Freedom and Capitalism

MikeyDB
#31
Capitalism is what's driven the social engine in North America and distributed so much suffering to the rest of the world. We paid the price for gasoline to nations who don't regard "human-rights" as a concept that applies to women and others. We buy the cheapest knock-offs from China and Banagaladesh that turn the willing user-societies of North America into self-absorbed "me-first" consumers without conscience.

We owe Capitalism the plaudits due for marginalizing humanity all over the planet.

We owe Capitalism for the greed that drives the wars we enter.....

Is Socialism any better?

Nope.
 
iARTthere4iam
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB View Post

Capitalism is what's driven the social engine in North America and distributed so much suffering to the rest of the world. We paid the price for gasoline to nations who don't regard "human-rights" as a concept that applies to women and others. We buy the cheapest knock-offs from China and Banagaladesh that turn the willing user-societies of North America into self-absorbed "me-first" consumers without conscience.

We owe Capitalism the plaudits due for marginalizing humanity all over the planet.

We owe Capitalism for the greed that drives the wars we enter.....

Is Socialism any better?

Nope.

Everything is crap? Nice nhilism.
 
warrior_won
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post


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?

That's why Capitalism provides the highest quality of life. You are correct in your assertion that quality of life is more than mere accumulation of wealth. The premise that people are rewarded for their efforts motivates them to put in more effort. So there is the constant drive in a capitalist society to make things easier, better, and more efficient.

A socialist society generally has workers that work harder for less. They don't enjoy the many life enriching benefits that those in a capitalist society enjoy, simply because there is no motivating factor for employing them. In other words, the reward for hard work and no work at all is the same in a socialist society.
 
warrior_won
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

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

Yes, it most certainly is. It most certainly is.
 
warrior_won
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post


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.

Okay, let me see if I'm following you here. lol. Section 1 of the Charter guarantees the rights and freedoms as set out in the Charter, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Section 2 lists the Fundamental Freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. Paragraph 2(b) guarantees the freedom of expression, thought, belief, and the press.

So you're making the argument that Section 1 can only be considered if it is determined that a right or freedom guaranteed by the Charter has been contravened. In your example, you're looking at Section 2(b) as it specifically relates to freedom of expression.

Well, obviously, it will have to be determined whether your rights under the Charter have been denied or infringed. I mean, that will be the crux of your argument in a Charter case, right? You wouldn't make a Charter case if you did not feel that you had somehow been denied a right or freedom guaranteed under it. So yeah, the Supreme Court will have to determine whether your rights have been violated before they can look at whether that violation was justified.

I don't see where you're going with this. It seems a bit of a red herring.


Quote:

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.

Interested parties? You mentioned that there were many historical examples. I am one of those interested parties. I asked you to provide one or two of those examples. Instead of providing the examples, you entered into a long winded diatribe on why you don't think it necessary to provide examples.

Are there many examples? Yes or no? Do you know of any? If so, why are you reluctant to provide them? If not, why are you attempting to embellish your argument with information that you know to be incorrect?


Quote:

If the price of something rises, than you haven't really controlled the value of the currency.

The price of a good or service is not determined exclusively by the value of the currency. Controlling the currency does not mean that the price of a good or service will not fluctuate. There are many factors involved in determining the price of something. I'm no expert in this area, but I figure anyone with half a brain can figure out what some of them are: cost of raw materials, cost of labour, cost of transportation, taxes, cost of energy, cost of property (rent, mortgage, whatever), etcetera.
 
iARTthere4iam
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

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


<a rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; href=&quot;http://m-w.com/dictionary/capitalism&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;>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.

My goals as they relate to capitalism have nothing to do with &quot;social freedom&quot; but rather individual freedom. Focusing on corporations as opposed to individuals confuses the issue. I do not assume capitalism is the only concern for a society. It is a concern for individuals and individuals make up a society. I only want to make it clear what capitalism is and to inject some appreciation for all it offers. Capitalism is not materialism. Corporate welfare is not capitalism. Freedom of action is understood to stop short of violating other's rights and so should it be understood of capitalism.
 
iARTthere4iam
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

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

Let's assume that I am a plumber. For a fee I install and repair plumbing. Who is my enemy. My competition? Other plumbers? Opportunity for what? Why would I have to be ruthless? If there are too many plumbers in the business and as a result prices that plumbers charge starts to fall and as a result of that plumbers can no longer make as good a living as before. The number of people taking up the trade will fall, plumbers may move to some underserviced town or take up other employment. So What? If plumbers started vandalising eachother's work or murdering competing plumbers than that would be a legal issue to be dealth with by the couts. Generally these issues are balanced out by the market. So what if feelings are hurt. Would the socialist solution be to add a tax to the citizens and subsidise plumbers so that none has to abandon their chosen field? Is that a better option?
 
gopher
#38
`` Government spending accounts for a third of the economy in Canada and the US.``


eliminate the military industrial complex and much of that would be gone in the USA
 
Toro
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

`` Government spending accounts for a third of the economy in Canada and the US.``


eliminate the military industrial complex and much of that would be gone in the USA

Goph, my man, this ain't the 1950s no more.

Considering that military spending is about 20% of the federal budget and 4% of the economy, then you'd be down to about 30%. And of that 4%, half is procurement. So the mighty "military-industrial complex" accounts for 2% of GDP, or less than Wal-Mart.

(The good thing about responding to Gopher is that I immediately remembered I had a Guinness left in the fridge. Cheers!)
 
L Gilbert
#40
Capitalism ised wisely is pretty good, IMO. Unfortunately, we rarely see it. Pretty much the same as anything else we have developed; it's rarely used wisely.
 
damngrumpy
#41
I suggest that neither capalism or socialism has ever really existed. Sociallism in Russia, was snuffed out by Stalin who in fact was more of a faciest than Hitler. In turn the unbridled capalism of the 19th century was hijacked by greed and conduct without conscience that launched the industrial revelution and child labor.
What we tend to do is label systems that have been bastardized, and to not resemble the original intent.
I suggest all systems are subjected to tyrants that take advantage of their fellow man in the name of greed.
Raising the minimum wage should not be required if thinking people were running the system, as if the poorer people had more purchasing power.
Socialism attempts to even out the economy buth will never be able to do that and the current path of capalism could well lose control of the economy as today the markets are fuelled more by specualtion than actual productivity
 
china
#42
darkbeaver

(
Quote:

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

"freedom can't be relative"......China in conversation with himself ,Nov 24,07,
Qing Dao ,Shandong ,PRC,at 2145,There darkbeaver ,is that better ?hahahaha
 
iARTthere4iam
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Capitalism ised wisely is pretty good, IMO. Unfortunately, we rarely see it. Pretty much the same as anything else we have developed; it's rarely used wisely.

What do you mean "used". How would capitalism be "used" wisely. Who would do the using and what would be changed by proper using.
 
L Gilbert
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by iARTthere4iam View Post

What do you mean "used". How would capitalism be "used" wisely.

Without greed for one thing.
Quote:

Who would do the using and what would be changed by proper using.

Wise people would do the using and obviously more people would benefit if they settled for just what they can use instead of going to excess.

"The injustices that occur in capitalism result from inequitable distribution of profit, not in creation of profit itself. Over the years, capitalism has been made more equitable by legislation, unions and taxation." - Hal McKenzie

"Capitalism, rather than being an evil system, is a marvelous tool which when used wisely by humane leaders, can meet all man's material needs. The only revolution needed in capitalism is a moral and ethical one that can direct it towards that purpose." - Hal McKenzie
 
iARTthere4iam
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Without greed for one thing. Wise people would do the using and obviously more people would benefit if they settled for just what they can use instead of going to excess.

"The injustices that occur in capitalism result from inequitable distribution of profit, not in creation of profit itself. Over the years, capitalism has been made more equitable by legislation, unions and taxation." - Hal McKenzie

"Capitalism, rather than being an evil system, is a marvelous tool which when used wisely by humane leaders, can meet all man's material needs. The only revolution needed in capitalism is a moral and ethical one that can direct it towards that purpose." - Hal McKenzie


Oh thank goodness "WISE" people will be in charge of my money via tax dollars. That is very comforting. Living on what is required ... Would that mean that there would be no Andrew Carnegies, no Warren Buffetts, no Bill Gates. Who does the deciding. How much am I allowed to have. When is my income enough and by whoes standard is such a standard decided?
 
darkbeaver
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

darkbeaver

("freedom can't be relative"......China in conversation with himself ,Nov 24,07,
Qing Dao ,Shandong ,PRC,at 2145,There darkbeaver ,is that better ?hahahaha

Ok , I expire those are reliable references I believe.
 
darkbeaver
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Without greed for one thing. Wise people would do the using and obviously more people would benefit if they settled for just what they can use instead of going to excess.

"The injustices that occur in capitalism result from inequitable distribution of profit, not in creation of profit itself. Over the years, capitalism has been made more equitable by legislation, unions and taxation." - Hal McKenzie

"Capitalism, rather than being an evil system, is a marvelous tool which when used wisely by humane leaders, can meet all man's material needs. The only revolution needed in capitalism is a moral and ethical one that can direct it towards that purpose." - Hal McKenzie

How the flippin Phuck are you gonna sell that idealistic nonsence to the rich? You'd be turffed off thier doorstep so fast both of your heads would spin. And don't mention legislation or regulation remember that's where we started. There are no bad corporations just bad managers. hahahahahah
 
Walter
#48
Think Progress, the Grandaddy of Liberal Websites, Shuts Down
https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-gra...ss-shuts-down/

Schadenfreude. Good thing the economy is so good, the folks who lost their jobs will easily find a new one.
 

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