What if I want to use my body to murder your best friend?
I would certainly hope you would oppose my private oligarchical control of resource.
…
Loaded questions, intentional misrepresentations, and unfounded ad hominems will simply be ignored.
Good call.
The key difference is mine was a statement, not a question. Sure, you can say it was a loaded statement, I thought it was quite pertinent, but it was not designed to bait anybody into a position.
Such a vague definition could be applied to just about any political philosophy. Everyone thinks their political and economic philosophy will benefit mankind over-all. No one actually thinks their beliefs will impoverish the masses.
Actually, a few people here actually do think that; namely LS and Sieben. And they are fine with it. It’s ok if the masses are impoverished because some rich guys will get WAY richer, and that will trickle down to the masses maybe 40, 50, 100 years in the future.
How can you support-free will. If the establishment you promote institutionally undermines individual-free will? Are you supporting free-will, if your free-will encroaches upon the free-will of your neighbors? Is it free-will for all? Or free-will for yourself, as far as your personal preferences and desires are concerned.
I don’t feel that it does. I feel the capitalist system “institutionally undermines individual free-will” by placing autocratic control over the lives of thousands, even millions of people into very few hands. It undermines free will by placing access to resource and commodities based on purchasing power, and neither need nor merit. Honestly I could go on for days about the tyrannical nature of capitalism, even without government. Let alone statist capitalism.
Free-will for the individual would be virtually indistinguishable from free will for all. If a system doesn’t provide free will for all, it obviously isn’t providing free will for the individual (only free will for SOME individuals).
Who is to be the judge of someone’s need or merit? You of mine? Me of yours? Each of their own?
“The singular tendency of capitalism is to provide for individuals the satisfaction of their wants according to the extent of their contribution to the satisfaction of the wants of others.” – Danny Sanchez in “Why Capitalism?”
Z.
That quote leaves out a mega-ton of back story. Like where/how the capital was obtained to supply the needs/wants of others. Seriuosly, that’s just a statement. I could say, “the single tendency of feudalism is to bring the social order in line with God’s desires.” My statement has as much substance as Danny’s (let me just put in here that I tremendously respect Danny, even if I do disagree with him).
That or the masses never getting wealthier ever. The standard of living for the poor or more likely worsening over time. But thats besides the point.
Don’t you think your misrepresentation of LS and Sieben is somewhat hypocritical? Considering your recent complaints about loaded statements and what not.
How do the few get in these positions? What do they do to reach that level?
Can you further explain how Steve Jobs undermines individual free-will? Because I always thought of him as creating options for me to further express my free-will.
Fundamentally, using your understanding of capitalism, how does one increase his purchasing power. And how is this method unfair?
Can you explain how a society would f unction absent money? Can you explain the solution to the calculation problem?
Good it will help remove confusion, lets ignore the state all together. Lets focus on free and voluntary exchange alone. Please point out the inherent tyrannical nature of voluntary exchange?
How is this not a fallacy of composition?
Also most of your responses are mostly intangible rants(Like your complaint about LS or Sieben isn’t relevant to anything). You don’t actually offer any concrete objections. You just mostly complain and gripe. Do you, and have you, ever on this forum, offered up a valid objection? Other then intangible unarguable assertions about the alleged “inherent tyrannical nature of capitalism” absent any explanation of why you feel that way.
If your participation here is going to do anything productive, whether thats you convincing me of your understanding, or vice versa, you’ll have to actually make an effort with your arguments. Your nature here is very cynical, and very seldom do you offer anything concrete. I apologize if you think my criticisms are without merit.
Your attempt at analogy makes no sense whatsoever. Regardless of the “initial” (whatever that may mean) distribution of capital, one’s ability to maintain satisfaction of their wants (level of consumption) is directly proportional to their continuous contribution to the satisfaction of the wants of others (profit). Failing to do so, diminishes – and after some time totally eradicates – the satisfaction of their wants. Businesses and individuals constantly go bust if they don’t allocate/manage their capital, labor and resources toward the satisfaction of the wants of others (consumers). Lottery winners constantly go bankrupt by not managing their winnings properly. Small businesses constantly grow big by satisfying consumers better. Then they wither away if/when they stop doing that.
What better self-regulating and impartial maximizer of the satisfaction of everyone’s wants could there possibly be? If you think a poet deserves merit, then commission (buy) his poem or convince someone else to do so. If you feel that the poet has a need, give him what you think he needs or convince someone else to do so. But please don’t put a gun to my head and make me satisfy his wants according to your judgment of merit or need.
Z.
But capitalism doesn’t place control in the hands of “the few”. That’s what critics of capitalism never understand. They are always talking as if capitalism is central planning by big business. Markets are not run by anyone. It’s systemic. Nobody controls it. There’s no planner in capitalism.
Don’t you think your misrepresentation of LS and Sieben is somewhat hypocritical? Considering your recent complaints about loaded statements and what not.
Is it a misrepresentation? I will detract it if so.
Do you, and have you, ever on this forum, offered up a valid objection? Other then intangible unarguable assertions about the alleged “inherent tyrannical nature of capitalism” absent any explanation of why you feel that way.
Actually I offered 2 reasons, you intentionally failed to see, in that post alone.
Please point out the inherent tyrannical nature of voluntary exchange?
This is a loaded question, and I shouldn’t respond to it. You are trying to force me into a position by asking what is my problem with “voluntary” exchange. Of course, who could be against voluntary exchange?! But, I will choose to see it as “what is your problem with the capitalist political economic system” because that is actually a pertinent question. I’ll try to make this short;
We start with thousands of years of theft of land and other property. We then consolidate this property into the hands of the (natural to some people) elites legally, and people’s lives in those same hands politically. We then remove the titles of nobility and call it “free exchange.” That would be like me trading you your Super Nintendo for your baseball cards… The tyrannical history of property and its pursuit is extensive.
We then establish absolute property laws of “this is mine” but more significantly and unnatural “and not yours.” At first, as mentioned in the last paragraph, this was all the property of the legal elites, the nobility… the landed aristocracy. But this tyrannical nature of property still exists in the more progressive capitalist economies (more progressive than feudalism). It did not exist through most of human history. It was not needed to develop arguably our greatest breakthrough (agriculture). And it is not needed, imo, to run a modern economy efficiently, and with prosperity for “all.”
Property has a long history of tyranny in its aquisition and protection. Surely you wouldn’t deny this? There’s nothing wrong with property, in a general sense, or its trade. In fact, it is unavoidable. That’s why your “why are you against voluntary exchange” is loaded. The problem comes in with establishment of absolute property laws. This was most severe during the times of legally established “elite bloodlines” and “titles of nobility” holding it in entirely unmerited hands. But it did not stop with the development of capitalism. Its still tyrannical control of resource and commodity, and as such, tyrannical control of billions of people’s lives.
Then comes the tyrannical nature of purchasing power. Absolute establishment of property moves the use of property to fulfillment of the needs/wants of all, and into the needs/wants of those with. It creates a game of monopoly where to protect yourself one needs to gain ever more and more property. This creates large disparities in purchasing power, further solidifying the direction of society into fewer hands.
Disputes over property and/or use of resource inevitably arise. Those with use their purchasing power to buy protection, militarily. They use this military power to protect themselves legally. As such, statism develops. Capitalists (those actually practicing ownership, etc, instead of capitalist theorists) are rarely libertarians. They may be against government regulations, but are usually perfectly fine with government courts and military, even in the modern age. It was sadly funny to see the capitalist scrambling to figure out how to make a profit off the Iraq war.
… this is getting too long. If you would like me to go on, I’m fine with that. But this is good for now.
Regardless of the “initial” (whatever that may mean) distribution of capital, one’s ability to maintain satisfaction of their wants (level of consumption) is directly proportional to their continuouscontribution to the satisfaction of the wants of others (profit).
that’s my problem right there. How people can casually dismiss thousands of years of rape, pillage, theft, and murder is astounding. many of you are americans. How can you just dismiss the fact that your way of life was established on the forced migrations of natives and theft of their land? That your prosperity was established on slavery? … it’s just astounding
Failing to do so, diminishes – and after some time totally eradicates – the satisfaction of their wants.
I agree, but this is as much true in capitalism as it is in feudalism, socialism, fascism, technocracy, or any other system.
What better self-regulating and impartial maximizer of the satisfaction of everyone’s wants could there possibly be?
Sure.. the elites under purchasing power is better than the elites under titles of nobility.. I’ll grant you that. But, imo, the people democratically is the most superior.
If you think a poet deserves merit, then commission (buy) his poem or convince someone else to do so. If you feel that the poet has a need, give him what you think he needs or convince someone else to do so. But please don’t put a gun to my head and make me satisfy his wants according to your judgment of merit or need.
Oh, come on… you were doin so well up to now
So what are you going to do about it? Keep whining about the “astonishing” injustice Atilla The Hun did to his victims? Seek (carefully calculated) reparations going how far back and from whose descendants to whose?
You could take away everything I have and drop me naked from a helicopter on any random spot on this planet and I bet you I will land on my feet and build something again from scratch. On the other hand, I could hand you everything you’re begging for and I bet that you will smother it into nothing and come back begging for more. I will always build, no matter what. You will always whine, no matter what. And that, my friend, is the only difference between me (the capitalist) and you (the socialist).
Z.
The key difference is mine was a statement, not a question. Sure, you can say it was a loaded statement, I thought it was quite pertinent, but it was not designed to bait anybody into a position.
I thought it was a clear misrepresentation (number 2), the fact that you consider such nonsense to be pertinent is startling.
What? That if absolute private control of resource is ethically justified, then murder is ethically justified? I thought it was pertinent… Do you have an objection, or are you just dismissing it because it doesn’t suit your fancy?
So what are you going to do about it? Keep whining about the “astonishing” injustice Atilla The Hun did to his victims? Seek (carefully calculated) reparations going how far back and from whose descendants to whose?
… loaded, loaded, loaded…
I will continue to try to convince people that absolute property rights are unjustified and inneficient.
You could take away everything I have and drop me naked from a helicopter on any random spot on this planet and I bet you I will land on my feet and build something again from scratch. On the other hand, I could hand you everything you’re begging for and I bet that you will smother it into nothing and come back begging for more. I will always build, no matter what. You will always whine, no matter what. And that, my friend, is the only difference between me (the capitalist) and you (the socialist).
obligatory “you mad bro?”
Seriously, I’m just done responding to you outright. A productive way to show you have any regard for truth in any way
But capitalism doesn’t place control in the hands of “the few”. That’s what critics of capitalism never understand. They are always talking as if capitalism is central planning by big business. Markets are not run by anyone. It’s systemic. Nobody controls it. There’s no planner in capitalism.
(my apologies, I missed this post) There IS truth to this. But any control the consumer has is secondary. Most of the direction of society, under capitalism, is decided by the whims of the have’s.
That’s wonderful thinking.Do you sometimes listen to yourself?
(my apologies, I missed this post) There IS truth to this. But any control the consumer has is secondary. Most of the direction of society, under capitalism, is decided by the whims of the have’s.
Even I have limited knowledge of economics, and I can tell you that the control of society is decided by the consumer.
Also “the have’s.”, what are they? Can “the have not” decide to … I don’t know…become “the have”?
What? That if absolute private control of resource is ethically justified, then murder is ethically justified? I thought it was pertinent… Do you have an objection, or are you just dismissing it because it doesn’t suit your fancy?
The objection comes from your paradoxical stance. You object to oligarchy (which you seem to be conflating with absolute private control - which is false -but whatever…) but endorse “democracy,” as I already said “control is control is control…” Acts are moral/immoral, the power structure behind is irrelevant.
I would be surprised if LS and Sieben agreed completely with the way you framed their position. And to be quite frank, I find it somewhat distirbing that you don’t find it problamatic, as an opponent, to attempt to phrase your opponents position in such a condescending fassion.
This is simple. Your definition of capitalism has been rejected here many times before. I myself also reject your definition of capitalism. Instead, I see capitalism as a series of voluntary exchanges. So if we cannot reasonable discuss in terms of “Capitalism” then lets discuss in terms of “Voluntary Exchange”.
From this point forward when I say “Capitalism” I am referring to a series of “Voluntary Exchanges”.
If you agree with voluntary exchange, then you agree with most everyone on this site. It’s disengenuous for you to recognize that most people accept Capitalism based on the terms I’ve stated, then argue against that using a definition here that many do not acept. Your definition matching more of the conservative, traditionalist concept of Capitalism(That Capitalism exists as it is, because it always has and has evolved into its current state).
Secondly, I need to correct myself. Apparently I asked you, “What is wrong with the Capital political economic system”. I should correct myself in stating that I am not for any political system. I am not interested in politics. I am however interested in economics. So lets discusss on an economic level. What is inherently tyrannical regarding a series of voluntary exchanges. Furthermore, if you feel that is a loaded question, explain yourself. Don’t just assert that it is.
If my question is loaded, what is the assumption I am making in the question? If your going to assert that I am making logical fallacies, back it up. Don’t just knee-jerk say that because you can’t find a way to reason out of it. How is the following question loaded.
A loaded question is one that makes an assumption in the premise. What assumption am I making when asking. “What is inherently tyrranical regarding a series of voluntary exchange”.
Ok, but your argument was stated as against the theory fo capitalism. Not it’s history as you interpret it. History in and of itself is not proof enough that an economic system does not work. There is theory and logic behind the reasons why Nazism, Marxism, Fascism, and all plethora’s of Socialism are claimed as fallacious. It’s not that they’ve had histrical problems end of story, there is a great deal of explanation regarding the faulty logic that went into those systems.
Giving historical examples of why you think Capitalism is bad, does not explain why it is logically fallacious. All your doing is sharing your personal interpretation of history, and assigning a certain condescending view on Capitalism. But your not actually addressing the theory or the logic behind Capitalism when you do this.
It’s disengenuous to label historical examples as capitalistic, socialist, or any political dogma for that matter. For every historical occasion that you label as a tyrannanical example of capitalism, someone here would probably recognize it as socialist, fascist, or something else. Your method is nearly identicle to the traditionalists. You judge things as they ought to be, based on your own interpretation of history, one that is subject to error.
This is a logical fallacy. I’ll continue…
Using history to explain this statement is a logical fallacy. Can you logically back the above assertion ignoring history? By what reasoning does capitalism institutionally undermine free-will. Not your historical interpretation of it. I’m not asking for anecdotal bias experiences, or mis-interpreted historical examples. I am asking you, where in the theory of capitalism, is it inherently tyrannical.
When you bring up history, your constructing a red-herring. History has nothing to do with the discuss at hand. You need to explain why the theory itself is fundamentally in error.
It’s extremely difficult to parse this. As there is no real theory behind any of it. There also isn’t any real structure to your critique of Capitalism. It’s just really random and adhoc. It’s just a series of non-sequiturs. You site instances where there was theft, coercion, and attribute it to Capitalism. When anyone could just as easily attribute the same instance as an example of socialism.(and they do).
What I think you are eluding to is that your stating that the current state of affairs evolved into the system that is. What your doing is arguing against the conservative or traditionalist definition of capitalism, but not hte Austrian understanding of Capitalism. Which is odd considering the amount of tiem you’ve speant here.
You seem to think that the system is broken simply because its evolved this way. But even if that were true, you would have to present the theoretical and logical argument for why and where the system is broke. What you cited above was a series of instances involving thievery, initiations of undue compulsion and violence, all of which is rejected in the Capitalistic framework endorsed primarily on this site. This is likely one of the reasons why your debates with people are fruitless, as your arguing past them. Your definition of capitalism is entirely different from theres. How can you expect to progress with anyone here when your terms are radically different from theres?
But besides all of this, you’ve still yet to explain logically where a series of voluntary exchange fails. You have to explain where the logic of capitalism is fallacious. You’ve yet to do that. You’ve mostly been rambiling on to the hymm of some kind of faulty whig theory. Thats why I don’t quite grasp what exactly it is you take issue with.
So I’ll ask again. What exactly IN capitalism is inherently tyrannical. Please do not cite your historical inturrpritation of things(which is subject to error). Please focus on the theory itself.
Fundamentally speaking, who grants purchasing power? When someone exchanges a medium exchange away, in return for a good or service. Where is the tyrranny? How is savings tyrannical exactly?
What body of power governs whether Steve Jobs will be allowed to increase his purchasing power or not? Did Steve Jobs steal his purchasing power from the masses? Or did the masses willingly give it to them voluntarly, and if the latter, who are you to judge them?
Do you think think violence is the fault of capitalism? That if we removed capitalism and adopted a different system violence would magically dissapear? Or is it somewhat circular to say that theft of property is the fault of popertarian’s and that if we just abolished property there would be no thievery(Quite a semantical trick there!)
When we accept Praxeology we understand that violence, and initiation of force is a human trait, not a trait of Capitalism. Capitalism does not compell people to thievery. People here would argue that it does however grant a strong influence for social cooperation.
No problem. As a non-capitalist on this place, you’re probably being bombarded with responses from all sides. We got nobody to disagree with us around here.
That’s the point, in a private enterprise system society wouldn’t be directed by anyone. The outcome is systemic, not intentional. Nobody has control over it. Who determines the price of iron? Who decides how many eggs are produced for London this month? Nobody. There is no planner, nobody at the helm.