin experiment. Remember that? Lenin had this idea that the state should look after the interests of the people. A noble idea, but not one that was terribly practical.

As you may or may not recall, Stalin and his government soon realized that the State did not have the resources to look after the people of the Union. So they allowed millions of people to just die. They looked after the unfortunates by allowing them to starve/freeze while miserably waiting for their early grave.

I suppose you could say the same thing of Capitalism. There are always those who point out that our great nations have homeless people in the streets, and that there are people who have trouble making ends meet, but Capitalism goes a little further in helping those in need than Socialism does. In a Capitalist state, the people are free to accumulate as much wealth as they possibly can. Through taxation and philanthropy on the part of the haves, a capitalist state actually has fewer 'have-nots' than your average socialist state.

In Socialist state, the Government must have the resources to look after its people. If the government cannot meet the burden, then people suffering have no alternative but to suffer. They cannot rely on philanthropy because the state does not allow individuals to have excess.

Capitalism is survival of the fittest, but everyone is given the opportunity to be a predator.

Socialism is a Zoo. If the Zoo keeper can't feed the animals, the Zoo keeper decides who gets put down.

Sorry if I sound like a grade schooler... But I am a grade schooler. Grade seven to be exact. Are you smarter than a grade schooler? lol
 
darkbeaver
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro View Post

A very insightful and intelligent post as always N, but I would disagree.

Most of those who believe in capitalism as the ideal - and I stress the word "ideal" - would say you have it backwards. It is capitalism that puts the individual first while socialism subjects the individuals to the powers and whims of the state. To the idealistic capitalist, the rights of the person in a socialist society is everywhere and always subsumed by the state, stripping away her ability to choose what is best for her. In a capitalistic society, the rights of the individual are paramount and placed ahead of those of the state. In this sense, socialism and fascism are similar in that the interests of the state are always put ahead of the individual. Thus, the ultimate objective is the highest possible quality of life, but that cannot be obtained in a socialist society where the state's interest always subsumes the individual's.

The (Democratic State)= (the electorate)=(the majority)" In a capitalistic society, the rights of the individual are paramount and must be placed ahead of those of the state."
"
Isn't that state "the majority"?

I think that the highest possible quality of life cannot be delivered to the individual by capitalism, since the highest quality of life is not determined by accumulation., all that capitalism offers most of us is the promise of the highest possible accumulation which may not be the highest quality of life. What is the highest quality of life?

" In this sense, socialism and fascism are similar in that the interests of the state are always put ahead of the individual." I think that's been the practice, but I don't think it's because of flawed ideology, but rather flawed execution.


iartthere4iam said;
"The right to make a living by using your talents and hard work is one of the greatest blessings we can hope for. Capitalism is the natural result of freedom of action. Capitalism is not Walmart, or "big" oil, or the stock market but the thousands of private enterprises that employ the majority of us in this country."

I believe capitalism is a natural result of freedom of action, I also believe that communism is a natural result of freedom of action. Which promises the best chance of continuation of the state? What's important for the herd a concert or a solo?

I don't think rights exist in the sense of a natural thing, I think it's ability to make a living that's a great blessing. Thousands of private enterprises have been eaten to build a muscle of capitalism like Walmart. Where did you think it came from? You should reconsider socialism before you're eaten by the capitalists.


peace on earth and goodwill to women begats piece on earth and more goodwill to women

 
Unforgiven
#28
The problem is within both capitalism and socialism that power sinks into the depression that is caused by the weight of corporate structure where a few are privileged over the majority who for the most part are favored with less restrictions than the common with the odd sacrificial tossed up to the wrath of the common through the courts when they get caught with their hands dirty. This way the status quo remains while the misleading claim that fairness for all is paramount.

I feel what is needed is a balance of both and a good dose of social liberaltarianism thrown in over individual rights.
 
Niflmir
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by iARTthere4iam View Post

Your mistake is assuming capitalism is a government, it is not. It is, as you pointed out, a freedom. Our government is a parlimentary democracy, capitalism is the system that generates wealth, and socialism is the system that is supposed to protect us from falling too low financially. Capitalism could very well exist in a monarchy and freedom could exist where a tyrant ruled as long as the tyrant allowed it. Democracy gives us a say in the government but requires that we subjugate ourselves to the will of millions of others (and especially to the governing party). Capitalism allows us to pursue our own livelihood and to negotiate with others for things we want and need and socialism takes a piece of our work, steals from us, to provide a safety net should we ever find ourselves in economic trouble.

I called capitalism "a government philosophy" not a form of government. In particular it is a certain type of economic system or politics which strive towards it.

Quote: Originally Posted by warrior_won View Post

I feel that it is necessary. If you were a prosecutor, do you think that a judge would be satisfied with you simply stating that the accused had a record of similar offenses? Hell, no! And even if the judge were satisfied with just your word, the defense sure as hell wouldn't be. The defense would be screaming, "What similar offences? What record? What history? What are you talking about Mr. Prosecutor?"

Not at all. In fact, courts are often the base cases of where a debate can occur where multiple points are made but evidence for some of them are not entertained because the case is settled before those points need to be considered. Lately I have been reading many cases on freedom of expression in the supreme court of canada. The points made by the appellant are generally:

"Such and such a section of such and such an act violates section 2.b of the charter. This section is not validated by section 1 of the charter."

Those are two seperate points of law and two seperate assertions made by the appellant. However, the court will only ever make a section 1 analysis if section 2.b is indeed contravened.

Here, I didn't think that historical examples were actual evidence but were more items of interest, so I mentioned it for interested parties, not as a form of evidence. I tried to emphasise my actual argument, and in no way relied on it, as I believed it to be a red herring in any case.

Quote: Originally Posted by warrior_won View Post

The employment rate and the value of the currency? Those are the only factors that would have to remain constant? What about the cost of producing the goods and services? Who pays for employers extra labour costs? The consumer! The consumer has to pay more for the same goods and services that cost him/her less before the rise in the minimum wage. It's a cycle. And the minimum wage earner is never further ahead. So an increased minimum wage is a placebo remedy. i.e. The minimum wage earner gets the psychological benefit of thinking that he/she is further ahead, but in reality he/she is still earning the same $7 per hour... Only by a different name.

If the price of something rises, than you haven't really controlled the value of the currency. I did not say it was possible; I said that were it possible to do so minimum wage would be an obvious betterment. Of course I used the extreme merely to illustrate that it can be possible to achieve social betterment through a minimum wage. In reality what you need to do is cause the rise in the consumer price index integrated over your minimum wage population to be less than the net gains from the minimum wage increase.
 
darkbeaver
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by warrior_won View Post

Is that what Socialism is? Security against an economic downturn? I always thought that Socialism was the idea that the least productive should reap the rewards of the most productive. In other words, I always thought of Socialism as stealing from the rich to give a free ride to the poor.

I should probably elaborate on that. I kind of make myself sound like a student of the great Josef Stalin experiment. Remember that? Lenin had this idea that the state should look after the interests of the people. A noble idea, but not one that was terribly practical.

As you may or may not recall, Stalin and his government soon realized that the State did not have the resources to look after the people of the Union. So they allowed millions of people to just die. They looked after the unfortunates by allowing them to starve/freeze while miserably waiting for their early grave.

I suppose you could say the same thing of Capitalism. There are always those who point out that our great nations have homeless people in the streets, and that there are people who have trouble making ends meet, but Capitalism goes a little further in helping those in need than Socialism does. In a Capitalist state, the people are free to accumulate as much wealth as they possibly can. Through taxation and philanthropy on the part of the haves, a capitalist state actually has fewer 'have-nots' than your average socialist state.

In Socialist state, the Government must have the resources to look after its people. If the government cannot meet the burden, then people suffering have no alternative but to suffer. They cannot rely on philanthropy because the state does not allow individuals to have excess.

Capitalism is survival of the fittest, but everyone is given the opportunity to be a predator.

Socialism is a Zoo. If the Zoo keeper can't feed the animals, the Zoo keeper decides who gets put down.

Sorry if I sound like a grade schooler... But I am a grade schooler. Grade seven to be exact. Are you smarter than a grade schooler? lol

( capitalism is survival of the most ruthless, that involves not giving the enemy any oportunity.
 

Similar Threads

6
The Triumph of Capitalism
by darkbeaver | Nov 26th, 2018
0
capitalism versus science
by darkbeaver | Aug 15th, 2009
36
Is Capitalism Dieing?
by petros | Jun 26th, 2009
13
Enemy of Capitalism
by darkbeaver | Oct 16th, 2007