Some old myths regarding capitalism

[Subversive Pessimist]

Capitalists often use "the right to property", as a justification for capitalism. However, most of them wish wealth to be put in the hands of a few, while the many will suffer, in order for the cappies to live like kings. Actually, capitalists I've spoken to, openly admit so. How can they support "the right to property", when people have no rights?

The workers will not have a right to have a home, education, proper food, medication, and security. They won't have minimal wages, or anything of what most people would consider basic rights.

Obviously, this is, according to them, immoral and goes against "freedom of men."

They are also strongly opposed to the death penalty, and use of force against others. However, they support a system that will force the poor to work for them, as a tool in order to for the very small percentage of men in society, to gather more wealth. They say this is okay, and moral, because it is a volentarily deal done by the worker and the businessman.

I simply stated that: "If you do not work for the capitalists you will die."

His justification was: "It (to die from hunger) is the law of physics, not capitalism."

We also have "The right to pursue happiness", apparently. However, they seem to mix "the right to pursue happiness", with, happiness in itself.

They are also against theft, but they strongly support a system that supports stealing from others (especially the week and poor).


I don't see any reason for these myths to exist, except the fact that they are handy slogans.

[Hoppe]

I don't see any reason for these myths to exist, except the fact that they are handy slogans

You mean the same slogans you wrote down to "debunk" these myths?

[Y2A]

It would be cool if the state controlled all these "Private" properties, and shared them equally. That'd be real cool.

[Subversive Pessimist]

You mean the same slogans you wrote down to "debunk" these myths?

Yeah, those, and all of the other piss. Human nature and all that. It's easy to show that it's just slogans or whatever.

A guy said to me today: Killing has always been a part of human history. It's human nature to kill.

I'm really tired, so I will sound stupid, but I answered something like: "It's human nature to eat shit too, although most people don't."

The point is that just because some people are greedy, selfish etc. doesn't mean all people are.



It would be cool if the state controlled all these "Private" properties, and shared them equally. That'd be real cool.


That's kind of like socialism. ;)

EDIT: Well, the point of this thread was to ask basically why they use these slogans, when there isn't any constructive point with them.

[Professor Moneybags]

Let's take this point by point :


Capitalists often use "the right to property", as a justification for capitalism. However, most of them wish wealth to be put in the hands of a few, while the many will suffer, in order for the cappies to live like kings.

A "right to property" means that no-one is entitled to take your property. It applies to everyone, not to any particular socio-political group. It has nothing to do with "putting wealth in the hands of the few".


The workers will not have a right to have a home, education, proper food, medication, and security. They won't have minimal wages, or anything of what most people would consider basic rights.

(Ignoring the appeal to popularity). The issue of positive rights has already been addressed many times before; they lead to slavery. A right to a house means that someone will have to build you one (whether they want to or not and whether they get paid or not). A right to education means that a teacher has to be enslaved (or employed by the state, in which case the taxpayer will be enslaved instead).


Obviously, this is, according to them, immoral and goes against "freedom of men."

Yes, slavery does go against freedom. That's why it's no good churning out cliches like "A hungry man is not free"; who is going to give freedom to the people who are being forced to provide him with food ?


However, they support a system that will force the poor to work for them, as a tool in order to for the very small percentage of men in society, to gather more wealth.

The word "Force" is being misused here. I'm "forced" to eat if I want to live- that is causality. When I'm forced to hand over money to someone who threatens me with a gun - that is force. You are (deliberately ?) confusing the metaphysical with the man-made again. You're not the only one here either. I swear it must be some sort of syndrome...


I simply stated that: "If you do not work for the capitalists you will die."

His justification was: "It (to die from hunger) is the law of physics, not capitalism."

Law of physics AKA causality. If a meteor falls our of the sky and crushes your house, it's nobody's "fault", it's just an act of causality.


They are also against theft, but they strongly support a system that supports stealing from others (especially the week and poor).

No they don't. See "right to property" (above).


I don't see any reason for these myths to exist, except the fact that they are handy slogans.

A slogan is a phrase intended to impress, not to make sense. It would seem that the only one doing the sloganeering is you - your arguments sure don't make sense.

[DaCuBaN]

"right to property" means that no-one is entitled to take your property. It applies to everyone, not to any particular socio-political group. It has nothing to do with "putting wealth in the hands of the few".

Indeed this is true, but coupled with the organic design of the economic system we have adopted and the catch-phrase 'Money Breeds Money' it is quite apparent where the property will end up.


A right to a house means that someone will have to build you one (whether they want to or not and whether they get paid or not). A right to education means that a teacher has to be enslaved (or employed by the state, in which case the taxpayer will be enslaved instead).

There is always something to which we will be enslaved. Freedom is an intangible idea - nothing more. So long as the illusion of freedom is there; so long as noone is evidently oppressing, then there isn't a problem.

Odd that some people see this, and others don't...


slavery does go against freedom. That's why it's no good churning out cliches like "A hungry man is not free"; who is going to give freedom to the people who are being forced to provide him with food ?

Indeed; Define 'freedom'; What does freedom mean to you.


The word "Force" is being misused here. I'm "forced" to eat if I want to live- that is causality. When I'm forced to hand over money to someone who threatens me with a gun - that is force

Although I understand and accept your argument, it is in direct contradiction to your previous statement. The point is although being coerced into giving your money away at gunpoint is certainly unsavoury there really is no difference to being forced to eat; urinate and so on.

Every man is a slave: No man is free.

[The Sloth]

How come the same arguments are used over and over again?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 21 2004, 01:43 PM
How come the same arguments are used over and over again?
Because you continue to evade them.

[Professor Moneybags]

Indeed this is true, but coupled with the organic design of the economic system we have adopted and the catch-phrase 'Money Breeds Money' it is quite apparent where the property will end up.

This doesn't answer the question of how money is somehow going to end up in the "hands of the few". Such a conculsion could only be reached using the flawed "pie" economic model.


There is always something to which we will be enslaved. Freedom is an intangible idea - nothing more.

We're enslaved to causality, so we'd might as well be enslaved to one another ? No thanks.


So long as the illusion of freedom is there; so long as noone is evidently oppressing, then there isn't a problem.

Explain how it is an illusion.


Indeed; Define 'freedom'; What does freedom mean to you.

The ability to act in (a social context) without coercion.

[Osman Ghazi]

This doesn't answer the question of how money is somehow going to end up in the "hands of the few". Such a conculsion could only be reached using the flawed "pie" economic model.


Well, if money makes money, then people with a lot of money are going to make a lot of money. In fact, the more money you have, the more you make. Of course, I would have thought that that was obvious to anyone without a crippling brain tumour but I guess that mail order degree explains it.


Explain how it is an illusion.


Well, if you think that you are free when really you don't have much freedom, then freedom is an illusion. Again though, this is extremely obvious.


The ability to act in (a social context) without coercion.

And people who are born into poverty have this ability?


The issue of positive rights has already been addressed many times before; they lead to slavery. A right to a house means that someone will have to build you one (whether they want to or not and whether they get paid or not). A right to education means that a teacher has to be enslaved (or employed by the state, in which case the taxpayer will be enslaved instead).


Why do you think rights exist? Because if, as I think they do, they exist to ensure human survival, what is the point of having one right, but not another? The fact is that a human being will die without sustenance, shelter, etc. And whats the use in protecting a dead guys property?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 20 2004, 05:04 PM
A "right to property" means that no-one is entitled to take your property.
Even if it was taken BY FORCE????

Note that it seems the british monarchy has private property they didn't get by "working hard" but it was inherited by people which I doubt even "worked" in any sense, and that private property is defended by force.


It applies to everyone, not to any particular socio-political group.

It applies to everyone who owns.


It has nothing to do with "putting wealth in the hands of the few".

Needless to say, politicians need money to finance their campaigns. Which rich human being would be so stupid as to finance a communist campaign?


That's why it's no good churning out cliches like "A hungry man is not free"; who is going to give freedom to the people who are being forced to provide him with food ?

They have the control over that food. That's why the hungry man DOESN'T.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 21 2004, 07:10 PM


Well, if money makes money, then people with a lot of money are going to make a lot of money. In fact, the more money you have, the more you make. Of course, I would have thought that that was obvious to anyone without a crippling brain tumour but I guess that mail order degree explains it.

No, that's not what I asked. Let's try again, shall we ?

How is "all the money" going to end up in the "hands of the few" (without using that flawed "pie" economic model, which I have refuted too many times to count) ?


Well, if you think that you are free when really you don't have much freedom, then freedom is an illusion. Again though, this is extremely obvious.

And again, this is not what I asked : How it an illusion ?


And people who are born into poverty have this ability?

Yes. I've already said so.


Why do you think rights exist? Because if, as I think they do, they exist to ensure human survival, what is the point of having one right, but not another?

What do you mean ?


The fact is that a human being will die without sustenance, shelter, etc.

People can still have these things without them being "rights".

[Professor Moneybags]

Even if it was taken BY FORCE????

Obviously not. If they took it by force, then they obviously violated someone else's "right to property" to get it.


Note that it seems the british monarchy has private property they didn't get by "working hard" but it was inherited by people which I doubt even "worked" in any sense, and that private property is defended by force.

That's nice, but I'm not talking in the context of the British Monarchy (see above).


It applies to everyone who owns.

Everyone owns something, even if it is just themselves. (Redstar's wish to even deprive you of self-ownership, non-withstanding).


Needless to say, politicians need money to finance their campaigns. Which rich human being would be so stupid as to finance a communist campaign?

Ask George Soros.


They have the control over that food. That's why the hungry man DOESN'T.

This doesn't answer the question. I have control of my car; the fact that you might need it doesn't entitle you to take it from me by force.

[Osman Ghazi]

No, that's not what I asked. Let's try again, shall we ?

How is "all the money" going to end up in the "hands of the few" (without using that flawed "pie" economic model, which I have refuted too many times to count) ?


Well, no matter what, if you are gaining more wealth, at least part of it is coming from somewhere or someone else. The other portion may be created, but still, the more money one person has, the less everybody else has. Hence, the people who have a lot of money and reasonable intelligence will see their share of the cash grow. In fact, why am I explaining this to you? I mean, after all, you have the mail order degree, not me.


And again, this is not what I asked : How it an illusion ?


It is an illusion because if it came to a point where the options were profits and oppression or freedom and poverty, the state would become fasicst in the blink of an eye.

Don't get me wrong, we have a fair amount of freedom and it is real, in the sense that we actually can for the most part do what we wish. The real illusion is actually the motivation. The state controllers would have us believe that they give us this freedom because they 'believe in human rights'. However, it is essentially just a good way of keeping everyone quiet. That is to say, if you can make most people happy and bring stability, (which is good for business), then why the hell not?


Yes. I've already said so.


But people born into poverty have no option other than wage-slavery. What if they don't want to be wage-slaves? Then they lack freedom by your own definition. What if they want to be the head of a corporation? Even if they do make it there finally, and it is possible (hey anything can happen, right?) they will have had to work hard for it every day of their life. Belinda Stronach however, and many others, are the heads of corporation by virtue of their birth.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that Capitalism is about as meritocratic as feudalism.


What do you mean ?


It is a simple question: what are rights for?


People can still have these things without them being "rights".

People can also have freedom without it being a right but I think it would be a much better idea to codify that and make it standard practice in human societies.

[hotsexygrl42]

but they strongly support a system that supports stealing from others (especially the week and poor). Capitalism does not steal from people in fact it gives to the people

In 1990 chile poverty rating was 40 percent and in 2000 it was 20 percent because they have


· Opening the economy to world trade
· Conservative fiscal policy pursuing simultaneously a budget surplus and reduction of public
debt
· Expanding of the domestic capital market
· Reform of labor and tax policies, including a tax increase that allowed the government to
expand social expenditures by more than 200 percent through the 1990s
souce (http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/reducingpoverty/docs/newpdfs/case-summ-Chile-PovertyEradication.pdf)

[Professor Moneybags]

The other portion may be created, but still, the more money one person has, the less everybody else has.

Wrong. We've been over this a stack of times. There is no "pie" to be "shared out".


It is an illusion because if it came to a point where the options were profits and oppression or freedom and poverty, the state would become fasicst in the blink of an eye.

Non-sequitur. That argument would apply to just about every govermnent. The question is, which is more likely to make that transition ? A powerful government or a weak one ?


Don't get me wrong, we have a fair amount of freedom and it is real, in the sense that we actually can for the most part do what we wish.

Then where's the beef ? It's not an illusion.


The real illusion is actually the motivation. The state controllers would have us believe that they give us this freedom because they 'believe in human rights'.

Osman, the state isn't meant to do any "controlling". Laissez-faire, remember ?


But people born into poverty have no option other than wage-slavery.

Apart from the fact that wage slavery is a contradiction in terms, if being born poor is a form of slavery then all I can say is there are a hell of a lot of escapees.


What if they don't want to be wage-slaves? Then they lack freedom by your own definition.

No, they don't. Freedom is the prereqisite to earning wealth, not the other way round.


Belinda Stronach however, and many others, are the heads of corporation by virtue of their birth.

What ? Everyone has the opportunity to make it rich and because some have it easier than others you see as a gross injustice. Talk about jealousy.

You had might as well make it illegal to have an IQ higher than a certian level because that's unfair too.


It is a simple question: what are rights for?

Rights exist to prevent people violating one another's freedoms.

[synthesis]

You had might as well make it illegal to have an IQ higher than a certian level because that's unfair too.

Having a high IQ won't necessarily feed and clothe you and yours. Being born into fantastic wealth will.

[Osman Ghazi]

What ? Everyone has the opportunity to make it rich and because some have it easier than others you see as a gross injustice.

Yes, thats probably what the Aristocrats said before they were slaughtered in record numbers in 1794. After all, if you made it big in feudal society, you could marry your daughter into a struggling noble family and then you too could be on the top.

Now isn't feudalism just so meritocratic. ;)


Wrong. We've been over this a stack of times. There is no "pie" to be "shared out".

So the money doesn't come from other people, eh? It just materializes out of thin air? Or are they printing this money? The 'pie' does exist. Unless of course wealth is infinite. Otherwise, the money a capitalist makes has to come from somewhere, usually other, poorer people.


Non-sequitur. That argument would apply to just about every govermnent. The question is, which is more likely to make that transition ? A powerful government or a weak one ?


Probably a powerful one. Why does it matter? I want to destroy all goverments.


Then where's the beef ? It's not an illusion.



The real illusion is actually the motivation. The state controllers would have us believe that they give us this freedom because they 'believe in human rights'.


Osman, the state isn't meant to do any "controlling". Laissez-faire, remember ?


Ha, the current administration are hardly laissez-faire. I was referring to the people who do control the state, rather than a hyothetical situation.


Apart from the fact that wage slavery is a contradiction in terms, if being born poor is a form of slavery then all I can say is there are a hell of a lot of escapees.


Not percentage-wise there aren't. There is about a 75% chance that the class you are born in is the one you will die in. And how is it a contradiction?

After all, the difference between a slave and a free working man is that the free working man is bought by the hour, the day, the week and the year instead of all at once.

[/QUOTE]No, they don't. Freedom is the prereqisite to earning wealth, not the other way round.



No, it really is the other way around. Freedom, according to your own defintion, is the ability to do whatever it is you want in a social context. Well, a person who has a lot of money can do pretty much whatever they want, can't they? Far more than a person who works a regular job 9 to 5.

Besides, if that statement were true, there really wouldn't be any wealth would there? I mean, freedom is a relatively new concept, after all.

Rights exist to prevent people violating one another's freedoms.


Alright then, why do you find it desirable to prevent people from violating one another's freedoms?

You had might as well make it illegal to have an IQ higher than a certian level because that's unfair too.
[QUOTE]

Why that would be a stupid thing for me to do. Then I'd always be on the run! :lol: ;)

[DaCuBaN]

Having a high IQ won't necessarily feed and clothe you and yours. Being born into fantastic wealth will

Yup, I'm living testament. I'm yet to score less than 140 on an IQ test with an average of over 150 (I still have a screenie on my home PC of my proudest achievement - 176 :lol: ), yet I live on the breadline.

Just shows you both that intellect is of little relevance, and that IQ tests are bollocks. There is no way that I'm of sufficient intelligence to get into Mensa.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 03:55 PM

Yup, I'm living testament. I'm yet to score less than 140 on an IQ test with an average of over 150 (I still have a screenie on my home PC of my proudest achievement - 176 :lol: ), yet I live on the breadline.
You aren't talking about those internet tests, are you? Those tell you nothing. A real IQ test takes hours. The net tests are basically programmed to never give you less than 120 or so.

I'm not trying to take you down a notch or anything, I have no doubt you're intelligent, but if you want to actually know your IQ you need to see a professional.

[DaCuBaN]

That's what I was referring to - The IQ tests floated around are utter tripe. At one point I did contact Mensa, but it was my arrogance driving this and nothing else - I know I'm not of that 'standard'

Incidentally, I haven't even tried in almost five years... it could be interesting to see how much further I've slipped...


The net tests are basically programmed to never give you less than 120 or so

This isn't true, but they are valueless I agree. A friend of mine succesfully attained a score of 84 if I remember on the one at www.iqtest.com - technically making him unsuitable for education in a mainstream establishment.

In fairness, he was plastered :lol: