Best Example of Free Market Capitalism Ever!

[Tim Cornelis]

I found the best example of free market capitalism. No, it's not Somalia. It's the Congo Free State.

(briefly: what is capitalism)

Capitalism is private property of the means of production and land.
Free market capitalism is private property of the means of production and land, without any (or little) interference of the government in markets. This is exactly what the Congo Free State was.

For those who don't know yet (like I an hour ago). The Congo Free State was the private property of King Leopold II. It seems this would, according to capitalist property rights, validate all the atrocities committed by King Leopold. After all, when private individuals severely exploit workers advocates of capitalism say "nobody forces you to stay there". And so when King Leopold set production quotas -- which if not met by the Congolese workers was punishable by death -- the workers could have simply left like capitalists argue since nothing and nobody was stopping them. They could've bought their own private property outside the private property of King Leopold II. The Congo Free State is also an example of free market justice. King Leopold hired a private army to maintain 'order', and disobedience to the owner of private property is not done. After all, it's his property and you are the guest. Tresspasers mays also be shot. In the end, between 8 and 10 million people died because of this haven of free market capitalism.

There is absolutely no reason for any free market capitalist to consider King Leopold II's actions unjust since he abided by private property rights completely and did not use the state to maintain it. How great.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110405201016/mcleodgaming/images/c/c8/OBJECTION.png

I can already hear the free marketeers shout. "It was the result of violent conquest by European governments, it was imperialism. The violent seizing of property is unjustified according private property rights".

False. King Leopold "fairly" bought all the land on a voluntary basis. No government was involved.

The following was written by Arthur Conan Doyle.


Untroubled, however, by any vision as to the destructive effects of his own work, Stanley laboured hard among the Native Chiefs, and returned to his employer [King Leopold II] with no less than 450 alleged treaties which transferred land to the Association [King Leopold's private initiative to buy his own colony]. We have no record of the exact payment made in order to obtain these treaties, but we have the terms of a similar transaction carried out by a Belgian officer in 1883 at Palabala. In this case the payment made to the Chief consisted of "one coat of red cloth with gold facings, one red cap, one white tunic, one piece of white baft, one piece of red points, one box of liqueurs, four demijohns of rum, two boxes of gin, 128 bottles of gin, twenty red handkerchiefs, forty singlets and forty old cotton caps." It is clear that in making such treaties the Chief thought that he was giving permission for the establishment of a station. The idea that he was actually bartering away the land was never even in his mind, for it was held by a communal tenure for the whole tribe, and it was not his to barter. And yet it is on the strength of such treaties as these that twenty millions of people have been expropriated, and the whole wealth and land of the country proclaimed to belong, not to the inhabitants, but to the State -- that is to King Leopold.

SOURCE: http://www.kongo-kinshasa.de/dokumente/lekture/crime_of_congo.pdf

"But the chief did not know what he was selling when he signed the contract/treaty". Well in that case no illiterate person is allowed to sign wage labour contract either, i.e. the majority of the world population.

Will you now finally - at the very least - acknowledge that:

1) Private property is not always justified
2) "Voluntary mutual agreements" can be coercive in nature

[Bud Struggle]

Actually, Brother Gacky was all over this a while ago. Capitalism havd its very own Pol Pot.

A better story on the subject was Conrad's Heart of Darkness. That being said, there is a need for government supervision of business in the long run.

[Dean]

I'm surprised that you miss the main feature of capitalism in the Congo free state. The murders were carried out with the specific goal of expanding rubber harvesting. The natives slathered their bodies in the stuff and picked it off when they got back to the colonists.

The colonists felt that the natives weren't working as hard as they could, so those natives not meeting quotas were threatened with dismemberment and execution. Bullets were expensive too, so any bullets used by the colonist mercenaries had to be backed up by a commensurate number of disembodied hands, proof that the bullets were used economically. Eventually, the hands were being harvested and the mercenaries now had to meet their own quotas for hands.

It's a classic example of the desperation of the capitalists to expand production at the expense of the laborers. At the time, Brazil had started producing rubber so there was a lot of competition for market shares. Estimates of the death toll range from 8 million to 30 million - easily dwarfing Nazi and Soviet atrocities. Of course, the numbers are up for debate - what we do know, however, is that this particular history of imperial Europe is broadly ignored in our history books, much like the real reasons behind the "dark ages" and "age of enlightenment" in Europe (hint: the Middle East had its own enlightenment during Europe's dark ages, and ever since Europe's Enlightenment, the Middle East has consisted of a series of puppet regimes...).

[Tim Cornelis]

Actually, Brother Gacky was all over this a while ago. Capitalism havd its very own Pol Pot.

A better story on the subject was Conrad's Heart of Darkness. That being said, there is a need for government supervision of business in the long run.

You acknowledge the following then?

1) Private property is not universally justified
2) "Voluntary mutual agreements" can be coercive in nature

[Bud Struggle]

You acknowledge the following then?

1) Private property is not universally justified
2) "Voluntary mutual agreements" can be coercive in nature

1) While private property is always justified it's use can and should be governed by a democratically controlled government.

2) I will agree to that--again, government has ultimate control over what contracts are binding and what are not. You could sell yourself to me as my slave--that wouldhardly be a legal or binding contact.

I'm not personally Free Market any more than I am Communist. There should be a happy medium in between--without the King Leopolds and the Pol Pots.

[kapitalyst]

1) Private property is not always justified
2) "Voluntary mutual agreements" can be coercive in nature

What you've described is nothing more than a command-economy where King Leopold is effectively the state. Sounds like a microcosm of a communist regime on a private estate. :laugh:

1) No, it's not always "justified".... dunno who told you it was...
2) Of course they can... ever heard of blackmail?

[Nox]

What you've described is nothing more than a command-economy where King Leopold is effectively the state.


What you've described is nothing more than a command-economy where the big corporations are effectively the state.

See the similarity there?

Hypocrite.

[Tim Cornelis]

What you've described is nothing more than a command-economy where King Leopold is effectively the state. Sounds like a microcosm of a communist regime on a private estate. :laugh:

Indeed, very hypocritical. By that logic every corporation--as it is private property--is a authoritarian regime on private estate. The undemocratic authority of Apple or Nike over its employees is as the same as the undemocratic authority King Leopold II hold over his employees, except in the case of Apple and Nike the government forcefully restricts the authority of Nike and Apple over its employees through regulation. In a free market economy this government restriction is absent. As it was in the case of King Leopold II. The Congo Free State was laissez-faire capitalism since there was no government to regulate Leopold's private affairs. According to your ideology--as a propertarian--King Leopold II was in his right as it was his private property!

The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a par-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation.

(Bob Black, abolition of work)

Private property rights state that the owner is the exclusive person in control of the property in question, and he alone determines its use. And this is exactly what Leopold II did: he upheld private property rights.



1) No, it's not always "justified".... dunno who told you it was...
2) Of course they can... ever heard of blackmail?

1) Propertarians. The concept of self-ownership you adhere to.

Self-ownership. You own yourself, you own your labour. Ergo you own the products of your labour. As such private property is justified. If private property rights are violated it means an authority is violating the concept of self-ownership, meaning someone else owns you, i.e. slavery. The concept of self-ownership necessarily means private property is justified.

2) Okay, so according to you voluntarily entered mutual agreements are invalid if there is case of blackmail. Leopold II did not blackmail any chiefs, so according to your logic the private ownership of all of the Congo was just since the voluntarily entered mutual agreement was not based on blackmail. Consequently, the atrocities committed by Leopold II were largely, if not completely, justified--that is, according to your logic and capitalist principles.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm surprised that you miss the main feature of capitalism in the Congo free state. The murders were carried out with the specific goal of expanding rubber harvesting. The natives slathered their bodies in the stuff and picked it off when they got back to the colonists.

The colonists felt that the natives weren't working as hard as they could, so those natives not meeting quotas were threatened with dismemberment and execution. Bullets were expensive too, so any bullets used by the colonist mercenaries had to be backed up by a commensurate number of disembodied hands, proof that the bullets were used economically. Eventually, the hands were being harvested and the mercenaries now had to meet their own quotas for hands.

It's a classic example of the desperation of the capitalists to expand production at the expense of the laborers. At the time, Brazil had started producing rubber so there was a lot of competition for market shares. Estimates of the death toll range from 8 million to 30 million - easily dwarfing Nazi and Soviet atrocities. Of course, the numbers are up for debate - what we do know, however, is that this particular history of imperial Europe is broadly ignored in our history books, much like the real reasons behind the "dark ages" and "age of enlightenment" in Europe (hint: the Middle East had its own enlightenment during Europe's dark ages, and ever since Europe's Enlightenment, the Middle East has consisted of a series of puppet regimes...).
That's fucking disgusting.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Kapitalyst, socialism is not command economics. Socialism is democraticly organized economics.

[Rafiq]

Kapitalyst, socialism is not command economics. Socialism is democraticly organized economics.

I don't know what planet you are from, but socialism would have to work as a commanded economy.

[Judicator]

For those who don't know yet (like I an hour ago). The Congo Free State was the private property of King Leopold II. It seems this would, according to capitalist property rights, validate all the atrocities committed by King Leopold. After all, when private individuals severely exploit workers advocates of capitalism say "nobody forces you to stay there". And so when King Leopold set production quotas -- which if not met by the Congolese workers was punishable by death -- the workers could have simply left like capitalists argue since nothing and nobody was stopping them.

Better get out of your apartment, then. Your landlord is, apparently, justified in killing you since you're on his property and "don't have to be there."


See the similarity there?

Hypocrite.

I suppose there's a similarity in sentence structure, but that's about all. Microsoft can't tell Apple how many computers to produce next year, so where's the central command? Regulatory capture?

How is what he's saying hypocrisy? It's logical inconsistency at worst.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't know what planet you are from, but socialism would have to work as a commanded economy.

Bada Bing!!!

[Revolution starts with U]

Better get out of your apartment, then. Your landlord is, apparently, justified in killing you since you're on his property and "don't have to be there."

Wait... am I about to thank the state for something? :confused:

[hatzel]

1) Private property is not universally justified


1) No, it's not always "justified".... dunno who told you it was...


1) Propertarians.

To be honest, I don't think one can assume that propertarians believe private property is always justified. I don't know what kapitalyst personally adheres to, but if he's a Lockean, for example, believing in the labour theory of appropriation, then he would not agree that private property is always justified. King Leopold here definitely didn't mix his labour with the whole territory, so, from the perspective of Lockean propertarianism, his claim to private property would, in fact, be considered unjustified. But I think that you knew that, actually, and you're just making weak arguments which basically boil down to "well I know you say you believe this, but actually I say you believe something else, and people who believe what I say you believe are stupid, so hah!" And if that's not the case, then it merely suggests an ignorance of propertarian thought on your part. And if you're ignorant of propertarian thought, it might be advisable to take a propertarian's claims about their own thoughts at face value.

[DinodudeEpic]

I don't know what planet you are from, but socialism would have to work as a commanded economy.

Really? If that is the case, then I'm no socialist. I wouldn't be a capitalist. (Private ownership of the means of production via money.) And so would (hopefully) a large majority of the forum.

I honestly don't know why people call my system 'worker-controlled capitalism' and call your system 'socialism'. You seem to be less about worker's control, and more about government-ownership of the economy. (Even if that government is democratic, it would still lead to bureaucracy.)

Anyways, the Congo Free State is more of a combination of Feudalism and Capitalism. But, it still shows that monarchies can (and are actually worse) be just as bad as dictatorships that are republics or oligarchies.

Anyways, it still is an example of a capitalistic oppressive regime.

[Judicator]

Wait... am I about to thank the state for something? :confused:

Yes, libertarians pretty much anyone who isn't an anarchist all thank the state for defending negative rights!

[Rafiq]

Really? If that is the case, then I'm no socialist.

Good, you were an embarrassment for us, anyway.


I wouldn't be a capitalist. (Private ownership of the means of production via money.) And so would (hopefully) a large majority of the forum.


Yes, you would. Capitalism does not = private ownership over the means of production. Otherwise Feudalism = Capitalism. You're so dumb.



I honestly don't know why people call my system 'worker-controlled capitalism' and call your system 'socialism'. You seem to be less about worker's control, and more about government-ownership of the economy.


No, you're just a Utopian who calls himself a socialist because he's so exited about the idea of some Direct Democracy or some Communal Utopia. It's not going to happen, sorry. Not only do you base your politics of sheer and useless morals, you also base it off of vehemently disgusting romanticism.

Your "System" would still qualify as capitalism. Worker's cooperatives are just as petite bourgeois as an Asshole boss who owns a gas station and literally whips his workers when they misbehave. There is no difference scientifically.

[kapitalyst]

See the similarity there?

Hypocrite.

Erm, no... :rolleyes:

Most unfortunate for your argument, there's just no comparison. I don't think McDonald's has come into your country, taken over all the ancestral lands you live on (which you have no transportation or means to escape from) and then executes your friends and family for not following orders... :sleep:

No, McDonald's owns some little restaurants in different locations and they offer you money to come perform a very simple job that doesn't require much brains... they also offer benefits, scholarships and other things. They aren't shooting people or dismembering them. It's totally up to you if you go to that McDonald's each day and work...

[Rafiq]

Erm, no... :rolleyes:

Most unfortunate for your argument, there's just no comparison. I don't think McDonald's has come into your country, taken over all the ancestral lands you live on (which you have no transportation or means to escape from) and then executes your friends and family for not following orders... :sleep:

No, McDonald's owns some little restaurants in different locations and they offer you money to come perform a very simple job that doesn't require much brains... they also offer benefits, scholarships and other things. They aren't shooting people or dismembering them. It's totally up to you if you go to that McDonald's each day and work...



But McDonalds DOES do all of that, through their private army: The U.S. Military.

I mean come on, you demonstrated the shittiest argument on this thread so far. The bourgeois sharks do all of those things using the state THAT THEY CONTROL. Ask the fucking Iraqis if you like, dumb prick.

[kapitalyst]

But McDonalds DOES do all of that, through their private army: The U.S. Military.

I mean come on, you demonstrated the shittiest argument on this thread so far. The bourgeois sharks do all of those things using the state THAT THEY CONTROL. Ask the fucking Iraqis if you like, dumb prick.

You insist of acting like a hostile lil dick, don't you? :rolleyes:

Seriously, knock it off with the petty insults and argue your point like the intelligent person I'd like to believe you are, beneath the hostilities and 'hard-ass' attitude...

You think McDonald's uses the American military as a "private army" and they initiated the invasion of Iraq? Seriously!? And I had the "shittiest argument"? LOL! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

This is a really outrageous fantasy... Seriously, how old are you? You in your first semester of college at University of Boulder, CO? Did the professors "open your eyes"? lol...

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822/college-know-it-all-hippies

Jesus, Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone... you've really opened my eyes with your construction paper art and crude humor... :lol:

[IcarusAngel]

:eek: ^^^ I can't believe this turd is posting south park videos in a thread about one of the greatest atrocities in human history.

[kapitalyst]

:eek: ^^^ I can't believe this turd is posting south park videos in a thread about one of the greatest atrocities in human history.

Sometimes we're left with little choice -- and it takes South Park to bring us back to earth again! :lol:

I would never mock or marginalize what happened in the Congo. Just the faulty conclusions drawn from it. :)

[Tim Cornelis]

La Sombra said:


To be honest, I don't think one can assume that propertarians believe private property is always justified. I don't know what kapitalyst personally adheres to, but if he's a Lockean, for example, believing in the labour theory of appropriation, then he would not agree that private property is always justified. King Leopold here definitely didn't mix his labour with the whole territory, so, from the perspective of Lockean propertarianism, his claim to private property would, in fact, be considered unjustified.

You are flat out wrong. The labour theory of appropriation concerns original appropriation! Meaning if land is owned by no one and I mix my labour with it it becomes my private property. When land is the property of A and B buys it, B is the rightful owner. In this scenario King Leopold II bought all the land fairly—according to capitalist property rights—and so he was in his right to turn his private property into a gigantic labour camp.

If your views on Lockean propertarianism is correct it would mean I am not entitled to buy land from someone, which obviously is not what Locke, nor propertarians, adhere to.

Kapitalyst said:

I don't think McDonald's has come into your country, taken over all the ancestral lands you live on (which you have no transportation or means to escape from) and then executes your friends and family for not following orders...

King Leopold II did not take over all the ancestral land by force, he bought it. If I buy land from the previous owner I have a legitimate claim to the exclusive control over my private land, i.e. I determine its use. If I want to turn my private property into a labour camp you can leave any time you wish, I have the right to do so. If you say I do not have the right to do so you are infringing on the natural right to property you damn dirty socialist!

Starvation in the Congo Free State was also a significant cause of death. And someone who lives on my private property (all of the population) is a guest and I am not forced to give them food—also my property. If they starve they should have left my private property.


No, McDonald's owns some little restaurants in different locations and they offer you money to come perform a very simple job that doesn't require much brains... they also offer benefits, scholarships and other things. They aren't shooting people or dismembering them. It's totally up to you if you go to that McDonald's each day and work...

The undemocratic authority of corporations that exist today is forcefully restricted by the state to a limited degree. In a free market capitalist society this restriction on the undemocratic authority of corporations is removed. It was also totally up to the Congolese population whether they wanted to stay. Nobody was using physical coercion if they wanted to leave, they could've walked away at any time. It was a voluntary labour camp.

[Nox]

Erm, no... :rolleyes:

Most unfortunate for your argument, there's just no comparison. I don't think McDonald's has come into your country, taken over all the ancestral lands you live on (which you have no transportation or means to escape from) and then executes your friends and family for not following orders... :sleep:

No, McDonald's owns some little restaurants in different locations and they offer you money to come perform a very simple job that doesn't require much brains... they also offer benefits, scholarships and other things. They aren't shooting people or dismembering them.


There is a comparison. In a Libertarian society, corporations will de facto be the state; they will control everything and, unlike states today, their prime goal will be profit.

They may give you some "added bonuses" but they are still making huge profits from your labour and paying you shit money.


It's totally up to you if you go to that McDonald's each day and work...

This is the single biggest logical fallacy that Capitalists bring up, you do not have a choice, because if you don't have a job in a capitalist society you will be homeless and not be able to buy food and die of starvation.

If you beg on the streets, nobody will give you any money because it's "your fault you're homeless for being lazy".


You insist of acting like a hostile lil dick, don't you? :rolleyes:

Seriously, knock it off with the petty insults and argue your point like the intelligent person I'd like to believe you are, beneath the hostilities and 'hard-ass' attitude...

You think McDonald's uses the American military as a "private army" and they initiated the invasion of Iraq? Seriously!? And I had the "shittiest argument"? LOL! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

This is a really outrageous fantasy... Seriously, how old are you? You in your first semester of college at University of Boulder, CO? Did the professors "open your eyes"? lol...

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822/college-know-it-all-hippies

Jesus, Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone... you've really opened my eyes with your construction paper art and crude humor... :lol:

He presented a very good argument, which you cannot debunk - because you know it's true.

The US Government including the US Military acts in the interests of American corporations, the best example would be oil corporations.


Saudi Arabia
Iraq
Afghanistan
Sudan
Libya
Iran


I can't believe you're dumb/brainwashed enough not to see this. The corporations, even today, practically control the US government. I'm not talking about individual corporations, I'm talking about the huge corporations collectively.

[Revolution starts with U]

Does McDs not use trucks to ship goods back and forth? Does it not then logically assume that they benefit from lower gas prices as gained by US imperialism?
Does McDs not benefit from people dropping out of high school? Does it not then logically assume that they benefit from cheap drugs as gained by US imperialism (Afghanistan opium field are highly protected. Thats the only place my friend actually had to shoot someone, and he was in both Iraq and Afghanistan.)?
Does McDs not use food? Does it not then logically assume that they benefit from cheap foodstuffs as gained by past US imperialist (and still on going) efforts in central and south america?

McDs uses the military quite a lot, I would say. The most unfortunate part is that the capitalist system lets them take such a hands-off approach to it.

[hatzel]

You are flat out wrong. The labour theory of appropriation concerns original appropriation! Meaning if land is owned by no one and I mix my labour with it it becomes my private property. When land is the property of A and B buys it, B is the rightful owner. In this scenario King Leopold II bought all the land fairly—according to capitalist property rights—and so he was in his right to turn his private property into a gigantic labour camp.

If your views on Lockean propertarianism is correct it would mean I am not entitled to buy land from someone, which obviously is not what Locke, nor propertarians, adhere to.

That would depend entirely on the interpretation of Locke. Or, in fact, some of it wouldn't, because you've made at least one totally non-Lockean statement. Anyway...

It is clear from Locke's writings that his 'just' property is based on the principle that one person's property-holding leaves enough, and as good, for others to utilise. Of course there are limits to this (which Locke acknowledged), that all available land may have already been claimed, after which people may have to work on other people's land (let's not open a can of worms here about whether or not this could ever constitute another person mixing their labour with the land and thus 'usurping' the previous owner, though it's a possible interpretation), but one could still argue that there remain limits on how much each person can themselves take as their own property, even through purchase, without depriving others. Of course Locke doesn't adhere to a Tucker-esque 'occupancy and use' theory of continued land-holding, was not opposed to absentee landlordism per se and (as far as I'm aware) didn't himself address the question of whether or not one person could buy up vast swathes of land, but one could argue that it is in keeping with Locke's philosophy of equal access to land. Particularly given...okay, here I'll quote your non-Lockean statement:


In this scenario King Leopold II bought all the land fairly—according to capitalist property rights—and so he was in his right to turn his private property into a gigantic labour camp.Locke says clearly, and I quote:


This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.Here, clearly, it can be seen that Locke categorically rejects the possibility of an individual submitting themselves to slavery, and enslaving others contradicts what he theorised as 'natural law.' Assuming Lockean property is based on the premise of self-ownership (including the ownership of one's own labour) and the subsequent ownership of that which one has mixed oneself into, one could coherently argue that Locke would not acknowledge the legitimacy of an individual's selling themselves into servitude by selling their property, as would be the case in this example; one could argue that Locke would argue that an individual could only sell property as long as this did not result in the loss of their liberty. Most definitely, however, Lockean property does not give the landholder right to deprive others of their liberty, even if they happen to work or dwell on their land, as this would be breaking natural law; it would be false to assume that propertarianism necessarily contains within it the belief that a property-owner can do whatever they want on their land. A 'labour camp,' then, as we understand it, would not be in keeping with Locke's understanding of liberty.

Not that I'm a fan of Locke or propertarianism, but these sweeping generalisations about their positions don't contribute to constructive debate.

[Rafiq]

You insist of acting like a hostile lil dick, don't you? :rolleyes:

Seriously, knock it off with the petty insults and argue your point like the intelligent person I'd like to believe you are, beneath the hostilities and 'hard-ass' attitude...

You think McDonald's uses the American military as a "private army" and they initiated the invasion of Iraq? Seriously!? And I had the "shittiest argument"? LOL! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

This is a really outrageous fantasy... Seriously, how old are you? You in your first semester of college at University of Boulder, CO? Did the professors "open your eyes"? lol...

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154822/college-know-it-all-hippies

Jesus, Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone... you've really opened my eyes with your construction paper art and crude humor... :lol:


The American Bourgeoisie controls the State, which controls the Military, which attacks countries so corporations can make a profit.

So yes, McDonald's does do that, but so does every other Corporation.

Why don't you fucking take a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or any other victim-country of U.S. Imperialism, you ignorant prick. Maybe you'll see what I am talking about, then.

I mean do you even know why the U.S. was trying to "Contain" communism during the cold war? Do you actually think that it was because the U.S. wanted to spread their beloved democracy and freedom? Perhaps you should have a dinner date with the likes of Pinochet, the Shah, Suharto, and every other puppet of American Imperialism.

[MURDOC]

In this scenario King Leopold II bought all the land fairly—according to capitalist property rights—and so he was in his right to turn his private property into a gigantic labour camp.

What claim did these "chiefs" have to the land they supposedly "sold"? This seems to me to be no more of an issue of property rights than two state entities exchanging territorial claims would be.

If one mafia family pays another mafia family for exclusive territorial rights to loot/extort/murder the denizens of a particular area, this is not an example of "property rights gone awry". The Congo Free State seems to be a similar situation.

[Revolution starts with U]

What claim did these "chiefs" have to the land they supposedly "sold"? This seems to me to be no more of an issue of property rights than two state entities exchanging territorial claims would be.

If one mafia family pays another mafia family for exclusive territorial rights to loot/extort/murder the denizens of a particular area, this is not an example of "property rights gone awry". The Congo Free State seems to be a similar situation.

What claim does anybody have to the land they supposedly sold? So-called valid property rights seem to be no more of an issue than two states exchanging territorial claims would be.
If one person pays another person for exclusive control to build/buy/sell/trade the resources/goods of a particular area, this is an example of property rights. All capitalism seems to be in a similar situaiton.

[MURDOC]

Mixing labor upon un-owned natural resources, etc etc etc. It's already been discussed in this thread.

[Revolution starts with U]

And what exactly makes the state any different? Oh I know, involuntary by definition. But they DID mix their labor with it. Contradicts natural law? Well, it would seem natural means "what happens" not what is supposed to. So what you are saying is it is really just an ethical stance?

[Judicator]

I can't believe this troll thread is getting so much attention.

[RGacky3]

I don't know what planet you are from, but socialism would have to work as a commanded economy.

Why? Thats not true at all.

Who does the commanding? I'd say the command structure of the Leninist model was one of its major flaws.

[Baseball]

Why? Thats not true at all.

Who does the commanding? I'd say the command structure of the Leninist model was one of its major flaws.

The majority of the population-- in those was they see fit, which may not always jibe with what you think is right.

[RGacky3]

the problem with a command structure, is that you have centralized decision making, even when it comes to local issues, your lacking an actual democratic process.

Majority of the population is'nt the answer for example a "majority of the population" won't decide what happens to a local park, only a majority of hte people that use that park.

[Baseball]

the problem with a command structure, is that you have centralized decision making, even when it comes to local issues, your lacking an actual democratic process.

Majority of the population is'nt the answer for example a "majority of the population" won't decide what happens to a local park, only a majority of hte people that use that park.


One would think that people who use a park are using for recreational activities, and would rather not spend a lot of times deciding where the flowers should be planted. But no doubt there are people who would be interested in such things, who derive their satisfaction from developing and supporting a park which other people wish to enjoy. So why be opposed to it?

I think the bigger problem here is the idea that nobody rules in a democracy.

[RGacky3]

One would think that people who use a park are using for recreational activities, and would rather not spend a lot of times deciding where the flowers should be planted. But no doubt there are people who would be interested in such things, who derive their satisfaction from developing and supporting a park which other people wish to enjoy. So why be opposed to it?


Exactly, so you have a democratic process, and those that care about the issue are invovled in it.