Basic Human Rights

[henry quirk]

Just curious. Do either or both of you think, "capitalism," is a form of government?

Me? No.

But Socialism certainly is, because it requires government control to manage the economy. So it has economic, political and ideological dimensions capitalism does not have.

Capitalism's not an ideology, but rather an economic arrangement. That's one of the things I like about it: it doesn't require interference with other people's beliefs in such areas as politics or ideology. In those areas, it's indifferent.

C'mon, capitalism (free enterprise) is intimately tied to a particular notion of what man is. It presumes man is a free will, has a just irrevocable claim to himself, that he can mix his labor with material and create property. It's not simply an economic arrangement.

When we begin the ugly divorce of man from free enterprise, reduce it to economic arrangement, we invite the state to oversee us, to expedite, and streamline, and govern.

[henry quirk]

it's indifferent.

Only to what free men choose to transact with and for, not with the transactor himself.

[Sculptor]

Of course as many a commentator will have noticed the UK is descending into a fully capitalist banana republic, where the public are just used as a cash cow. Whilst poverty rates increase with massive inequality tax breaks for the rich, and massive sell offs of state assets such as NHS buildings and now services.
So soon enough the state that Immanuels couldn't if he tried mentions will come to pass, and women will be faced with a midwifery bill of £40,000 such as you get in the US.

[Immanuel Can]

C'mon, capitalism (free enterprise) is intimately tied to a particular notion of what man is. It presumes man is a free will, has a just irrevocable claim to himself, that he can mix his labor with material and create property. It's not simply an economic arrangement.

I agree it presumes people have a right to autonomy. I agree that Socialism also assumes they do not, and that individual human beings are not capable of understanding their own interests. Fair enough. Both do presume a kind of anthropology.

But whereas Socialism demands that people must be made to believe in and participate in Socialism, capitalism makes no equivalent demands. If one's idea of bliss is joining the Baghwan's cult, you're free to do it. If you want to form a commune or co-operative in which others voluntarily participate, capitalism makes no bar to that. And if you want to invent something yourself, or run your own business, capitalism also allows you to do that. But it will never demand that you must be a capitalist.

Not so, Socialism. Under Socialism, you must be compelled to join the collective. And if you do not, then you must be "re-educated" or eliminated, because you impair the Socialist ambitions of other people. The Socialist state cannot allow any opters-out.

[RCSaunders]

Capitalism's not an ideology, but rather an economic arrangement.

I should have said that for those who believe a society needs to be, "organized," or, "controled, or, "engineered," in any way to insure capitalism is implemented, it is an ideology.

In economics it is a, "method," of using wealth. The method can be used best when there is no government interference in any aspect of economics, an impossibility where there is government, but is successfully used (at least underground, e.g. black markets) even under the most oppressive governments.

It's sometimes called the, "shadow economy," and in some countries, today, it is over 40% of their total economy.

[Immanuel Can]

Capitalism's not an ideology, but rather an economic arrangement.

I should have said that for those who believe a society needs to be, "organized," or, "controled, or, "engineered," in any way to insure capitalism is implemented, it is an ideology.

Are you thinking there's somewhere that that has ever been done, RC?

I can't think of any place where capitalism has been demanded, or organized into existence, or engineered...but go ahead, if you know where that's happened.

[henry quirk]

C'mon, capitalism (free enterprise) is intimately tied to a particular notion of what man is. It presumes man is a free will, has a just irrevocable claim to himself, that he can mix his labor with material and create property. It's not simply an economic arrangement.

I agree it presumes people have a right to autonomy. I agree that Socialism also assumes they do not, and that individual human beings are not capable of understanding their own interests. Fair enough. Both do presume a kind of anthropology.

But whereas Socialism demands that people must be made to believe in and participate in Socialism, capitalism makes no equivalent demands. If one's idea of bliss is joining the Baghwan's cult, you're free to do it. If you want to form a commune or co-operative in which others voluntarily participate, capitalism makes no bar to that. And if you want to invent something yourself, or run your own business, capitalism also allows you to do that. But it will never demand that you must be a capitalist.

Not so, Socialism. Under Socialism, you must be compelled to join the collective. And if you do not, then you must be "re-educated" or eliminated, because you impair the Socialist ambitions of other people. The Socialist state cannot allow any opters-out.

[henry quirk]

To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them. -Lysander Spooner

In the same way...

To say that minorities, as such, have a right to rule majorities, is equivalent to saying that majorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as minorities please to allow them. -Me, paraphrasin' Spooner

What's left? True self-rule (me, doin' my thing; you, doin' yours: we compete where we must, cooperate where we can, and -- if need be -- defend against one another).

That's it; that's all; good night, nurse; hello, Dolly, and up yours, legislators.

[RCSaunders]

And capitalism is not going to sustain the poor.

Nothing is or ought to sustain anyone who does not work to produce what they need to live. The poor are poor because they refuse to do that--and have a million excuses for why they, "can't."

Only partly true, RC.

Certainly there are poor people who are poor by their own stupidity or laziness. And we owe them no indulgence at all, I agree. However, there are also the mentally ill, or the abused. They do get some of my sympathy. And most of the poor I know personally are "developing-world" poor, who are quite different.

So what? life is tough and some are born with defects that kill within the first few hours of birth, of before they ever become adults. Other have accidents that kill them, or become the victims of plagues, natural disasters, or famine.

But for every excuse anyone uses for their poverty, I know someone with the same, "disatvantages," who made a success of their life. I grew up with a boy who lost an arm and a leg. (A trolley car ran over them.) He was from a poor family, but became a successful business man.

Nothing prevents you, or anyone else, helping anyone you choose to, but to promote the idea anyone is obligated to, "help," others is wrong. If there is any virtue in helping others, any such virtue is lost if one's help springs from a sense of, "guilt," or, "duty," and not a genuine desire to be benevolent.

... last year, some of the folks were rained out in hurricanes and monsoons...they did nothing to deserve it, and are ordinary, decent folks who will work hard if you put something in their hands...but they, too, have no options.

Most of these supposed disasters blamed on, "nature," are really ignorance, and it is not innocent ignorance. Most of the places where there are destructive floods, mudslides, tsunamies, and famines, the, "natural disasters," are perennial. They happen in the same places over and over again, and the idiots close their eyes to the evidence, hoping their God or nature will prevent the next flood or famine or that it just will not happen are, "surprised," when the inevitable does. It's always too late to fix that kind of problem when the event has already occurred, and of course they'll promptly forget it when it's over.

[RCSaunders]

Capitalism's not an ideology, but rather an economic arrangement.

I should have said that for those who believe a society needs to be, "organized," or, "controled, or, "engineered," in any way to insure capitalism is implemented, it is an ideology.

Are you thinking there's somewhere that that has ever been done, RC?

I can't think of any place where capitalism has been demanded, or organized into existence, or engineered...but go ahead, if you know where that's happened.

Of course not. There are many individuals, however, especially those libertarians who worship at the alter of the Austrian school of economics (or any "free-market types,") who believe such a system is possible, or at least ought to be worked for. A "capitalist system," is actually an oxymoron. Any system means some kind of political control, and political control is always in conflict with true free markets.

[henry quirk]

I should have said that for those who believe a society needs to be, "organized," or, "controled, or, "engineered," in any way to insure capitalism is implemented, it is an ideology.

Are you thinking there's somewhere that that has ever been done, RC?

I can't think of any place where capitalism has been demanded, or organized into existence, or engineered...but go ahead, if you know where that's happened.

Of course not. There are many individuals, however, especially those libertarians who worship at the alter of the Austrian school of economics (or any "free-market types,") who believe such a system is possible, or at least ought to be worked for. A "capitalist system," is actually an oxymoron. Any system means some kind of political control, and political control is always in conflict with true free markets.

Seems to me Austrian theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.

[gaffo]

I should have said that for those who believe a society needs to be, "organized," or, "controled, or, "engineered," in any way to insure capitalism is implemented, it is an ideology.

Are you thinking there's somewhere that that has ever been done, RC?

I can't think of any place where capitalism has been demanded, or organized into existence, or engineered...but go ahead, if you know where that's happened.

Of course not. There are many individuals, however, especially those libertarians who worship at the alter of the Austrian school of economics (or any "free-market types,") who believe such a system is possible, or at least ought to be worked for. A "capitalist system," is actually an oxymoron. Any system means some kind of political control, and political control is always in conflict with true free markets.

what is your understanding of Libertarians? - none?

they are left right and middle - i'm left - all are antiauthoritarian per the state/government.

the right types might be trickldown - then its corps fuckign you over and not the state - not me i'm not for state or copr fucking me over nor trickldown belevier.

but still a libertarian and a liberl.

educate yourself on libertarians.

[gaffo]

C'mon, capitalism (free enterprise) is intimately tied to a particular notion of what man is. It presumes man is a free will, has a just irrevocable claim to himself, that he can mix his labor with material and create property. It's not simply an economic arrangement.

I agree it presumes people have a right to autonomy. I agree that Socialism also assumes they do not, and that individual human beings are not capable of understanding their own interests. Fair enough. Both do presume a kind of anthropology.

But whereas Socialism demands that people must be made to believe in and participate in Socialism, capitalism makes no equivalent demands. If one's idea of bliss is joining the Baghwan's cult, you're free to do it. If you want to form a commune or co-operative in which others voluntarily participate, capitalism makes no bar to that. And if you want to invent something yourself, or run your own business, capitalism also allows you to do that. But it will never demand that you must be a capitalist.

Not so, Socialism. Under Socialism, you must be compelled to join the collective. And if you do not, then you must be "re-educated" or eliminated, because you impair the Socialist ambitions of other people. The Socialist state cannot allow any opters-out.

its not that simple - if you live in a reichwing nations like the olden day Penochet Chile or Spain or today's rusia - you can do whatever you like until "dar leader" thinks your actions are a threat to their power - then they go all "scocialist" - kill your ass or put you in jial.


but wait not so!!!!!!! right? you say these nations are not Socialists!!!!!!!!!!!!

well i do say, and if you have a problem with it write to Frnaco/Penochet and Putin about your dismay. over hypocrisy. don't like if up with them.


are you really this naive?

[gaffo]

Under Socialism, you must be compelled to join the collective. And if you do not, then you must be "re-educated" or eliminated, because you impair the Socialist ambitions of other people. The Socialist state cannot allow any opters-out.

ok, i may grant you this.

now lets look at reichwing naions since 1900.

did Chile or Spain or Guatamall or el Savador mantate thier citizens to conform to the collective "we love dear rightwing leader" camps?

I'm asking you because i do not know - all i know is thuggery is thuggery if from the reich or the left - and since the left hasd such camps i assume the reich side had them as well - to enshire the power of dear leader/


I'm not just going to take your word that only the left had uch camp -sp knowing the Franco and Penochet were far from morons.

smart fuckers in fact that why they stayed in power in stipe of thier human reich abuses for decades.

and no they were not Socialists - as much as you may wish them to be.

[Immanuel Can]

Under Socialism, you must be compelled to join the collective. And if you do not, then you must be "re-educated" or eliminated, because you impair the Socialist ambitions of other people. The Socialist state cannot allow any opters-out.

ok, i may grant you this.

Well, then, it's a serious problem. If one person adopts an ideology that does not allow for the autonomy of any others, he has only two choices: give up his insane collectivist, utopian dream, or use force to make all the other people obey.

It's the second option that the Socialists always take.