A Question To Cappies

[T_SP]

How has Capitalism ever benefited you?
I always assumed that people who actually openly supported Cap. were the big Fat Cat bosses who benefitted from it the most, and an average Joe on the street just put up with regardless of how much the system shit on them. Those who don't ignore it or support it were then Lefties. So why support it?

[revolutionindia]

I ain't no hard core cappie
But give me one reason why I should'nt support it

Is it because capitalism has killed 10 million people ? :P

[Xvall]

Way more than that. But we don't like it when capitalists go around saying that communism and socialism murdered 953,549,584,395,329,329 innocent puppies, so let's not do the same.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 08:37 AM
How has Capitalism ever benefited you?
I always assumed that people who actually openly supported Cap. were the big Fat Cat bosses who benefitted from it the most, and an average Joe on the street just put up with regardless of how much the system shit on them. Those who don't ignore it or support it were then Lefties. So why support it?
That whole paragraph is question begging.

[LSD]

That whole paragraph is question begging.

Actually, no.

How has Capitalism ever benefited you?

I always assumed that people who actually openly supported Cap. were the big Fat Cat bosses who benefitted from it the most, and an average Joe on the street just put up with regardless of how much the system shit on them. Those who don't ignore it or support it were then Lefties. So why support it?.

Let's "break it down".

Introduction and intitial question:
How has Capitalism ever benefited you?
:hammer: Trotskyist_SP asks his question.

Expansion:
I always assumed that people who actually openly supported Cap. were the big Fat Cat bosses who benefitted from it the most, and an average Joe on the street just put up with regardless of how much the system shit on them. Those who don't ignore it or support it were then Lefties.
:hammer: Trotskyist_SP outlines his prior assumptions to put his question into context. He explains his thought processes and outlines how he came to asking this question

Question reasked:
So why support it?
:hammer: Trotsky_SP asks the question again in a more condensed form using the pronoun "it" to refer to "capitalism".


So..... what is the question?

"How has Capitalism ever benefited you? (...context...) So, why support it?"

Although Trotsky_SP offers a possible answer durring his contextualization, namely that "people who actually openly supported Cap. were the big Fat Cat bosses who benefitted from it the most, and an average Joe on the street just put up with regardless of how much the system shit on them", but in no way is this theory a key assumption of the general statement.


Oh...and yeah, you can't "beg the question" in a QUESTION!!!!

I know you like using the phrase, but in this context it makes no sense! If you're not attempting to make a logical point, then how can it be a logical fallacy?!

[revolutionindia]

Professor moneybags long ago bartered his brains and conscience for
dollars in the free market economy

[Hiero]

Why do people constantly ask this question, you know what the answer is, and you know that they arent big time rich capitalist.

[New Tolerance]

Capitalism offers free food!

o wait... nevermind.

[/\______/\]

*Responded to mine and societies demands by producing relevant goods.
*Caused industry to be more advanced and producing higher quality products during my life compared to if feudalism was still around.

And essentially shaped my entire life, what with me living in a capitalist society.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 04:59 PM
Professor moneybags long ago bartered his brains and conscience for
dollars in the free market economy
One must first have them before any question of bartering them arises. It's not a problem you're likely to have.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2004, 04:45 PM
Actually, no.
You don't actually understand what I meant by "begging the question". It means "assuming what you are trying to prove".

His argument assumes that all fat cat bosses are advocates of capitalism. This is false, as most of them are not either in theory or in practice. His argument also assumes that the "average joe" does not benefit from capitalism. He benefits from it in the same way I do- no random confiscation of property (regardless of how much or little you have), which allows me to live and rise to the level of my ability and not the level some government official "gives me permission" me to (although that could be a thing of the past).

It also assumes that we are living in a capitalist society right now, but that, as they say, is another story.

[Osman Ghazi]

which allows me to live and rise to the level of my ability

Now why the hell do you feel the need to blatantly lie?

I know hundreds of people who will never rise to the level of their abilities because they can't afford the education nedessary to do so. And this is in Canada, where the state pays for most of your uni or college.

Unless of course, you consider 'having money' to be an ability. Then your statement would be true.


It also assumes that we are living in a capitalist society right now, but that, as they say, is another story.

Yes, according to you, this is a socialist society. Which is, of course, why your life is such a joke.

Again, you are claiming to be smarter than about a million or so intellectuals who have gone before you. It's just awfully pretentious, is all.

[T_SP]

His argument assumes that all fat cat bosses are advocates of capitalism.This is false, as most of them are not either in theory or in practice.

I see them doing very little in their defence! If I, as you say, am accusing them of advocating it when they openly participate in it, i.e form an essential part of it's structure, then where is your evidence that they aren't?







His argument also assumes that the "average joe" does not benefit from capitalism. He benefits from it in the same way I do- no random confiscation of property (regardless of how much or little you have), which allows me to live and rise to the level of my ability and not the level some government official "gives me permission" me to (although that could be a thing of the past).

Okay, how I alledgely benefit from Capitalism, lets break it down shall we:
I have a huge debt that I will spend at least 1/3rd of my life paying off.
I pay hugely over the odds for even the most essential items like food, let alone the so called 'luxuries' in life like a television or a radio.
I pay increasingly high taxes for VERY poor public services and when I oppose a war do I get a rebate? No!! So I am paying for something I don't want, like a double glazer coming to your house fitting windows you don't want then forcing you to pay for them when what you really wanted was a new door!! Which you didn't get.
I also have other debts, which I have accumulated from purchasing the above so called 'luxuries' oh and when the interest rate goes up, does my pay go up accordingly? Hardly I get a 7.5% rise in local tax instead. Yeah Capitalism I love you!! I could go on but surely you get the point now? Oh and when I die any wealth I may have miraculously accumulated my kids get taxed on!!
The Government does not allow me to rise to the level of my ability because that would cost too much!!




It also assumes that we are living in a capitalist society right now, but that, as they say, is another story.
Oh please go on!! I'd love to hear this one! :rolleyes:

[T_SP]

And so silence from the prof.!!! * A tumble weed blows across the board* an empty can.................... and all that hey Prof. Penniless!! ;)

[Eddie999]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 02:22 PM
I ain't no hard core cappie
But give me one reason why I should'nt support it

Is it because capitalism has killed 10 million people ? :P
Ah yes the 'fact' that communism has killed 10 million people. This fact is wrong. Communism is an ideology and has not killed anyone. Dictators who were said to be 'communists' by the west have killed people. (and 10 million is an inflated number most probably put forth by some rich capitalist trying to discredit communism)

To turn the argument round, how many people have been killed by capitalism? How many people have been killed in the imperialistic wars that have been fought over resources and land? How many people have starved to death on the streets and in 3rd world countries?

[__ca va?]

How has Capitalism ever benefited you?
I always assumed that people who actually openly supported Cap. were the big Fat Cat bosses who benefitted from it the most, and an average Joe on the street just put up with regardless of how much the system shit on them. Those who don't ignore it or support it were then Lefties. So why support it?

I'm not a cappie but I'll try to give some kind of an answer.
Capitalism does encourage people to work more efficient and to create quality goods. So it is good for the economy. In capitalism around 67% of the people have tolerable living standards. It doesn't mean that they have no problem with money or debts but they are not at the point of dying from hunger. The other 33% lives in bad conditions. (These stats are about Hungary so they can be different in the US or UK, probably more people live better there).
So what I wsanted to say is that capitalism provides 67% of the people comfort but keeps 33% in hopeless poverty. And the job of socialism is to help this 33% and to give a "security in existance" (does this term exist? :huh: ) to everyone not letting them to be kicked out of their homes or to get indebted.
:hammer:

[LSD]

I ain't no hard core cappie
But give me one reason why I should'nt support it

Is it because capitalism has killed 10 million people ?

Ah yes the 'fact' that communism has killed 10 million people. This fact is wrong. Communism is an ideology and has not killed anyone. Dictators who were said to be 'communists' by the west have killed people. (and 10 million is an inflated number most probably put forth by some rich capitalist trying to discredit communism)

To turn the argument round, how many people have been killed by capitalism? How many people have been killed in the imperialistic wars that have been fought over resources and land? How many people have starved to death on the streets and in 3rd world countries?

hmmm... what's wrong with this argument? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[LSD]

You don't actually understand what I meant by "begging the question". It means "assuming what you are trying to prove".

Oh and professor, again, you can't beg the question in a question!!

Since he asked a question, he wasn't actually trying to "prove" anything.

Stating that he is "assuming what [he is] trying to prove" assumes that he is trying to prove something!

[cubist]

CAPITALISM HAS BENIFITED ME BECUASE I AM NOT STARVING, AND AM VERY HEALTHY DOES THAT MAKE ME FEEL GOOD NO.

HAVE I BENIFITED CAPITALISM YES PROBABLY 200 TIMES MORE THAN IT WILL EVER BENIFIT ME

[Marvs Cicero]

How has Capitalism ever benefited you?
I always assumed that people who actually openly supported Cap. were the big Fat Cat bosses who benefitted from it the most, and an average Joe on the street just put up with regardless of how much the system shit on them. Those who don't ignore it or support it were then Lefties. So why support it?

It is the only system contiguous with my natural rights which just law must protect. It is responsibile for a greater ammount of wealth creation then all years prior to it combined. It is resonsible for the tripling of the average lifespan.

Pick one.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's also responsible for just as many, if not more, tragedies and wars.

You cannot use medical improvements in your favor. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States and any other Latin American nation.

And what rights are guaranteed in capitalism that you don't think would be under socialism? The right of ownership of another man's work? That "right" will certainly not exist.

[LSD]

It is responsibile for a greater ammount of wealth creation then all years prior to it combined. It is resonsible for the tripling of the average lifespan.

The same could be said, and often was, for Feudalism

Every system is better than the one that preceded it, that's why its adopted.

But it's sheer historical ignorance to assume that there can be "nothing better" than capitalism.


It is the only system contiguous with my natural rights which just law must protect.

OK, sport, you want to clarify that one for the rest of us?

[Marvs Cicero]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 12 2004, 09:41 PM



The same could be said, and often was, for Feudalism

Every system is better than the one that preceded it, that's why its adopted.

But it's sheer historical ignorance to assume that there can be "nothing better" than capitalism.


Excuse me? Feudalism was hardly supperior to the previus Roman and Ancient Athenian system. Feudalism and Christianity combined created the worst period in western History. The average Athenian lived far better then the average person living under Feudalism.

Your statement was nothing but an excercise in your own ignorance of history.


OK, sport, you want to clarify that one for the rest of us?

It is quite simple. I have certain rights derived from my nature that in order for law to be just must protect.


It's also responsible for just as many, if not more, tragedies and wars.

Like...


You cannot use medical improvements in your favor. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States and any other Latin American nation.

This is complete non-sense. I'm sure the Soviet Union claimed they had a lower infant mortality rate then the United States, it hardly means it's true.

Even if you go by the official numbers you are still wrong. By the official numbers the US has a mortality rate of 6.69% while cuba has a mortality rate of 7.27%.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-B/he...mor_rat&int=100 (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-B/hea_inf_mor_rat&int=100)


And what rights are guaranteed in capitalism that you don't think would be under socialism? The right of ownership of another man's work? That "right" will certainly not exist.

Explain to me how does labor produce wealth?

[LSD]

Excuse me? Feudalism was hardly supperior to the previus Roman and Ancient Athenian system. Feudalism and Christianity combined created the worst period in western History. The average Athenian lived far better then the average person living under Feudalism.

Actually, life expectancy was higher in the middle ages than at any point in antiquity.

As to the Roman and Athenian systems, how much do you know about them?

Slavery? Clients?

The Athens your talking about, I'm assuming you mean the democratic one, lasted about 75 years. That's it!

It was blip, if that. In general, the world in 1500 was better for most people than the world in 500 which was better for most people than the world in -500.

Are there exceptions, yes. We all know what Gibbon said. But the Domitian-Commodus period itself was only about 150 years. I know the "romance" of the Pax Roman is appealing, but the truth is less "glorious". Personally I can tell you I would much rather have lived in the twelfth century than durring the "Crisis" of the third.


our statement was nothing but an excercise in your own ignorance of history.

Yes, I guess that's why I'm majoring in it....


Like...

Well, for starters, World War 1, World War 2, the Bohr War, the Vietnam War, both Iraq wars, the various coups and despots sponsored by Western powers (Iraq, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, South Vietnam, Indonesia...), slavery, the holocaust....


It is quite simple. I have certain rights derived from my nature that in order for law to be just must protect.

My God, are you fucking thick!!

WHAT RIGHTS????????

Stop refering to them and NAME THEM!!!!

[tcip]

History Major?

*snicker*

[Marvs Cicero]

Actually, life expectancy was higher in the middle ages than at any point in antiquity.

As to the Roman and Athenian systems, how much do you know about them?

Slavery? Clients?

The Athens your talking about, I'm assuming you mean the democratic one, lasted about 75 years. That's it!

It was blip, if that. In general, the world in 1500 was better for most people than the world in 500 which was better for most people than the world in -500.

Are there exceptions, yes. We all know what Gibbon said. But the Domitian-Commodus period itself was only about 150 years. I know the "romance" of the Pax Roman is appealing, but the truth is less "glorious". Personally I can tell you I would much rather have lived in the twelfth century than durring the "Crisis" of the third.

I don't disagree with you on almost all of what you say here. Which is exactly why I mentioned the time period of the Athenian Golden Age.

But what I do object to is the fact that you are claiming that man is always better off every hundered years. This is not true, the facts to the contrary may be "blips" but the fact remains that the blips were still there and that there were systems superior to feudalism that excisted prior to feudalism.

I brought this up because you were trying to claim that feudalism was better then the ancient systems such a in the Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Carthage, Athens, etc and that therefor it is inevidable that a system better then Capitalism is to come about. This is rediculus.

[LSD]

Let's remember the context shall we?

My comment was in rebuttal to this:

It is responsibile for a greater ammount of wealth creation then all years prior to it combined. It is resonsible for the tripling of the average lifespan.

I was demonstrating that a progressive trend exists regardless of the system in place. In this, yes Athens is just a blip.

[Marvs Cicero]

Well, for starters, World War 1, World War 2, the Bohr War, the Vietnam War, both Iraq wars, the various coups and despots sponsored by Western powers (Iraq, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, South Vietnam, Indonesia...), slavery, the holocaust....

How does the system of Laissiez Faire(Capitalism) relate to starting any of these things?



WHAT RIGHTS????????

Stop refering to them and NAME THEM!!!!

I've already posted them in a different thread, I felt no need to repeat myself.


I was demonstrating that a progressive trend...

This is completly ignoring the fact that these better systems( such as the one in Athens in the 5th Century B.C.) were able to exsist centuries before anything surpassed it. What this means is that there is no inherant progressive trend but it does in fact have to do with the system.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Regarding Cuba's infant mortality rate being lower than America's"
http://pnews.org/portal/modules.php?name=N...=article&sid=21 (http://pnews.org/portal/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=21)
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1394
http://www.medicc.org/Medicc%20Review/I/ag..._from_cuba.html (http://www.medicc.org/Medicc%20Review/I/aging/html/health_news_from_cuba.html)
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cuba_statistics.html

I think I trust UNICEF more than nationmaster. But the point is that under socialism medicine has made incredible advances. Compare Cuba to what it would have been had the revolution not taken place. Look at all of the rest of Latin America. Do ya see what a fucking shithole that is? Cuba most undoubtedly ahs the highest standard of living in all of Latin America.


Explain to me how does labor produce wealth?

By "wealth" do you mean capital? Capital is created by agglomerating the value of the labor of hundreds.

[Marvs Cicero]

Regarding Cuba's infant mortality rate being lower than America's"
http://pnews.org/portal/modules.php?name=N...=article&sid=21 (http://pnews.org/portal/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=21)
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1394
http://www.medicc.org/Medicc%20Review/I/ag..._from_cuba.html (http://www.medicc.org/Medicc%20Review/I/aging/html/health_news_from_cuba.html)
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cuba_statistics.html

I think I trust UNICEF more than nationmaster. But the point is that under socialism medicine has made incredible advances. Compare Cuba to what it would have been had the revolution not taken place. Look at all of the rest of Latin America. Do ya see what a fucking shithole that is? Cuba most undoubtedly ahs the highest standard of living in all of Latin America.

All of these statistics comes from the Government of Cuba! Expecting them to tell the truth and put themselves in a negative light is rediculus. The fact that Cubans are flooding out of Cuba by the thousands every year give you an idea that life aint to good in Cuba.



By "wealth" do you mean capital? Capital is created by agglomerating the value of the labor of hundreds.

By wealth I mean wealth, I mean material things that ad value to your life.

[LSD]

This is completly ignoring the fact that these better systems( such as the one in Athens in the 5th Century B.C.) were able to exsist centuries before anything surpassed it. What this means is that there is no inherant progressive trend but it does in fact have to do with the system.

Well the system is part of the the trend. Better systems replace worse ones, I never denied that capitalism is better than most of the alternatives.

Look, here's the question. Do you believe that capitalism is the best possible economic system?


ow does the system of Laissiez Faire(Capitalism) relate to starting any of these things?

Well, the Cold War wars were conducted to maintain western capital control; the coups and despotic supports were done to maintain access to resources (mostlly oil, but sometimes fruit!); the World Wars were great for business in America, not to mention German business interests; the European colonail wars were clearly about profit; the Iraq war is an obvious one; and slavery speaks for itself.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

All of these statistics comes from the Government of Cuba! Expecting them to tell the truth and put themselves in a negative light is rediculus. The fact that Cubans are flooding out of Cuba by the thousands every year give you an idea that life aint to good in Cuba.

No, they come from the United Nations.

And the gusano pigs come to America because it's true, educated people in Cuba are able to earn more money in the United States. But you cannot compare America to Cuba. If Cubans were escaping to Haiti, then you might have a point, but the US you cannot compare to Cuba. I'm sure that Cuba was comparatively much worse than the US before the revolution.

The US is a first world country. The American public has a standard of living that is only available because of the outsourcing of jobs that Americans are not willing to do. If it was an American that sewed your pants together, those pants would be worth a fortune and only the extremely wealthy would be wearing them. Do you get my point? America's stand of living is completely dependant on its imperialistic tendencies.


By wealth I mean wealth, I mean material things that ad value to your life.

So you're asking me how work results in material objects?
What are you trying to prove, exactly?

[LSD]

The fact that Cubans are flooding out of Cuba by the thousands every year give you an idea that life aint to good in Cuba.

Yes but to where are they fleeing?

Haiti is closer. So is Dominica?

Why aren't they running to those "capitalist successes".

The fact that, after decades of economic imperialism, the US is stronger than Cuba, after decades of economic sanctions...is, welll, unsuprising.

It would be far more apt to compare Cuba (which, I should add, I do not consider communist) with other latin american countries.

[NovelGentry]

All of these statistics comes from the Government of Cuba! Expecting them to tell the truth and put themselves in a negative light is rediculus. The fact that Cubans are flooding out of Cuba by the thousands every year give you an idea that life aint to good in Cuba.

Maybe you should take a look at the US immigration policy on this one... here's some summary information:

http://www.canadiannetworkoncuba.ca/Documents/rafters.shtml

Now let's take into account that the two largest influxes of Cuban's to America occured in the early 1960's when wealthy families fleed Cuba because they were losing their "hard earned" possessions to the scary communist government so that they could achieve a more socially equal society. The second was I believe in the 1980's, not sure on the exact year, but it was when Cuba decided to take a huge chunk of the supposed politicial prisoners (many of whom were actually violent criminals) and send them on boats over to the US.

Recently the emmigration rate from Cuba is less than 2%, less than 1% try to emmigrate legally which IS possible. The primary reason people say they want to leave Cuba: They have family in the United States.


By wealth I mean wealth, I mean material things that ad value to your life.

Doesn't that sort of depend on the person? What one person things adds value another thinks is completely useless... and why do you feel that the creation of these material goods would be halted or even diminished under Socialism/Communism?

[Vinny Rafarino]

So you're asking me how work results in material objects?
What are you trying to prove, exactly?



Why bother RZ?

Both of these kids are quite confused about bourgeois economics.

If they bothered to research what they came here to discuss, they would have already known that in bourgeois economics, "labour" constitutes of one the three factors of bourgeois eonomics that make up "capital" and that "capital" is defined as "wealth".

In other words, they ran when they should have walked.

Silly kids, it does not take a genius to surmise that these two are completely out of their league.

[tcip]

OMG OMG OMG!

You are wrong.

And you know nothing, you kid, you!

And we are on equal intellectual footing.


(also btw, in modern economic thought, there is 4 factors of production, check roger a. arnolds book on the subject if you will)

[Marvs Cicero]

Doesn't that sort of depend on the person? What one person things adds value another thinks is completely useless... and why do you feel that the creation of these material goods would be halted or even diminished under Socialism/Communism?

Which is why value of the object produced is relitive to how much the consumors are willing to pay for it.

[NovelGentry]

Which is why value of the object produced is relitive to how much the consumors are willing to pay for it.

So what about the value of objects produced that consumers need, should those too be priced on how much consumers are willing to pay? And you never answered my second question.

[LSD]

Which is why value of the object produced is relitive to how much the consumors are willing to pay for it.

What is your point?

You're just outlining the theoretical basis of market economics. What for fun?

[Marvs Cicero]

So what about the value of objects produced that consumers need, should those too be priced on how much consumers are willing to pay? And you never answered my second question.

Absolutely. As for your second question, the wealth would cease being produced because it loots the creaters of wealth. The thinkers, the buisnessmen, etc.


What is your point?

You're just outlining the theoretical basis of market economics. What for fun?

I guess so, because you don't seem willing to try and refute it.

[LSD]

I guess so, because you don't seem willing to try and refute it.

Maybe because your arguing the same arguments in two threads.

How about you just pick one of them and stick to it?

[Marvs Cicero]

That's because you continue to respond to me with the same Marxist crap.

[NovelGentry]

As for your second question, the wealth would cease being produced because it loots the creaters of wealth. The thinkers, the buisnessmen, etc.

How does it "loot" them? You're telling me "thinkers" think because they are paid to do so and for no other reason? I knew the theory of relativity was nothing more than a cash cow!

As for the creators of wealth, you forgot about the people who actually produce these goods so that you may consume them, we Marxists like to call them proletarians.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:38 AM
OMG OMG OMG!

You are wrong.

And you know nothing, you kid, you!

And we are on equal intellectual footing.


(also btw, in modern economic thought, there is 4 factors of production, check roger a. arnolds book on the subject if you will)
:lol:

Equal footing indeed!


Actually my boy, in modern economic theory there can be up to seven factors of production. this is achieved by splitting the original factors of production into smaller categories based on the specific scenario they may be applied to.

For instance, in cases where previous products are used in the process of creating a new product (for example recycling) an additional factor that is commonly referred to "capital goods" will be applied as the value associated with those products cannot simply be discarded.

I'm sure that did not even make sense to you. :lol:

[cubist]

surely this question in this thread should be, how does capitalism benifit you in comparison to socialism,

capitalism benifits everyone when compared to nothing,

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:23 PM
The right of ownership of another man's work? That "right" will certainly not exist.
A right to healthcare requires the services of a doctor, regardless of one's ability to pay.
A right to an education requires the services of a teacher, regardless of one's ability to pay.
A right to house requires the services of buliders, regardless of one's ability to pay them.

The right to another man's labour will not exist, eh ? (Chuckle)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Marvs [email protected] 13 2004, 12:00 AM
How does the system of Laissiez Faire(Capitalism) relate to starting any of these things?
It doesn't. To these lot Capitalism = 'anything not Marxism', which is useful because it allows them to simultaneously obfuscate Marxism's past failiures, pretend it has never existed and to blame capitalism for everything that goes wrong.

"When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

[NovelGentry]

A right to healthcare requires the services of a doctor, regardless of one's ability to pay.
A right to an education requires the services of a teacher, regardless of one's ability to pay.
A right to house requires the services of buliders, regardless of one's ability to pay them.


I don't see how any of these rights require you to *OWN* the work of the person in question.


The right to another man's labour will not exist, eh ? (Chuckle)

Good thing he said the right to own another man's work.

Ownership of a certain thing implies something very different than just the ability to benefit from it.

[DaCuBaN]

To these lot Capitalism = 'anything not Marxism'

Now you see, it speaks volumes of the mindset of the man that he considers a board with a population of over seven thousand people to all be the same!


A right to healthcare requires the services of a doctor, regardless of one's ability to pay.
A right to an education requires the services of a teacher, regardless of one's ability to pay.
A right to house requires the services of buliders, regardless of one's ability to pay them.

All this talk of 'rights' is utterly absurd: There is no such thing as 'rights' - there are simply different levels to which people value each other, and hence believe should be treated accordingly.

I feel that people deserve the ability to get free healthcare, and that the greatest thing any doctor could do is to provide their abilities wherever they can. I feel that people deserve the ability to learn, and that the most 'honourable' (if you like - I think this is a term that fits your own ideology) thing a teacher can do is teach! I feel that people deserve to have a roof over their heads, to not freeze in the gutters, and that the greatest thing an architect could do is in essence 'open source' his designs, allowing almost anyone to do the basic building work.

Most here feel we should dismantle the state apparatus - I'm not sure if this is possible, but I like the sound of it...

If I'm not mistaken, you feel that we should have a state apparatus only to provide a police force and army... It's simply a matter of how much we feel people deserve

I guess you don't think much of people :P

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 01:46 PM
I don't see how any of these rights require you to *OWN* the work of the person in question.
Don't worry about it; it seems to be common affliction on this board.

[Professor Moneybags]

Now you see, it speaks volumes of the mindset of the man that he considers a board with a population of over seven thousand people to all be the same!

The dozen or so who post here are all the same.


I feel that people deserve the ability to get free healthcare, and that the greatest thing any doctor could do is to provide their abilities wherever they can. I feel that people deserve the ability to learn, and that the most 'honourable' (if you like - I think this is a term that fits your own ideology) thing a teacher can do is teach! I feel that people deserve to have a roof over their heads, to not freeze in the gutters, and that the greatest thing an architect could do is in essence 'open source' his designs, allowing almost anyone to do the basic building work.

But at whose expense ?


I guess you don't think much of people :P

I'm not the one demanding their services for free.

[LSD]

I'm not the one demanding their services for free.

No, you demand that the doctor serve you and in exchange you'll give him magic pieces of paper with pretty pictures on them. He can then trade this magic picture paper for goods and/or services. If he chooses to stop working he will no longer recieve magic picture paper and will be unable to acquire the aforementioned goods and services. He will then starve and die.

That's capitalism.

Here's communism:

The doctor provides the same service for you. Because he is providing valuable labour for the community he is able to use the resources of that community. He is guaranteed all of the goods and services for which he would otherwise require magic paper. He does not, however, have to worry that his supply of magic paper is insuffient to acquire the goods/services that he needs. Nor does he need to spend time thinking of alternate methods of increasing his supply of said paper. Instead he can focus on treating his patients and living a good life.

Now, explain how the second scenario is more "coercive" than the first.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 14 2004, 08:34 AM
A right to healthcare requires the services of a doctor, regardless of one's ability to pay.
A right to an education requires the services of a teacher, regardless of one's ability to pay.
A right to house requires the services of buliders, regardless of one's ability to pay them.

The right to another man's labour will not exist, eh ? (Chuckle)
The right to make use of the products of society according to one's needs will certainly be protected. To guarantee medical service does not infringe upon the rights of the doctor, just as to give a fella a bag of beans does not infringe upon the rights of the farmer.

You are suggesting that people will be subjugated to contribute the products of their labor to their community when they manufacture an item or offer a service. Not true.

One who shares in the collective wealth of one's community will not have qualms about contributing to that wealth. A higher entity will not "steal" the goods one produces and "give" it to everyone else.

What I meant was that no single person or group of people will have the right to claim the products of one's labor.

The products of one's labor will not be "traded" for a wage that's worth a fraction of said product. Such a "trade" is the result of subjugation of one's labor by capital. To abolish capital simply deprives men of their "right" to subjugate the labor of others.

For the people as a whole to make use of one's labor does not result in the subjugation of that man's labor since capital and the means of production never are concentrated in the hands of individuals.