Regardless of what *your* definition of capitalism is.... to many people, it is synomous with "free trade". That capitalism necessitates systematic hierarchy-based violence is not a matter of opinion up for debate, it is a self-evident fact. Where lies the violence in wanting to trade freely? You are the one promoting violence. Not capitalism. |
|
|
|
And so they begin to imagine that this system [capitalism] will be forever, in a way no other system in history has proved itself to be."
-Dr. Richard Wolff
I agree the political system we have today will fail, nothing lasts forever. But capitalism will always be with us, like it have in the past. Not pure capitalism but in the form of trade. People always trade. Even in North Korea, where people engage in black markets because all non-state authorized trade is banned. It doesn't matter if you are oppressed by a socialist system you still want to trade because it's human nature. Markets will always exist it's just a question of how limited they will be. |
|
|
|
a bunch of big images..
A reallly big image
Although I'll take your numbers with a grain of salt, I agree it's sickening how inequality has grown in the last few years. But I think the reason is increased government intervention. And BTW how many children died of starvation last year in America? It seems like you forgot to mention that. And instead of watching celebrities on YouTube talk about revolutions how about reading some economics? |
|
|
|
Most people work and can buy all of those things. And those who can't will get assistance from either their families or charitable organizations. According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the single gravest threat to the world's public health. The WHO also states that malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases. Undernutrition is a contributory factor in the death of 3.1 million children under five every year. Capitalism wastes 5/9ths of all food produced annually, and 3 million children die as a result every year. Somehow I don't think charity is cutting it. I also don't think there's any ethical or intellectually honest way to defend this horrid system. "The worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, because they prevented the core of the system from being realized by those who suffered from it and understood by those who contemplated it. Charity degrades and demoralizes.
It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. Nice as its sounds, this kind of 'trade with the rich' is not a solution."
-Slavoj Zizek I wonder where these 3.1 million children live? It most certainly isn't in the western world. You cannot compare apples and oranges. Of course charity cannot solve the worlds problems. The world is bit more complex than that. Capitalism has never been given a chance to work in the third world, the western world is still oppressing the third world in a number of ways. To give one example: The use of trade agreements in the EU and USA makes it harder for the third world countries to export. Also many of the countries where people die of hunger are in a state of political chaos, often they are being run by dictators. How do you expect a society in chaos to prosper? Of course there will be hunger. Charity can help the poor and disabled, but if everyone is poor who will be able to help? |
|
|
|
Wrong. Capitalism has EVERYTHING to do with survival until food, shelter, healthcare, and education are provided free to all human beings as a birthright.
First of I think you are confusing capitalism with fascism or something. Because like I said it's a economic system, it's not a political system. If you don't want to trade that's fine. You don't have to engage in trade you can go off living in the mountains or something. Why should all of those things be provided for free though? It doesn't make sense. Most people work and can buy all of those things. And those who can't will get assistance from either their families or charitable organizations. Charitable organizations. Friends and family helping you out when you are broke. Happens all the time. The part where if we serfs don't pay our rent to our landlords, they send the knights(police) to haul us away in chains(handcuffs) and throw us out in the fucking streets.
Or the part where if a starving person takes food without permission, cutting into some capitalist's profit-margins, that person has committed a crime, and will be thrown into a dungeon(prison) to rot. Capitalism is little more than thinly-veiled feudalism. A society governed by violence first and reason second.
Any lover of reason must be opposed to violence, because the world is a zero-sum game between reason and violence. Capitalism cannot exist without systemic, mass-scale violence. Therefore, anyone ethically opposed to violence must also be opposed to capitalism.
Come on, how often does that happen? I'm not a defender of the police state but in reality you would get away with 1 or 2 months free rent then you would be thrown out. The police wouldn't show up, they never show up when they are needed so why would they in this scenario? And what right do you have to live for free in a apartment? What if 2 guys showed up at your home demanding you let them live there for a eternity? |
|
|
|
Capitalism is a economic system. It doesn't have to be any "survival competition". Like you have pointed out several times, humans are not evil. If someone falls you would natural help that person up. It's not incompatible with human nature. Would it be against human nature to be involved in voluntary trade? |
|
|
|
Anyone wish to comment on this point ? Any of you libertarians out there ? Yes, come on libertarians. What are you waiting for? Bring on more of your capitalism-apologist economic fundamentalist folly. I do enjoy crushing your weak arguments with extreme prejudice. Yeah like when you left the thread for 2 weeks because you had no counter arguments. I didn't know you enjoyed debating "economic fundamentalists". At least in the past you have referred to them as "not intelligent enough to engage in debates". |
|
|
|
Huh. We're starting to go in circles now. By your own definition, Paul isn't a libertarian. Remember what you wrote a few days ago (we've already covered Paul's position on taxes, in case you forget)? Do you want limited taxation? Then you are a social liberal. Do you want no taxation at all? Then you are a libertarian.
The portion of my post which you've snipped off contained a handful of other examples that proves labeling people with specific ideologies is inaccurate. Once again, labeling is for census takers and political parties. You should not let yourself be boxed by labels. The world isn't conveniently divided between neatly labeled groups of people; we're not players for a sports team. I meant no disrespect in snipping off your post, it was so much information that it would bloat my post. I still think we got your message. (no need to quote a list of "4 libertarians that aren't really libertarians") "Limited taxation" have different meanings obviously, Ron Paul wants less taxation than Obama. And Obama wants limited taxes. (if you compare it to European standards) I realize that my example was very bad, I apologize for that. I never said anything about limiting yourselves to one label. I'm just against people calling themselves "apolitical". And the usual "I am better than everyone else because I don't belong to any ideology" You can't pin everything on the 'social democracy' bogeyman, dude. The definition of left and right in U.S. and Europe is different - it's as simple as that. They inhabit different areas of the political spectrum. If you are going to peg some historical or traditional aspect of social democracy to the issue (which still doesn't change their differences, btw), then what about the U.S' own socialist policies? Do you realize that the greatest ever economic development policy in the history of the United States is also the most socialist in the history of the United States? Lincoln's Homestead Act. Little House on the Prairie, anyone? The federal government offered citizens (and even advertised in far flung regions of Europe) free land and zero interest loans for farming tools, seeds and fertilizers, payable after harvest. It become the single most powerful source of economic growth in the history of the United States. And yet, the descendants of the main beneficiaries of the Act today are among the most vociferous critics of socialism. Going by your theory, the American right wing should look a whole lotta different today. And to make things more interesting, another of Lincoln's influential policy, the Civil War Pension program, tied the military to the Republicans for almost a century. And yet, in the last presidential election, Paul had the lion's share of support from military personnel. Another damper on your theory. Look, at this stage, I know my words won''t change your mind. But keep an open mind, and don't create unnecessary internal barriers. We can discuss European and American politics for years and still not understand it completely. Europe and America is very different let's just leave it at that. I have a open mind, and I don't have any internal barriers. I just don't like people saying they don't follow any ideology at all. |
|
|
|
Respectfully, but isn't this is just more labels to reconcile the gap between limited government and total anarchy, and an attempt to pigeonhole people like Ron Paul?
...
Would a more accurate description of Paul's ideology be something like constitutionalist-right wing-conservative-deontological libertarian-Christian fundamentalist-liberal?
Or should we just agree that this does a complete disservice to Paul's complex ideology?
I have no problem with describing Ron Paul as a libertarian. If you have a complex ideology fine, what I don't like is when people join a discussion and say: "I'm not part of any ideology I have my own views". Yes you have your own views but that doesn't make them unique. They are still part of ideology, it doesn't matter how complex it is. I have yet to see a opinion or a political view in this thread, that we cannot place in a ideology. How would you reconcile this theory in comparing the pro-market, limited government American right wing and Europe's populist, nationalist and pro social welfare right wing?
It can't work both ways, right?
The difference is still the tradition of social democracy in Europe. The right wing in Europe wants to keep the welfare state but they also want lower taxes. It would be political suicide for any party in Europe to try to end the welfare state. |
|
|
|
Actually, it is perfectly logical to assume that my "ideas and opinions" are not constrained within specific categories determine by a only few of variables, reminiscent of the personality or sex quizzes found in Cleo or Cosmo.
And just for the record, it is naive, not to mention dangerous, to think that all libertarians share the same views concerning taxation.
Do you think David Nolan, the founder of the U.S. Libertarian Party, is a social liberal (?), considering he believes that not all taxes are deleterious, and is actually in favor of land tax?
What about the geolibertarian community as a whole, which believe that all natural resources should be taxed? Are they not libertarians?
Let's not forget the green libertarians, whose wants corporations to be taxed based on their impact to the ecosystem - consumption of natural resources, pollution, usage of public utilities, etc.
Even Ron Paul, flagbearer of the anti-taxation paleolibertarian movement and mouthpiece of Lew Rockwell, is supportive of excise, consumption and national sales taxes.
Not all libertarians have the same view on taxation that is true. But thats because within the libertarian movement there is several underlying political philosophies. Most people in the movement (including the people you just mentioned) I would label "minarchists" because they want limited government. Another group of the movement are the "anarchists" they want no government at all. It's important to know the difference between anarchists and minarchists since they want completely different things. Even though both groups call themselves "libertarians" they are based on different political philosophies. I think it's dangerous not to use labels when you describe peoples views. Just look at Rand Paul, he says he's a libertarian but in reality he's more of a conservative. Labels are for census takers and political bodies. There exists no hard lines in the sand, only a wildly diverging and fluid spectrum.
Take a look at a variation of the Vosem Chart below, derived from the Pournelle chart.
Yes of course charts are always going to be limited but that doesn't mean we cannot identify which ideologies our views fit in. Instead of looking through charts you should study the ideas and opinions of these politicians and see where they fit in. Most of the time politicians want you to believe they are not part of "left" and "right" so they can get more votes. As soon as you begin to realize the complex spectrum of beliefs that we could potentially inhabit, consider that the chart are also limited, only capturing a facet of our thinking.
And then, compared the ideologies of political parties from different geographic regions. For instance, the leftist ideology as defined in American politics inhabits a remarkably similar spectrum as those of center-right Europe.
It's not surprising that what Americans believe are "leftist" ideas are considered "center-right" in Europe. That's because the US has a history of limited government and Europe have a history of social democracy. |
|
|
|
You can try, but I'd like to think most of us have beliefs, opinions and values that transcend conveniently boxed labels.
Heck, even dogmatic religious fundamentalists are hard to pin down ideologically.
It's naive to think that you somehow have ideas and opinions that are not covered by the ideology spectrum. I bet you have a opinion on taxation. Do you want limited taxation? Then you are a social liberal. Do you want no taxation at all? Then you are a libertarian. It is however possible to have ideas that mixes several ideologies. Thats why we have mixes like social liberalism. Everyone has their own opinions and views. You can have 500 and what are the odds that 2 people or more will have exactly the same 500?
My views and opinions are my own, i do not require it to be under the word 'ideology' as i do not seek to imposed it on others.
If you don't want your views to be imposed on others I would say you are a Anarchist, which is a ideology. |
|
|
|
Evolve to a higher intellectual being, to see a human as a human without prejudice, understand the map is not the territory, the word is not the thing and live in peace.
Someone in a 'mental state of water' has no ideology. One exist as human that has natural laws and do no harm to others.
Actually it doesn't matter if a person has "a mental state of water" the person probably still have views and opinions. If the person has views and opinions we can place him/her in a ideology. |
|
|
|
They sure look awesome but it sucks that you redeem the coins at their website. What happens if they go out of business? Also they charge 182$ for their 0.5BTC lion coin. That's 7 Silver Eagles worth of silver. Hi Forever, I currently have pure silver strikes of my 'Goxxed' coins available, which have been popular, I also have a larger 2 ounce UNO bar being finished atm. I think you'll find my coins are very competitively priced :-) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=508380.0 The coins you have listed now don't have any cryptos on them, when will this UNO bar be released and do you have any pictures of it? |
|
|
|
do they have to be US coins or would silver (or gold) from other countries work as well?
Doesn't matter from what country of origin they are from, as long as they are competitively priced. |
|
|
|
|
What are your thoughts on the physical coins that exist today?
I think the prices are way too high.
Looking through some of the better known suppliers the silver coins have 100+ USD premium. (not counting the alt coin value that is included obviously)
A American silver eagle is around 25$ tops. Why should I pay 100$+ for a silver coin with a sticker on it.
I can accept higher prices because many of these coins are unique but that's more than double the price of a Silver Eagle.
Do you know of any physical coins with pure silver that aren't insanely priced?
Looking for 1oz coins with pure silver doesn't matter what alt coin but not interested in crap coins such as DOGE.
|
|
|
|
exchange will be back soon, recovering the database backup to fix all the mess happened overnight
Source? |
|
|
|
Socialism, Libertarianism, Communist, Anarchist, Capitalist, right wing, left wing, centre left wing, centre right wing, and so on.
They are all labels, for those who stopped evolving.
The One IS always evolving and now exist on a higher plane of evolution compared to others.
Mental boxes that humans put themselves in with a label or 2, IS an example of a lower evolved human. Someone in a box comes up with an idea and others in another box screamed, "racist", "wrong", "not equal", and so on.....just because that someone just happened to be in another box. How so retarded. No intellectual debate IS permissible in a calm manner of logic, reasoning and basic natural rights that all humans are born with. There's so much screaming idiots waving banners and placards demanding this and that. Many live in a state of permanent illusion that politicians are their saviours and could do no wrong. These lower evolved humans ought to be ignored.
The One has no time for mental boxes with labels. The One is simply water.
"Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. That water can flow, or it can crash. Be water my friend."
Labels for those who have stopped evolving? What do you suggest we evolve to? They are words that describe different views of people. I am very interested in what your ideology is and how you describe it. You can't just say: "If you are a follower of a ideology you are stupid!" and then not mention a alternative. |
|
|
|
Profit = human exploitation = wage slavery = ethically awful
In a free market system the market would control what companies are popular and successful. There would be no cases of people being forced to work at a company. If a company treats their workers like shit chances are the employees would try to leave the company ASAP. So if there is a option to leave how can it be slavery? Although it doesn't really matter how many times or ways I spell this shit out for you. You have been indoctrinated to believe in the sanctity of the system since your formative years. Old lies die hard. Look at religion.
It's been 300 years of this shit. Humanity can do better than capitalism. But nothing will change until we accept that it doesn't have to be this way. Remember, the entire history of human civilization is a series of revolutions. Change is the only constant, just as it always was.
I wonder how many times I have to repeat that you should be criticizing social liberalism and Keynesian economics. Not capitalism. Capitalism is a economic system it cannot be blamed for the wrong doings of market interference from Governments. |
|
|
|
I know this may be shocking to realize but capitalists are human too with ethics and morality. Correct. Except when practicing capitalism. And the fact that you know it may be shocking to realize speaks volumes about your cognitive dissonance. In what way is capitalism morally wrong? |
|
|
|
Until there are no more starving people on this continent, every strip mall should be bulldozed and every parking lot torn up so food can be grown. This should be done whether the capitalist "owners" like it or not, because, you know, people are fucking starving.
Fuck your property. People are dying so some rich assholes can get a little richer. Your system is disgusting. There may come a time when a mob of hungry people must face off against some capitalist and his hired thugs... well we know which side of that fight you'll be on, and we know which side I'll be on.
You are letting your hatred for the rich cloud your judgment. What you are suggesting would cause pain and suffering for millions. It's nothing new and it has already been tried before and usually ends with the cycle starting over again and new people seize control over the masses. Violence is not a very good solution to a problem. Let me instead show you how capitalism can remove starvation and poverty: 1. Wealth is not bad. The state and fiat money is. Since we are on a bitcoin forum I'm not gonna explain how inflation works. But in short it makes people lose purchasing power. Now imagine if the world used BTC instead. Imagine it's the year 2150 and we have 21 million in circulation. Scrooge McDuck owns 50% of the worlds bitcoin. The rest of the world 50%. Now what would happen if Scrooge gave half his BTC to Donald Duck? As we all know Donald is a big spender and would probably spend his BTC or a lot of it. Since 25% is a lot of BTC the market would adjust and people would actually lose purchasing power since more BTC enters the market. So people holding money are not bad for the poor people. Of course not everyone is like Scrooge, some wealthy people like to invest so they can make more money. They invest to create jobs. 2. Capitalism is not bad, governments are. Why does starvation and poverty exist? These problems are mostly concentrated to the third world. They exist because foreign countries and foreign corporations exploit these countries. The big corporations buy themselves into these countries and exploit all theirs resources by making pacts with the local governments. Most of the third world countries have extremely corrupt governments, even more than some we have in the West. If we had a free market instead, the people of these countries could either create their own corporations or make better deals with the foreign ones. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
