On the subject of issuing blame

[CaptainCapitalist68]

If I were to sell a gun or drugs to a child and he kills someone or himself then its my fault.

If I were to have a dog that attacked another person or damages another person's property then its my fault.

If I were to rip of a teenager or a person who is retarded or a in a business transaction then its my fault.

If I were to lean money to a person under 18 and he wasn't able to pay it back then its my fault.



What does a dog, a teenager, a child, a retard, a dog and a person under 18 have in common? They are not smart enough to make many adult based decision but an adult is or at least should be smart enough.

So if an adult buys a home that he can't afford, or buys a gun which he uses to murder others or takes out a loan he can not repay or is stupid enough to sell his labor for a low price then its his fault! (criminals fall under the retard category.)

My point is that unlike a child,a teenager,or a retard, ADULTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS! Ina free society adults, IE people, are responsible to put a roof over their heads, feed themselves and take care of themselves period!

I am not sayign no one should help others, what I am saying is that people should have the choice on whether they want to help others or not.

[Plagueround]

A free society would give people the equal opportunity that when denied, truly limits the choice you care so much about. We do not even give all people the opportunity to be functioning, educated, happy, and responsible children...yet at some point we expect them to play the game as dictated by the people in power.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

(criminals fall under the retard category.)

:rolleyes: As if intelligent people have never broken the law. Newsflash: they have.


I am not sayign no one should help others, what I am saying is that people should have the choice on whether they want to help others or not.

So if a worker gets laid off and can no longer pay the bills, is that his fault?

[freakazoid]

If I were to sell a gun or drugs to a child and he kills someone or himself then its my fault.

LOL, nope.

What Plagueround and NoXion said for the rest.

[Trystan]

Next you'll be saying that Atlas Shrugged is a great piece of literature . . .


:lol::lol::lol:

[apathy maybe]

What does a dog, a teenager, a child, a retard, a dog and a person under 18 have in common? They are not smart enough to make many adult based decision but an adult is or at least should be smart enough.
Wow. Why 18? Why not 21? Why not pick another arbitrary age like 30 to determine adulthood?

Wait, you also contradicted yourself, 19 is still teenager...

I don't know about you, but when I was 16, I was strongly interested in politics, intelligent, and passionate (yes, I wasn't an anarchist, but that's probably because I hadn't learnt about anarchism). So screw you.


So if an adult buys a home that he can't afford, or buys a gun which he uses to murder others or takes out a loan he can not repay or is stupid enough to sell his labor for a low price then its his fault! (criminals fall under the retard category.)
Whoops, there you go again! (As pointed out below...) intelligent people commit crimes! I should know, I am intelligent as at least the average person, and I'm a damn criminal.

And "stupid enough to sell his [what about her] labor for a low price", what if there are no jobs in the economy, no welfare system, and that person has a family to support? I don't think you are the sort of person who is going to advocate dumpster-diving (not that it would support a family necessarily, in any case). What you are doing is setting up two options (criminal, working for little pay), and then saying, "no matter which you pick, you're still stupid!". Just a short step away from saying that all poor people are stupid...

Yeah, I think your argument rests upon assumptions that the capitalism the system actually allows for freedom and fairness. If you are forced to work three jobs just to make ends meet (and your kids are forced to go to school), then there is no way to educate yourself. Then your kids have to drop out of school as soon as they can to get a job, and they can't educate themselves further. (Not to mention, due to the lack of proper sex ed. they don't know about condoms and then have lots of kids themselves!)

Basically, being poor isn't about being stupid. There are a variety of factors, education, children, and poverty. Yes, being poor influences whether you are going to be poor or not.

So yeah, screw you, you're a crazy fucker.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

A free society would give people the equal opportunity that when denied, truly limits the choice you care so much about. We do not even give all people the opportunity to be functioning, educated, happy, and responsible children...yet at some point we expect them to play the game as dictated by the people in power.

A free society does not mean things like food, education, housing, clean water are all free. A free society is a society where people are free to associate or trade with one another. IE people are free from one another in a free society. With freedom comes responsibility and so people most be responsible for themselves because we are all adults. Unlike a savage tribal society where you have no freedom and you live at the mercy of the stronger man.

WHat do you mean by expect them to play the same game?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

:rolleyes: As if intelligent people have never broken the law. Newsflash: they have.

I dont know if you noticed but smart people can do dumb things which make them a retard.

In fact a person can do 1000 good things but if he does one bad thing he will be known for doing that bad thing. IE i cna save 1000 children from stravation but if I rape one children I will be know as a child rapist. thats just the way things are.




So if a worker gets laid off and can no longer pay the bills, is that his fault?

The worker should've had money saved up for such a situation. A while back I was living of 1300 bucks a month all while jumping from job to job and I was still able to afford a computer, TV, internet, cable, go out on the weekends and even my own college education all while still having a few thousand dollars saved in the bank and I am not even the smartest person around! WHats so fuckign hard! I did it! why can't the other man do it too?!?!? WHAT THE FREAK! LOOK IN THE NEWSPAPER AND FIND ANOTHER FREAKING Job!

And such things are going to happen in capitalist society. Its stupdi to think that all companies and all people are going to perform the same. And its even stupider to reward the people or companies who perform bad.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Wow. Why 18? Why not 21? Why not pick another arbitrary age like 30 to determine adulthood?

Wait, you also contradicted yourself, 19 is still teenager...

I don't know about you, but when I was 16, I was strongly interested in politics, intelligent, and passionate (yes, I wasn't an anarchist, but that's probably because I hadn't learnt about anarchism). So screw you.



I guess its different from person to person. I guess not everyone is born a freaking prodigy like you or something. This fact is just further evidence which suggest that not everyone deserves to be rewarded the same.


Whoops, there you go again! (As pointed out below...) intelligent people commit crimes! I should know, I am intelligent as at least the average person, and I'm a damn criminal.





And "stupid enough to sell his [what about her] labor for a low price", what if there are no jobs in the economy, no welfare system, and that person has a family to support? I don't think you are the sort of person who is going to advocate dumpster-diving (not that it would support a family necessarily, in any case). What you are doing is setting up two options (criminal, working for little pay), and then saying, "no matter which you pick, you're still stupid!". Just a short step away from saying that all poor people are stupid...

2 billion people are workign for 2 dollars a day as we speak. You know if I lived in this areas I would've packed up and gotten the fuck out of there. My family in my mom's side did when they were living in a little Mexican village where there was no running water or electricity. Why can't they?

But why is America rich? Answer CAPITALISM!



Yeah, I think your argument rests upon assumptions that the capitalism the system actually allows for freedom and fairness. If you are forced to work three jobs just to make ends meet (and your kids are forced to go to school), then there is no way to educate yourself. Then your kids have to drop out of school as soon as they can to get a job, and they can't educate themselves further. (Not to mention, due to the lack of proper sex ed. they don't know about condoms and then have lots of kids themselves!)


A person shouldn't have freaking kids to begin if he/she can barely meet ends meet. Nor should this behavior be rewarded. Rewarded behavior is learned behavior.




Basically, being poor isn't about being stupid. There are a variety of factors, education, children, and poverty. Yes, being poor influences whether you are going to be poor or not.

So yeah, screw you, you're a crazy fucker.



beign Poor is a freaking sin. Poor people should pay extra taxes for being such an eye sour. Wealthy people should legally have the right to kick them in the ass too. HAHA iam just messing aorund on this paragraph.

Let me say this about poor people. In a capitlist society rich people can become poor and poor people can become rich. Everyone has an opportunity provided they have the ability.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

LOL, nope.

What Plagueround and NoXion said for the rest.

So if I sold a gun or drugs to a child and he hurts himself because of it wouldn't be my fault?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I dont know if you noticed but smart people can do dumb things which make them a retard.

The occasional lapse of good judgement does not make one a retard. If it did, then we'd all be retards as we all do something stupid sooner or later.


In fact a person can do 1000 good things but if he does one bad thing he will be known for doing that bad thing. IE i cna save 1000 children from stravation but if I rape one children I will be know as a child rapist. thats just the way things are.Apples and oranges. A smart person that makes one mistake is not comparable to the child rapist who is otherwise a philanthropist.


The worker should've had money saved up for such a situation. A while back I was living of 1300 bucks a month all while jumping from job to job and I was still able to afford a computer, TV, internet, cable, go out on the weekends and even my own college education all while still having a few thousand dollars saved in the bank and I am not even the smartest person around! WHats so fuckign hard! I did it! why can't the other man do it too?!?!? WHAT THE FREAK! LOOK IN THE NEWSPAPER AND FIND ANOTHER FREAKING Job!1. You assume that everyone earns enough to save, not everyone does.

2. What makes you think people aren't looking for a (better) job? I've applied for all sorts of jobs and have so far been unsuccessful. Employment is not guaranteed under capitalism.


And such things are going to happen in capitalist society. Its stupdi to think that all companies and all people are going to perform the same. And its even stupider to reward the people or companies who perform bad.Layoffs are not always about the performance of the company or it's employees. In times of financial difficulty companies may lay off workers they might otherwise hold on to.

It's one thing not to give workers bonuses - it's quite another to deny them a living wage.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

The occasional lapse of good judgement does not make one a retard. If it did, then we'd all be retards as we all do something stupid sooner or later.

I am talkign about major mistakes like breaking the Law or doing something that is evil not minor mistakes like spilling something on your coat or calling someone bad names.

If I were to go outside right now and kick my neighbor's daughter I would get in serious trouble all because of that mistake.






1. You assume that everyone earns enough to save, not everyone does.

2. What makes you think people aren't looking for a (better) job? I've applied for all sorts of jobs and have so far been unsuccessful. Employment is not guaranteed under capitalism.

The what are you doign typing and havign a computer and internet? this things are luxuries that you shouldn't be able to afford or afford to waste time on.

A person with no high school education, unable to speak english who's not even from around here can geta job. Why can't you? You want a job? Buy a bag of oranges for a whole sale price or grow them some where and sell them in the street corner.

Might not be much money but tis better then nothing.



Layoffs are not always about the performance of the company or it's employees. In times of financial difficulty companies may lay off workers they might otherwise hold on to.

It's one thing not to give workers bonuses - it's quite another to deny them a living wage.

Dude I've seen the dumbest, biggest drug users laziest people able to take care of themselves. I mean if they were able to why can't everyone? If your area sucks then get on a train and move else where.

[Killfacer]

Err one thing. Before you were blaming the person selling the drugs to the kid right? So why when its an "evil bank" selling stuff to people is it suddenly not the sellers fault?

[Killfacer]

You appear to have used loads of examples, then said the opposite of what your examples were saying.

[Killfacer]

Sorry to keep using new posts, but i do not wish to pre-empt what somebody is saying.

Who is in the position of power? Is it the poor customer, who cannot afford to buy a house or is it the millionaire bank who is supposed to have a sound idea of the international banking sector.

It is the banks, not the poor, who are supposed to have good fiscal knowledge. Do you expect every worker in America do have a complete knowledge of the banking system? Or do you, like most of us, beleive that banking should be sorted out by the people payed millions to do it. The reason the examples you gave are true, is because the person in a position of power used their power irresponsibly. Much the same can be said for the credit crunch. The people with the "superior knowledge" of the banking sector, failed to pay attention to sub prime mortages and cocked up big time.

[Bud Struggle]

Err one thing. Before you were blaming the person selling the drugs to the kid right? So why when its an "evil bank" selling stuff to people is it suddenly not the sellers fault?

The differences is the "age" of the buyer. The bank would be "evil" if it were selling mortages to 12 year olds.

Also, if a drug dealer sells heroin to an adult--both the dealer AND the buyer are at fault.

I agree with the Captain's post in general. People have to take responsibility for their own lives and own actions. People have to take responsibility for their own well being and own income. If a person gets laid off, he/she better be ready for the job market and find a new job. It's not society's responsibility to take care of him/her. Now some unemployment pay while people are looking for something else is a valuable charity--and keeps the general flow of society going, but it is hardly something earned.

Society is there to take care of the welfare of society--NOT the individual.

[Bud Struggle]

Who is in the position of power? Is it the poor customer, who cannot afford to buy a house or is it the millionaire bank who is supposed to have a sound idea of the international banking sector. BOTH are in positions of power. Banks are in power to lend what they feel they well get back with interest for their depositors and the customer is in power over what they know they earn and what they feel they can afford to spend. It's really a two way street.


It is the banks, not the poor, who are supposed to have good fiscal knowledge.Of the banking system. But the banking system's operation really doesn't concern the borrower.


Do you expect every worker in America do have a complete knowledge of the banking system? The borrower doesn't need to know the banking system--he is expected to understand that he can't afford a $2000 mortage when he only makes $1500 a month. He has to be responsible for his OWN finances.



The reason the examples you gave are true, is because the person in a position of power used their power irresponsibly. As I said both the borrower and lender were in power and both behaved irrisponsibly.



Much the same can be said for the credit crunch. The people with the "superior knowledge" of the banking sector, failed to pay attention to sub prime mortages and cocked up big time. The problem is there was NO ONE in charge. The government gave up that responsibility when it decided that investment banks could use debt as collateral instead of cash.

The commercial banks weren't in charge because they stopped being lenders and became originators of loans--then bought those loans back AFTER they were securitized by the investment banks--meaning they had no real authority over the loans. And the people that took out mortages weren't in charge because they failed to take charge of their own investments.

All idiots and all now paying the price.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I only read the first post so forgive me if this has been addressed before. But as I understand it the OP is trying to move blame for the credit crunch away from the prevailing economic system and onto the individual. What he neglects to take into account is the large impact that the recent global property bubble has had on the general economy. People were borrowing and putting down their vastly overpriced houses as collateral (houses which were overpriced by the market, not themselves) and then when the bubble burst and the value of their homes collapsed they were left with negative equity, and not enough collateral value to cover the cost of the loan. In objective terms I suppose you could say that they had always been taking out a loan which they couldn't afford, but because of the speculation-based property market there was no way they could have possibly known they couldn't afford it.

[Scarecrow]

Do communists/anarchists/leftists cheer when a police officer is killed by criminals?

Was it a great scene when Officer Murphy got brutally murdered in the movie "Robocop"?

"Yeah! Kill the fascist oppressor cop!"

Just curious.

[Dr Mindbender]

If I were to sell a gun or drugs to a child and he kills someone or himself then its my fault.

If I were to have a dog that attacked another person or damages another person's property then its my fault.

If I were to rip of a teenager or a person who is retarded or a in a business transaction then its my fault.

If I were to lean money to a person under 18 and he wasn't able to pay it back then its my fault.



What does a dog, a teenager, a child, a retard, a dog and a person under 18 have in common? They are not smart enough to make many adult based decision but an adult is or at least should be smart enough.

So if an adult buys a home that he can't afford, or buys a gun which he uses to murder others or takes out a loan he can not repay or is stupid enough to sell his labor for a low price then its his fault! (criminals fall under the retard category.)

My point is that unlike a child,a teenager,or a retard, ADULTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS! Ina free society adults, IE people, are responsible to put a roof over their heads, feed themselves and take care of themselves period!

I am not sayign no one should help others, what I am saying is that people should have the choice on whether they want to help others or not.

not all adults hail from the same circumstances so it's a dishonest analogy.

Yes, if it was an egalitarian society where all people were equal you might have a leg to stand on.

[freakazoid]

So if I sold a gun or drugs to a child and he hurts himself because of it wouldn't be my fault?Why would it be your fault for the actions of the "child"? That is absurd.


Also, if a drug dealer sells heroin to an adult--both the dealer AND the buyer are at fault.At fault for what? What is it anybodies business what I put into my body?


2 billion people are workign for 2 dollars a day as we speak. You know if I lived in this areas I would've packed up and gotten the fuck out of there. My family in my mom's side did when they were living in a little Mexican village where there was no running water or electricity. Why can't they?

But why is America rich? Answer CAPITALISM!

I highly suggest you read Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell.

[GPDP]

I sure would love to live in the fantasy world of Objectivism, where all problems have simple answers, and people suffer because they're all too retarded to see those answers.

Got laid off? FIND A NEW JOB! Your town is shit? MOVE! Rampant crime? GET THE POLICE ON THEIR ASSES!

[freakazoid]

Your town is shit? MOVE!

Unless of course it is your country that is shit, then it is fix your own problems and don't move here "illegally" :rolleyes:

[Plagueround]

A free society does not mean things like food, education, housing, clean water are all free. A free society is a society where people are free to associate or trade with one another. IE people are free from one another in a free society. With freedom comes responsibility and so people most be responsible for themselves because we are all adults. Unlike a savage tribal society where you have no freedom and you live at the mercy of the stronger man.

WHat do you mean by expect them to play the same game?

I'll ignore that once again you have ignored the diversity of tribal societies because you'll likely never learn past that one.

A free society is one where people are free to associate and trade with each other, but they must not hold resources and property over others to exert force on them. For a crude example, if I have the only lake in my town behind my house, I decide it's mine, and it's the only source of water...how free are the others in the town if they have no water? Not even enough water to "pack up and move"? You know what they'll likely do? They take the water by force and then who's free. Not them and not me, I'll likely be killed. Only by establishing an egalitarian society where everyone works together will we avoid the mutually assured destruction of hoarding resources, money, and property.

A free society is not doing whatever the fuck you want to other people and justifying it by Ayn Rand's "the individual is the greatest minority". That's called sociopathy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am talkign about major mistakes like breaking the Law or doing something that is evil not minor mistakes like spilling something on your coat or calling someone bad names.

If I were to go outside right now and kick my neighbor's daughter I would get in serious trouble all because of that mistake.

I wasn't talking about minor mistakes either. It is disingenuous of you to assume I was.


The what are you doign typing and havign a computer and internet? this things are luxuries that you shouldn't be able to afford or afford to waste time on.

Somebody else pays for my internet access. I spend plenty of time during the day jobhunting. There's only so many jobs I can apply for.


A person with no high school education, unable to speak english who's not even from around here can geta job. Why can't you? You want a job? Buy a bag of oranges for a whole sale price or grow them some where and sell them in the street corner.

Might not be much money but tis better then nothing.

Street trading in the UK requires a licence.

Which costs a fucking fortune. (http://www.slough.gov.uk/services/10718.aspx)


Dude I've seen the dumbest, biggest drug users laziest people able to take care of themselves. I mean if they were able to why can't everyone? If your area sucks then get on a train and move else where.

It's simply not as easy as you think. Unless I jump the train (which would be a "retarded" criminal act according to you) I'm going to have to shell out a wad of cash to get anywhere, I'm then going to have to shell out yet another small fortune to pay the deposit and a couple of month's rent on a new place to live.

As someone who lives on £45 a week, I simply cannot do that and eat at the same time.

[Bud Struggle]

Street trading in the UK requires a licence.

Which costs a fucking fortune. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.slough.gov.uk/services/10718.aspx)

I see that as a problem of Socialism, not Capitalism.

Under Capitalism you can sell what you like to anyone you like. No offense--but it looks like Capitalism and Socialism got together to fuck you over.

Basic businesses should be allowed to exist as what they are--hand to mouth existance. They shouldn't be over regulated by the state.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I am not sayign no one should help others, what I am saying is that people should have the choice on whether they want to help others or not.No one has argued that you be literally forced to bend over and pluck a drowning person out of the ocean.

You're attacking welfare policies under the presumption that the current distribution of resources is fair. This is a large presumption, considering capitalists markets have so many laws in place which create centralized wealth in the first place - limits to bank entry, limits to credit unions, intellectual monopolies, unfair land acquisition, etc. Both laissez faire and state capitalism lack any recognition of free association.

If you build a house from your own labor, or pay "contractors" to build a house and they sell it to you through a mutual transaction, in a post-state society the only people who are going to dispute your claim are people who we all practically consider thieves. We'll come to your defense. Now if you take over the only lake in the area, or try to justify your business chopping up all the forest, you're going to have a hell of a time hiring a Private Defense Agency (or finding a democratic organization) who will defend your case. We'll hold public protests, block customers from getting inside, and even lift from your store.

Such is freedom.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I see that as a problem of Socialism, not Capitalism.

Under Capitalism you can sell what you like to anyone you like. No offense--but it looks like Capitalism and Socialism got together to fuck you over.

Basic businesses should be allowed to exist as what they are--hand to mouth existance. They shouldn't be over regulated by the state.

What's the difference between a state requiring you to pay for a street trading licence and a private company charging you to trade on their property? The government effectively owns and maintains public streets just like a company owns and maintains a private shopping centre.

Even if it cost nothing to get a street trading licence, I'd rather get a job somewhere than try entering an already crowded market. What fool would buy oranges off me when they can get them at rock-bottom prices from the local Tesco?

[Dr Mindbender]

What fool would buy oranges off me when they can get them at rock-bottom prices from the local Tesco?

the capitalist would argue that your failure to sell the oranges is an enditement of your 'bad salesmanship', not the fault of the large supermarket for running a virtual monopoly.

Under capitalism, the big guy is never the 'bad guy'.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's remarkable how entire markets of unproductive labor like advertising and marketing are actually defended. No need is being met from it. I can find out what I want on my own, thanks.

[Dr Mindbender]

It's remarkable how entire markets of unproductive labor like advertising and marketing are actually defended. No need is being met from it. I can find out what I want on my own, thanks.




quite. One vicious circle that describes what you mean perfectly is the tobacco industry. Billions are invested in marketing tobacco by one company, lets call company A then a similar sum is invested by another company B marketing and producing the nicotine patches to undo the work by tobacco company A.

What an absolute waste of time, money, talent and man-hours!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I see that as a problem of Socialism, not Capitalism.

Under Capitalism you can sell what you like to anyone you like. No offense--but it looks like Capitalism and Socialism got together to fuck you over.

Basic businesses should be allowed to exist as what they are--hand to mouth existance. They shouldn't be over regulated by the state.
So let's say you spend your week's wages on food from an unlicensed street vendor, and then the food makes you sick and you incur hospital bills of another few weeks' wages and the street vendor is nowhere to be seen. Pretty picture of "freedom"?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

It's remarkable how entire markets of unproductive labor like advertising and marketing are actually defended. No need is being met from it. I can find out what I want on my own, thanks.




No oen gives a fuck about you or your stupid needs.

If a person whats to spend money on shit that doesn't help out the common good well thats his thing. You have no business telling other people what to do with their money or business or anything. Get the fuck out of the way. Your kind have been in the way of other people for thousands of years. Your *****ing is nothing new.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

quite. One vicious circle that describes what you mean perfectly is the tobacco industry. Billions are invested in marketing tobacco by one company, lets call company A then a similar sum is invested by another company B marketing and producing the nicotine patches to undo the work by tobacco company A.

What an absolute waste of time, money, talent and man-hours!

Its not your fuckign man hours. they are free to do whatever they want with their wealth because we live in a free socety.

People have the right to spend money on things that don't help out the common good. Fuck off.

[Dr Mindbender]

Its not your fuckign man hours. they are free to do whatever they want with their wealth because we live in a free socety.
bullshit. Nobody 'wants' to work on production lines stuffing tobacco into cigarette skins. The reason people are co-erced into shitty jobs like this is because of inequality and lack of alternative.

Secondly, as for what the rich do with their wealth they have a responsibility. It's their marketing that is permeating the minds of impressionable children, and their products that are damaging the healths of people, adding to hospital waiting lists, killing the rest of us.



People have the right to spend money on things that don't help out the common good. Fuck off.
Sure. And slaves also had a right to pick cotton at the the behest of wealthy landowners.

Same game, different bullshit.

[RGacky3]

This is rediculous.

You cannot have a system which forces people to put profit over everything, and then expect them to act morally and resposibally.

If a guy wants to sell a gun to a 12 year old he will, because its business, if he does'nt someone else will (at least thats what he's thinking). Its impossible to morally judge Capitalists, or anyone doing business in a Capitalist system, because Capitalism is essencially an immoral system, its a system that demands profit over people.

Dealing drugs is the same thing, its not moral, not because the selling is immoral, or the buyer, they are both operating in a system where morality must be thrown aside to succeed.

Thats why when people talk about Ethical Capitalism or responsibility on wall street, it just makes me laugh, its a rediculous concept. Its like saying we should compassionately torture prisoners, its an oxymoron.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Why would it be your fault for the actions of the "child"? That is absurd.

At fault for what? What is it anybodies business what I put into my body?



I highly suggest you read Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell.

Because a child is not mature enough to make decision. A child does not or has very little knowledge on the dangers of drugs, fire arms, fire, and many other things. That is why when something bad happens to the child they go after the parents/teacher/guardian. That is why children are told not to talk to strangers and told not to handle knives.

If I were to give a knife to a child and he uses it to stab another person its his fault right? Right.......

[CaptainCapitalist68]

This is rediculous.

You cannot have a system which forces people to put profit over everything, and then expect them to act morally and resposibally.

So does capitalism force you to put profit over everything or are you free to give tot he poor and shit?





If a guy wants to sell a gun to a 12 year old he will, because its business, if he does'nt someone else will (at least thats what he's thinking). Its impossible to morally judge Capitalists, or anyone doing business in a Capitalist system, because Capitalism is essencially an immoral system, its a system that demands profit over people.

Capitalism does not demand anything or forces anyone to do anything. In a capitalist society you are free to grow your own food and become self sufficient.

You communist system is whats immoral. It demands man to sacrifice himself for other man. It demands the best to sacrific to the worst. Its a system of cannibalism where YOU REALLY ARE FORCE TO DO STUFF>





Dealing drugs is the same thing, its not moral, not because the selling is immoral, or the buyer, they are both operating in a system where morality must be thrown aside to succeed.

You don't have to throw morality aside to succeed. American capitalist came up with innovations and made companies givign the people jobs, a means to make a living and useful products. What is so immoral about that?




Thats why when people talk about Ethical Capitalism or responsibility on wall street, it just makes me laugh, its a rediculous concept. Its like saying we should compassionately torture prisoners, its an oxymoron.

No whats really funny is people liek you who think communism will work even though its been tried and its failed many times over thoughout history. then you say something stupif like "Well that wasn't true communism because if it was it would work"

[Demogorgon]

Seeing as you are ignoring it everywhere else it is asked, I will ask it again. If people should act in their own self-interests, putting themselves first at all times, why shouldn't people commit murder whenever it is in their interests to do so. You claim that your system is compatible with morality, so is murder morally justified or do we sometimes have to be altruistic and put others before ourselves?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

bullshit. Nobody 'wants' to work on production lines stuffing tobacco into cigarette skins. The reason people are co-erced into shitty jobs like this is because of inequality and lack of alternative.

There are alternatives to havign a shitty job. but just because people don't know about this alternatives or how to get to this alternatives doesn't mean they exist.

there are many successful capitalist who started of working in the streets in a shitty job then became successful.

Knowledge is there for anyone who wishes to find it. The best education a person can get is self education not the Piece of shit good for nothing public education we have.





Secondly, as for what the rich do with their wealth they have a responsibility. It's their marketing that is permeating the minds of impressionable children, and their products that are damaging the healths of people, adding to hospital waiting lists, killing the rest of us.


Sure. And slaves also had a right to pick cotton at the the behest of wealthy landowners.

Same game, different bullshit.

The market depends on the reactors and the reactors are the people. So if people react more to some blond famous ***** showing her pussy in public the market will show this more then other crap.

What a man does with his own body, whether its shoving big macs down his pie hole or smoking himself to death then thats his fault. A 9 year old can tell you that too many big macs and smokeing too much is bad. It comes down to self responsibility. The people which you call rich and powerful are not responsible for me or my actions I AM. I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT I DO WITH MY LIFE AND SO IS EVERY OTHER ADULT Seirously Is this really such a hard conpet for you to understand?


And yes people do have the right to pick cotton for 3 bucks a day.

Its not the same game because under your game people wouldn't have a choice.

[Ken]

There are alternatives to havign a shitty job. but just because people don't know about this alternatives or how to get to this alternatives doesn't mean they exist.

there are many successful capitalist who started of working in the streets in a shitty job then became successful.

Knowledge is there for anyone who wishes to find it. The best education a person can get is self education not the Piece of shit good for nothing public education we have.





The market depends on the reactors and the reactors are the people. So if people react more to some blond famous ***** showing her pussy in public the market will show this more then other crap.

What a man does with his own body, whether its shoving big macs down his pie hole or smoking himself to death then thats his fault. A 9 year old can tell you that too many big macs and smokeing too much is bad. It comes down to self responsibility. The people which you call rich and powerful are not responsible for me or my actions I AM. I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT I DO WITH MY LIFE AND SO IS EVERY OTHER ADULT Seirously Is this really such a hard conpet for you to understand?


And yes people do have the right to pick cotton for 3 bucks a day.

Its not the same game because under your game people wouldn't have a choice.

i have noticed with all of your posts you have conveniently decided to leave out the issues of third world exploitation. i agree with everything you said, if only it applied to the first world. the third world is different. here in the west we have the luxury of freedom and can do whatever we want inside the system of capitalism. in the third world however, options are very limited. and it is the slow acceptance and apathy of the first world workers which powers the exploitation of the 2 of 6 billion on earth.

[freakazoid]

Because a child is not mature enough to make decision. A child does not or has very little knowledge on the dangers of drugs, fire arms, fire, and many other things. That is why when something bad happens to the child they go after the parents/teacher/guardian. That is why children are told not to talk to strangers and told not to handle knives.

If I were to give a knife to a child and he uses it to stab another person its his fault right? Right.......

I know "children" who are more responsible than adults. If you teach your child correctly about things like safe firearms handling and such then there won't be a problem. And what kid can't tell you that murder is wrong?


and told not to handle knives.

There is an old Simpsons episode where Bart becomes friend with Ralph. When they are playing at Ralphs house they get into his fathers, Police Chief Wiggam, closet. When he sees that they are playing with his stuff from the closet he says, "What is it with your fasination with my closet of mystery?" Not sure if that is the exact wording but it is pretty close. And the point is that a child will be naturally curious about something that they are told nothing about other than that it is bad and to stay away from it. If you teach them safe firearms handling there will be no problem.

[PRC-UTE]

A free society does not mean things like food, education, housing, clean water are all free. A free society is a society where people are free to associate or trade with one another. IE people are free from one another in a free society. With freedom comes responsibility and so people most be responsible for themselves because we are all adults. Unlike a savage tribal society where you have no freedom and you live at the mercy of the stronger man.

so...

if we have a society of three people and two want to trade, and they do not trade with the third person, and this person dies as a result, and has no resources or ability to enter these trades, this is free?

[RGacky3]

So does capitalism force you to put profit over everything or are you free to give tot he poor and shit?

Yes it does, "Why did we have to lay them off" "to stay competative, its business." Whos to blame? Is it the Capitalist? No he's staying competative, its teh system. Most salesmen are essencially really good white liers, but thats business. Pay people low wage? Gotta stay competitive, its the market. Buy your stock from sweat shops? Gotta stay competitive, its business. Sell Weapons to dictators? Its just the markets man, just trying to do business. Sell crack to kids? Doing what I got to do to stay afloat, its business. You get my drift.


Capitalism does not demand anything or forces anyone to do anything. In a capitalist society you are free to grow your own food and become self sufficient.

You communist system is whats immoral. It demands man to sacrifice himself for other man. It demands the best to sacrific to the worst. Its a system of cannibalism where YOU REALLY ARE FORCE TO DO STUFF>

See above, Communism allows free association, which is impossible under capitalism, and it does'nt demand anything. Capitalism demands 90% mankind to sacrifice himself for 10% of mankind (nower days its more like 95% for 5%).


You don't have to throw morality aside to succeed. American capitalist came up with innovations and made companies givign the people jobs, a means to make a living and useful products. What is so immoral about that?

You do have to throw morality aside, because in order to make a buck with innovations, manufacturing or whatever, it requires that you be competitive, and to b competitive you have to be willing to be as dirty as the next guy. If your not going to lay people off, or use sweat shops, or support dictators, the next guy will, he'll sell more, get more investment and eventually eat you up.

Thats Capitalism. Thats what its all about, staying competitive, i.e. profits before people.


No whats really funny is people liek you who think communism will work even though its been tried and its failed many times over thoughout history. then you say something stupif like "Well that wasn't true communism because if it was it would work"

IT has worked everytiem its been tried (and by tried I mean worker controlled industry, which was never the case in the USSR or China).

Anarchist Spain, Zapatista Mexico, Anarchist Ukraine, Kibbutz, Early protestant communities, and so on and so on (Lists like this have been made hundreds of times in the OI, its about damn time you Capitalists paid attention).


Knowledge is there for anyone who wishes to find it. The best education a person can get is self education not the Piece of shit good for nothing public education we have.

Ahh the pie in the sky, if only you just try.


And yes people do have the right to pick cotton for 3 bucks a day.

They also have the right (or should have the right) to pick cotton for whatever he picks, and have the right to do with whatever he picks what he wants, regardless of who claims ownership on the land.


I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT I DO WITH MY LIFE AND SO IS EVERY OTHER ADULT Seirously Is this really such a hard conpet for you to understand?


Which is exactly the problem with power structures, your ultimately just responsible for yourself, which is why Capitalism is tyrannical, it gives a few people huge amounts of power with 0% responsibility or accountablity, their only responsibility is profits.

[pusher robot]

Yes it does, "Why did we have to lay them off" "to stay competative, its business." Whos to blame? Is it the Capitalist? No he's staying competative, its teh system.

But "the system" reflects some facts about reality that you can't just wish away. If enterprise A is able to produce x amount with y number of people, why shouldn't enterprise B feel pressure to produce x amount with y or fewer people? How does it benefit a society to waste labor unnecessarily? If you feel it is a criticism of capitalism that pressure to cut costs and produce more with less - both materials and labor - then you must believe that there's something wrong with producing more with less. But what?


Anarchist Spain, Zapatista Mexico, Anarchist Ukraine, Kibbutz, Early protestant communities, and so on and so on (Lists like this have been made hundreds of times in the OI, its about damn time you Capitalists paid attention).

We pay attention just fine. We also note the fact that every one of these examples ultimately failed. It was either co-opted, obliterated, or people gave it up. So it's not exactly a huge logical leap to conclude that COMMUNISM=FAIL.

[RGacky3]

If you feel it is a criticism of capitalism that pressure to cut costs and produce more with less - both materials and labor - then you must believe that there's something wrong with producing more with less. But what?


That Criticism is not with producing more with less, its with power, economic power, and the conentration of it that Capitalism produces, and with that concentration of power, comes these desicions which are producing more with less but at the expense of whoever falls behind.

Its not reality, its Capitalism. Your examples were of enterprises existing in a Capitalism system, something I oppose.


We also note the fact that every one of these examples ultimately failed. It was either co-opted, obliterated, or people gave it up. So it's not exactly a huge logical leap to conclude that COMMUNISM=FAIL.

2 of those examples are still around, 2 of the others were taken out violently from external sources, and one was engolfed by a much larger society surrounding it.

Take out the external forces and they did pretty well, Capitalism on the other hand is and has been the dominant worldwide for hundreds of years, and has failed for 90% of everyone for all of those years, with NO external forces (Capitalism is the biggest force).

[Demogorgon]

How does it benefit a society to waste labor unnecessarily?
It doesn't, but that brings us to a closely related subject, how does it benefit society to not utilise valuable labour resources at all? That is to say, the unemployment inherent in capitalism means that the economy can never produce at full capacity under capitalism. How is that benefitting society?

[pusher robot]

It doesn't, but that brings us to a closely related subject, how does it benefit society to not utilise valuable labour resources at all? That is to say, the unemployment inherent in capitalism means that the economy can never produce at full capacity under capitalism. How is that benefitting society?

Well the marginal utility of labor is almost never zero, so the problem with most unemployed would seem to be that their time not working is more valuable to them than the value of the labor they are able to provide. That's a perfectly valid judgment, and they have every right to make that choice for themselves so long as they respect everyone else's right to make everyone else's choices for everyone else. Society benefits because that person is marginally happier than they would be working for the actual value of their labor to society, and society is better off because it doesn't have to spend greater value to gain labor of a lesser value, an obvious waste.

[Demogorgon]

Well the marginal utility of labor is almost never zero, so the problem with most unemployed would seem to be that their time not working is more valuable to them than the value of the labor they are able to provide. That's a perfectly valid judgment, and they have every right to make that choice for themselves so long as they respect everyone else's right to make everyone else's choices for everyone else. Society benefits because that person is marginally happier than they would be working for the actual value of their labor to society, and society is better off because it doesn't have to spend greater value to gain labor of a lesser value, an obvious waste.
That is presuming that unemployment is a choice. It may well be true that there is a residual level of unemployment comprising people that have no intention of working no matter what. But large numbers of people wish to work but cannot, particularly when the economy is not in the best of health. For instance in the paper today it was reported that unemployment is likely to rise in Britain by 350,000 over the next year. Is that because 350,000 people are going to decide they would rather not work?

The nature of capitalism is that waves of unemployment come with the business cycle. That is when the economy declines, fewer labour resources are used. Is such a cycle, where every several years we must stop using as many resources as we can, beneficial to society?

[pusher robot]

That is presuming that unemployment is a choice. It may well be true that there is a residual level of unemployment comprising people that have no intention of working no matter what. But large numbers of people wish to work but cannot, particularly when the economy is not in the best of health. For instance in the paper today it was reported that unemployment is likely to rise in Britain by 350,000 over the next year. Is that because 350,000 people are going to decide they would rather not work?

You're shifting the goal posts. Britain is hardly a model of a competitive free-market society.

What I can say, however, is that obviously there are indeed people willing to pay something for the labor those folks can provide, but it's either lower than the legally allowed limit or lower than those folks are willing to work for, just as I claimed.

[Demogorgon]

You're shifting the goal posts. Britain is hardly a model of a competitive free-market society.

What I can say, however, is that obviously there are indeed people willing to pay something for the labor those folks can provide, but it's either lower than the legally allowed limit or lower than those folks are willing to work for, just as I claimed.

And now you are shifting the goal posts by saying your theory only works in a competitive free-market society, something that conveniently does not exist and therefore we can not look and see if you are correct. As capitalist countries that actually exist go, Britain is one of the more free market ones and that is presumably why its unemployment rate varies quite a lot, so there is no point in trying to dodge the question. Anyway, to put things in capitalist language, how is it benefitting society to have a system that allows incentives to periodically fall to such an extent that so many people stop working?