Freedom?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Is this freedom?

I live in a 112 square feet apartment, I have little or no proper food, and today, the doctor took what little money I have left. Oh, I actually forgot, free healthcare is 20 000 miles away. I was supposed to buy some medicine today, but I cannot afford it. I live in the same shithole, and although I try to escape from reality with movies, I cannot afford them anymore. I can barely afford renting movies, let alone buying one. Every day I walk inside a store close by. I look at movies I would like to see: Scarface, The Interpreter. The rest seem to be faceless, unoriginal crap from Hollywood. I walk home after work, no energy to prepare a meal. The microwave will do the job. Zapping my food with radiation, I don't know, we never learn at school what happens inside there, anyways.

And even if I do have money, it's always the same boring things. We are surrounded by chain stores. The same product in every store. Same tea, same fruit, same desert, same meat, same vegetables. How about movies? Same movies everywhere. Hollywood, Hollywood, Hollywood. I would like to see the movie "Strawberry and Chocolate", but it is Cuban, so... It's all about Hollywood. Even so, there is no strawberry or chocolate for me. It's the same old shit.

If you want lemon tea? Twinings™. If you want Strawberry and Mango? Twinings™. Apple and Cinnamon? Twinnings™. Maybe Lipton© once in a while, but my guess is that it is usually Twinings™.

And how about newspapers? If I one day will travel around in the world, I will see the same newspapers and comedy books. You will see the same posters, the same brands. I remember visiting Portugal, but walking in a mall there was just like walking in my hometown. It's tragic. Monoculture.


Is this the freedom you talk about?

[Elect Marx]

No, this is sad and horrible; the conditions of class oppression :(

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Freedom is really hot right now.

[Publius]

What then, do you propose to better your lot in life?

Communism?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What then, do you propose to better your lot in life?

A better life (see: system) where my needs are met. Freedom from want. Freedom from poverty and economic problems.



Communism?
If possible, yes. Whatever works, really. But the status quo is unacceptable.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Freedom is really hot right now.

Yes, "freedom" is really hot. So hot you will suffer from third degree burns. Why do you support a system that put people in situations like this? Why would you want people to live in these conditions?

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 01:16 PM
Is this freedom?

I live in a 112 square metre, I have little or no proper food, and today, the doctor took what little money I have left. Oh, I actually forgot, free healthcare is 20 000 miles away. I was supposed to buy some medicine today, but I cannot afford it. I live in the same shithole, and although I try to escape from reality with movies, I cannot afford them anymore. I can barely afford renting movies, let alone buying one. Every day I walk inside a store close by. I look at movies I would like to see: Scarface, The Interpreter. The rest seem to be faceless, unoriginal crap from Hollywood. I walk home after work, no energy to prepare a meal. The microwave will do the job. Zapping my food with radiation, I don't know, we never learn at school what happens inside there, anyways.

And even if I do have money, it's always the same boring things. We are surrounded by chain stores. The same product in every store. Same tea, same fruit, same desert, same meat, same vegetables. How about movies? Same movies everywhere. Hollywood, Hollywood, Hollywood. I would like to see the movie "Strawberry and Chocolate", but it is Cuban, so... It's all about Hollywood. Even so, there is no strawberry or chocolate for me. It's the same old shit.

If you want lemon tea? Twinings™. If you want Strawberry and Mango? Twinings™. Apple and Cinnamon? Twinnings™. Maybe Lipton© once in a while, but my guess is that it is usually Twinings™.

And how about newspapers? If I one day will travel around in the world, I will see the same newspapers and comedy books. You will see the same posters, the same brands. I remember visiting Portugal, but walking in a mall there was just like walking in my hometown. It's tragic. Monoculture.


Is this the freedom you talk about?
what are you complaining about microwaved food? that you cant see Scarface? if you are arguing for communism your post goes nowhere and your points are weak and off point. you have freedom, you have the choice of what you watch, eat, and do in your time. who really cares if they sell the same newspapers in one area compared to another.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 01:40 PM
Is this the freedom you talk about?
what are you complaining about microwaved food?
Microwave food is the low quality food the working class eats; so others can enjoy everything else... that is some freedom.


that you cant see Scarface? if you are arguing for communism your post goes nowhere and your points are weak and off point.

The point is very clear, unless you are diverting attention to a non-existent argument for communism. Why don't you address the points he DID make?

Some freedom, when you aren't even allowed to watch a movie...


you have freedom, you have the choice of what you watch, eat, and do in your time.

Sure; if you ignore that you just stated he cannot watch what he wants. Way to contradict yourself Mr. Bullshit Addict.


who really cares if they sell the same newspapers in one area compared to another.

People that don't like to read mind-numbing low quality propaganda?

[KC]

Microwave food is the low quality food the working class eats; so others can enjoy everything else... that is some freedom.

Oh please. Mircowave food is the low quality food the lazy person eats. It doesn't take much longer to make a damned sandwich; it just takes more work.



Some freedom, when you aren't even allowed to watch a movie...

I agree that most of these arguments are pretty poor. Maybe you need to learn to manage money. Maybe you need to get a job so you can get money.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 07:02 PM






A better life (see: system) where my needs are met. Freedom from want. Freedom from poverty and economic problems.

Your needs are being met, according to your account there.

People can't be free from poverty until more wealth is produced. Does socialism magically make everyone instantly rich?

Or does it just spread around existing wealth?

And there is never freedom from economic problems. It would take someone as economically naive is a leftist to think such a thing.

Leftists have no cognition of how economies actually work.


If possible, yes. Whatever works, really. But the status quo is unacceptable.

Why, because you aren't happy?

Tell me this, why don't you have more money?

[KC]

Tell me this, why don't you have more money?


No job!

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 02:08 PM


Microwave food is the low quality food the working class eats; so others can enjoy everything else... that is some freedom.

Oh please. Mircowave food is the low quality food the lazy person eats. It doesn't take much longer to make a damned sandwich; it just takes more work.
That is assuming a person has time to make a damn sandwich! Maybe they are rushing home for lunch and have 20 min to eat and go. You make a lot of assumptions. Taking time isn't always an option.
Don't forget, some people might be sick of sandwiches and a pizza (or other good food) certainly takes too long to bake if you have any time constraints.



Some freedom, when you aren't even allowed to watch a movie...

I agree that most of these arguments are pretty poor. Maybe you need to learn to manage money. Maybe you need to get a job so you can get money.

What a shitty response... "you need to learn to manage money... you need to get a job so you can get money." Are decent jobs falling from the sky where you live? Do you have accountants everywhere waiting to teach you? You should be able to do whatever work you want with only the effort required to sustain yourself, THAT would be freedom.
I can&#39;t belive you just argued "you need to get a job" <_<

[KC]

That is assuming a person has time to make a damn sandwich&#33;

If you don&#39;t have 20 seconds EVER in your life to make a sandwich then you have a problem. You can make your lunch at night before you go to bed; or are you saying that this person has to go to sleep right away so they can wake up at exactly the right time? If you don&#39;t have enough time in your life to make a sandwich then you have way too much going on in your life.



Maybe they are rushing home for lunch and have 20 min to eat and go.

1. I could make a huge list of stuff to eat that would take 5 minutes or less to make that doesn&#39;t involve a microwave.
2. They can make their food the night before like I always did when I was in school.



You make a lot of assumptions. Taking time isn&#39;t always an option.

Yes it is.



Don&#39;t forget, some people might be sick of sandwiches and a pizza (or other good food) certainly takes too long to bake if you have any time constraints.

I&#39;m sick of sanwiches&#33; I want a pizza&#33; It&#39;s capitalism&#39;s fault&#33; :lol: You&#39;re going way too overboard with this whole &#39;blame capitalism&#39; concept.



What a shitty response... "you need to learn to manage money... you need to get a job so you can get money." Are decent jobs falling from the sky where you live?

Did I say "get a decent job"? No. I said get a job. Decent jobs are hard to find. Jobs, however, are everywhere. Better working at McDonald&#39;s than not working at all&#33;


Do you have accountants everywhere waiting to teach you? You should be able to do whatever work you want with only the effort required to sustain yourself, THAT would be freedom.
I can&#39;t belive you just argued "you need to get a job"

Well, when someone complains about not having money, and they don&#39;t have a job, I consider it the most obvious solution to their problem. Don&#39;t you?

[quincunx5]

I live in a 112 square metre


OK, now you are being inconsistent. In another thread you said you live in a 112 sq ft apartment. That is why I was so confused how you can have a kitchen and bathroom.

But if you indeed live in a 112 sq m apartment ( = 1200 sq ft), well then you are a rich son of a *****. I have lived in apartments all my life, and never had I had the luxury of so much space. I get along just fine living in a 720 sq ft apartment with another adult and child. I don&#39;t know how much you pay for this apartment, but I pay 70% of my disposable monthly income. Yet I can still afford to feed two other people, and drive a car. And yes, I am lower middle class.

You have no right to complain.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I&#39;m sorry, I meant feet.

The point of this thread is not to moan, but to use a common example. A working class life is filled with these things. Worries, economic problems, restrictions, poverty, long working days, etc.

Freedom of economic problems? Freedom from a decent life?

Where is the freedom? You always talk about "freedom", like it is the oxygen of humanity. Then show me freedom&#33; Show us freedom&#33; Where is it? Under the pile of bills? Safely placed under the stack of medicine we cannot afford?

[KC]

Get a job.

[Master Che]

Exactly Capitalism sucks. Here in Brazil it used to be like this.

"A man here works 12 hours a day and he still live&#39;s in the slum&#39;s and has to share a can of beans and a pound of rice with his family. While some rich son of a ***** in a mansion can have all the Wine and Lobster he wants."

[quincunx5]

A working class life is filled with these things. Worries, economic problems, restrictions, poverty, long working days, etc.

Freedom of economic problems? Freedom from a decent life?

Where is the freedom? You always talk about "freedom", like it is the oxygen of humanity. Then show me freedom&#33; Show us freedom&#33; Where is it? Under the pile of bills? Safely placed under the stack of medicine we cannot afford?


You are a student, right?

At this point in your life you are doing something selfish.

You are not serving the needs of others (by working), rather you are serving your
own needs (learning).

Even more so, someone else is serving your needs (teachers).

What do you expect?

Apparently too much.
---
There is no freedom as long as there are governments. Get rid of them, and the freedom will come pouring in.



Exactly Capitalism sucks. Here in Brazil it used to be like this.


It&#39;s not real capitalism, it&#39;s state-captalism (government).

[Master Che]

State-capitalist my ass. Brazil used to be one of the most Neo Capitalist nation&#39;s untill the Communist&#39;s gained more power and support.

[KC]

Exactly Capitalism sucks. Here in Brazil it used to be like this.

"A man here works 12 hours a day and he still live&#39;s in the slum&#39;s and has to share a can of beans and a pound of rice with his family. While some rich son of a ***** in a mansion can have all the Wine and Lobster he wants."

There&#39;s a big difference. This man is working 12 hours a day. NWOG isn&#39;t working at all.



You are a student, right?

At this point in your life you are doing something selfish.

Not really.



You are not serving the needs of others (by working), rather you are serving your
own needs (learning).

Even more so, someone else is serving your needs (teachers).

He is serving society&#39;s needs. The teacher is serving society&#39;s needs. That is selfish?



There is no freedom as long as there are governments. Get rid of them, and the freedom will come pouring in.

Could you please support this with some evidence? I have yet to see any that supports your outrageous claim.




It&#39;s not real capitalism, it&#39;s state-captalism (government).

Grab a dictionary. State-capitalism is capital in the hands of the state. Capital isn&#39;t in the hands of the state; it is in the hands of the owners of the means of production (who isn&#39;t the state)&#33; You&#39;re an idiot.

[Freedom Works]

The teacher is serving society&#39;s needs. That is selfish?
A capitalist is serving society&#39;s needs. That is selfish?

[quincunx5]

He is serving society&#39;s needs. The teacher is serving society&#39;s needs. That is selfish?


I said &#39;currently&#39;. He is not serving anyone else&#39;s needs but his own. How is this even debatable?

I can study the tribal rituals of some primitive cultures, but why should that be considered serving others? It is not and will not until I look for a job based on this very important knowledge.

How does one expect to have current wealth if one is not engaged in creating it?



Could you please support this with some evidence? I have yet to see any that supports your outrageous claim.


Not on this thread. Read other threads.



Grab a dictionary. State-capitalism is capital in the hands of the state. Capital isn&#39;t in the hands of the state; it is in the hands of the owners of the means of production (who isn&#39;t the state)&#33; You&#39;re an idiot.


So the capital collected through taxation is not in the hands of the state? Pure genius.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:23 PM

Could you please support this with some evidence? I have yet to see any that supports your outrageous claim.


Not on this thread. Read other threads.
Ah; that one thread where you have proven all of your points scientifically? Yes, please do point that thread out or admit that you are simply avoiding the issue because you cannot make a rational argument for your ideological contradictions.

[quincunx5]

Ah; that one thread where you have proven all of your points scientifically? Yes, please do point that thread out or admit that you are simply avoiding the issue because you cannot make a rational argument for your ideological contradictions.


Are you to tell me that I&#39;ve only participated in one thread? Get real.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:34 PM


Ah; that one thread where you have proven all of your points scientifically? Yes, please do point that thread out or admit that you are simply avoiding the issue because you cannot make a rational argument for your ideological contradictions.


Are you to tell me that I&#39;ve only participated in one thread? Get real.
Yeah; whatever, you&#39;ve shown no proof because you are a liar and resort to baseless assertions in place of rational arguments, trying to back up your retoric.

[quincunx5]

Yeah; whatever, you&#39;ve shown no proof because you are a liar and resort to baseless assertions in place of rational arguments, trying to back up your retoric.


And you are better?

Why do you resort to ad hominem attacks when you feel I&#39;m witholding something from you?

Why do you feel the need to pollute this thread?

I thought you were a moderator, not an instigator. I think someone gave you too much responsibility.

[KC]

Could you please support this with some evidence? I have yet to see any that supports your outrageous claim.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:37 PM


Yeah; whatever, you&#39;ve shown no proof because you are a liar and resort to baseless assertions in place of rational arguments, trying to back up your retoric.


And you are better?

Why do you resort to ad hominem attacks when you feel I&#39;m witholding something from you?

Why do you feel the need to pollute this thread?

I thought you were a moderator, not an instigator. I think someone gave you too much responsibility.
This is completely inane; I have questioned your baseless assertions and you have dodged. If you have anything else to say about this, feel free to PM me.
If you post anything not topic oriented, I will give you warning points for every incident of spam.
Before you make the point; all my "polution" responses were directed toward your rhetoric, so you were the one "pollut this thread," but if you can prove me wrong, again, PM me and I will retract my statement and if you don&#39;t trust me; you can PM another Mod so they can assure you have a valid point, I welcome [i]valid criticism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I&#39;m still interested in that scientific evidence. If you don&#39;t present it I&#39;ll take it as a concession on your part.

So much for the "human nature" argument.

[KC]

Could you please support this with some evidence? I have yet to see any that supports your outrageous claim.

[quincunx5]

I&#39;m still interested in that scientific evidence. If you don&#39;t present it I&#39;ll take it as a concession on your part.


What a great tool of debate. Assume the default position of your opponent is wrong.

One does not need scientific evidence to prove something is not scientific. One only needs to attack the axioms.

In fact, socialism is based upon WRONG axioms. One cannot really prove something is unscientific if it&#39;s built upon wrong axioms. Science is what you get after extrapolation the axioms.

How can one prove scientifically that there is no god? When all scientific evidence tell you that humans feel all warm and fuzzy in the central portions of their brain when they think about god, whether or not they believe in it. Existence of god is axiomatic. Some accept it and others don&#39;t (like me).

Think of all the various beliefs in history that were at the time considered scientific. New found science did not eliminate them by extending their ideas, rather it proved that the axioms were wrong.

To attack socialism is to attack it&#39;s central axioms.

You might not see it, you might excuse people for their ignorance, but I think that the typical person can see that the roots of socialism are not sound.



So much for the "human nature" argument.


I didn&#39;t bring it up. But it always applies.

[bezdomni]

"Friends, I&#39;m here to free you from your complicated lives....the complicated part...not the lives part..."

Sorry. Couldn&#39;t resist.


To solve your problems:
1. Find people under your same conditions (not hard).
2. Befriend them.
3. Arm them.
4. Have other people repeat steps 1-3.
5. Have a coup - introduce socialism.
6. Rise and repeat. o_O

Don&#39;t just sit here and be passive about it. Do something&#33; Anything&#33;

Ask for work. If they don&#39;t give you work as for bread. If they don&#39;t give you bread, steal some bread.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What a great tool of debate. Assume the default position of your opponent is wrong.

You made the statement that collectivism is non scientific. The onus is on you to back up your assertion.


In fact, socialism is based upon WRONG axioms. One cannot really prove something is unscientific if it&#39;s built upon wrong axioms. Science is what you get after extrapolation the axioms.

What are these axioms, and how are they wrong?


I didn&#39;t bring it up. But it always applies.

How so?

[quincunx5]

You made the statement that collectivism is non scientific. The onus is on you to back up your assertion.


Indeed, I agree with you there. But let me point out that the thread asked why I "Switched".
It called for an opinion, and I provided one. I did my research and came to my own conclusions. I "Switched".



What are these axioms, and how are they wrong?


Well, for starters, the collectivist views Society as the most important unit.

By adjusting &#39;Society&#39; one can benefit or influenece the individuals that comprise it.
By controlling (in various ways) or viewing the economy as a whole one can create real wealth for the individuals that comprise it.

Such a top-down approach is a poor axiom. It does not take into account individual human action.

The individualist obviously views the individual as the most important unit.

By making the each individual happy, he will be able to produce a happy society.
By allowing the individual to engage in his own pursuits, he will create wealth for himself and for others. This is the basis for an economy.

The bottom-up approach is a good axiom since it takes human action into account. There can be no society without the individual.



How so?


Humans act. Always.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The bottom-up approach is a good axiom since it takes human action into account. There can be no society without the individual.

Collectivism vs Individualism is a false dichotomy. Individuals have a right to withdraw from collectives, and collectives in their turn have a right to boot out individuals.
It&#39;s not as if capitalism upholds individualism all that much - "you are what you buy" and similar commercial culture crap.

[quincunx5]

Collectivism vs Individualism is a false dichotomy. Individuals have a right to withdraw from collectives, and collectives in their turn have a right to boot out individuals.


Individuals have a right to withdraw from society? Today?
If that was the case now, why the need for a revolution?

It is not a false dichotomy. It is the basis of difference of thought that separates you and me.
That is why we argue. IT is the basis of argument in most cases on this forum.



It&#39;s not as if capitalism upholds individualism all that much - "you are what you buy" and similar commercial culture crap.


No one forces you to watch TV, and certainly no one forces you to buy anything. An invididual (or groups) can pursuade you that you may need something, but that something never makes you who you are.

You are thinking backwards. Individualism upholds capitalism, not the other way around. It is the prefered form of capitalism - with the utmost freedom.

Don&#39;t confuse what we have today with individualism. Every country today is in essense Socialistic/Collectivistic to various degrees.

[KC]

You are thinking backwards. Individualism upholds capitalism, not the other way around. It is the prefered form of capitalism - with the utmost freedom.

Individualism is a joke, as people are social in nature. Individualism doesn&#39;t include this and that is why it is flawed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Individuals have a right to withdraw from society? Today?
If that was the case now, why the need for a revolution?

Collectives are a part of classless society. They are free associations of (usually, depending on the collective&#39;s function) likeminded individuals.


It is not a false dichotomy. It is the basis of difference of thought that separates you and me.
That is why we argue. IT is the basis of argument in most cases on this forum.

It is a false dichotomy, being in a collective does not prevent you from being an individual, in fact short of rendering you brain dead nobody can take your individuality away from you.


You are thinking backwards. Individualism upholds capitalism, not the other way around. It is the prefered form of capitalism - with the utmost freedom.

Is that why people are made to wear company uniforms/stick to a bullshit "dress code"?

[quincunx5]

Individualism is a joke, as people are social in nature. Individualism doesn&#39;t include this and that is why it is flawed.


The individual comes first, then comes the society. Individuals have learned that they can fulfill their needs best with others. So yes people (individuals) are social in nature.

You are not getting it. The difference of view between individualism and collectivism, is finding the primary mover. Society does not ACT. Individuals ACT. Individuals reflect the society, the society does not reflect the individuals.

---

NoXion, How can you follow



in fact short of rendering you brain dead nobody can take your individuality away from you.


with this



Is that why people are made to wear company uniforms/stick to a bullshit "dress code"?


Are you telling me that people in uniforms are braindead, hence they have lost their individuality?

---

What brand of collectivism do you subscribe to?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are you telling me that people in uniforms are braindead, hence they have lost their individuality?

Pay attention. How can capitalism be held up by individualism if individualism (Real individualism, not the fake commercial individualism you see on the goggle box) is avoided on so many levels?

Nobody can take your individualism away from you, but you can be compelled to adopt some sort of social "veneer" whereby you fit into some subculture of some description.

[quincunx5]

Nobody can take your individualism away from you, but you can be compelled to adopt some sort of social "veneer" whereby you fit into some subculture of some description.


Well, that happens in a any social unit. Like friends, companies, tribes, and nations.

This is no different from the forms of Collectivism you don&#39;t like.

There is nothing you can do from stopping individuals from choosing to act like others.

[KC]

What about the increased homogenization of products? What about big companies forcing other companies out of business (or merging), receiving more customers because the alternative is gone, and continuing to grow? What about the fact that big business is forcing your other choices out of business? What about the fact that because of this there is less choice; there is less individualism?

[Freedom Works]

What about the fact that more enforced private property rights means less Big Business?

[KC]

What will these rights be? How will they be enforced?

[Freedom Works]

What will these rights be?
You own yourself.
You mix your labor with property.
You own property.
You trade property for different property, and become wealthier.


How will they be enforced?
With economic freedom.

[KC]

You own yourself.
You mix your labor with property.
You own property.
You trade property for different property, and become wealthier.



With economic freedom.

How does this stop big business?

[quincunx5]

How does this stop big business?


There is no one (state) to give them non-voluntary tax payer money.

There is no one (state) to tax them arbitrarily as to make it more affordable to reinvest in their business instead of giving more to the real shareholders (dividends).

There is no one (state) to protect them from market competition.

There is no one (state) to enfore monopoloy rights on intellectual property.

EDIT:

There is no one (state) to print funny money for them.

There is no one (state) to bail them out. Period. They are constantly at the mercy of the fickle public.

[KC]

First let me say that my post was in response to Freedumb&#39;s and had nothing to do with abolishment of a state.



There is no one (state) to give them non-voluntary tax payer money.

What&#39;s your point?



There is no one (state) to tax them arbitrarily as to make it more affordable to reinvest in their business instead of giving more to the real shareholders (dividends).


What does this have to do with anything? You&#39;re just *****ing about the state now.



There is no one (state) to protect them from market competition.

How does the state protect big business from market competition now?



There is no one (state) to enfore monopoloy rights on intellectual property.

As there shouldn&#39;t be. But aren&#39;t you for the privatization of everything?



There is no one (state) to print funny money for them.

Funny money?



There is no one (state) to bail them out. Period. They are constantly at the mercy of the fickle public.

And with this, there goes small business&#33;

[LSD]

With economic freedom.

Equivocation.

"Economicf freedom" is an ideal, not a plane. How will this "freedom" protect people&#39;s rights?

How will property rights be maintained without a central monopoloy on force? How will corruption be dealt with? How will organized crime? How will justice be equal if the judge and jury are in the private sector?

In short how does "economic freedom" deal with the very problem caused by "economic freedom", namely inequality.


There is no one (state) to print funny money for them.

Capitalism without money? None at all&#33;? Not even classical laissez-faire "gold standard" nonsense?

What do you want, barter? :o

[KC]

How will property rights be maintained without a central monopoloy on force? How will corruption be dealt with? How will organized crime? How will justice be equal if the judge and jury are in the private sector?


It can&#39;t be&#33;

[Freedom Works]

How does the state protect big business from market competition now?
No way you are saying that with a straight face.


But aren&#39;t you for the privatization of everything?
For real things, not immaterial things.


How will this "freedom" protect people&#39;s rights?
Guns, Private security


How will property rights be maintained without a central monopoloy on force?
Each person protects their property, or trades with another to protect thier property.


How will justice be equal if the judge and jury are in the private sector?
How is it equal in the public sector?


What do you want, barter?
Trading commodity-backed resources is simplified barter.

[quincunx5]

Lazar, you must be kidding me, really.

I gave the precise reasons why businesses are so big today.

It was not done naturally but because of the state.

Companies go out of business when nobody wants their products. Do you find something wrong with this?

Companies merge to provide the economies of scale necessary to have cheaper goods and services. You find something wrong with more and cheaper products for the masses?



And with this, there goes small business&#33;


As well as the big business that can&#39;t satisfy consumer demand.



As there shouldn&#39;t be. But aren&#39;t you for the privatization of everything?


Yes. But intellectual property can never be wholly private.

It makes sense to have private land property because no two people can occupy the same space. It makes no sense to have intellectual property because two or more people can have the same ideas. Ideas themselves can not have economics applied to them. There has never been, and most likely never be a scarcity of ideas.

--



In short how does "economic freedom" deal with the very problem caused by "economic freedom", namely inequality.


You may worry about "inquality" of wealth, but I care for equality of happiness.

More importantly equality can never be achieved if people themselves are different.



Capitalism without money? None at all&#33;? Not even classical laissez-faire "gold standard" nonsense?


I wasn&#39;t aware that one can print gold and attach an arbitrary value to it. It would be nice for you to share this technology with the rest of society.

I specifically meant fiat paper money. Paper money backed by gold is perfectly acceptable and desirable.

[KC]

More importantly equality can never be achieved if people themselves are different.

More importantly racial equality can never be achieved if people themselves are racially differnt.

[quincunx5]

More importantly racial equality can never be achieved if people themselves are racially differnt.


Pathetic strawman.

I&#39;m talking about humans. Humans ACT differently.

Race is a non-issue. It may change the way some ACT sometimes, but it does not change the fact that they do indeed ACT.

[KC]

You completely missed my point. My point was that, regardless of how unequal people are, they should be treated the same. Every person should be subject to the same rules in society that everybody else is. The fact that people are different is irrelevant. Unless you think that by people being born how they are that they deserve more?




It was not done naturally but because of the state.

State or government? They&#39;re not the same.



Companies go out of business when nobody wants their products. Do you find something wrong with this?

Yes I do. Small companies go out of business because people don&#39;t usually want to try their products. They see the corporations&#39; products as "reliable" and just to continue to shop corporate. This restricts room for improvement. Of course, there is also the story of goods that are manipulated so that companies make more money (light bulbs that don&#39;t burn out, stockings that don&#39;t rip, etc...). These products are made shitty by the companies so they can continue to make money off of it. By your theory, someone should&#39;ve already opened a business selling these products. But they haven&#39;t. Why? Because people won&#39;t buy their products. Because corporate products are "more reliable". They "know what they&#39;re getting."



Companies merge to provide the economies of scale necessary to have cheaper goods and services. You find something wrong with more and cheaper products for the masses?

Yes. The contradiction between low prices and human rights is what will cause capitalism to come crashing down.



As well as the big business that can&#39;t satisfy consumer demand.


Yes. This will happen very often, seeing as how big business is already big when anarcho-capitalism would take effect.


It makes no sense to have intellectual property because two or more people can have the same ideas. Ideas themselves can not have economics applied to them. There has never been, and most likely never be a scarcity of ideas.

But there is a finite amount of people in the world. During each person&#39;s lifetime, they can only have a finite amount of ideas. Knowing this, we can say that the number of ideas is finite. It is scarce&#33;



You may worry about "inquality" of wealth, but I care for equality of happiness.

Go tell that to the indonesians that made your tampons.

[Freedom Works]

My point was that, regardless of how unequal people are, they should be treated the same.
If they are lazy and refuse to work, they still deserve &#39;necessities&#39;?


State or government? They&#39;re not the same.
It doesn&#39;t matter. Both use idiotic economic arguments to justify enforcement of their will.


Small companies go out of business because people don&#39;t usually want to try their products.
Hahaha, pure idiocy. Normally they go out of business because they have trouble getting through all the mercantilist red tape, or the business people running them simply aren&#39;t good business people.


Of course, there is also the story of goods that are manipulated so that companies make more money (light bulbs that don&#39;t burn out, stockings that don&#39;t rip, etc...). These products are made shitty by the companies so they can continue to make money off of it. By your theory, someone should&#39;ve already opened a business selling these products. But they haven&#39;t. Why? Because people won&#39;t buy their products.
Has to do with the red tape causing lack of competition, or because the stories are simply false.


Yes. The contradiction between low prices and human rights is what will cause capitalism to come crashing down.
Prices are low DESPITE the rights being violated(which are violated by "government"), not because of them&#33;


But there is a finite amount of people in the world. During each person&#39;s lifetime, they can only have a finite amount of ideas. Knowing this, we can say that the number of ideas is finite. It is scarce&#33;
You don&#39;t seem to understand the argument. They are scarce in the way that if I see you utilize an idea some way, and I utilize it too, you still have the idea - it is NOT scarce.


Go tell that to the indonesians that made your tampons.
I&#39;m sure their lives were much better before the company came along and offered higher wages and/or better working conditions&#33;

[KC]

If they are lazy and refuse to work, they still deserve &#39;necessities&#39;?


No.



It doesn&#39;t matter. Both use idiotic economic arguments to justify enforcement of their will.


The state is a bourgeois monopoly on violence. You&#39;re against that?



Hahaha, pure idiocy. Normally they go out of business because they have trouble getting through all the mercantilist red tape, or the business people running them simply aren&#39;t good business people.


Hahaha, pure idiocy. I know a friend who had a restaurant across the street from a Ponderosa. Their prices were lower and their food was better than Ponderosa. The restaurant was always spotless, the food was delicious, the people were friendly (hardly what you&#39;d expect at a corporate place such as Ponderosa). They went out of business in less than a year. Why? Because people think Ponderosa is "more reliable".



Has to do with the red tape causing lack of competition, or because the stories are simply false.


If you have the money, and can accept the risks, starting a business is easy. And the stories are true.



Prices are low DESPITE the rights being violated(which are violated by "government"), not because of them&#33;


Government is a tool of big business&#33; Get a fucking clue&#33;



I&#39;m sure their lives were much better before the company came along and offered higher wages and/or better working conditions&#33;

Yes.

[Freedom Works]

No.
Good.


The state is a bourgeois monopoly on violence. You&#39;re against that?
I am against the initiation of force.


I know a friend who had a restaurant across the street from a Ponderosa. Their prices were lower and their food was better than Ponderosa. The restaurant was always spotless, the food was delicious, the people were friendly (hardly what you&#39;d expect at a corporate place such as Ponderosa). They went out of business in less than a year. Why? Because
people think Ponderosa is "more reliable".
Exceptions do not prove a rule.


If you have the money, and can accept the risks, starting a business is easy.
Sure STARTING a business is easy, but running one is not. What kind of communist are you?&#33;


And the stories are true.
Prove it.


Government is a tool of big business&#33; Get a fucking clue&#33;
They affect each other, but "government" came before big business.

[KC]

Exceptions do not prove a rule.


The point is that it isn&#39;t the exception.



Sure STARTING a business is easy, but running one is not.


Running a business isn&#39;t hard; it&#39;s time consuming.


What kind of communist are you?&#33;

What do you mean by that?



They affect each other, but "government" came before big business.

Government might have come before big business, but the role of government has changed. Government is now a puppet for big business.