Employers do not tax, the Government has the employers tax and give the money to them. However, employment is not a right in a capitalistic society. You choose to work for someone else because you don't want to or can't work for yourself. You have indentured yourself and blame the government and its system for your standing. I know a blind guy that runs his own business, so many things that people complain about fall on my deaf ears. (metaphorically speaking).
Employers certainly do tax their employers. The employees pay the employer a portion of that which they produced with their labor in exchange for the conditional use of his property. The citizens pay the government a portion of that which they produced with their labor in exchange for the conditional use of its property. Same thing.
If you own your home and want to stay, I doubt anyone could coerce you to leave. You might not have electricity or water from the companies that supply it for you but they can't make you leave your home. Drill a well, hook up a generator and supply it for yourself.
And you have to get all of these things, or the tools and resources to make these things, from a capital holder. And the more desperate you are, the more of that which you produce, can he take from you. So, depending on the force at his disposal, you can either submit or flee, and that is not a voluntary decision. It is a coerced decision.
Or go the Amish route and forgo indoor plumbing and electricity. The Amish don't complain about it, they choose to live that way and don't pay an electric bill.
You give the Amish too much credit. Within their community, they have their own hierarchical problems in addition to the exploitation they face from the outside world.
That is why Kings (Bloodline Rule) were terrible forms of government.
And capitalism is just monarchy.
The key words are: "He got rich". Yep he sure did. He was born poor and struggled to become rich. He succeeded.
He gained at the expense of others.
If he was born poor in India, he would have stayed poor because he was born poor. The Caste system.
An the upper castes capitalistically profit on the backs of the lower ones.
What is the greatest reward or promise that America offers? Is that no matter your station in life, perceived disabilities, or struggles you go through, if you work hard and never give up, you have a chance at changing your status for you and your family.
The promise is that you're allowed to use some types of exploitation to get ahead. There's no punishment for taking the product of other people's hard work as long as you do it in a certain way and the people you exploit will get punished for trying to take it back.
Abe Lincoln, taught himself, filed for bankruptcy, and became President of the United States. If others find that a flaw in our system, so be it. I find it an admired quality of the system.
And he issued the emancipation proclamation to mitigate the Confederate threat to his profit, not to abolish an evil institution.
Bill Gates dropped out of college, started his own business, IBM tried to take it from him through manipulation, but he out did them. Ditto for Steve Jobs and IBM. The little guy can win in this system.
Bill Gates was simply lucky enough to attend one of the few schools that had a computer. He subsequently used intellectual property too protect his profits. The amount of hard work he ever did can't possibly, justifiably entail such wealth and power over others. Jobs isn't any better.
The point being is that there is no guarantee, there is the "chance."
More probably, hard work goes unrequited.
Curiously though, what system do you think is the best? Obviously you don't think it is Capitalism, so to which system do you subscribe?
Bloodline Rule? (Kings and Queens)
Dictatorship?
Communist?
Socialist?
Oligarchy?
Republic?
Democracy?
or something else.
Anarchy, wherein most people expect to own the product of their labor.
I would like to point out that Capitalism was working in each of those systems of governments because Capitalism isn't a system of government, it is a system of survival defined by Natural Laws. Even before money existed, Capitalism was at work all the way back to the stone age.
Capitalism and government are inseparable. Capitalism cannot exist without government. There is no purpose for government without capitalism.
Don't fight it, accept it and work with it. Your tag is apropos, Capitalism is like Wolves. Wolves trying to survive. Just hope your in the right pack of Wolves.
People deserve more than to just try and survive.
Yea, that confuses me also.
But if I assume your position correctly and you want a system without the natural system of Capitalism.
Whether it's natural, whatever that means, or not, capitalism is a harmful behavior.
You wish to for each to live like the fish in the sea. Eat when it is time to eat, and only eat when necessary. Basically live like any non-pet animal. To each his needs and no more.
Let imagine what that system would bring. Starvation, goodbye Middle East, goodbye Ethiopia, or any country in need of food and they can't get it for themselves. I can't give them mine, I only eat when needed nothing left over. I don't have a house, no one to build it. I don't have a car, no one to build it.
I make fire by rubbing sticks together, use a bow and arrow to hunt (but I have to be good because there is a lot of other hunters out there eating my food) Hmm... might be some conflict there if there is not enough food to go around. I might have to kill my competition in order to eat.
And on, and on.
Nah, I will stick with capitalism. It is more "Humane" otherwise I have to kill the weak so the strong will survive.
No, you misunderstand. When you produce something from your labor. It belongs to you. That does not mean you have a right to withhold your surplus from someone until they offer something in exchange which took relatively more of work to produce. Capitalists presume that they do have this right, and they create government to protect it.
Yea, that confuses me also.
But if I assume your position correctly and you want a system without the natural system of Capitalism.
His position is that use of means of production (land, factories, etc)
is ownership. If you build or purchase a machine or plot of land and are not using it, others may use it as they wish.
Oh, I see, the American Indian idea. No ownership.
You are distorting what chodpada said. Your ownership of something does not give you the right to exploit others with their lack of ownership of that something.
Capitalism could still work with that idea. But I foresee problems. Some will be able to use more land than others. I could operate a 200,000 acre tree farm and use it indefinitely for generations to come. Oh, I found Oil under my acreage, and gold, and diamonds. Bummer for my neighbor. Without the principle of ownership, the larger families will always out perform the smaller families. What about those who don't marry or can't have children?
That is capitalism and government.
No, ownership was a step out of the animal kingdom. The rules on ownership could be tweaked though. I could agree with that. I would also be for fertile land set aside for "poor" people. But as soon as they start making profits, their profits need to be applied to the next poor persons acre. Sort of like homes for humanity. Pay for through work over time, so the next guy has a chance. If you don't work, you won't stay on your acre very long and hence open up a slot for someone willing to do it.
Why can't people just farm on unused land without a government setting aside crumby reservations for them?
The factory thing is a little confusing. Without ownership, who builds a factory. Lets say I put $30 Million into building a factory but my business fails. Under no ownership, I not only lost my investment in the business but I can't mitigate any losses by selling the factory and recover any losses. Any investors must eat the losses, but if they knew that up front, I wouldn't have had investors, and hence no factory.
You and the other workers still have a useful factory in which to build and sell something else. Oh wait, you live in a capitalist society and had to borrow that $30 million from a usurer. Now he owns the factory and you have to grovel before some other capitalist for the privilege working for a wage with which you will try to pay off the usurer's interest.
To build a factory, you must have ownership.
So let the factory's builders own it. They can sell it to the workers who will pay them with a certain amount of that which they will produce, equal to the labor associated with building the factory.
To socialists and commies, profit is an abomination to be extinguished.
To capitalist pigs like me, profit is a natural goal that must be pursued prudently or else you just get rich while squandering resource.
Much sense in that statement.
But I find it curious, that Socialists and Communists don't want profits. They need profits for the their systems to even work (no profits, no taxes, no taxes, no distribution of wealth).
Those socialists and communists believe that the state is necessary. Perhaps they don't realize that the state is a capitalist institution.
I think they want to redistribute profits equally. And if that were to ever take hold, I just got a hurt back and can't work, send me my check and make sure it is the same as everyone else's.
This is because capitalism persists amongst the citizenry in a state capitalist society.
If a hurt back doesn't work, I want to be a tenured professor, or an Xbox athlete, maybe a "modern Artist." Yea, an Artist.
How about a Tenured Professor of Art that is an Xbox Athlete. <--- Yea, that is what I want to be when I grow up daddy. I like this Socialism and Communism.
Capitalism: get other people to work for you.
