Without a Capitalist structure...Socialism cannot exist.
There must be something in place to supply the goods/economic strength required for common good in order for a Socialist society to be born.
Unless we begin with the premise that somehow a kingdom, tyranny, or whatever has a funding source....somewhere in it there is industry and productivity.
Capital is required to develop socialist structure.
Capitalism is the use of capital investments to acquire more capital, socialism is control of the means of production by the workers. Socialism came out of capitalism in the same way that fascism came out of socialism but only in Marxism and Stalinist and their variants is it actually required. Socialism doesn't need capital to work, it only needs an acceptable alternative of value transfer, whatever that might be. Aside from communes and addled mind fantasyland socialist ideologues don't hate on capital but it's not required. But socialism does work on the same rules, supply/demand, renting labor (as opposed to slavery and serfdom), etc. but then so does fascism (albeit to a lesser extent).
Really? A civilian who walks into your house and shoots you in the head isn't taking your life and possibly your property?
I should also add that what libertarianism means in a political philosophy context (which is what is relevant here and as per my readings- I am not a political philosophy expert by any means though) is a system that tries to create equality in process as opposed to equality in ends (egalitarianism). Libertarianism does not mean you can do whatever the hell you like minus murder.
Either you do not see the danger as you are a leftist, or you are a baiter. Either way myp and you are evidence of how damaged the country is.
giggle. Government has always been the enemy of liberty. Businesses are not. So when pathetic leftists bring in criminals I assume they are using a metaphor for more government.
I think what is most exasperating is that you will take me down when you take down the nation.
Tell me, what is the difference between a gov't and business? Anything bigger then a mom and pop place is organized along the same lines as national gov'ts (some even have their own police forces). You're love of capitalism is making you say foolish things.
I see it like this: You rejecting that coercion is not limited to the government is evidence of how damaged the country is, not me admitting there are other forms. Because what you display is flat out rejection of the facts in favor of a political agenda. It is outright anti-intellectualism and that hurts us way more than an open dialogue.
This commentary, to me....has placed you squarely in a section of the population in the minority of a minority.
Because of this your opinions become unimportant, if not indicative of what most tend to avoid. Calling your own government (which created said liberty in the first place) an enemy of that which it created and continues to champion just seems to me...uh...somewhat confused.
I understand the discomfort inherent in change, as well as the adherence to historical norms....but, taking this to the level we see today is not rational.
David asks "What is the difference between a government and a business?"
It is my love of freedom and liberty that you confuse for capitalism. That which we call free market capitalism is just shorthand for saying that you get to choose for you and I get to choose for me. As we work out for each of us what is best for each of us we provide information to others that helps them allocate resources.
Do you believe that the centralization of government is somehow better that the decentralization of economic power?
How does one answer this? Governments can coerce me and take my property, my freedom and my life. No business can do such a thing.
It is my love of freedom and liberty that you confuse for capitalism. That which we call free market capitalism is just shorthand for saying that you get to choose for you and I get to choose for me. As we work out for each of us what is best for each of us we provide information to others that helps them allocate resources.
Do you believe that the centralization of government is somehow better that the decentralization of economic power?
Last edited:
Cool. Time and again you side with the state against the individual. You side with the current White House occupier against the Constitution. It is clear where you stand.
Government does not create liberty. Government can defend it, ignore it or trample upon it.
You are on the wrong side of the history of liberty and freedom. You represent Everyman. Those who saw Hitler's rise to power and nodded approvingly at the Hope and Change were no different than you are.
When your end comes you will wonder what happened.
Intellectually dishonest thin ice
It seems you are the one on intellectually dishonest thin ice. Not me.
The most dangerous forms of coercion have always been found in governments. Businesses cannot compel me to buy their product or pay a fine. Tyrannical governments can and do. A business cannot take my property from me. Governments can and do. A business cannot take my life with impunity. Governments can and do.
It seems you are the one on intellectually dishonest thin ice. Not me.
Banks have thrown people out of their homes, utility companies have monopolized markets, private security firms have intimidated workers and spied on both private citizens and rival companies... You're delusional.
Someone is delusional. It is not Mr. V.
Second, Utility companies have monopolies due to government action.
Third, was property or liberty taken with impunity?
Show me where a private company has taken an individual's property, his freedom or his life with impunity the way governments regularly do.
Your first first. Was the contract fulfilled by both parties?
Second, Utility companies have monopolies due to government action.
Third, was property or liberty taken with impunity?
Show me where a private company has taken an individual's property, his freedom or his life with impunity the way governments regularly do.
I just did... The gov't (ours at lest) doesn't just takes stuff. You have to violate a contract or law 1st same as when a business takes stuff. There is no difference, it's only a matter of jurisdiction. If you're world view wasn't relient on businesses being a symbol of good, you'd see this.
No. It is not the same. If I agree to give you the money to buy a property with the agreement that you will pay me back and you fail to do so then I am recovering my property.
When the government takes there is no contract. I have no reasonable choice. I can do as the government says or it will take my property, liberty and life as it chooses. No business can do that.
Our government DOES just take stuff. We have a steeply progressive income tax. That is a taking. And the people who have been targeted for theft have no reasonable recourse.
Governments take private property all the time. And now the Corrupt Supreme Court has agreed that a local government can take one person's property and give it to another if the second person agrees to pay more taxes. This is wrong. It is evil. And no business can do it with impunity.
And how is that different then reneging on paying your property taxes and the IRS putting a lean on you? Your arguing in circles here.
In the business case I willingly entered into the arrangement. In the second I have no control over the relationship. In the first it was by my choice. In the second is is simply a coercive arrangement that I have no choices in.
No real choices means no freedom.
Similar threads
