No War but the Class war!

[Comrade Anarchist]

The government has become the tool of the lazy and it now taxes the most productive people in society. These people are being punished for succeeding in life. The lazy on the other hand have not succeeded in life and are now pissed that their lives suck. They use the government to create a society that benefits them over others. Social security, medicare, medicade are all just tools used by the lazy to to shift wealth, so that they may stay lazy. Another aspect of class warfare, the state capitalists. The state capitalists use the government to employ taxes on the middle class forcing them to give up their income and in turn preventing them from investing into the free market and creating competition. The state capitalists pay off the government for preferable treatment at the cost of the productive members of society. They force the government to create larger bureaucracies therefore the government starts to exude into the free market and using its many regulations it subverts the free market and competition allowing its state capitalists buddies to succeed. Down with the state capitalists, down with the lazy, and rise up with the productive members of society.

[Nolan]

Ah, another troll/sniper thread. But I'll play along:



The government has become the tool of the lazy and it now taxes the most productive people in society.

Typical Randroid bullshit. Those "productive people" have all the power in society. Who the fuck do you think you are to label everyone who isn't a capitalist lazy? Are all you objectivists megalomaniacs? I'll just erase the repetitive bullshit.


Another aspect of class warfare, the state capitalists. The state capitalists use the government to employ taxes on the middle class forcing them to give up their income and in turn preventing them from investing into the free market and creating competition. The state capitalists pay off the government for preferable treatment at the cost of the productive members of society.

You just contradicted yourself. The capitalists are the "productive" members of society, are they not? They deserve all the recognition and power they can eat. And that is not the reason wealth tends to pool at the top. Capital by nature does that. Inequality has been going up since Reaganism was implemented, with its near hatred of taxes and regulation.



They force the government to create larger bureaucracies therefore the government starts to exude into the free market and using its many regulations it subverts the free market and competition allowing its state capitalists buddies to succeed. Down with the state capitalists, down with the lazy, and rise up with the productive members of society.

Dumbass, there is no "free market." Capitalism started like this, it saw its best days like this, and it will die like this. In capitalism, the nation state is the prime mover. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can't subvert something that only exists in the minds of idiots and pop economists.

Comrade Anarchist, I hope you don't really believe all this shit. You need professional attention if you do.

[Che a chara]

comrade anarchist, can you please expand on the "productive members of society" please ?

[Die Rote Fahne]

That paragraph is a gross misunderstanding of the class situation that we have in the world.

What you call middle class is, in fact, working class (proletariat).

The majority of the wealthy have had that wealth for a long time and have not "worked" for it. You defend the ruling class (bourgeoisie) as if they help you out. They don't. They merely exploit you and the majority of people for their own benefit (profit).

What you need to understand is that capitalism is capitalism. Regardless of the prefix you wish to add (state, anarcho, free market). It always requires a hierarchal structure and a ruling class will always come out of it (in this case remain) and the class divisions and struggle will continue.

The US has one of the more unregulated markets in the industrialized world. As compared to nations (Canada, Sweden, Norway, the UK, etc.) And has suffered for it.

Describing the lower classes as lazy is ad hominem and totally uncalled for. If you think a life of food stamps and welfare cheques is a good life, then you should live it yourself. If you think working two jobs to keep your home because your wife is dying of cancer and the insurance company refuses to cover "pre-existing conditions" is being lazy, then you should be shot.

[Che a chara]

It's quite clear that comrade anarchist has got some ill-gotten gains, and is in fear of losing these stolen assets.

one thing we're sure of is that he didn't work or deserve of these gains.

[Nolan]

CA, answer me this:

If the capitalists and the most wealthy are the productive members of society and all worked hard for their wealth, then why do intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate capital formation? (http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/New%20Kotlikoff%20Web%20Page/The%20Role%20of%20Intergenerational%20Transfers%20 in%20Aggregate%20Capital%20Formation.pdf)

[gorillafuck]

It's hilarious that while the other libertarians here just believe that capitalism will create a higher standard of living for all or the vast majority of people, Comrade Anarchist actually just openly hates people that aren't rich or affluent.

[The Ben G]

CA, you made Lenin fall asleep.

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/lenin-mausoleum.jpg

[Bud Struggle]

The government has become the tool of the lazy and it now taxes the most productive people in society. These people are being punished for succeeding in life. No taxes aren't a "punishment." They are for the most part "dues" that people pay to support the society in which they live.


The lazy on the other hand have not succeeded in life and are now pissed that their lives suck. Lazy =/= poor. Many poor people are quite industrious and hard working.


They use the government to create a society that benefits them over others. Social security, medicare, medicade are all just tools used by the lazy to to shift wealth, so that they may stay lazy. All those programs are for the common welfare of a society. Without those kinds of programs a society would not be as prosperous of do as well as it does with them. The rich by supporting those kinds of progams are indirectly helping themselves.


Down with the state capitalists, down with the lazy, and rise up with the productive members of society.

To the BARRACADES!!! :D

[Dr Mindbender]

CA must be on course to obtain 3 red blobs by now.

That must be a revleft first.

[#FF0000]

OP did you ever do a day's work in your life? Summer job? Anything?

[Comrade Anarchist]

The productive members of a society include the workers, free market capitalists, anybody who doesn't rely on the state to survive.

[Drace]

anybody who doesn't rely on the state to survive. Only people who rely on the state to survive are government officials and people who have state jobs. Don't the people who cant afford health care wish they could just magically steal it from the rich. You know, because the market is incapable of providing health care for them?


The lazy on the other hand have not succeeded in life and are now pissed that their lives suck. They use the government to create a society that benefits them over others.

So you think government is controlled by the poor?

What kind of anarchist are you? o.O

btw, stop taking our leftist slogans and using them for the completely wrong purposes. k.Thx.Bai

[Comrade Anarchist]

Only people who rely on the state to survive are government officials and people who have state jobs. Don't the people who cant afford health care wish they could just magically steal it from the rich. You know, because the market is incapable of providing health care for them?So you think government is controlled by the poor?

What kind of anarchist are you? o.O

So people who are living on social security aren't relying on the government, people living on welfare aren't relying on the government? Stupid, of course they are relying on the government. Without it they would have to have saved money and worked.

The health care market is in no way free, so don't say the free market failed people. If insurers had to compete with each other than they would have to offer better services for lower prices and anyone could afford it. The same goes for the drug companies, if they had any competition seniors wouldn't paying out of the yingyang for medication.

Maybe you should have read a little further b/c i say the government is controlled by the poor who rely on government programs so that they don't have to work. BUT I also said that STATE CAPITALISTS use the government to further their interests. I believe state capitalists were the majority of my first post.

And i'm an Anarcho-capitalist, i thought everyone knew that.

[mikelepore]

The productive members of a society include the workers, free market capitalists, anybody who doesn't rely on the state to survive.

Do you have the names of any of those capitalists who don't rely on the state? It would be interesting to look up the facts about them.

[AK]

The government has become the tool of the lazy and it now taxes the most productive people in society. These people are being punished for succeeding in life. The lazy on the other hand have not succeeded in life and are now pissed that their lives suck. They use the government to create a society that benefits them over others. Social security, medicare, medicade are all just tools used by the lazy to to shift wealth, so that they may stay lazy. Another aspect of class warfare, the state capitalists. The state capitalists use the government to employ taxes on the middle class forcing them to give up their income and in turn preventing them from investing into the free market and creating competition. The state capitalists pay off the government for preferable treatment at the cost of the productive members of society. They force the government to create larger bureaucracies therefore the government starts to exude into the free market and using its many regulations it subverts the free market and competition allowing its state capitalists buddies to succeed. Down with the state capitalists, down with the lazy, and rise up with the productive members of society.
You just got neg repped! :lol:

[Nolan]

You just got neg repped! :lol:

I neg repped him too! *high five

[Drace]

So people who are living on social security aren't relying on the government, people living on welfare aren't relying on the government? Stupid, of course they are relying on the government. Without it they would have to have saved money and worked.So how many people are there that don't do any work and just sit on their asses getting fat checks from the government? Welfare checks won't even pay your rent. It certainly helps, but no one relies on it solely for survival.

Hell, my family has been on welfare. My dad works 10 hours a day and mom spent as much time time studying in college and thanks to the financial aid, shes is now a registered nurse. But no, were just lazy.


Maybe you should have read a little further b/c i say the government is controlled by the poor who rely on government programs so that they don't have to work. BUT I also said that STATE CAPITALISTS use the government to further their interests. I believe state capitalists were the majority of my first post.

And i'm an Anarcho-capitalist, i thought everyone knew that. Your just a disillusioned idiot and certainly no anarchist if you think the government is on the side of the poor.

You are not against the authority of the State because it oppresses the working class, but against the small faction of it which is actually beneficial to the masses. I don't even think "Anarcho"-Capitalists would agree with you.

[AK]

I neg repped him too! *high five
*high five*

[Bud Struggle]

*high five*

All fun. But this thread just shows how easy it is to distort Class Warfare and distort Communist ideals. The commenters are sometimes as bad as the OP.

[AK]

All fun. But this thread just shows how easy it is to distort Class Warfare and distort Communist ideals. The commenters are sometimes as bad as the OP.
I think the OP is stupid in saying medicare makes workers lazy... He's saying that workers don't save up their money - like they want to be poor. He's an idiot is what he is.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The government has become the tool of the lazyThe rich? Yes! Thanks for finally coming to your senses.


and it now taxes the most productive people in society.Yes, in the US, the tax burden has been increasingly pushed onto working class people


These people are being punished for succeeding in life. Oh, wait you are talking about the rich? Fuck. Well tax-breaks, isn't exactly punishment is it. I think workers are being punished far more disproportionately... how many CEOs and Wall Street people had their houses foreclosed on as punishment for creating bubbles, fixing their books and so on?


The lazy on the other hand have not succeeded in life and are now pissed that their lives suck. They use the government to create a society that benefits them over others. Social security, medicare, medicade are all just tools used by the lazy to to shift wealth, so that they may stay lazy.Are you an unfrozen caveman libertarian? So social security and medicare were enacted when...? And yet in all the years since productivity and employment levels have varied. Empirically, you are full of shit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the OP is stupid in saying medicare makes workers lazy... He's saying that workers don't save up their money - like they want to be poor. He's an idiot is what he is.Why is it that the self-declared "productive" people who rail against the poor for being lazy are always the laziest of thinkers.

Why is this guy on this site anyway? I bet he was ostracized on Ayn Rand and libertarian message boards.

[Axle]

Why is this guy on this site anyway?

I like to think its to give the rest of us who don't paraphrase Ayn Rand and call it a political position a great big laugh.

[Jacobinist]

CA, you got it all wrong and have fallen for the fallacy that is anarcho-kapitalism. The state/kapitalists are all one in the same. They need each other.

Kapitalism w/out the state could not survive.

Remember that.

[mykittyhasaboner]

And i'm an Anarcho-capitalist, i thought everyone knew that.
Yes everyone knows that. That's why everyone knows you an irrelevant troll with a complete joke of an ideology.

[Zanthorus]

Why is this guy on this site anyway? I bet he was ostracized on Ayn Rand and libertarian message boards.

He used to be one of those strange ultra-individualist communists who believe in communism because of ethical egoism. As always the two didn't sit very well together, and his ultra-individualism won over his communism.

[RGacky3]

All fun. But this thread just shows how easy it is to distort Class Warfare and distort Communist ideals. The commenters are sometimes as bad as the OP.

Its not distorting it if its just absolute lies.


The productive members of a society include the workers, free market capitalists, anybody who doesn't rely on the state to survive.

All Capitalists rely on the state to survive.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Private property is essentially a legal contract - to have a binding legal contract there has to be some higher authority, i.e. a state. Extreme libertarian philosophy is about as useful as feudal philosophical debates about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It's all based on faith and it since capitalism developed with and through the capitalist state, their theories can't be proven or dis-proven. It's just a mystical justification for the status-quo... sure the system has it's problems now, but all they need to do is get rid of the state (a proposition that would be opposed by the capitalists themselves and one that the Libertarians have no intention or strategy for achieving).

It's Invisible-hand Ex Machina!

[IcarusAngel]

A nice summary. They are indeed "mystics."

[syndicat]

The government has become the tool of the lazy and it now taxes the most productive people in society.

You're so right. The government is totally in the pocket of those parasites, the billionaires. They do jack. They've shifted taxes onto the working class, who are the really productive part of the population these past several decades. Maximum tax rate on the wealthy used to be 90 percent, and now it's down to 28 percent and a lot of them get so many breaks they pay nearly nothing. Meanwhile the working class pays a higher tax rate for social security because of the low income limit on taxation for social security.

[Qayin]

Abolish the public state they say?

Because freedom & liberty comes from the private state?

MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

Your no anarchist you fool

No War but Class War? So in an Anarcho-Capitalists dream the rich "overthrow" the poor, you've been listening to to much Dead Kennedys.
Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill the poor

[Argument]

The government has become the tool of the lazy and it now taxes the most productive people in society.If you mean that the lazy are the capitalists and the productive people are the workers, you are correct. If you mean the other way around, you are wrong.


The lazy on the other hand have not succeeded in life and are now pissed that their lives suck.Right. Because it's easy to succeed when the rules are written to your disadvantage, when the government restrict workers' cooperatives and small business and reward big business and capitalists. It's truly the workers who are lazy, they are not oppressed in aaany way... Right...? (That was sarcasm.)


They use the government to create a society that benefits them over others.The government benefits the capitalists and hurts the workers. Even the anarcho-capitalist David Friedman admitted that government hurts the poor more than it helps them.

[Skooma Addict]

If you mean that the lazy are the capitalists and the productive people are the workers, you are correct. If you mean the other way around, you are wrong.

Nope. Both beliefs are dogmatic and wrong.


Right. Because it's easy to succeed when the rules are written to your disadvantage, when the government restrict workers' cooperatives and small business and reward big business and capitalists. It's truly the workers who are lazy, they are not oppressed in aaany way... Right...? (That was sarcasm.)

The Govt helps certain workers and hurts other workers just like it helps certain capitalists and hurts other capitalists.


The government benefits the capitalists and hurts the workers. Even the anarcho-capitalist David Friedman admitted that government hurts the poor more than it helps them.

Again, some workers benefit from the Government while some capitalists are hurt.

[Argument]

Nope. Both beliefs are dogmatic and wrong.Perhaps you are reading it wrong? What I meant was that the capitalists are the lazy, and the workers the productive ones. Is that dogmatic and wrong?

[Skooma Addict]

Perhaps you are reading it wrong? What I meant was that the capitalists are the lazy, and the workers the productive ones. Is that dogmatic and wrong?

Yes.

[Argument]

Then please enlighten me.

[Skooma Addict]

It appears to me that since you don't believe capitalists are productive members of society, that they are therefore all lazy. Many capitalists are very hard workers.

[Argument]

Are thieves productive members of society? Many of them work really hard, after all. Capitalists may work hard, yet they are still exploiting the workers.

[Skooma Addict]

Maybe I was just reading too much into what you said. I was merely pointing out that regardless of what ones opinion is on the productivity of capitalists, there is no denying that many of them are very hard workers and not lazy.

Whether or not they are exploiting workers depends on a number of value laden subjective preferences. For example, what kind of property is just. I personally think private property is the fairest and most economical form of property. It allows for the living conditions of everyone to rise via the expansion of labor. Given that I see nothing wrong with workers not owning the means of production or the so called "full value of their product," I don't see private property as exploitative.

Now, all forms of property can be exploitative if it is forced upon people who do not view it as legitimate. That is why it is best to allow each community to decide for itself which form of property to adopt. Will there be people in each community who disagree with the property being enforced since they view it as exploitative? Yes, but that is not a criticism of private property specifically, since it could apply to any community regardless of the property system it adopts.

The moral of the story is that there will always be exploitation since anyone who disagrees with the prevailing system of property law can claim exploitation is taking place.

[Argument]

Maybe I was just reading too much into what you said. I was merely pointing out that regardless of what ones opinion is on the productivity of capitalists, there is no denying that many of them are very hard workers and not lazy.Perhaps. I did not mean to imply that capitalists always are lazy, yet I don't think they deserve their wealth. I still don't agree that workers are lazy, though.


Whether or not they are exploiting workers depends on a number of value laden subjective preferences.Indeed, unless one wants to try to bring in "objective" values. I don't, because I find it hard to find an objective, universal truth for what "freedom" or "equality" is, or "justice", or even "property". All of these terms are created by man, and are thus subjective in nature. What I call "exploitation", you may call freedom of enterprise. We shall have to argue over definitions, then.


For example, what kind of property is just. I personally think private property is the fairest and most economical form of property.What is property? What is private property? Land? I do not think the Lockean view of land ownership is a good one to use, it can easily turn into exploitation. Instead, I support occupancy and use, possession of land.


Now, all forms of property can be exploitative if it is forced upon people who do not view it as legitimate. That is why it is best to allow each community to decide for itself which form of property to adopt. Will there be people in each community who disagree with the property being enforced since they view it as exploitative? Yes, but that is not a criticism of private property specifically, since it could apply to any community regardless of the property system it adopts.Indeed. If anarcho-capitalists want to use some defunct system, let them, as long as they let me live in a socialist society, where people are truly free. If you try to force us to pay rent for using our own land, we will rise against you. We won't accept any "absentee landlords". If you want to have absentee landlords in your society, fine, as long as you don't try to force us to be like you.

Yet, I do think there is a value to discuss things. Perhaps I can convince you why a system of occupancy and use is preferable to Lockean land ownership.

[Skooma Addict]

I still don't agree that workers are lazy, though.


Correct. Workers definitely aren't lazy.


Indeed, unless one wants to try to bring in "objective" values. I don't, because I find it hard to find an objective, universal truth for what "freedom" or "equality" is, or "justice", or even "property". All of these terms are created by man, and are thus subjective in nature. What I call "exploitation", you may call freedom of enterprise. We shall have to argue over definitions, then.

Argue over definitions? It seems like we are in agreement here. We both recognize that what I consider freedom you consider exploitation, and vice versa. Nobody is "right," but we can still present our cases and try to explain why our preferred form of property is preferable.


What is property? What is private property? Land? I do not think the Lockean view of land ownership is a good one to use, it can easily turn into exploitation. Instead, I support occupancy and use, possession of land.

I support a modified version of the Neo-Lockean view of land ownership. For example, I don't think homesteading land gives you the right to exclude people from entering your land under certain conditions. I certainly would not want to live in a Mutualist community though. I don't think ownership based on use is fair or efficient.



Indeed. If anarcho-capitalists want to use some defunct system, let them, as long as they let me live in a socialist society, where people are truly free. If you try to force us to pay rent for using our own land, we will rise against you. We won't accept any "absentee landlords". If you want to have absentee landlords in your society, fine, as long as you don't try to force us to be like you.

Yea, exactly. We agree here as well.


Yet, I do think there is a value to discuss things. Perhaps I can convince you why a system of occupancy and use is preferable to Lockean land ownership.

Perhaps. But I do have some major concerns with "Mutualist property" as far as its ability to create high living standards go. It also seems unfair to me that after I spend years building a mine, you can just come up to it when I am gone and claim it as your own (Mutualists do believe this, right? I am not very knowledgeable regarding Mutualism).

[Left-Reasoning]

Are thieves productive members of society? Many of them work really hard, after all. Capitalists may work hard, yet they are still exploiting the workers.

Quoted For Truth.

[LeftSideDown]

Quoted For Truth.

How is it quoted for truth? Thieves forcefully redistribute property and often destroy property in the process (breaking windows/doors to get in/out). They create nothing. Capitalists create value by taking resources that are undervalued and using them in a way others hadn't thought of.

[Drace]

How is it quoted for truth? Thieves forcefully redistribute property and often destroy property in the process (breaking windows/doors to get in/out). They create nothing. Capitalists create value by taking resources that are undervalued and using them in a way others hadn't thought of.Yea like growing food and producing clothes. Fuckin genius those cappies are.

Thieves create value by re-allocating resources in a way which it takes away from those who undervalue it to those which need them greatly. :thumbup1:

[LeftSideDown]

Yea like growing food and producing clothes. Fuckin genius those cappies are.

Thieves create value by re-allocating resources in a way which it takes away from those who undervalue it to those which need them greatly. :thumbup1:

Thats only creating value in the ex ante sense which, while important, does not grow the economy and shrinks it more and more everytime the thief destroys in the pursuit of ill-gained property.

If it is so easy to be a capitalist and get rich go be one. You'll find its not nearly so simple as you think. Think about the work that has to go into just manufacturing a ham sandwich.

You have to have a farmer who is raising a pig years in advance which consumers might not want, or might not want at a price that remunerates the farmer for the cost of raising the pig. You have to have another farmer that makes the food for the pig to eat, a manufacturer for the fertilizers for the farmer, another manufacturer who produces the trucks that the pigs are transported in, all the manufacturers that go into making that truck, then there needs to be a factory that processes/slaughters the pig, then there needs to be a factory for making plastic containers to keep the meat fresh while it waits in the store that needs to exist in order to reach a consumer whose willingness to buy the ham is suspect (all these people are essentially... speculating!, I know its a scary word, but its an essential function). We haven't even gotten to the bread.

There needs to be the person who grows the grain, the fertilizer for that, the trucks to carry the grain and process it, all the ingredients that go into making bread, then the plastic wrap the stores the loaves of bread, and then after all this your labor to put the pieces of bread and ham together.

I don't know where, but there is a quote to the effect of "It is a wonder that Paris gets fed" and it really is. It isn't something that you can plan on any large scale basis, and I think (though I haven't done much research on it) the Famine in Ukraine is an illustration of just this fact.

[RGacky3]

If it is so easy to be a capitalist and get rich go be one. You'll find its not nearly so simple as you think. Think about the work that has to go into just manufacturing a ham sandwich.

Capitalists don't manufacture a ham sandwich, workers do. Its not easy to be a thief either, whats your point?


You have to have a farmer who is raising a pig years in advance which consumers might not want, or might not want at a price that remunerates the farmer for the cost of raising the pig. You have to have another farmer that makes the food for the pig to eat, a manufacturer for the fertilizers for the farmer, another manufacturer who produces the trucks that the pigs are transported in, all the manufacturers that go into making that truck, then there needs to be a factory that processes/slaughters the pig, then there needs to be a factory for making plastic containers to keep the meat fresh while it waits in the store that needs to exist in order to reach a consumer whose willingness to buy the ham is suspect (all these people are essentially... speculating!, I know its a scary word, but its an essential function). We haven't even gotten to the bread.

There needs to be the person who grows the grain, the fertilizer for that, the trucks to carry the grain and process it, all the ingredients that go into making bread, then the plastic wrap the stores the loaves of bread, and then after all this your labor to put the pieces of bread and ham together.

All what you described is done by workers, where does a Capitalit come in? Except for allocating resources.

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalists don't manufacture a ham sandwich, workers do.


Then again, workers don't provide the ham or the bread let alone the mustard--Capitalists do.

[Drace]

If it is so easy to be a capitalist and get rich go be one. You'll find its not nearly so simple as you think. Think about the work that has to go into just manufacturing a ham sandwich.Its hard to be a capitalist, no doubt, but that's because the social structure is pretty much set in stone.
I'm sure running your own kingdom was hard too, does that justify the position of landlord, noble and king? Plantation owners too had much work, does that justify slavery?

[LeftSideDown]

Capitalists don't manufacture a ham sandwich, workers do. Its not easy to be a thief either, whats your point?

Thieves are stealing, workers are entering into a voluntary arrangement.


All what you described is done by workers, where does a Capitalit come in? Except for allocating resources.

Allocating resources is the most important part of an economy. If you don't allocate resources well consumer's demand isn't met. That is the only criterion of how well an economy is doing, not how many tonnes of something is manufactured.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Thieves are stealing, workers are entering into a voluntary arrangement.

Voluntary? No. Work and maintain a decent life or not work and be homeless and starve. What's voluntary about taht?

[LeftSideDown]

Its hard to be a capitalist, no doubt, but that's because the social structure is pretty much set in stone.
I'm sure running your own kingdom was hard too, does that justify the position of landlord, noble and king? Plantation owners too had much work, does that justify slavery?

How is a landlord, noble, or king different from our government? Okay, sure we elected our government, but so much goes on behind the scenes its not really us pulling the strings.

Your point about plantation owners is non sequitur. You don't have to own slaves to own a plantation and slavery is wrong for violating the right of free association. Its not just a matter of how "hard" something is for remuneration of that something to be determined. A murderer can work really hard at making a plan and executing a plan to murder someone. This doesn't justify it. If a capitalist's job wasn't hard (which it is, beside the point) I would still support them as the best means of allocating resources.

[LeftSideDown]

Voluntary? No. Work and maintain a decent life or not work and be homeless and starve. What's voluntary about taht?

Its your choice to work. You can go beg, or be a street performer, or even steal. You have other options that could conceivably allow you to live. It seems to me that the capitalist is offering the best one, else you wouldn't be working would you?

[Jazzratt]

Then again, workers don't provide the ham or the bread let alone the mustard--Capitalists do.

Well lets see:
First the ham comes from a pig that raised on a farm by workers, killed by a slaughterman and then either "processed" in a factory by workers or [in the case of slightly higher quality ham] carved up by a butcher. So the capitalist is unecessary in providing the ham.

The bread, also, is made from wheat and all that stuff farmed by workers, which is then made into bread either in a factory or a bakery. The prcess by which mustard is made is something of a mystery to me but I would lay my last penny on it being a process that involves workers.

Capitalists provide nothing, they are parasites.

[RGacky3]

Its your choice to work. You can go beg, or be a street performer, or even steal. You have other options that could conceivably allow you to live. It seems to me that the capitalist is offering the best one, else you wouldn't be working would you?

Thats like saying serve the king or move countries.


Allocating resources is the most important part of an economy. If you don't allocate resources well consumer's demand isn't met. That is the only criterion of how well an economy is doing, not how many tonnes of something is manufactured.

BTW, consumer means those with lots of disposable income. Also Allocating resources IS the most important part of an economy, which is why it should'nt be decided by unaccountable dictators, it should be democratic. Allocation is not production btw, its ... commanding, essencially.

[LeftSideDown]

Thats like saying serve the king or move countries.

No its not. Its saying you can either work to reduce scarcity or you can not work and hope others are altruistic enough to reduce it for you.


BTW, consumer means those with lots of disposable income. Also Allocating resources IS the most important part of an economy, which is why it should'nt be decided by unaccountable dictators, it should be democratic. Allocation is not production btw, its ... commanding, essencially.

IF it did there would be no poor people, now lower middle class people, and conceivably no middle class as the disposable income of these people tend to be negligible. They aren't unaccountable dictators; they are 100x more accountable than any democracy could be. IF they don't meet consumer demand they lose money (i.e. money flows away from those who don't meet consumer demand), if they are meeting consumer demand they make money (i.e. money flows towards those who are meeting consumer demand). And do you honestly care if someone is "commanding" the allocating of resources if you realize he has as much a stake in the venture as the economy as a whole? Or an even greater stake as he is risking all his money and probably his reputation as a good investment as well.

[Demogorgon]

Allocating resources is the most important part of an economy. If you don't allocate resources well consumer's demand isn't met. That is the only criterion of how well an economy is doing, not how many tonnes of something is manufactured.
I'm flattered you quoted that quote as being made by me, rather than Gacky, but then again, it is the sort of thing I say.

Allocating resources is important, but there is no reason why capitalists should be the ones to do it. Normally they get to simply because they have a monopoly on control of the resources (though this doesn't hold true absolutely, in post war Japan the allocation of resources was centrally planned despite being privately owned, but I digress). Saying that the capitalist is necessary because resource allocation is necessary is like saying a hereditary monarchy is necessary because governance is required.

[LeftSideDown]

I'm flattered you quoted that quote as being made by me, rather than Gacky, but then again, it is the sort of thing I say.

Allocating resources is important, but there is no reason why capitalists should be the ones to do it. Normally they get to simply because they have a monopoly on control of the resources (though this doesn't hold true absolutely, in post war Japan the allocation of resources was centrally planned despite being privately owned, but I digress). Saying that the capitalist is necessary because resource allocation is necessary is like saying a hereditary monarchy is necessary because governance is required.

There is a reason why capitalists should do it:
1) Because they are best at it -- if they weren't, some of them wouldn't get so rich.
2) They have large personal stakes in all their ventures which urges them to not invest with frivolity.

For now I come to the particular point which I desire to bring forward against all denunciations and complainings about the power of chartered corporations and aggregated capital. If charters have been given which confer undue powers, who gave them? Our legislators did. Who elected these legislators? We did. If we are a free, self-governing people, we must understand that it costs vigilance and exertion to be self-governing. It costs far more vigilance and exertion to be so under the democratic form, where we have no aids from tradition or prestige, than under other forms. If we are a free self-governing people, we can blame nobody but ourselves for our misfortunes...How can we get bad legislators to pass a law which shall hinder bad legislators from passing a bad law? That is what we are trying to do by many of our proposed methods...

[IcarusAngel]

1) Because they are best at it -- if they weren't, some of them wouldn't get so rich.

Ridiculous. They are the "best at it" because they have government backing, but even here Universities and the government regularly outcompetes the market, which shows the market is highly flawed.


2) They have large personal stakes in all their ventures which urges them to not invest with frivolity.

Their only "personal stake" is to get to the bottom line quicker than the other guy, which destroys resources and encourages their inefficient use. This has been proven time and time again.