What is Capitalism Based On?

[Imperial Power]

What is Capitalism based on?

Is Capitalism invented out of thin air by the rich and powerful so they can steal more from the poor and weak?
Nonsense. Under Captialism, the more wealthy people the better. Otherwise who buys the products?

Capitalism is founded on a proper understanding of Man's nature: The existence of inalienable individual rights.
The validity of individual rights rests on the recognition that man is a rational being and has the capacity to discover truth on his own – without the need for a king or mystical revelation to guide him. Man is an individual. No one else can think or eat or breath for him. He has no automatic knowledge of right or wrong. Each man can and must think for himself, choose his own course in life – and act accordingly. (Throughout history, the beliefs held about man's mind determined the form of government.)

Individual rights can only be recognized by government – not granted. Individual rights are inalienable; they exist whether or not a government says so. Individuals do not live for or at the permission of the state. The state is created by individuals for the purpose of individuals -- to secure each individual's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (Not guarantee happiness.)

If you start with the premise of individual rights, there are specific requirements to guarantee that one can exercise those rights. These are the next logical step from individual rights:
Private Property
Free Markets
Rule of Law
These form the cornerstones of Capitalism.

Capitalism can be understood by just rationally considering a child with a lemonade stand:
She must be able to buy or grow her ingredients.
She must be able set her own prices and sell to whomever she chooses – to her friends and not to the bully who lives down the street who threatens her.
And if the bully steals the lemonade or knocks over her stand, she should be able to rely on the police to catch him.
If she could rely on these -- nor on keep her earnings, why would she go into business? How could any business survive in the long-term?
Summary:
Capitalism is a system of politics.
It arises from the following simple systematic understanding:
Man is an individual and reason is his means of knowledge.
Individual rights recognize man's need to act individually on his knowledge.
Private property, free markets, and rule of law institute and protect individual rights.
Capitalism is the system of government which implements these principles. Nothing more, nothing less.

[vox]

"Capitalism is founded on a proper understanding of Man's nature: The existence of inalienable individual rights."

Okay, objectivist. Why are they "inalienable?" Use only reason to answer, please.

vox (so much smarter than the capitalists)

[peaccenicked]

Thin air.
Here is our old comrade.
http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1.../Part8/ch31.htm (http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1867-C1/Part8/ch31.htm)

[vox]

No response for this, imperialist? One might draw the conclusion that you are a fool who knows not what he copies and pastes, and that's the best conclusion. Others may think you a terrible coward for starting threads and not answering them.

vox

[Imperial Power]

Vox, Vox, Vox does mommy need to change your diapers? I support what I say Vox It just gets to hard for you to keep believing in the socialist ideal when I point out the obvious shortfalls.

[peaccenicked]

IP. you dont make sense
What is the socialist ideal?
Do we understand it differently
You have a 'superior' understanding of it.
How come your understanding of it exactly
matchs that of Bush.
Why don' you just say Bush has a superior understanding of Socialism which after all is the same as Clinton's the same as Reagans and the same as Doles.
The trouble is we have a superior understanding of them
and of you
Why the Pornography of Power?

The few people out there (and I mean few) who support a Bob Dole presidential candidacy this year say that despite Dole's smelly inside-the-Beltway corruption, myriad political failings and numerous personal character flaws, Bob Dole has the necessary "fire in the belly" for the Presidency, that certain indefinable something that drives him forward ceaselessly, despite his being older than the Ancient California Redwoods.

It's true. Bob Dole does have fire in his belly. But it's not indefinable at all. And it's definitely not anything that American voters will want. The fire in Bob Dole's belly is simply a raw, unadulterated and insatiable lust for power. Bob Dole wants power and he wants it now. And that is why he desperately wants to be President of the United States, the most powerful political office in the world. In fact, Dole has been trying to be President since the 70's!

Yes, you read that right: since the 70's. He ran as the Republican party's Vice President, just a "heartbeat away from the Presidency", on the ticket with Gerald Ford in 1976, in which they lost. Dole then wrestled with Ronald Reagan for the presidential nomination of the Republican party, in 1980, and lost. Then, he tried to beat George Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988. And again, he lost. But old Bob Dole wasn't done yet. He arrived at the Republican convention in '88 with hat in hand, begging Bush for a slot as his Vice President. Of course, Bush would have none of that, and promptly sent Dole packing, with his tail between his legs.

Bob Dole just kept on losing. And he didn't take it well at all, yelling and screaming at his staff after news of each of his defeats like a spoiled brat who didn't get his ice cream cone. And in a truly cowardly fashion, Dole would blame his staff, not himself, for his failures.

Not only that, the last time that Dole lost his bid for MORE POWER, he is said to have had his limousine driver take him in front of the White House, where he would stare longingly at the White Palace of Power that will never be his, but which he craved so badly. A craving as intense and as burning as any junkie's. Kind of scary, isn't it? It appears that the fire in Bob Dole's belly has spread through his body and melted his brain! If power (or the lust for power) really is the Ultimate Aphrodisiac, as Henry Kissinger said, then Bob Dole must be one horny bastard.

Yes, power seems to have a peculiar effect on ol' Tobacco Bob. In fact, longtime Dole watchers who have seen him claw and tear his way to the top of American politics as (former) Senate Majority Leader, will tell you that during some of Dole's unguarded moments, when he's really enjoying his power over the American people, he dances a little jig, his eyes roll back into his head as it tilts toward the sky and a creepy, crooked grin slithers across his face as a maniacal cackle of glee comes spitting out of his mouth. At times like these, Dole's staffers on the Hill usually pace around nervously, look the other way and pretend nothing is happening, all the while praying to Sweet Jesus for it just to end.

Yes folks, the Lust for Power is a disgusting thing to watch. But, Dole as pathetic as he is, is not alone in his thirst for power. Not by a long shot. It's just that he is less adept at hiding his true power-hungry nature than most politicians; politicians like, say...Bill Clinton.

But, Dole and Clinton are only two examples. Obviously, the list goes on and on. In fact, this lust for power is probably the one tie that binds most of the world's politicians. It is truly a sad state of affairs, but the terrible truth of the matter is that ruthless, bloodthirsty, autocratic types are attracted to politics (which almost by definition is the exercise of power), like flies are attracted to a piece of rotting meat. This is true even in democracies. Hell, especially in democracies.

These types of people can be Officially Classified as Fiends for Power. Many are sociopaths. And in a saner world, they'd all be locked up in a Maximum Security prison deep in the cold heart of the frozen tundra of Siberia, with no conjugal visits and very limited bathroom privileges, instead of running countries.

But these crazed power-junkies are running countries. This is why, as noted science fiction author and political observer Neal Stephenson has said, "Governments have been the main engines of slaughter in this century." Make that any century.

Pretty sickening isn't it? In fact, it's downright pornographic. And that is why the title of this Web Site is, and the theme running through future columns will be, The Pornography of Power. This phrase was coined by Progressive journalist Robert Scheer. In three words, it beautifully describes the Nature of Politics (at least, as it is too often practiced), and helps to explain why so many politicians do the nasty things that they do.

[bleed3r]

simple illogical excuses, i doubt IP would ever submit a simple "point conceded". too stubborn for that. after all, it's the american way!

[Imperial Power]

Vox inalienable rights are those which should not be taken away from anyone. Such as the right to free speech, voting, liberty, and assorted others that if a person didn't have would be considered oppresion. The lower class is not being oppresed because they have the same basic rights as everyone. They have the ability to rise up and make more out there lives then beign locked into a socialist system where everyone lives as the lower class.

[Moskitto]

your confusing socialism with fuedelism. I socialism there are no classes so there is no lower class that you are locked into.

[Imperial Power]

Moskitto I am refering to reality not theoretically.

[Moskitto]

so was I.

[peaccenicked]

The reality of stalinism is not the reality of socialism.
No matter how much you repeat your lies no socialist
is going to believe you. People of sense will thake note of how we define things. Not what you like the grand inquistion define as devil worship.
Because you can not argue with socialism, you argue with stalinism.
WE DO NOT WANT STALINISM .
you are delibrately falsifying our position
and are too cowardly too face our real one.
Superior reasoning here=intellectual bullying.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:38 pm on Feb. 4, 2002)

[Markxs]

corporate lie imperialism flies.
equality amongst the wealthy,
lower class aint never going to be healhty.
under the capitalist system,
your only wisdom.
is going to be
the love of inequality.
tv spreading lies,
the world dies.
loving presidents and there late light night jerry springer democracy.
is power to the hypcrocisy.
for ppl trying to tell us ignorance is bless.
your lives will be a mess.
full of inequality fake happiness and disbelieve.
for the power you must concieve.
the fact that makes you human.
is not that we are consuming.
usa cant keep blaming others for their mistakes,
its time that we let this infernal machine hits it brakes.
when your old and dying,
nobody will be crying.
you will be a man who missed its call,
if you dont want equality for all.
its not to late to convert and start living,
your strength will be not greed but giving.
without expecting anything in return.
without fearing a god which will make you burn.
revolt everybodies mind,
and feel instantly devined!!!!!!!!

[vox]

imperialist, you poor clown. I didn't ask for a definition, I asked WHY these rights are inalienable, from an Objectivist standpoint, something you gloriously failed to even attempt to address. Try reading for content, boy.

Now, I await your reply.

vox

[Hayduke]

Its based on money

[vox]

Dance for us, clown.

At least try to answer the question.

Can't you give a philosophical defense, from an Objectivist stance, for "inalienable" human rights?

I don't think you can, and you haven't even tried!!!

So dance, clown, dance.

vox

[Moskitto]

I just love it,

Intellectuals
Why is capitalism so despised, maligned, and misrepresented by the intellectuals in our universities?
The intellectuals despise Capitalism because it is completely in opposition to their basic, philosophical principles.

Capitalism is the system of individual rights; the intellectuals on all sides are for some form of collectivism. Capitalism is the system of individualism, self-interest and happiness; the intellectuals are for altruism, self-sacrifice, and misery. Capitalism is pro-reason; the intellectuals are steeped in mysticism and subjectivism. Capitalism is is a social system for living in reality; a reality which the intellectuals despise, or whose existence they deny.

No wonder the bulk of the intellectuals who infect today's universities are against Capitalism -- it represents the antithesis of everything they stand for. How could they not be?

[Hayduke]

the rise of some of the rich in your cappie system means the downfall for so many others...........
Its nothing more then a fairy tale a fairy tale without the happy end

[CPK]

still no reply...

[vox]

Yep, CPK.

Still no reply.

But then, what is to be expected of the intellectually disempowered?

vox

[vox]

And still, after days, he has nothing to say!

But did he ever?

vox

[Imperial Power]

Vox

Certain rights are inalienable because without them people can not live their lives in freedom. I don't understand your stupidity. How anyone does not know why certain rights are inalienable or for that matter cannot figure it out in their mind shows there ignorance and non-existant intilect. In vox's case his debate skills hinge on saying "you dont know" "your dumb" "I'm vox I have nothing to say except Hee". You continually show everyone your inability to say any real information except trying to harass other members into submission. That shit doesn't work with me and everyone else can see your inability to defend your issue.

[peaccenicked]

certain rights are inalienable.
thats a nice ideal.
how do you stand on the death penalty?

(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:33 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)

[Nateddi]

The republican party only loves you when you are a fetus.

[Imperial Power]

On the death penalty I am undecided. In some cases I think it is appropriate. In some I dont think it is best. I also don't want murderers to sit comfortable in a cell. Perhaps a prisoner exchange program with Siberia for our murderers would be a better punishment.

[El Che]

quote from IP
I'm vox I have nothing to say except Hee".

LOL funny. However vox is right, u just dont understand what he is saying... to many big words eh? Hee!

(Edited by El Che at 9:10 pm on Feb. 14, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

So you do not defend there inalienable right to life.
ie it becomes possibly alienable.
Not all humans hold alienable rights
only those who are not murderers. Surely you should
be against the death penalty if you hold that all humans hold alienable rights.

[Imperial Power]

I believe in the right to fair trial.

[peaccenicked]

"THE CRISIS OF COMPETENT COUNSEL IN DEATH PENALTY CASES IS WELL DOCUMENTED:
Calling for an immediate moratorium on executions, the ABA found that "grossly unqualified and undercompensated lawyers who have nothing like the support necessary to mount an adequate defense are often appointed to represent capital clients."
A National Law Journal study found that trial lawyers for defendants sentenced to death in 6 states were disbarred or disciplined at a rate 3 to 46 times the general discipline rates for those states.
Nearly 100 people sentenced to death since 1973 have subsequently been fully exonerated.
2 out of every 3 death sentences that were appealed between 1973 and 1995 were eventually overturned; egregiously incompetent representation at trial was the single most common cause of reversal"
you only seem to beileve in ideals and have no insight into reality of poverty in
the US.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 9:07 pm on Feb. 15, 2002)

[reagan lives]

Retributivistic theory of punishment. Read Kant for the authority.

[Moskitto]

There are 4 aims of punishment

Retribution - T take revenge.
Deterence - To deter others from commiting the crime by making an example of them.
Protection - To protect others from crime.
Rehabilitation - To reform criminals into decent members of society.

The problem with the death penalty is that, although it is the ultimate in retribution and also provides protection. It makes a mockery of the idea of rehabilitation and has never been shown to be an effective deterant particularly evidence from Canada.

Annother problem with the death penalty. In the UK public opinion is greatly twisted by the media. There is huge outcry that the James Bulger killers have been released, but their crimes were no worse than many other murderers. Murdering a 2 year old is wrong, but what about if you were 10? you aren't much older yourself. Infact annother case like this happened a few years later and the accused girl (13) was given a lighter sentance because she had severe learning difficulties. Annother thing is that this media frenzy was about "the Bulger family's rights." What wasn't mentioned was that the father said release them. People seem to forget that a lot of stuff that was published in the newspapers turned out to be frauds. For example the report on a fight at the youth offenders institute, or the stories about the killers depraving sexual acts. I would hate to see what it would be like if we had the death penalty.

[Imperial Power]

Moskitto If you know you will receive the death penalty for murder I'm sure it stops many crimes.

[Moskitto]

Statistics from Canada showed that it didn't make much difference, Infact the murder rates in Canada went down after the abolition of the death penalty. Also Britain has one of the lowest murder rates in the world and no death penalty.

The thing is, people who commit rage murders generally don't suddenly stop to think as they're about to pull the trigger. so a death penalty would be unlikely to deter them.

Some serial killers might be deterred. But many serial killers have psyciatric problems so treatment might be more appropriate.

Spree murderers are often drunk or depressed and generally commit suicide after the event, see Hungerford and Dunblame.

[vox]

"Certain rights are inalienable because without them people can not live their lives in freedom. I don't understand your stupidity. How anyone does not know why certain rights are inalienable or for that matter cannot figure it out in their mind shows there ignorance and non-existant intilect. In vox's case his debate skills hinge on saying "you dont know" "your dumb" "I'm vox I have nothing to say except Hee". You continually show everyone your inability to say any real information except trying to harass other members into submission. That shit doesn't work with me and everyone else can see your inability to defend your issue."

Ah, finally a response!!!

I'm all thrilled and junk. Hee!

However, I'm a bit disappointed, for the response in mostly a personal attack on me and had little to do with anything I've mentioned.

Indeed, all the capi said was "Certain rights are inalienable because without them people can not live their lives in freedom." Not much of a philosophical defense, is it?

C'mon, capi morons. Can't you do any better than this???

Fact is that IP was spouting Objectivist garbage, and now I DEMAND an Objectiivist explanation about "rights."

From what the capi says, it sounds like the gov't, far from just protecting and defending the nation from attack, should also insure the rights without which we can't live, though the great IP didn't define which rights those are.

Again, bluster and wind from the right-winger, rational thought, and glee, from the Left.

They just don't know when they are beaten. They are, as a whole, very pathetic.

vox