Actually the free market kind of evens people out to the middle class rather than having extreme wealth gaps. All the big mega corporations support big government. Having a big violent monopoly in the centre of everything creates a huge power vacuum which means the poor stay or get poorer, and the rich, buddies of the government get richer.

You can see this in socialist countries, all the big government countries have huge wealth gaps.

Kim Jong un for example, is estimated at 5$ billion. Hugo Chavez is also a billionaire. A lot of people in China's Communist party are... you guessed it, millionaires and billionaires. Whereas the average citizens of these countries have a very, very low standard of living, while people working in the violent monopoly cartel get rich stealing from the people.

---

(July 26, 2013 at 9:57 pm)cato123 Wrote:

(July 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Koolay Wrote: These primitive people are incapable of trade and negotiation and will threat, extort, steal your resources.

How do you propose these individuals be dealt with in an anarchist society?

The people will decide, not me. Probably DRO courts.

(July 26, 2013 at 10:15 pm)Koolay Wrote: The people will decide, not me. Probably DRO courts.

Courts? I thought you said there was no government. Who will enforce the court's decision?

Quote:Free market capitalism is freedom, and inevitably, it will prevail.[quote]

Then why hasn't it done so? If capitalism is, as you claim, the foundation of human life and morality, then why hasn't every society in existence become capitalistic?

I don't know you at all, mate, but you seem to have inheritied Karl Marx's gift for guessing wrong about history. Marx felt that the State would gradually wither away, and you seem to think that all human society will eventually lock into some sort of imagined pure free market. Either of these eventualities is about as likely to occur as buying filet of unicorn at your local butcher.

Most people seem to live best and prosper best under systems where a free market is tempered by a limited socialism. Most developed nations have controls in place to at least try to keep shoddy goods, unsafe foods and meds, and dishonest workmanship out of the marketplace. Under your totally free market approach, I would have no recourse if (for example) my new roof fell in on me a week after construction.

My own situation is a pretty fair example of my point. In one sense, I'm the purest of capitalists: I manufacture a range of products, for which I charge as much as I possibly can. So, on a local, personal level, I'm in the purest of free markets. This balances with the fact that, if I'm sick or injured, I can walk into any clinic or hospital and be taken care of with out spending a penny. Thus, on the national level, I'm a socialist.

So, I think that the 'foundation of human life and morality' isn't so much capitalism as it is a min-max of personal freedom and social responsibility.

Boru

I've got two problems with this. It's not built on people, its built on money. The free flow of money between individuals, yes, regardless of whatever borders or ethno-linguistical differences might lie ahead. Indeed, this in itself presents a lot of problems. Capitalism is an international form of thought, similar to communism, the only difference is where their conclusions lie about how much the government will interfere into the flow of the money.
My second problem is, it has no moral ideology behind it other than the factor of self-interest. On the other hand, truely moral ideologies are built upon the stones of self-sacrifice and a genuine care for public good.
Capitalism on the other hand simply assumes that things will be great if everyone acted in their self-interests. Though we know from life that interests of different people often clash and produce chaos.

Capitalism is doomed and soon will collapse in the same way as communism collapsed.
Greed, speculation, exploitation, hoarding of goods in order to push the prices up, price fixing, monopolies and so on have created a terminal cancer.
If you guys can not see people revolting all over the planet then you must be blind and the avalanche of discontent is growing by the day.
Prout is the only way out this disaster.
http://www.prout.org/

(July 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Koolay Wrote: If I asked you, what seperates human behaviour from the behaviour of animals what would you say?

The capacity to reason - which seems missing in you.

(July 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Koolay Wrote: Probably thinking, language, negotiation, something like that?

These would be its consequences.

(July 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Koolay Wrote: Well indeed, yes. Negotiation and language is the litmus paper test between human and non human. Unlike other primitive species, when we want something from another, we will usually negotiate, trade or convince someone to do it, non violently, non coercively. This saves both parties from injury, and also both parties win, rather than one killing or injuring the other and taking the other's food or whatever.

If I grow oranges, and you grow apples, by us trading, we now get to eat both oranges and apples, so we both benefit from the trade. Whereas if one were to forcefully take the other's produce, only one of us would benefit.

So tell me, who's going to stop me from taking your oranges without giving you the apples?

(July 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Koolay Wrote: The only alternative to free market capitalism is coercion, stealing and aggression.

Nope, there are many other alternatives - such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism all the way down to free-market socialism.

(July 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Koolay Wrote: Of course, humans can be our predators. Not everyone wants to peacefully trade and negotiate.

And that's why we need government.

(July 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Koolay Wrote: These primitive people are incapable of trade and negotiation and will threat, extort, steal your resources. They are devoid of empathy, most of them are in what are called governments- were groups of people are not bound by the laws of the non aggression principle that we follow.

Nope. The government is bound by the same laws of non-aggression. Atleast in capitalist societies.

(July 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Koolay Wrote: It's no secret the most violent, corrupt and repugnant of people are against free trade. These people are your predators, these people are those who will take your resources and put you in a cage if you disagree with what they think, and they will say you are a bad person if you do not like it. To support governments is to spit on yourself and wipe the boots of your oppressor. Free market capitalism is freedom, and inevitably, it will prevail.

Given that the government is the only thing standing between me and the people who'd "take my resources and put me in a cage if I disagree with what they think, and say I am a bad person if I do not like it" - I think I'll keep on supporting the government.

---

(July 26, 2013 at 8:51 pm)_xenu_ Wrote: From your posts that I've read, you strike me as very preachy yet short of any practical alternative to government. Your brand of capitalism would concentrate wealth and power to an even greater degree than what we have now. If it ever comes to pass, expect the rich to be violently overthrown.

On the contrary, his brand of capitalism wouldn't remain capitalism for long.

(July 26, 2013 at 8:51 pm)_xenu_ Wrote: Capitalism is nothing more than a necessary evil, its not an end in and of itself.

Justification for this would be?

---

(July 27, 2013 at 7:24 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Most people seem to live best and prosper best under systems where a free market is tempered by a limited socialism. Most developed nations have controls in place to at least try to keep shoddy goods, unsafe foods and meds, and dishonest workmanship out of the marketplace. Under your totally free market approach, I would have no recourse if (for example) my new roof fell in on me a week after construction.

You seem to have some strange ideas about how capitalism would work. Not even under complete laissez-faire capitalism would people be able to flood the market with shoddy goods, unsafe food and meds and dishonest workmanship. Government is necessary here to keep the market free from theft and fraud - otherwise it wouldn't be a free-market - and the examples listed above would be considered fraud. Under the free-market approach (not Koolay's, but one that makes sense), would be using your medical insurance, your property insurance and/or taking the builder to court.

---

(July 27, 2013 at 7:40 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: I've got two problems with this. It's not built on people, its built on money.

It is built on individuals. Specifically, it is built on individual rights.

(July 27, 2013 at 7:40 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Indeed, this in itself presents a lot of problems. Capitalism is an international form of thought, similar to communism, the only difference is where their conclusions lie about how much the government will interfere into the flow of the money.

And how is this a problem, exactly?

(July 27, 2013 at 7:40 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: My second problem is, it has no moral ideology behind it other than the factor of self-interest.

Self-interest is the moral ideology behind it - in combination with individual rights.

(July 27, 2013 at 7:40 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: On the other hand, truely moral ideologies are built upon the stones of self-sacrifice and a genuine care for public good.

Ha. Bullshit.

(July 27, 2013 at 7:40 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Capitalism on the other hand simply assumes that things will be great if everyone acted in their self-interests. Though we know from life that interests of different people often clash and produce chaos.

Except, the clash of interests doesn't necessarily produce chaos. The government is there with the specific purpose of resolving those differences.

Quote:It is built on individuals. Specifically, it is built on individual rights.

Everyone claims that these days. I don't know what makes capitalism any different.

Quote:And how is this a problem, exactly?

Being a nationalist, I have a problem with international ideologies simply due to the fact that they ignore EXISTING national, linguistical and cultural differences.
For example, I am against foreign corporates having their way in my country. I loathe to see a McDonalds or Burger King in my streets. I loathe to have my salt being extracted and sold by foreigners. I hate loathe to see foreign investers destroying local businesses.

Quote:Self-interest is the moral ideology behind it - in combination with individual rights.

As I said, everyone claims that these days. Do I disrespect people's individual rights? No. I'm all for personal property.

Quote:Ha. Bullshit.

No, it's the truth.

Quote:Except, the clash of interests doesn't necessarily produce chaos. The government is there with the specific purpose of resolving those differences.

Well, wouldn't that interfere with these individual rights and the free flow of capital you're talking about? Government interference into the economy is minimal or non-existent in a true capitalist society.

(July 27, 2013 at 12:25 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Everyone claims that these days. I don't know what makes capitalism any different.

Which other economic system claims that?

(July 27, 2013 at 12:25 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Being a nationalist, I have a problem with international ideologies simply due to the fact that they ignore EXISTING national, linguistical and cultural differences.
For example, I am against foreign corporates having their way in my country. I loathe to see a McDonalds or Burger King in my streets. I loathe to have my salt being extracted and sold by foreigners. I hate loathe to see foreign investers destroying local businesses.

Ah, I see. That's not a problem for or of capitalism - that's your problem, based on your issues. It has no bearing on capitalistic ideology.

(July 27, 2013 at 12:25 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: As I said, everyone claims that these days. Do I disrespect people's individual rights? No. I'm all for personal property.

Then you must be all for capitalism - yippee.

(July 27, 2013 at 12:25 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: No, it's the truth.

Nope, still bullshit.

(July 27, 2013 at 12:25 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Well, wouldn't that interfere with these individual rights and the free flow of capital you're talking about? Government interference into the economy is minimal or non-existent in a true capitalist society.

No it won't. Individual rights aren't absolute. The limitations of one person's rights are determined by another person's rights. A conflict of interest arises when the limitations of those rights are not clear and the government is required to define those limitations and make the judgment accordingly.

As I said before, some people here seem to have a strange idea regarding government interference in a "true" capitalist society. The simple fact is, a "true" capitalist society would be based on individual rights. And the government is necessary to safeguard those rights. So, when and where those rights are being transgressed, even if its within the free-market - the government would need to step in. Without laws and a government to enforce them, a free-market wouldn't remain free for long.

We've advanced more under capitalism in the last few decades than in the entirety of human history. It has its flaws, sure, but its by far the best system for statecraft currently known.